Intellectual Property

#REDIRECT Intellectual property

Intellectual property

In law, particularly in common law jurisdictions, intellectual property or ''IP'' refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches to the expressed form of an idea, or to some other intangible asset subject matter. In general terms this legal entitlement sometimes enables its holder to exercise exclusive control over the use of the IP. The term ''intellectual property'' reflects the idea that the subject matter of IP is the product of the mind or the intellect, and that once established, such entitlements are generally treated as equivalent to tangible property, and may be enforced as such by the courts. The most well known forms of intellectual property include copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Patents and trademarks fall into a particular subset of intellectual property known as industrial property. ==Overview== The purposes of laws dealing with exclusive rights have varied, but they all share in common the appearance of granting the "owner" of the exclusive rights a monopoly on copying or distribution of a protected form of "property". This was originally done to grant a boon to a king's favourite (with some positive advantages to the public, since often these grants were prerequisites before a merchant would undertake production). The United States Constitution accords Congress the power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by granting exclusive rights to authors and inventors for limited times. The use of the term "intellectual property" is often predicated on considerations such as the "free rider problem" or rationalized by problematizing the fact that owners of computers have the ability to produce and distribute perfect copies of digital works. Proponents of the term tend to address exclusive rights policy by valorizing the incentives afforded to authors and inventors in granting them a right to exact a fee from those who wish to manufacture their inventions or publish their expressive works. The analyses associated with the term tend to overlook or even to attempt to defeat the fact, noted by Thomas Jefferson when he took part in wording the exclusive rights clause, that published information is intrinsically free and that in fact this is the whole point of exclusive rights -- to publish, to provide information to the public. By an economic analysis, the incentives granted for patent rights have sometimes served the public benefit purpose (and promoted innovation) by ensuring that someone who devoted, say, ten years of penury while struggling to develop vulcanized rubber or a workable steamship, could recoup her or his investment of time and energy. Using monopoly power, the inventor could exact a fee from those who wanted to make copies of his or her invention. Set it too high, and others would simply try to make a competing invention, but set it low enough and one could make a good living from the fees. In latter years, the public benefit idea has been downplayed in favor of the idea that the primary purpose of exclusive rights is to benefit the rightsholder, even to the detriment of society at large; and this development has attracted some opponents. In some fields, patent law has had an unintended consequence: treating abstract rules and mental products like concrete ones has stifled innovation in those fields, rather than aiding it. The four main types of non-physical things considered by this point of view are copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. Common types of intellectual property rights include conflicting areas of law: *Copyrights, which give the holder some exclusive rights to control some reproduction of works of authorship, such as books and music, for a certain period of time. *Patents give the holder an exclusive right to prevent third parties from commercially exploiting an invention for a certain period, typically 20 years from the filing date of a patent application. *Trademarks are distinctive names, phrases or marks used to identify products to consumers. *Trade secrets, where a company keeps information secret, perhaps by enforcing a contract under which those given access to information are not permitted to disclose it to others. These rights, conferred by law, can be given, sold, rented (called "licensing") and, in some countries, even mortgaged, in much the same way as physical property (especially real property). However, the rights have limitations, including term limits and other considerations (such as intersections with fundamental rights and the codified provisions for fair use for copyrighted works). Some analogize these considerations to public easements, since they grant the public certain rights which are considered essential. It is important to understand that authors and inventors exercise specific rights, and the "property" referred to in "intellectual property" is the rights, not the intellectual work. A patent can be bought and sold, but the invention that it covers is not owned at all. This is one of many reasons that some believe the term ''intellectual property'' to be misleading. Some use the term "intellectual monopoly" instead, because such so-called "intellectual property" is actually a government-granted monopoly on certain types of action. Others object to this usage, because this still encourages a natural rights notion rather than a recognition that the rights are purely statutory, and it only characterizes the "property" rather than eliminates the property presupposition. Others object to the negative connotation of the term "monopoly" and cite the wide availability of substitute goods. Still others prefer not to use a generic term, because of differences in the nature of copyright, patent and trademark law, and try to be specific about which they are talking about, or the term "exclusive rights", which reflects the U.S. Constitutional language. ==Legal status== Exclusive rights are generally divided into two categories: those that grant exclusive rights only on copying/reproduction of the item or act protected (e.g. copyright) and those that grant a right to prevent others from doing something. The difference between these is that a copyright would prevent someone from copying the design of something, but could not stop them from making that design if they had no knowledge of the original held by the copyright holder. Patents and trade marks on the other hand, can be used to prevent that second person from making the same design even if they had never heard of or seen the claimed "property". Those rights must be applied for or registered and are more expensive to enforce. There are also more specialized varieties of so-called sui generis exclusive rights, such as circuit design rights (called mask work rights in USA law, protected under the Integrated Circuit Topography Act in Canadian law, and in EC Law by Directive 87/54/EEC of 16 December 1986 on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products), plant breeders' rights, plant variety rights, industrial design rights, supplementary protection certificates for pharmaceutical products and database rights (in EC Law). ==Types and scope of intellectual property== Exclusive rights may be analyzed in terms of their subject matter, the actions they regulate in respect of the subject matter, the duration of particular rights, and the limitations on these rights. Exclusive rights policies are conventionally categorized according to subject matter: inventions, artistic expression, secrets, semiconductor designs, and so on. Generally, the action regulated by exclusive rights is unauthorized reproduction. However, as indicated above, some rights go beyond this to grant a full suite of exclusive rights on a particular idea or product. Generally, it is true to say that exclusive rights grant the holder the ability to stop others doing something (I.e., a negative right.), but not necessarily a right to do it themselves (I.e., a positive right.). For example, the holder of a patent on a pharmaceutical product may be able to prevent others selling it, but (in most countries) cannot sell it themselves without a separate license from a regulatory authority. Most exclusive rights are nothing more than the right to sue an infringer, which has the effect that people will approach the rightsholder for permission to perform the acts to which the rightsholder has exclusive right. The granting of this permission is termed licensing, and exclusive rights licenses stipulate the extent of the licensee's ability to perform the acts the rightsholder may control. Other kinds of licenses attempt to establish additional conditions beyond the acts the rightsholder may control, and these licenses are governed by general contract principles. In many jurisdictions the law places limits on what restrictions the licensor (the person granting the licence) can impose. In the European Union, for example, competition law has a strong influence on how licences are granted by large companies. Copyright licenses grant permission to do something. They are not contracts, since contracts require mutual consent. A patent license is a declaration not to do some things, under certain conditions. Exclusive rights policies in certain countries provide for certain activities which do not require any license, such as reproduction of small amounts of texts, sometimes termed fair use. Many countries' legal systems afford compulsory licenses for particular activities, especially in the area of patent law. Most exclusive rights are awarded by a government for a limited period of time. Economic theory typically suggests that a free market with no exclusive rights will lead to too little production of intellectual works relative to an pareto efficiency outcome. Thus by increasing rewards for authors, inventors and other producers of intellectual works, overall efficiency might be improved. On the other hand, "intellectual property" law could in some circumstances lead to increased transaction costs that outweigh these gains (see Coase's Penguin). Another consideration is that restricting the free reuse of information and ideas will also have costs, where the use of the best available technique for a given task or the creation of a new derived work is prevented. ==History== ===History of the individual rights=== The Patent#Early_history_of_patents dates from the 15th century in England and Venice. Copyright was not invented until after the advent of the printing press and wider public literacy. In England the King was concerned by the unfair copying of books and used the royal prerogative to pass the Licensing Act 1662 which established a register of licensed books and required a copy to be deposited with the Stationers Company. The Statute of Anne was the first real act of copyright, and gave the author rights for a fixed period. Internationally, the Berne Convention in the late 1800s set out the scope of copyright protection and is still in force to this day. Design rights started in England in 1787 with the Designing & Printing of Linen Act and have expanded from there. ===History of the term=== The term ''intellectual property'' appears to have originated in Europe during the 19th century. France author A. Nion mentions "''propri�t� intellectuelle''" in his ''Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs'', published in 1846, and there may well have been earlier uses of the term. In 1847, a U.S. circuit court defined intellectual property as "the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own...as the wheat he cultivates." Woodbury & Minot, ''Rep. Cases Circuit Court of U.S.'', I. 56. Worldwide, however, use of the term was uncommon until its use in the Geneva, Switzerland-based World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which was established in 1967. With the French Revolution, which followed the American Revolution, there was controversy over the nature of copyright and patent protections in Europe; those who supported unlimited copyrights frequently used the term ''property'' to advance that agenda, while others who supported a more limited system sometimes used the term ''intellectual rights'' (''droits intellectuels''). The system currently used by much of the Western world is more in line with the second view, with limited copyrights that eventually expire. However, the French Civil Code notion of "moral rights" has connotations similar to natural rights that are inconsistent with the American tradition. ==Critique== ===Controversy over term=== In civil law (legal system) jurisdictions, intellectual property has often been referred to as intellectual rights, traditionally a somewhat broader concept that has included moral rights and other personal protections that cannot be bought or sold. Use of the term ''intellectual rights'' has declined since the early 1980's, as use of the term ''intellectual property'' has increased. An alternate term monopolies on information has emerged among those who argue against the "property" or "intellect" or "rights" assumptions, notably Richard Stallman - ''see below''. Another issue is that if intellectual property exists there must be a parallel concept of intellectual capital - capital (economics) being the property that permits more property to be created. This, and the related term instructional capital that applies to the proper subset of patents and non-fiction copyright, are controversial notions that economists have no clear agreement on, so one refers to the "intellectual capital debate" rather than thinking of it as an actual capital asset. ''See more in the "Economic view" section below.'' Trademarks, regional declarations, and trade secrets do not have a time limit, while patents expire after 20 years. Copyright traditionally has had a limited term, but because it has been subject to recent serial extensions of its term Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act and Directive on harmonising the term of copyright protection, it is unclear whether subsisting copyrights will expire 2019. ===Arguments against the term=== The term ''intellectual property'' is often explained as being problematic by some because the rights conferred by exclusive rights laws are in some ways more limited than the legal rights associated with property interests in physical goods (chattel) or land (real property). The presence of the word ''property'' in the term can be seen as favoring the position of proponents of the expansion of exclusive rights in intellectual products, who may thereby more readily draw on the rhetoric of property itself to remove the many natural and legal restrictions on exclusive rights which would be inappropriate if applied to physical goods. For instance, most nations grant copyrights for only limited terms. Additionally, the term is sometimes misunderstood to imply ownership of the copies themselves, or even the information contained in those copies. This would severely differ from physical property laws, which rarely restrict the sale or modification of physical copies of a work (something which many copyright laws do restrict). A common argument against the term ''intellectual property'' is that information is fundamentally different from physical property in that a "stolen" idea or copy does not affect the original possession (see the tragedy of the commons). Another, more specific objection to the term, held by Richard Stallman, is that the term is confusing [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty]. Stallman argues that the term implies a non-existent similarity between copyrights, patents, trademarks, and other forms of exclusive rights which makes clear thinking and discussion about various forms difficult.[http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml] Furthermore, most legal systems, including that of the United States, hold that exclusive rights are a government grant, rather than a fundamental right held by citizens. Though it is convenient for direct incentive beneficiaries to regard exclusive rights as akin to "legal property", items covered by exclusive rights are, by definition, not physical objects "ownable" in the traditional sense. Stephan Kinsella, in his ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'' article "Against Intellectual Property" details his objection to Intellectual Property on the grounds that the term "property" implies scarcity, which may not be applicable to ideas. Others point out that the law itself treats these rights differently than those involving physical property. To give three examples from US law, copyright infringement is not punishable by laws against theft or trespass, but rather by an entirely different set of laws with different penalties. patent infringement is not a criminal offense although it may subject the infringer to civil liability. Willfully possessing stolen physical goods is a criminal offense while mere possessing of goods which infringe on copyright is not. Furthermore, in the United States physical property laws are generally part of state law, while copyright law is in the main measure federal. Some proponents of the term argue that the law is simply recognising the reality of a situation. In some jurisdictions a lease of land (e.g. a flat or apartment) is regarded as intangible property in the same way that copyright is. In these cases too the law accepts that the property cannot be stolen - if someone moves into the flat and prevents you from living there they are not regarded as 'thieves of the lease' but as 'squatter' and the law provides different remedies. Identity theft is another example of the adaptation of physical property laws to intangible items, though that term itself is seen as problematic by some. ==Trends== Recently the general trend in exclusive rights law has been expansion: to cover new types of subject matter such as databases, to regulate new categories of activity in respect of the subject matter already protected, to increase the duration of individual rights, and to remove restrictions and limitations on these rights. Another effect of this trend is an increase in the term of the government-granted rights, and an expansion of the definition of "author" to include corporations as the legitimate creators and owners of works. The concept of work for hire has had the effect of treating a corporation or business owner as the legal author of works created by people while employed. Another trend is to increase the number and type of what is claimed as "intellectual property". This has resulted in increasingly broad patents and trademarks: for instance, Microsoft attempting to trademark the phrase, "Where do you want to go today?". Trademarks in EU and United States of America law can now encompass smells (e.g. of cut grass for tennis balls), shapes (e.g. of a soft drinks bottle), colors (e.g. red for fizzy drinks), words (e.g. COCA-COLA) and sounds (Intel has [http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=75332744 registered a five-note melody with the USPTO]). The granting of patents for life forms, computer software algorithms and business models stretches the initial concept of giving the inventor limited rights to exclude the use of his invention. Some argue that these expansions harm an essential "bargain" driven between public and copyright holders: as most "new" ideas borrow from other ideas, it is thought that too many "intellectual property" laws will lead to a reduction of the overall creative output of a society. The expansion of exclusive rights is also alleged to have led to the emergence of organizations whose business model is to frivolously sue other companies. The electronic age has seen an increase in the attempt to use software-based digital rights management tools to restrict the copying and use of digitally based works. This can have the effect of limiting fair use provisions of copyright law and even make the first-sale doctrine (known in EU law as 'exhaustion of rights') moot. This would allow, in essence, the creation of a book which would disintegrate after one reading. As individuals have proven adept at circumventing such measures in the past, many copyright holders have also successfully lobbied for laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which uses criminal law to prevent any circumvention of software used to enforce digital "rights management" systems. Equivalent provisions, to prevent circumvention of copyright protection have existed in EU for some time, and are being expanded in, for example, Article 6 and 7 the Copyright Directive. Other examples are Article 7 of the Software Directive of 1991 (91/250/EEC), and the Conditional Access Directive of 1998 (98/84/EEC). At the same time, the growth of the Internet, and particularly distributed search engines like Kazaa and Gnutella, represents a challenge for exclusive rights policy. The Recording Industry Association of America, in particular, has been on the front lines of the fight against what it terms "piracy". The industry has had victories against some services, including a highly publicized case against the file-sharing company Napster, and some people have been prosecuted for sharing files in violation of copyright. However, the increasingly decentralized nature of such networks makes legal action against distributed search engines more problematic. ==Non-government systems to protect intellectual products== The notion of protecting intellectual works is much older than copyright or patent law. There have long existed socially-enforced systems for protecting intellectual works. These include the ancient scholarly taboo against plagiarism, along with other informal systems such as the code of non-infringement, used by clowns to recognise each clown's exclusive rights to their unique style of makeup, costume and persona. In the case of 'The Code' of the clowns, the universality of the custom lends credence to the clown's belief that this protection is 'stronger' than that provided by trademark and copyright law. Regardless of this, some clowns do trademark, copyright or patent "clown material", perhaps as protection from infringement by those outside the clown community. More recently, "intellectual property" law has been brought to bear on holders of DNS contested by third parties, particularly when a domain name infringes on a trademark ("domain squatting"). The domain name registries, many of whom are not governmental organisations, have had to find a solution to this and therefore have dispute resolution systems which operate in parallel with national laws. The majority of the generic top level domain names (.com, .net etc.) use the ICANN model known as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Other registries have their own different systems, such as Nominet UK's "Dispute Resolution Service" for the .uk registry. == Economic view == Exclusive rights such as copyrights and patents secure their holder an exclusive right to sell, or license rights. As such, the holder is the only seller in the market for that particular item, and the holder is often described as having a monopoly for this reason. However, it may be the case that there are other items of "intellectual property" that are close substitutes. For example, the holder of publishing rights for a book may be competing with various other authors to get a book published. In such cases, economists may find that another market form, such as oligopoly or monopolistic competition better describes the workings of the markets for expressive works and inventions. This is one reason to prefer the term ''exclusive rights'' over ''monopoly rights''. The case for "intellectual property" in economic theory notes certain substantial differences from the case for tangible property. Consumption of tangible property is rivalrous. For example, once one person eats an apple, no one else can eat it; if one person uses a plot of land on which to build a home, that plot is unavailable for use by others. Without the right to exclude others from tangible resources, a tragedy of the commons can result. The subjects of intellectual property do not share this feature of rivalness. For example, an indefinite number of copies can be made of a book without interfering with the use of the book by owners of other copies. When combined with a lack of exclusive intellectual property rights, this nonrivalrousness and nonexcludability combine to make them public goods and susceptable to the free rider problem. A rationale for "intellectual property" therefore rests on incentive effects to overcome the free rider problem. This case asserts that without a subsidy that is afforded by exclusive rights, there is no direct financial incentive to create new inventions or works of authorship. However, as Wikipedia and Free software demonstrate, works of authorship are written without direct financial incentives. Moreover, many important works were created before copyright was invented. One might argue that much more invention occurred after patents came into existence; however, one could also argue that patents were brought into law as the power and influence of industrial interests grew. Some hold that the three most common instruments provide "exclusive rights to use" different things: copyright covers original expressive works, patent covers solutions or ideas, and trademark covers means to uniquely identify a producer or other source of reputation. This view asserts that the three instruments have different histories, different