Re: Wallace case FAQ for dummies v1.0

[Alexander Terekhov]

Wei Mingzhi wrote:
> 
> I'd recommend dropping the case of "Intellectual Property" as I don't think
> this is a strict legalese, just a brainwashing propaganda carried out by some
> politicians and big companies. Actually even my law teacher (who is a lawyer)
> admits that writting "Intellectual Property" in a contract without
> clarification about what it actually means will result in ambiguity. 

As with any collective term, there's some degree of ambiguity. In the 
context of this thread (and Wallace case), it means property rights 
under copyright and patent law (licensed under the GPL).

There's no ambiguity.

>                                                                      And
> there are also _no_ "Intellectual Property" in the actual laws.

Try 11 USC 365, for example. Read also

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/pdf/LANECI_excerpt.pdf

I mean the entire book.

regards,
alexander.