Re: IP Newsflash

[Alexander Terekhov]

Michael Deutschmann wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > No. [the term "intellectual property" is] a fake blanket designed to
> > induce people into treating patents, copyright and trademarks,
> > instinctively, as one and the same thing.
> 
> Correction: It's a fake blanket designed to induce people into treating
> patents, copyright, trademarks AND PHYSICAL PROPERTY, instinctively, as
> one and the same thing.

"3.1 Intellectual Property

    Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath 
    provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with, and 
    joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it 
    his property. 

                -- John Locke. Two Treatises on Government. 1764.

 The implicit point of view contained in this essay is a Lockean 
 one. Producing a piece of software requires taking the state of 
 nature, the common heritage of software tools and techniques, 
 and using them to fashion something new. 

 To the extent that programming involves labor — and thinking is 
 certainly labor, ask any student — a piece of software is 
 [intellectual] property. To the extent that invention requires 
 labor, an invention is property. This state of affairs is 
 recognized in intellectual property law, such as copyright and 
 patent law."

          -- Doug Palmer, Why Not Use the GPL? Thoughts on Free 
             and Open-Source Software. 2003.

See also http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/overview.html.

regards,
alexander.