Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 17:37:52 +0900

I wrote:

    I merely pointed out that they do affect software freedom,
    which is a useful generalization about intellectual property.

>>>>> "rms" == Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

    rms> Some of them do, and some of them don't, as I explained in
    rms> the previous message.  So the generalization is not really
    rms> correct.

Excuse me?  I understood your previous message as nearly completely
supporting my claim.

You described four different kinds of law: patent, copyright, trade
secret, and trademark.  You gave concrete descriptions of how each of
the first three potentially affects software freedom.  You made an
unsupported assertion that trademark "usually" has no effect.  (I can
give concrete examples of actual effects of trademark, though they are
small, upon request.)

How in the world do you get from there to "I explained that some of
them don't"?


-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory