gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]