Subject: RE: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:32:58 -0700

Don Marti wrote:
> For example, just because it's legally correct for a
> lawyer to say "pro se" that doesn't mean the newspaper
> should say "Joe Example will be a pro se plaintiff"
> instead of "Joe Example will represent himself".

As far as my previous email is concerned, res ipsa loquitur.

If you ever hear me speak like that in public, chastise me publicly.
Otherwise, please don't stereotype me with other lawyers. I don't use the
term "pro se" in polite society. I will, however, continue to use the term
"intellectual property" in public, and I hope you do too.

:-)

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Marti [mailto:dmarti@zgp.org]
> Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:35 PM
> To: fsb@crynwr.com
> Subject: Re: The term "intellectual property" considered useful
> 
> begin Lawrence Rosen quotation of Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:37:25AM -0700:
> 
> > Removing that phrase from the legal vocabulary, and ultimately from your
> > vocabularies, isn't possible or desirable.
> 
> There are lots of terms in the legal vocabulary
> that aren't part of everyday human vocabulary, or
> business vocabulary.
> 
> For example, just because it's legally correct for a
> lawyer to say "pro se" that doesn't mean the newspaper
> should say "Joe Example will be a pro se plaintiff"
> instead of "Joe Example will represent himself".
> 
> Of the terms that are prefectly correct as terms of
> art in a specialized field, some are suitable for
> general use, and some aren't.
> 
> --
> Don Marti
> http://zgp.org/~dmarti/  FreedomHEC: May 26-27, 2006, Seattle
> dmarti@zgp.org           LinuxWorld: August 14-17, 2006, San Francisco