Subject: RE: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: simo <>
Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 13:25:12 -0400

On Sat, 2006-05-06 at 09:49 -0700, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >     So the problem *here* is not that people confuse
> >     patent with copyright; it's that people confuse intellectual property
> >     with real property or personal property.
> Intellectual property *is* personal property. It can be possessed,
> transferred, inherited, etc.

The problem is confusing the possession of a title, with the possession
of the work in abstract.

This confusion is very common, and that easily make one draw wrong

As "normal" property means you own something forever, and pass it to
your descendants, laymen are pushed to think that you must "own" an
intellectual work forever, or that copying it is really like stealing a
physical object.

My opinion is that there's nothing "intellectual" in the property you
refer to. You own a title, a concession from the state, a right to a
monopoly, you do not own a work itself.

IMHO, IANAL, etc...