intents, and allow three different kinds of incentives. Yet, the WIPO, the interest body which introduced the term treats this like a dogma: :"Intellectual property refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce." (Source: [http://www.wipo.org/about-ip/en/ WIPO]) Some critics of the term say that this assertion is propaganda for a property view of these laws, and suggest terms such as individual capital, instructional capital and social capital over the term "intellectual capital," which has an ambiguous status, even among believers in neoclassical economics. Indeed, recent historical and econometric research has begun to "challenge the positive description of previous models and the normative conclusion that monopoly through copyright and patent is socially beneficial" (Source: [http://minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr303.html Federal Reserve Bank]). The status of "IP" is disputed in India, China and other developing nations. The United States and the United Kingdom are the only two nations who consistently receive net balance of payment benefits from "IP". These nations are the chief promulgators of "intellectual property" systems. A more recent notion, proposing to expand the scope of exclusive rights to include databases, has been introduced by the EU in 1996. This is the idea of protecting the information contained in a database against re-utilisation and extraction of substantial parts. This would be an additional right predicated on a substantial investment, that would exist alongside the copyright in the database structure. This notion was opposed by the United States Supreme Court in 1991 in the Feist Publication finding, which said that exclusive rights cannot cover the factual elements of any copyrighted work, that copyright does not derive from the effort expended in the production of the work, and that in the case of a collection of information, only the originality that may be found in the selection and arrangement of the information is governed by copyright. This case holds that the purpose of exclusive rights policy is to provide information to the public, and this consideration takes priority over concerns such as investment. A study has found that the introduction of exclusive rights to databases in the EU did not do any good to the economy. The direct incentive beneficiaries of exclusive rights have an interest in expanding their rights and benefits. Many pool their resources to form organizations that attempt this such as the Business Software Alliance (BSA), which purports to represent the interests of the commercial software industry while the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) represents the interests of the commercial music publishing industry. As policy expands in accordance with the notion of "intellectual property", in the interests of those who benefit directly from its economic incentives, it tends to reduce the rights of its primary beneficiaries, the general public. Under the notion of "intellectual property" the public is increasingly prevented by law from benefiting from the use of published information without complying with the conditions set by the rightsholder. The cost for this to the public is not easy to quantify. The cost is distributed widely and unequally based on the need for the product. Ironically the direct incentive beneficiary organizations are a good source for these data. The BSA reports a study that claims "while $80 billion in software was installed on computers worldwide last year, only $51 billion was legally purchased" (Source:[http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/ BSA]). The BSA says "software pirates" avoided a cost of $29 billion while the rest that obey the policy and do not purchase or make use of the work bear a real and substantial opportunity cost that is yet uncounted. However, it is questionable whether Microsoft would lower their price if it would earn $10 billion more on licensing from countries such as Russia, Thailand, India and China where most of this "piracy" happens. But Microsoft is dumping its selling price on competition from GNU/Linux, for example with government clients. Because of this competition, Microsoft will also be forced to release an update to Internet Explorer to the public for its current product which it originally planned to release with its next operating system. ===Valuation of intellectual property=== Little argument over intellectual property (IP) would occur if it did not have a value for the owner. The principle of valuing IP is to determine the future income associated with its ownership (Special:Booksources/0471362816). Note that the value of IP is independent of its cost. The creation of a musical composition, invention, valuable software may have cost little, and can generate a very high income. Profit margins from IP are typically much higher than profit margins from manufacturing of tangible goods. Determination of future income requires estimating the income due to the IP in each of all future years over its life; i.e., the amount sold and the net income per unit after routine sales costs are deducted. If the IP is used internally, then the savings due to owning it can be similarly estimated. The risk that intellectual property becomes obsolete is high, and reduces the current value. Without risk, future income is discounted by using a stable discount rate, in the U.S. by using the Federal Treasury Note rate for the period. Risks include unexpected competition, unauthorized copying, patent breaches or invalidation, and loss of trade secrets. With such risks, discount rates increase, based on the expected Beta coefficient. With high discount rates, sales that occur far in the future have little effect, simplifying the determination of the net current value of the included IP. When the items being valued contain multiple IP components, then the proportion and life of each component must be determined. That case exists in the small, as for software that receives updates throughout the future, and in the large, for company (law) that vend many products. Shareholders of public companies in effect estimate the aggregate IP of a company, providing a market capitalization through the price they are willing to pay for shares, which is in effect the sum of the book value and the IP owned by the company. U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) do not allow the listing on corporate books of IP, making it hard for investors to be rational about share prices. IP is generated mainly through research, development, and advertising (IP generating expenses or IGE), making it hard to assess the effectiveness of IGE. Companies participating in the knowledge economy typically have a market capitalization which is a large factor greater than their book value, the sum of their tangible assets and cash. Only when a company has been purchased will the purchased IP briefly appear on the books as goodwill. ==See also== *Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) *Copynorm *The Disneyland Memorial Orgy *Doha Declaration *Directive on the enforcement of intellectual property rights *Fair use *Intellectual capital *Intellectual Freedom Movement *Intellectual property education *Intellectual property in the People's Republic of China *Intellectual property organization *Intellectual Property Owners Association (ipo) [http://www.ipo.org/] *Intellectual rights *International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI) *International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys (FICPI) *International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) *International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) *Legal aspects of computing *Licensing (strategic alliance) *Parallel import *Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property *Personal property *Philosophy of copyright *Real property *Reverse engineering *Software patent *World Intellectual Property Day (April 26) ===Types of intellectual property=== *Copyright *Geographical indication *Industrial design rights *Integrated circuit layout *Moral rights *Patent *Personality rights *Plant breeders' rights *Trade dress *Trademark *Trade secret ==Bibliography== *Arthur Raphael Miller, Michael H. Davis, ''Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright'', West Wadsworth; 3rd edition, 2000, ISBN 0314235191 (textbook particularly covering copyright and patent law) *Stephan Kinsella, "Against Intellectual Property", ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 1-53, 2001. Available in .PDF [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf here] (Note: though the author concludes that "[Intellectual property], at least in the form of patent and copyright, cannot be justified," the paper itself is copyrighted by its publisher.) *Michael Perelman, ''Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property Rights and the Corporate Confiscation of Creativity'', Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312294085, (a critical discussion of some of the social, scientific and cultural impacts of recent intellectual property developments) *Roger E. Schechter, John R. Thomas, ''Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks'', West Wadsworth, 2003, ISBN 0314065997 (textbook) ==External links== *Articles, Papers, and Interviews ** [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=582602 Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding, August 2004] by Mark A. Lemley Stanford University - School of Law ** Speech by Richard Stallman: [http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html Software patents ? Obstacles to software development] - it starts about IP and the problems it causes to talk or think using IP. ** [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty Confusing words to avoid ]. FSF page that identifies ''intellectual property'' as a confusing term wrt talking about free software. ** [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml Why the Term 'Intellectual Property' is a seductive mirage] - an essay by Richard Stallman. Originally published on Newsforge, see [http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/10/27/189204 commentary by Newsforge readers]. ** [http://articles.pawlo.com/grep02.html Long Paper: Efficiency, Innovation, and Transparency - The Future of Intellectual Property Rights ] ** [http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/intellectual.htm ''Economic and Game Theory Intellectual Property Page''] - by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine ** [http://www.eff.org/~barlow/EconomyOfIdeas.html ''The Economy of Ideas: Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net''] by John Perry Barlow ** [http://eyeteeth.blogspot.com/2003_04_20_eyeteeth_archive.html#92977561 The Anarchist in the Library: Discussing Cultural Democracy with Siva Vaidhyanathan] ** [http://www.qmipri.org] ''Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute, University of London'' ** Georg Jakob's short [http://wiki.ael.be/uploads/ipenf_comments.html Paper on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Europe]([http://www.rechtsprobleme.at/doks/ipenf_comments-jakob.pdf pdf]) *Miscellaneous IP sites ** [http://www.researchoninnovation.org/ Research on Innovation] ** [http://www.imobissimo.com/ Research on property] ** [http://tc.eserver.org/dir/Intellectual-Property EServer TC Library: Intellectual Property] ** [http://www.ipwatchdog.com IP Watch Dog] IP site by Gene Quinn, US patent attorney ** [http://www.iusmentis.com/news/ Ius Mentis] Updated IP news feed *Lobbying organisations (in favour) ** [http://www.eucommittee.be/IssuesPriorities/ip.htm AmCham EU - American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union] ''"Committed to a Competitive and Sustainable Europe"'' ** [http://www.gbde.org/ipr/ GBDe - Global Business Dialogue on electronic commerce] - The IPR working group is chaired the Chairman and CEO of The Walt Disney Company, and the Chairman and CEO of Bertelsmann AG. On Technological Protection Measures: ''"However, it is acknowledged that technology alone is not sufficient to protect copyright works for unauthorized reproduction and distribution. Legal safeguards, such as those required by the WIPO treaties must also be in place."'' -> digital rights management, DMCA and so on. ** [http://www.esmoz.com] ** http://www.eicta.org/levies/technical_solutions/drm.html (see also: EICTA) *Lobbying organisations (critical of some rights which IP is used to refer to) ** [http://www.eldis.org/ipr/ ELDIS - gateway to information on development issues] ** Free Software Foundation, [http://www.edri.org/ EDRi (European Digital Rights)], [http://www.fipr.org FIPR], FFII (many more) ** http://ipjustice.org ** [http://www.nnm-ev.de/ Netzwerk Neue Medien / Network New Media] ** [http://www.ueapme.org/EN/policy_legal_intellectual.shtml UEAPME] Intellectual property

Intellectual property

==This article is a long way from neutral== I don't think this article does much credit to Wikipedia: it's a long way from NPOV. To take one example, it is not remotely NPOV to say "The term glosses over fundamental distinctions between types of exclusive rights such as copyright and patents, and encourages authors and inventors to regard these rights as natural rights". You might believe it, I might believe it, and the majority of people who write Wikipedia might believe it, but there are lots of people that don't. Basically, the article is reflecting the particular viewpoint of Wikipedia authors, rather than being a neutral presentation of the subject. We all need to do a bit of "writing for the enemy" if these sorts of biases are going to be eliminated. User:Enchanter 21:10, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) I've moved this comment to the top of the talk page, as I've added an NPOV tag to the main page. User:Mk270 22:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC) Here are the POV/factual problems I feel exist in the current version of the article: * the article keeps getting diverted by the term "intellectual property", in particular with the arguments against the use of the term itself, to the exclusion of arguments about the justification for that which is connoted by the term * the assertion that information is non-rivalrous in consumption is presented as an argument against the term "IP", whereas it's a matter of economic fact, with no terminological import * the article uses the term "exclusive rights", without qualification, to mean something similar to the term "IP". Exclusive rights subsist in both tangible (land and movable objects) and intangible goods, but nowhere is a phrase such as "exclusive rights in intangible goods" used. Were such a phrase used, it would give the lie to the contention that copyrights, patents and trademarks and so-on don't hang together as a category * in an article so preoccupied by attacking the terminology of IP, where is the counterbalancing "arguments in favour of the term" section? * are trade secrets really IP? how many of the things listed in "types of IP" are really IP? parallel importation is surely not a "type" of IP?! * "exclusive rights are generally divided into two categories: those that grant exclusive rights (in copying) and (those that grant a right to prevent others from doing things)". This is just rubbish. Not only does it suffer from the conflation of "exclusive rights" with "exclusive rights in intangibiles", but the first of these proposed categories is a subset of the second! Moreover, it is false to assert that this categorisation is "general" in any sense. * The passage "There is no more bizarre concept in the world of exclusive rights than this one, that because of an economic argument, we must restrict public uses of published data in a database since the creator of that collection of information invested effort in its production. " is shockingly POV, which is a great pity as the first twenty words or so are a very attractive use of English syntax. It is sad that this article has got into this state. Like the other person complaining above, I write these criticisms of the article as someone who disagrees with current levels of IP protection (I sit on the board of one of the member organisations of one of the organisations listed as being critical of IP policy - happily not a link I had to add by myself) User:Mk270 02:42, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---- Intellectual Property is a non-scientific term that comprises many conflicting areas of law. :This comment is difficult to understand. (1) Legal terms are not scientific; they are legal. (2) "Intellectual property" is standard usage. (3) Intellectual property includes (but does not comprise) several different doctrinal subtopics, such as patent, copyright, and trademark. (4) The different areas of law that make up "intellectual property" law do not conflict with each other. User:Lsolum ---- I suppose there's a place for this commentary somewhere; at least it's