[DMCA-Activists] Re: [Patents] Washington Times: Internet Patents Divide Industry

[Seth Johnson]

Okay, so we need to make this part of the argument in a prominent case.

In the meantime, let's clean house outside the courts . . .

:-)

Seth

Hartmut Pilch wrote:
> 
> > It is certainly true that the legal and other media, lawyers and the
> > judiciaries have begun using the term.  That's something that is recent, and
> > that specifically needs correcting.  We will benefit greatly from some
> > precedent-setting case in which somebody asserts that the term is incorrect,
> > based on an informed account of the history of the origin of the term, as
> > well as the judicial precedent prior to the term which refutes its veracity.
> 
> That is quite easy.
> 
> The term "exclusion rights" (Ausschlussrechte) and "law of immaterial
> goods" (Immaterialgueterrecht) are both firmly established, at least in
> german and some other european traditions, whereas the term "IP", as
> presently used, is new and aberrant from its original uses.  In
> particular, it is wrong to subsume patents and trademarks under
> "intellectual property", and even using it to denote copyright has the
> drawback that value connotations are conveyed (same as would be the case
> if we called it "intellectual monopoly", just positive instead of
> negative).  Therefore the term "IP" as used to day can only be said to be
> a propaganda term, not suitable for serious debate.
> 
> "Intellectual Property" came into use only as an antonym to "Industrial
> Property", e.g. for the purpose of creating a dichotomy between copyright
> (related to individual intellect, somewhat closer to natural law) and
> patents etc (related to the industrial sphere, not interfering with civil
> life, subject to utility considerations only).

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://www.boson2x.org/article.php3?id_article=21

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.