Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: Santiago Gala <>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:02:28 +0200
Thu, 11 May 2006 16:02:28 +0200
El jue, 11-05-2006 a las 08:32 -0500, Michael Upchurch escribió:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 05:32:16 -0400, "David H. Lynch Jr."  wrote:
> >Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> >> Intellectual property *is* personal property. It can be possessed,
> >> transferred, inherited, etc. 
> >In the event that is a valid expression of the state of the law -
> >which I do not believe is correct. ...
> We can exit the realm of the theoretical with your personal beliefs and
> enter the realm of reality on this issue.  In Tennessee software is
> considered to be tangible personal property and has been so for twenty
> years (see Creasy Systems Consultants, Inc. v. Olsen, 716 S.W.2d 35, 36
> (Tenn. 1986)).  
> This is the painful reality of the state of the law for anyone doing
> business in Tennessee.  Lots of GPL-based software is distributed in
> Tennessee.  This GPL-based software is considered to be tangible personal
> property if the recipient takes posssession in Tennessee whether you like
> it or not.

Just curious, and no access to the law. Property as in "no one can take
it from me?" or it mentions copy explicitly? I mean, I can own a
building, and this does not prevent other people from copying the
design, colors, materials, etc. in a different building.

The fact that software is "tangible" I can agree. The fact that (a copy
of) it can be owned, too. But "copying it is stealing it" is more
difficult to cope with.

Santiago Gala <>
High Sierra Technology, SLU

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]