interesting enough that I didn't want to delete it: The Icelandic word for property is the same as cattle, "fe". A corporation is a cattle-team, fe-lag. As an opposite to this bovine stupidity, most new companies on Iceland and elsewhere are now based on intellectual property such as :trade secrets, :patents, :copyright, and :trademarks. ---- The first statement claims that law treats intellectual property rights as "property". Is that completely true? For instance, if I steal your patent, will I be prosecuted for theft of property? Also, if you own something, you own it forever; intellectual property rights are often granted temprarily only. I think they qualify as property in the sense that they can be bought, sold and rented. But in other respects, they are unlike physical property and don't enjoy as much protection. For example, with intellectual property, you often have to sue in civil court if it was "stolen", but with physical property, the state does the dirty work for you. --AxelBoldt 'IP' isn't property under any law I know. Breaking somebody's IP is nowhere prosecuted under theft laws. IP is limited temportary monopoly, similar examples are ex-state ex-monopolies have in some countries. For example in Poland, :TPSA has temportary monopoly for some phone services. That's something similar. --:Taw ----- Police and customs agents certainly enforce intellectually property rights when the impound goods for copywrite infringement like video and cd piracy, imitation trademarked goods, etc. And I presume that those caught are prosecuted, not just sued. --rmhermen ----- I am not sure that a "trade secret" should be included as intellectually property in the same way as patents, trademarks and copyrights. Patents, trademarks and copyrights are all rights governed by legal statutes and conventions as to nature and time of protection. All allow the owners to sue in a court of law someone who violates these rights. A "trade secret" by it's very nature is something which is protected by not being disclosed. If someone finds out, it is by definition no longer a secret. The protection of a "trade secret" is through contract law - and that only applies to those parties agreeing to a contract. I do note that online some lawyers do seem to refer to "trade secret" as intellectually property and make the case that people can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of a "trade secret". I think that it might be useful here to have some discussion of the history of intellectually property law - both in the United States and in other countries. :Trade secrets are not exclusively protected by contracts: there are also laws on the books protecting trade secrets. For instance, if you get a letter by mistake containing the secret formula used for Coca Cola, then you are not allowed to publish that letter. --AxelBoldt :: They're usually considered part of "intellectual property" because of their nature, even though confidential information, at least in common law jurisdicitons, isn't capabel of owenership, just the equitable relief of prevention of dissemination. - User:David Stewart 05:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC) ---- Some people use the phrase "some people" too much. --:LMS ---- I moved the following out of the article: :For an effective informal system of protection of intellectual property, see Clown. This might be useful information for a section on non-government forms of copyright. You could also throw in a whole lot of other examples. But as an unexplained "see also", it's confusing. User:Dachshund :I put that in. Did you follow the link? The clowns protect their intellectual property in an effective, informal way. I see nothing confusing about it, and I certainly think there is room in the article for that one sentence. Don't you think it is stimulating for one reading up on intellectual property? Why not throw in the other examples? A lot of people are coming to think that the whole notion of intellectual property is pernicious. To have examples of systems that are not money-grubbing and suppressive, but simply serve without coercion to protect what belongs to someone, seems quite appropriate.User:Ortolan88 ::I did read the Clown article. And I agree that non-governmental schemes of IP protection are relevant. But the link wasn't explained, and it seemed really jarring. I'll add the link back in, perhaps with a slightly more informative explanation. User:Dachshund ---- This article could really use a History section. Perhaps Etymology could be changed to History and folded in with the last paragraph, along with some info on the Statute of Anne, etc. I don't have time right now, but if anyone else wants to... User:Dachshund ---- Despite what the article says, copyrights and patents do give monopoly power. Only the author of the article or the owner of the patent can give rights to use/copy the work. One person/company who can sell the rights is by definition a monopoly. ACoward. If the owner of a patent grants on or more people unrestricted rights to their property, (perhaps in return for payment) then there is no longer a monopoly. However the owner still owns the patent. User:DJ Clayworth 15:21, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC) :Copyrights and patents grant ''monopoly power''. Some rights holders may choose not to exercise that power, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been granted to them. User:Dachshund The ''monopoly power myth'' is something that every intellectual property teacher corrects. Most IP does not create a monopoly in the economic sense. If I copyright a movie, I don't have a monopoly in the market for motion picutres. This is because of cross elasticity of demand. If I try to raise the price for my movie, consumers will shift to other movies. Even if the owner of a copyright or patent does not license to others, there is still no monopoly in the standard economic sense, unless the product is so differentiated that there consumers will not shift to alternative products. This may occur with a revolutionary new drug. User:Lsolum :Though your teacher's example (copyrighted movies) seems benign, real IP monopoly power is distressingly common. Particularly now that business method and software patents are recognized by the USPTO. You don't have to invent the next revolutionary cancer drug; you simply need to patent a very basic and important piece of technology that's almost impossible to work without. :Furthermore, even copyright monopolies have been possible. For years, governments allowed private publishers to draft copyrighted legislation. This gave these publishers an undeniable monopoly power over the reproduction of that legislation. What are you going to do... switch to the other brand of law? Fortunately, many of these situations have been rectified. User:Dachshund :''Most IP does not create a monopoly in the economic sense''? That is the very purpose of most IP! If you copyright a movie, you don't have a monopoly in the market for motion pictures, you say. But you didn't copyright ''motion pictures'', you just copyrighted ''a'' motion picture. Thus people have to pay your price if they want to see your movie, which would not be the case if you had no monopoly over it. The very fact that consumers would even tend to "shift to other movies" if you raised the price for your movie demonstrates that you have a monopoly in the "economic sense", just as the fact that you could deliberately lower the price to increase demand demonstrates your ''economic monopoly''. And I don't see anyone arguing that a copyright on a movie gives one a monopoly over motion pictures, any more than a (for sake of argument) monopoly on french fries gives one a monopoly over food. Authr We seem to be talking past one another. You say cite the example of business method & software patents, but do not give examples of monpoloy power in the economic sense. Very few business method patents create monopolies. Software patents sometimes are associated with monopolies, but it is important to sort out network effects, i.e. MS Office & Windows. :The problem here is in our definition of what constitutes a "monopoly". I would personally consider a company to have monopoly power if they held a business method patent that barred other companies from engaging in a useful, if specific application. For instance, running online auctions. :Your teacher might hold the view that this doesn't really constitute a monopoly; that people could simply find other ways