Talk:Intellectual property/Archive 1

message: does the idea of intellectual property conflict with the idea-expression divide?
:Mmm. Interesting question. There is no actual conflict I believe. The intellectual property and the idea-expression divide fall within two different categories of concepts. Intellectual property merely encompasses different types of protection mechanisms, i.e. copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, design, while the idea-expression divide is a doctrine defining or trying to define what is the scope of the copyright protection. --Edcolins 19:13, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)
----
The article had said of the decentralised nature of successors to Napster that it "is making legal action more difficult." Pedant's most recent edit (at the time of writing) has changed this to "makes legal enforcement of intellectual property rights more problematic." I wonder whether this is accurate. Is legal action against filesharing networks (rather than those who transfer files in violation of copyright) part of the enforcement of IP? The makers of VCRs and photocopiers have not been held responsible for ensuring that their products were overwhelmingly used without violating copyright. Why is it not allowed by IP to run a filesharing network (which, like VCRs or photocopiers, could be used entirely in accordance with copyright)? Even assuming that such a network is used to violate copyright, there is no threat to patents, trademarks or trade secrets and the copyrights remain in the hands of the original copyright holder. Would legal action against other makers of tools that could be used for copyright violation, such as VCRs and photocopiers, constitute IP enforcement? I would be grateful if someone would tell me where I am going wrong or suggest improved wording.
Tim Ivorson 17:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intellectual property and idea-expression divide

message: Been making some NPOV edits to this article, and I came across this:
The term intellectual property is problematic because the rights conferred by IP laws are limited, in contrast with the legal rights associated with property interests in physical goods or land.
As the legal rights associated with chattel and real property are limited (e.g. public easements), I rephrased this significantly. anthony (see warning) 16:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV edits

message: For example, the holder of the copyright in a book has the legal right to make and sell copies of the book, and the right to forbid others from making and selling copies of the same book.  By analogy, then, he can be said to "own" the words in a similar way to which he might own the press on which they were printed, because ownership of a physical object also confers the right to forbid others from using the object.
I don't understand this analogy.  Copyright does not forbit the right to use words. anthony (see warning) 17:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It said object, not words.  Anyway, it's ridiculous that IP refers to rights under the works, rather than the works themselves.  Of course they're not physical; that's why it's called IP. lysdexia 05:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Ownership analogy

