

Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage - xirium
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

======
Darmani
"For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing
should be allowed. Patent law has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises
issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving
drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives. Copyright law has nothing to do
with such matters."

I don't know how that remotely refutes the umbrella term "intellectual
property." Is there really such a huge difference between laws that make it
illegal reproduce and sell music created by somebody else and laws that make
it illegal to reproduce and sell drugs designed by somebody else that we can't
put them in the same category? Perhaps he has a point with trademarks, but the
differences between patents and copyrights don't seem to be much greater than
the differences between burglary and embezzlement laws.

~~~
xirium
Richard Stallman gives the example of a law professor who refers to patents
and copyrights collectively as intellectual property when he knows that it
doesn't apply to tramemarks. Others might not get the distinction. This isn't
pedantry. Richard Stallman explains that the conflation is relatively recent
and prior to this, case law set very distinct properties for each class.