to do business over the internet. Ultimately that's the problem with any attempt to precisely define something as subjective as "monopoly power". If you simply adjust your context a little, you can come up with any conclusion you want. Does Major League Baseball have a monopoly? Many would say absolutely-- they even had to be specifically exempted from Antitrust legislation because of this. Someone like your IP prof might disagree, and point out that there are other leagues, even other sports to watch-- football, for example. Can you say definitively that either position is right, or are they just different ways of looking at the same issue? :The difficulty is in determining how specific an industry's business domination must be in order for it to be a monopoly. This is so subjective that even the Supreme Court has a hard time consistently making this determination. If only we could all be as confident as your IP professor. User:Dachshund Actually, I am the IP Professor. The line I am taking is just the standard line. It's in the textbooks. It's just the conventional wisdom. IP does not, by itself, create a monopoly or monopoly power. Sometimes it does; usually it doesn't. Online auctions could well be a case where a business methods patent creates monopoly power, but one-click clearly does not. User:Lsolum :I don't understand this line of argument. Anyone who wants to set up a website with one-click technology has to get a licence from Amazon, the owner of the one-click patent. The equilibrium price of such licences in a competitive market with no monopoly power would be equal to the marginal cost of producing these licences, i.e. approximately $0. Amazon, to maximise its profit, must price the licences as any profit maximising monopoly supplier would, and charge a positive price to maximise its revenue. This is a straightforward application of basic textbook economic principles. In what way is it "clearly" not an example of a monopoly and monopoly power? User:Enchanter 23:39, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC) Cross-elasticity of demand. Because one-click competes with other methods of completing transactions, raising the price for one-click causes the substitution of other technologies. Amazon.com does not have a monopoly in eCommerce or eCommerce transaction technology, even though it controls one method for completing eCommerce transactions. It would be helpful if those who participate in this discussion would at least READ THE LITERATURE before contributing. The point we are discussing is whether ALL IP CREATES MONOPOLY POWER. The answer is not controversial. It is no. This is a basic point, made in many articles, texts, courses, etc. The article can carefully point out the sense in which patents & copyrights create a kind of monopoly, but it should accurately reflect the current way these terms are used in the literature. User:Lsolum. :It seems that the word monopoly is being used here in it's legal/economic definition, i.e. in relation to an industry. So, you can say that one-click does not imply monopoly power because cross-elasticity of demand allows the eCommerce transaction technology market to remain competitive and vibrant. However, I don't think that a topic such as IP, while no doubt interrelated to economics (as almost all things are) has to be discussed only in specific economic terms. The Merriam-Webster definition for a monopoly is: :1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action :2 : exclusive possession or control :3 : a commodity controlled by one party :4 : one that has a monopoly :These are the most common meanings of the word monopoly, and it clearly applies to IP. I think if you are talking about a term in reference to a strict scientific definition that differs from every-day use, it should be stated explicitly. As you said: :''"it should accurately reflect the current way these terms are used in the literature"'' :I don't think we should assume that the reader is aware of the curret legal/economic definition. Perhaps a paragraph explaining the differences between the common meaning of monopoly (exclusive control) and the legal/economic definition that you are using, or some text explaining that we are using the strict economic definition of monopoly, and to read the [monopoly] page for more info. User:Milquetoast 06:21, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC) User:Lsolum, what this has highlighted is the need to distinguish between a monopoly in a specific work, a monopoly in a specific class of a work and a monopoly or near-monopoly in the economic sense. Someone who wants to make Mickey Mouse movie is going to hit a monopolistic prohibition if that movie has the character acting in a way Disney dislikes, unless they carry that behavior so far that it becomes parody and they have the money to take the case to the Supreme Court. User:JamesDay 18:54, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC) :I agree with User:JamesDay: copyright might not grant a monopoly in a class of works, but it certainly does grant a monopoly in the author's own work. Compare Jane Austen and J K Rowling: no (UK) publisher currently has a monopoly in Jane Austen's novels, because her copyright has expired. In contrast, Rowling's publisher does enjoy a (very lucrative!) monopoly in her work. It all depends how fine your resolution is in terms of the goods in which the monopoly is enjoyed. --User:Gordoni 11:52, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC) ---- This article has really blossomed. However, it's also become a lot less readable, with a two-line introduction followed immediately by ''extremely'' detailed and specific analysis of the economic impact, etc. Would anyone object to shifting the article around so that (for instance) the different types of IP are explained ''before'' we start analyzing them in depth? User:Dachshund :I would certainly support this change. This entry has lots of good material, but it is now a bit disorganized & definitely needs a more informative introduction. The latest changes by enchanter are quite helpful & move the article forward. Thank you! User:Lsolum ---- I have written a short essay on potential alternatives to intellectual property - find it on User:Gingekerr/Intellectual_Property_Essay. Perhaps some of it is suitable for inclusion into the unfinished section on alternatives in the article - I didn't want to rush straight in on such a contentious topic without getting the opinion of the rest of the community. As for the above discussion, I have assumed in my essay that intellectual property constitutes monopoly power.User:Gingekerr 21:07, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I find it interesting^whumorous to see an article essentially positive towards "intellectual property" on a site licenced under the GNU FDL. The FDL is not contrary to intellectual property per se, but it does have a different interpretation of it. Perhaps it'd be a Good Idea(tm)(P)(C) to have some kind of disclaimer here. User:Kim Bruning 17:25, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC) Hmm, re history of Intellectual Property I think it might be a good idea to seperate out the concept "Intellectual Property" as being a rather more modern cover-all (probably only used post 1980s ? ), as opposed to the seperate historic concepts that are now claimed to make up intellectual property. User:Kim Bruning 10:30, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC) ---- I have removed the following POV text from the ''Arguments against'' section. Somebody dumped it there in mid-November (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Intellectual_property&diff=1785059&oldid=1768631 here]), in the middle of a couple of paragraphs about something else, and never came back to try to turn it into something coherent and unbiased. ''One of the primary functions of intellectual property rights is to exclude the general community from using one's work without payment and/or prior written consent. Despite its underlying hints at selfishness, this may seem like a logical idea. However, intellectual property rights are used for the most part as a method of disallowing the public from utilizing the input that one has contributed to society, in exchange for personal profit. Undoubtedly, the author of a text, software program, song, etc. should be entitled to receive credit for the work in which they have invested time. But if others are not free to edit the work for their own use (as is especially true with