[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0 |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Jul 2006 13:26:09 +0200 |
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>
> Seg, 2006-07-03 Ã s 11:21 +0200, Alexander Terekhov escreveu:
> > There's no ambiguity.
>
> Sure. Of course not. When I want a passion fruit, I'll only ask for
> "fruit" in the next restaurant I'm eating. If they bring me a passion
> fruit without even doubting what I mean... maybe then I will be able to
> agree with you that "intelectual property" is not ambiguous (although
> I'll still disagree that it is _property_) :)
One again, min-RMS: in the context of this thread (and Wallace case), IP
means property rights under copyright and patent law (licensed under the
GPL). So where's ambiguity?
Here's more (I'll add it to 1.1 version of FAQ):
<quote>
One fundamental question in this area is whether intellectual property
is like other property for purposes of antitrust analysis. In considering
this question, it seems to me that we should keep in mind some obvious
principles. First, intellectual property is property, that is to say, it
belongs to someone who has the right to exclude others from using it
without his or her consent. Second, intellectual property has attributes
that distinguish it from personal property and real property -- that is
why we have a different word for it. For example, the enforcement of an
owner's exclusive right to use physical property may be accomplished more
easily, as a practical matter, than enforcement of an exclusive
intellectual property right.
Antitrust enforcers should certainly remain open to considering new ideas
about how the rights associated with intellectual property can and should
be distinguished from the ownership of tangible property in the analysis
of antitrust liability. But for now, it seems fair to say that for
antitrust purposes, intellectual property is generally treated like other
forms of property. Let me add one qualifier to this general principle,
which I hope is not too confusing. To the extent that intellectual
property differs from other property, such as the duration of the property
right, that difference is a fact that is considered along with all other
facts in an antitrust analysis.
</quote>
-- ANTITRUST AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2000
REMARKS OF COMMISSIONER MARY L. AZCUENAGA FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION
BEFORE THE AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
regards,
alexander.