message: Intellectual Property is a term from international lobbying but no proper legal term. Economists and scholars speak of exclusive rights. However it is widely used as a propaganda phrase by professionals because it tranferes the concept of property to legal fields where it does not apply.
The main problem with the term is that it comprises conflicting areas of law. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are totally different fields of law put under one hat. Patents and trademarks unlike copyrights e.G. have no foundation in natural law. The term Intellectual property inplies a inappropriate teaching that does not apply for patent law. Therefore it is widely rejected by scientists.
In Germany the proper legal term is "Immaterialgüterrecht", immatarial goods rights.
----
Okay, I don't know who is responsible for the recent edits, but I thought all this was settled. It is never POV to define a word in its normal context. It is POV, however, to say things like "the term glosses over fundamental distinctions..." That may be a valid opinion, but it isn't NPOV unless it is framed as an opinion, and the article states who holds that opinion. You may believe that patents, trademarks, and copyrights are in separate fields of law, and you may discuss that point of view in a section of the article, but you can't say, as a matter of fact, that the word itself is propaganda. I happen to be a U.S. intellectual property lawyer, and I can tell you from personal experience that at least in the United States, the term intellectual property is a well-defined concept in U.S. law, and has been for decades. I've heard your POV before, and it belongs in this article, but not as a statement of fact, rather than opinion. Therefore, I am revising the article to incorporate the recent edits into the previous framework. However, I have been unable to incorporate the following, which appears too POV anf of questionable accuracy:
*In United States law, there are few actual references to "intellectual property." References to the term in the U.S. Copyright Act are chiefly footnote references to the titles of U.S. legislation (e.g. "Intellectual Property and High Technology Technical Amendments Act of 2002") and international treaties (e.g. TRIPS). Section 701 refers to cooperation with "foreign intellectual property offices." Other uses of the term are insubstantial. The correct legal term when speaking of copyright, patent or trademark, is "exclusive rights," the actual term used throughout the relevant legislation.
::(Speaking as an IP lawyer, I've never heard this before, and I don't know anybody that uses the term "exclusive rights" in common usage, or in front of a U.S. court.)
*Among the other instances, Title 18 (criminal code), Section 2319 and 2319A on "criminal infringement of copyrights," allows "holders of intellectual property rights in such works" to file victim impact statements. The No Electronic Theft Act calls on the Sentencing Commission to "ensure that the applicable guideline range for a defendant convicted of a crime against intellectual property . . . is sufficiently stringent to deter such a crime." This reference is particularly notable because there does not actually appear to be such a thing as a "crime against intellectual property" in the law.
::(This might belong in the article, but I'm not sure exactly where. Maybe you can explain to me the point of this paragraph.)
*In Civil Code jurisdictions, certain rights related to intellectual products may exist for an indefinite period of time. In the United States, they cannot.
::(This statement is simply untrue. In the U.S., trademarks and trade secrets are not time-limited; only patents and copyrights are.)
*in truth exclusive rights must adapt to Constitutional limits and fundamental rights, not the other way around.
::(This is obviously a personal opinion.)
*The recent edits deleted reference to trade secrets.
::(At least in the U.S., trade secrets are intellectual property.)
*["Exclusive rights"] actually serves very well as a general term that much more precisely represents the nature of this area of law.
::(This is obviously a personal opinion.)
Anyway, let's please have a discussion as to the above material, and maybe it can still be incorporated into the article if properly and framed. COGDEN(talk) 20:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
----
No, Exclusive rights is the proper term used in (neoclassical, western) economics. IP is a US term and bound to US teaching.
It is also important to devide IP from IPR.
Furthermore it is important to divide the IP system design question (adjust scope, limits ecc.) and IP actually granted under an existing system. Usually many players mix this up.
e.g. when Burundi decides not to implement a patent system for their local market, it is their free choice which applies to all players in the field on the national market. In a copyright world this might be different. So when US software is copied for free in Burundi then the US will accuse them not to protect their IP by IPR, here: copyright. In the patent world it is different as patents are only valid in a one market. So a US company e.G. has to apply for a french patent when it wants to sell products on the french market and aquire patent protection for this specific market. Same the other way aroung. When a Us company uses an invention patented in France but not in the US it is free to do so as long as they do not sell at the French market.
:2 views
:a) normative: the lawmaker decides about the optimal scope
:b) positive: there is a system in place under which rights are granted which are supposed to make sense
Lawyers (unlike economists) usually apply the view b) to questions in the field of a), it is a problem of methodology and causes much confusion. Usually lawyers also apply the third view
:c) legalistic obligations from international law 
to questions in the field a). There are many examples as a controverse interpretation of TRIPS 27 that is used to impose broader patent systems on other nations. In fact is not that wrong to mix up c) with a) as c) is just a result of common negotiation of states. What we often see is that certain interpretations which the parties who accepted the agreement didn't agree upon are imposed on the lawmaker as legalistic mechanics arguments. TRIPS 27 is a perfect example. E.g. it is argued from the patent attorney community that Trips 27 required software patentability what is not true as Software is not regarded as a "field of tehcnology" in the traditional meaning of patent law, this is what the negotiating parties agreed upon. 
Furthermore professionals in the field such as patent attorneys are no unbiased stakeholders as they benefit from broad patent law. So the fact that somebody calls himself an attorney just means that he reflects the interests of a special group very influential in the debate. A attorney cannot present a NPOV as he is a stakeholder and common views of his expert community represent the interests of his expert community biased as anybody else. This has to be kept in mind
:--217.83.44.12 23:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 

message: Article states (4th paragraph): "Trademarks, trade secrets, regional declaration do not have a time limit while copyrights and patents are of limited time (patents: 20 years)"
Question: Is not the 20 years a United States time-frame? Should we state that? I'm not sure, so haven't touched it.
The 20-year period is set out in Article 33 of the TRIPS agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), signors to TRIPS are required to implement a minimum 20-year patent term of protection. I'm not sure quite how to incorporate this information without getting into a much larger discussion of TRIPS. Hardcormier 17:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor change question

message: The economic view section is in need of some condensing or splitting, it's a bit long and full of short sentences that could probably be combined or deleted. Scott Ritchie 08:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic View section is a bit long 

message: The article's layout is strange. There is a section, "Critique," with subsections, "Arguments against the term" etc. My piece against IP is in there. This is a bit bizarre. My and others' critique of IP has not been with the semantics. this is a minor issue. In my view, there needs to be a separate section or sub-section that is devoted to arguments pro and con for whether IP law and rights are justified, or legitimate. Ican add some info to this, but am not sure the right structure. But it ought not be to be called a squabble over terminolgy. It is not. 
Proponents of IP have various arguments for IP--natural law oriented; utilitarian oriented.
Opponets of IP have various arguments that IP is illegitimate: some oppose property altogether and assume IP is a type of property (socialists, anti-capitalist, anti-industrialists); some utilitarian types believe abolishing IP would enhance wealth or welfare; and some, like me, oppose it on pro-property rights grounds. 
Why is the debate over IP's legitimacy relegated to a dispute over the "term"? (unsigned contribution by Nskinsella)
* Good point, which also serves to illustrate the extent to which the article is almost entirely overrun with critique, whether as to form or substance. It is time for the critique to be divided out into a standalone article, not least so that the main article deals with the actual subject matter at hand. 203.198.237.30 05:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of the critique &mdash; proposal for new article dealing separately with critique

