The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
harmful.cat-v.org
The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
1–10 of 132 posts
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#2That reminds me on Stallman's very interesting article about the (mis-)use of the term "intellectual property":
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#3A "right to sue" could be considered property if you squinted hard enough, but of course when people talk about intellectual property they're talking about "UNIX" or Windows or the Mac OS look and feel, not the legal mechanisms themselves.
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#4What I consider to be intellectual property is between my ears - it is my intellect and my property.
I have an arrangement with my employer to rent my intellect for nominally 8 hours per day. What that arrangement produces are artifacts (ink on paper, magnetic domains on disk drives, charge on floating gates) of my intellect. My employer owns those artifacts, but not the intellect that created them.
Companies can talk all they want about their "intellectual property", but their property is artifacts, and artifacts are not intelligent. Artifacts cannot generate new, novel, artifacts. When a company uses the term "intellectual property," that is offensive to me because the company is denigrating my intellect by equating it to inanimate artifacts.
The uncomfortable truth (for companies) that they have forgotten or chosen to ignore is that the intelligence part of their company is not their property. The intelligence walks out the door every evening.
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#5Here's the rest of that letter from Thomas Jefferson. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.... It's interesting to realize that even such a fierce supporter of personal rights in our country didn't recognize ideas as something that should be "protected" like personal property.
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#6That reminds me on Stallman's very interesting article about the (mis-)use of the term "intellectual property": http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
That's a much less incendiary piece than what I'm used to seeing from Stallman, thanks for posting.
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#7Here's the rest of that letter from Thomas Jefferson. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.... It's interesting to realize that even such a fierce supporter of personal rights in our country didn't recognize ideas as something that should be "protected" like personal property.
Actually, "protecting" ideas as if they were property is in direct opposition to personal rights, so this should be expected.
It's weird how "intellectual property" somehow got associated with personal liberty, the free market etc., when in fact it totally goes against those ideas.
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#8Here's the rest of that letter from Thomas Jefferson. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.... It's interesting to realize that even such a fierce supporter of personal rights in our country didn't recognize ideas as something that should be "protected" like personal property.
Actually, "protecting" ideas as if they were property is in direct opposition to personal rights, so this should be expected. It's weird how "intellectual property" somehow got associated with personal liberty, the free market etc., when in fact it totally goes against those ideas.
Well, I've heard that in Britain, IP is considered an inherent right just like personal property. If I own the result of my own physical labor, why wouldn't I own the result of intellectual labor as well?
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#9A "right to sue" could be considered property if you squinted hard enough, but of course when people talk about intellectual property they're talking about "UNIX" or Windows or the Mac OS look and feel, not the legal mechanisms themselves.
Yes, juridically, the word "property" in "intellectual property" actually does refer to the rights, not to the immaterial entities governed by those rights. "Intellectual property rights" is just tautological.
Re: The 'intellectual property' oxymoron
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, "protecting" ideas as if they were property is in direct opposition to personal rights, so this should be expected. It's weird how "intellectual property" somehow got associated with personal liberty, the free market etc., when in fact it totally goes against those ideas.
Well, I've heard that in Britain, IP is considered an inherent right just like personal property. If I own the result of my own physical labor, why wouldn't I own the result of intellectual labor as well?
You do. No-one can take it away from you, except by destroying all copies and mindwiping you. Owning something doesn't mean you get to control copies of that something.