most proprietary software), the author's work will have a much diminished use-value for the broader context of society.'' ''Fortunately, there ARE alternatives... (to be cont. - 11/18/03)'' If anybody really objects to my removing this text, can they please explain why before putting it back again. User:R Lowry 02:36, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Well, yes, no, and read here: http://creativecommons.org/ . Although ''strictly'' that only refers to copyright. In any case they make a case against pure copyright, and might be used as a reference in support of the above so that we can keep some or all of it. User:Kim Bruning 08:43, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) Oh wait. Why go through all the trouble. Just see the small print at the bottom of this (and every other) wikipedia page, and track down where that comes from :-). The paragraph still needs to be rewritten with improved attribution though. Have a nice day! User:Kim Bruning 09:05, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Intellectual property and idea-expression divide== 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. --User: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. User:Tim Ivorson 17:57, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==NPOV edits== 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. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 16:47, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Ownership analogy== ''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. User:Anthony DiPierro User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning 17:08, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) :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 ''I''P. User:Lysdexia 05:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) --User:80.130.147.64 14:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) The you apply a certain teaching the "ownership teaching" that might be appropriate for copyright under the Berne Convention but certainly not for other legal fields put under the Hat of IP. The very essence why many persons reject the term is the fact that it applies this reading. The main question is: Is there something like "ownership" before the grant of the right, so that the law does only confirm the right. According to the human rights convention this applies to Copyright that emerges with the creative act (has not to be declared anymore as in US legal tradition). But patents are grants in return of a patent letter that describes an invention. PAtents only apply for a market. PAtents are monopoly "grants" in return of publication. If you make an invention and don't file a patent application you will get no patent. == IP == 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 "Immaterialg�terrecht", 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 Wikipedia: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. GDEN\">User:COGDEN''^{User_talk:COGDEN}">User:COGDEN|''GDEN\">User:COGDEN''^{User_talk:COGDEN} 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 :--User:217.83.44.12 23:45, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---- The term ''exclusive rights'' may be popular among one particular school of economists, but I suspect that even within that school, it's a much broader term than ''intellectual property''. ''Exclusive rights'' could refer to physical property as well, such as the exclusive right to possess one's land. Moreover, this article is about ''intellectual property''. Discussion about the broader term ''exclusive rights'' could be put in some kind of exclusive rights article. The idea of separating ''intellectual property'' from the concept of ''intellectual property rights'' is a rather quaint one. Only the most John Locke philosophers believe that intellectual property is some sort of natural right that exists independently of government entitlements (what you refer to as "intellectual property ''rights''"). Furthermore, the distinction you raise between patents and copyrights is simply incorrect. Copyrights, like patents, are territorial in scope. The only reason a copyright obtained in the United States is valid in another country is because the other country has entered a multilateral treaty in which both countries agree to recognize each other's intellectual property, without the need for formally re-applying for the copyright in the new country. A U.S. copyright is not intellectual property in Burundi unless Burundi agrees to make it so. Burundi could choose, if it wanted, to require parties to obtain new copyright registrations before recognizing U.S. copyrights. User:COGDEN 18:42, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) == Natural law == A wellknown criticism of the IP term is that it puts different types of legislation under the same hat and implies to treat them equal. Esp. it implies a natural rights theory where intellectual property right are granted to protect intellectual property (i.e. existing prior to legislation) This view applies for Copyright as it is harmonized as a natural right in the Human rights declaration but not to patents which are a market-related incentive system for industrial inventions granted by the authorities, i.e. there are no rights prior to the grant. == off topic == But Microsoft is dumping its selling price on competition from GNU/Linux, for example with government clients. Because of this competition, Microsoft will also be forced to release an update to Internet Explorer to the public for it's current product which it originally planned to release with it's next operating system. [edit] -----> off topic, please delete this ==Minor change question== 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. ==Comment== Would it be true to say that everyone who has so far made contributions/edited this page has taken part in the sharing of there own IP, also by publishing you "IP" in this article you have granted everyone and anyone IP to your work. So there you have it non-exclusive IP right under your fingers. :Good point. It may be true, but we wouldn't want to say so in the article. That would go against the policy of avoiding Avoid self-references. I suppose it could be generalized about editing public GFDL documents. Cheers, -User:Willmcw 20:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) == Economic View section is a bit long == 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. User:Scott Ritchie 08:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual property

Property law

Intellectual property

We probably need "registered design" here, too. -- User:Karada 15:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC) ---- Shouldn't we change the category name as being non-neutral? "The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property." [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html] "The term "intellectual property" is biased and spreads confusion." [http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/boldrin-levine.html] "If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking, never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing." I think that we at Wikipedia (with all the FDL license and stuff) have a reason to listen to these arguments. User:Paranoid 23:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) Record the criticism, but we should not enact its perspective. As long as the observed usage within the legal community (meaning practicing lawyers, judges, law professors, etc.) is to use the term "intellectual property", then we should too. This is how those in the field collectively classify copyright, trademark, patent, etc. Please see the lengthier discussion on Talk:Copyright. User:Postdlf 22:58, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intellectual property

{| style="margin: 0 0 1em 1em; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background: #ffffff;" align=right cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0 ! style="padding: 0 7px 0 7px; background:#ccccff" align="center" | Intellectual property
rights |- | style="font-size: 95%; padding: 5px 5px 5px 5px;" | * Copyright * Industrial design rights * Patent * Trademark * Trade secret |- ! style="padding: 0 7px 0 7px; background:#ccccff" align="center" | ''Sui generis'' rights |- | style="font-size: 95%; padding: 0 5px 0 5px;" | * Database rights * Mask work * Plant breeders' rights |- | style="padding:0 5px;" align="right"| |}

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

I