[Ip-health] Please don't call it "intellectual property"

George Willingmyre gtw at gtwassociates.com
Mon Mar 7 05:54:48 PST 2011


Good morning Richard and Jerome.

Richard what is the original email to which you refer?


I agree the term  "intellectual property" covers quite separate issues of 
patents, copyrights, & trade marks. GTW Associates focuses on global 
standards & trade  policy.   The implications for standards activity are 
distinct from one another.  The page at 
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html  has a nice para:

"If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or 
copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step 
is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate 
topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic 
picture the term "intellectual property" suggests. Consider each of these 
issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering 
them well. "

With respect to copyrights of standards that are referenced in law or 
regulation, ANSI has just released a paper

ANSI recently issued    Why Voluntary Consensus Standards Incorporated by 
Reference into Federal Government Regulations Are Copyright Protected, 
http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Critical%20Issues/Copyright%20on%20Standards%20in%20Regulations/Copyright%20on%20Standards%20in%20Regulation.pdf 
According to ANSI the document is intended to educate U.S. standards 
developers, government officials, and other stakeholders about the 
importance of copyright in standards. It affirms that every standard is a 
work of authorship and is copyright protected under U.S. and international 
law, giving the owner certain rights of control and remuneration.  See 
also   GTW URLs  In the Supreme Court of the United States Southern Building 
Code Congress International, Inc, Petitione v. Peter Veeck, D/B/A Regional 
Web        http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/veeck.htm  and 
Regulatory Adoption by Reference of standards 
http://www.gtwassociates.com/answers/RegulatoryAdoptionbyReference.htm



George T. Willingmyre, P.E.
President, GTW Associates
Spencerville, MD USA 20868
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Stallman" <rms at gnu.org>
To: <jeromemartin at samizdat.net>
Cc: <ip-health at lists.keionline.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 7:18 PM
Subject: [Ip-health] Please don't call it "intellectual property"


> As a supporter of your cause, implore you to stop using the term
> "intellectual property", which is propaganda for our adversaries and
> supports their viewpoint.  It is a fad that they artificially made
> common in the 90s.
>
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for why that term
> carries inherent bias and confusion.
>
> Patents are one issue, data exclusivity is another.  They are totally
> unrelated to copyright law and trademark law.  But every time you say
> "intellectual property", you refer to all of these and treat them as
> similar.
>
> The term does not even cover the whole the range of topics you are
> talking about.  For instance, the investment rules that you oppose are
> vicious and evil, but they are not part of "intellectual property" as
> usually defined.
>
> Thus, the term doesn't mean what you want to say.  So many problems
> that could all be corrected by not using the term.
>
> -- 
> Dr Richard Stallman
> President, Free Software Foundation
> 51 Franklin St
> Boston MA 02110
> USA
> www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ip-health mailing list
> Ip-health at lists.keionline.org
> http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/ip-health_lists.keionline.org
> 





More information about the Ip-health mailing list