www/philosophy not-ipr.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       10/05/26 17:58:37

Modified files:
        philosophy     : not-ipr.html 

Log message:
        Recognize that "intellectual property" generalizes about even more laws.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/not-ipr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.24&r2=1.25

Patches:
Index: not-ipr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/not-ipr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.24
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -b -r1.24 -r1.25
--- not-ipr.html        17 Dec 2009 23:27:10 -0000      1.24
+++ not-ipr.html        26 May 2010 17:58:30 -0000      1.25
@@ -8,11 +8,11 @@
 <p>
 It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
 trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three
-separate and different sets of laws&mdash;into one pot and call it
-&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  The distorting and confusing term
-did not arise by accident.  Companies that gain from the confusion
-promoted it.  The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the
-term entirely.
+separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;.  The
+distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.
+Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it.  The clearest way
+out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -123,9 +123,9 @@
 <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.  The term
-&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that professor to make false
-generalization.
+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.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -179,12 +179,13 @@
 
 <p>
 If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or
-copyrights, or trademarks, 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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suggests.  Consider each of
-these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of
-considering them well.
+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 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;
+suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -224,7 +225,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/12/17 23:27:10 $
+$Date: 2010/05/26 17:58:30 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>