www/philosophy not-ipr.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       14/08/05 02:33:16

Modified files:
        philosophy     : not-ipr.html 

Log message:
        Mention two of the common false generalizations.
        Minor cleanups.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.47&r2=1.48

Patches:
Index: not-ipr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.47
retrieving revision 1.48
diff -u -b -r1.47 -r1.48
--- not-ipr.html        12 Apr 2014 12:40:32 -0000      1.47
+++ not-ipr.html        5 Aug 2014 02:33:15 -0000       1.48
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@
 overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as
 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;it is a mirage.  The only
 reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that
-widespread use of the term has misled them.
+widespread use of the term has misled them about the laws in question.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -75,11 +75,12 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
-Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers
-the details of expression of a work.  Patent law was intended to
-promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the
-one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it&mdash;a price
-that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
+For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and
+art, and covers the details of expression of a work.  Patent law was
+intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of
+giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over
+it&mdash;a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in
+others.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -87,7 +88,8 @@
 way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are
 buying.  Legislators under the influence of the term &ldquo;intellectual
 property&rdquo;, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides
-incentives for advertising.
+incentives for advertising.  And these are just
+three out of many laws that the term refers to.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -98,15 +100,37 @@
 </p>
 
 <p>
+In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are
+formulated using &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; will be false.
+For instance, you'll see claims that &ldquo;its&rdquo; purpose is to
+&ldquo;promote innovation&rdquo;, but that only fits patent law and
+perhaps plant variety monopolies.  Copyright law is not concerned with
+innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is
+nothing innovative about it.  Trademark law is not concerned with
+innovation; if I start a tea store and call it &ldquo;rms tea&rdquo;,
+that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the
+same way as everyone else.  Trade secret law is not concerned with
+innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a
+trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.</p>
+
+<p>
+You will also see assertions that &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+is concerned with &rdquo;creativity&rdquo;, but really that only fits
+copyright law.  More than creativity is needed to make a patentable
+invention.  Trademark law and trade secret law have nothing to do with
+creativity; the name &ldquo;rms tea&rdquo; isn't creative at all, and
+neither is my secret list of tea customers.</p>
+
+<p>
 People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; when they really
-mean some larger or smaller category.  For instance, rich countries
+mean some larger or smaller set of laws.  For instance, rich countries
 often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of
-them.  Some of these laws are &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; laws,
-and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab
-for that label because it has become familiar to them.  By using it,
-they misrepresent the nature of the issue.  It would be better to use
-an accurate term, such as &ldquo;legislative colonization&rdquo;, that
-gets to the heart of the matter.
+them.  Some of these laws are among those called &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the
+practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to
+them.  By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue.  It
+would be better to use an accurate term, such as &ldquo;legislative
+colonization&rdquo;, that gets to the heart of the matter.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -128,9 +152,9 @@
 <p>
 That statement refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US
 Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law.  That
-clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law or various
-others.  The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that
-professor to make false generalization.
+clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law, trade secret
+law, or various others.  The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+led that professor to make a false generalization.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -269,7 +293,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:32 $
+$Date: 2014/08/05 02:33:15 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>