message: The anon editor who "reorganized" the article is pretty confused about the differences between IP, patents, and copyright, as his rewritten intro, from which I'm quoting, demonstrates: "It is important to note that intellectual property laws only apply to the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been expressed. IP laws are not designed or intended to cover the actual concepts, facts, styles or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the ideas or information."
I assume most of us agree with the point made in the section above by Nskinsella – this should be fixed. However, on a controversial subject like this, it is most certainly not a good idea to making sweeping changes to the content without getting some consensus on the talk page. Also, calling such substantial content changes "reorganisation" could be seen as misleading. Rl 06:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganisation

message: In order to function as an effective resource, Wikipedia needs to be accurate.  Much of the text on the page, although evidently written with enthusiasm, was or remains incorrect from a legal viewpoint.  For example, the discussion of copyright referred to independent creation of "designs".  Copyright does not protect designs any more than it protects ideas; copyright protects material forms of expression of particular subject matter of works as set out under statute.  Designs are a separate category of intellectual property and in Australia at least there is a complex overlap between the law of designs and the law of copyright, for example in relation to works of artistic craftsmanship.  Ideas are protected by the laws regarding confidential information or, if meeting certain criteria, patents.  Also fundamentally wrong was the statement that a copyright licence isn't a contract.  It is an instance of just that.  And BTW, regardless of their views on the rights or wrongs of it all, you wouldn't find too many lawyers arguing that there was no such thing as IP - there wouldn't be a major law firm anywhere in the common law world that didn't have a bunch of specialists who work on nothing else. Lawyers refer to IP, not "exclusive rights", because there are many other instances of exclusive rights that have nothing to do with IP, and instances of IP that are not exclusive rights (eg a non-exclusive licence or independently created copyright subject matter). The types of IP law don't "conflict", they cover different subject matter! Lizby 10:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A little knowledge...

message: Suppose I have a new idea and claim it to be something 'never thought of before', then is that idea my IP right?
*Absolutely not, if you literally mean just the idea. Consider the first sentence of the article, now with a link to idea-expression divide as a result of your question, which seeks to address this point in a little more detail. 203.198.237.30 06:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About IP? 

message: (Please excuse me if my comments are naive; this is the first WP article that I've looked at in a critical sense (I am a US IP lawyer)).  
The article has numerous problems, both in terms of organization and content; too many for me to address them individually today.  From reading the Talk page, it seems that many of these problems have been identified years ago, and yet they still appear in the article.  Is this article being subjected to some kind of never-ending edit/revision loop by competing editors, so that it will never reach steady-state?  Is there any way to force the article to "converge" to (or at least towards) a steady-state?
Finally, what will happen if I follow what I believe to be the best ideas expressed in the Talk page and implement them in the article?
Muskie 19:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Be bold in editing pages. In short, go ahead; the worst that can happen is that your changes will be reverted. --cesarb 20:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can we get this article to "converge" to a readable/accurate state? 

message: There is some good material in these new edits which could usefully appear in the article (eg. an analysis of the distinction between IP and other forms of property could appear in a new philosophy of IP section or article - OR you could start on the much needed overhaul of the critique section). Some points on the other material, from a quick scan through the edits: The note about U.S. legislation not specifically mentioning "intellectual property" was incorporated in the history of the term section (and the focus of the introduction should not be on whether a particular jurisdiction does not happen to use the term in its laws); same relocation with regard to when WIPO started promulgating the term; regarding all the ways in which certain forms of IP are not enabled by the exclusive rights clause of the U.S. Constitution, suggest putting this in a dedicated U.S. section; similarly, references to "exclusive rights law" and "exclusive rights policy" may be appropriate only to such a section; and rhetorically, you'd have the intro discuss the distinction between rights established by common law and by statute, but later the rational for IP simply becomes that it "promotes the spread of knowledge"? 203.198.237.30 03:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edits (10 Nov 2005) - reversion 

message: A page about Intellectual_property has been added to Wikiquote which contains Famous quotes included in this article. You might consider to remove that section or to add a .
Ncrfgs 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one as well. Thank you. --Edcolins 19:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Intellectual_property 

message: I'm not sure if the reference to open source as an example of innovation outside the 'traditional' IP model is as strong as it could be. As far as I can see, the 'standard' argument for IP protection is not that it's the only way that people can innovate, but that the overall level of innovation will be much higher with it. 
The fact that 'works of authorship can be written without direct financial incentives' does not in itself contradict the standard IP model. For such criticism to be very strong, you would have to show not only that 'direct financial incentives' are not always required, but also that 'direct financial incentives' do not act as a meaningful incentive to innovate in significant cases.
In other words, the standard IP model does not say that counterexamples cannot exist. It just says that you will get more overall innovation with IP protection that you would without it. Listing counterexamples, without also discussing their wider significance, does not in itself invalidate the 'incentives to innovate' argument. It would perhaps be better to cite studies of the effects of patent reform or something like that. --203.26.16.67 02:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Software example 

message: Intellectual property rights should be split out and made a subarticle of this topic. The topic of intellectual property is much broader than just intellectual property rights. savidan(talk) (e@) 17:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not concur. Intellectual property is meaningful only as a right. --Edcolins 09:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split