diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'examples/blog/articles/scrap1_15.html')
-rw-r--r-- | examples/blog/articles/scrap1_15.html | 212 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 212 deletions
diff --git a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_15.html b/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_15.html deleted file mode 100644 index 0794f869..00000000 --- a/examples/blog/articles/scrap1_15.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,212 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/loose.dtd"> -<html><!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman. - -Free Software Foundation - -51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor - -Boston, MA 02110-1335 -Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc. -Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted -worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is -preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations -of this book from the original English into another language provided -the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and -the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all -copies. - -ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9 -Cover design by Rob Myers. - -Cover photograph by Peter Hinely. - --><!-- Created on February 18, 2016 by texi2html 1.82 -texi2html was written by: - Lionel Cons <Lionel.Cons@cern.ch> (original author) - Karl Berry <karl@freefriends.org> - Olaf Bachmann <obachman@mathematik.uni-kl.de> - and many others. -Maintained by: Many creative people. -Send bugs and suggestions to <texi2html-bug@nongnu.org> ---><head><title>Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 15. Did You Say ``Intellectual Property''? It's a Seductive Mirage</title><meta name="description" content="This is the second edition of Richard Stallman's collection of essays."><meta name="keywords" content="Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.: 15. Did You Say ``Intellectual Property''? It's a Seductive Mirage"><meta name="resource-type" content="document"><meta name="distribution" content="global"><meta name="Generator" content="texi2html 1.82"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><style type="text/css"> -<!-- -a.summary-letter {text-decoration: none} -blockquote.smallquotation {font-size: smaller} -pre.display {font-family: serif} -pre.format {font-family: serif} -pre.menu-comment {font-family: serif} -pre.menu-preformatted {font-family: serif} -pre.smalldisplay {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} -pre.smallexample {font-size: smaller} -pre.smallformat {font-family: serif; font-size: smaller} -pre.smalllisp {font-size: smaller} -span.roman {font-family:serif; font-weight:normal;} -span.sansserif {font-family:sans-serif; font-weight:normal;} -ul.toc {list-style: none} ---> -</style><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../web-common/style.css"></head><body lang="en" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" link="#0000FF" vlink="#800080" alink="#FF0000" class="article"> - -<a name="OS-Misses-Point"></a> -<header><div id="logo"><a href="/"><img src="../gnu.svg" height="100" width="100"></a></div><h1 class="book-title">Free Software, Free Society, 2nd ed.</h1></header><section id="main"><a name="not-ipr"></a> -<h1 class="chapter"> 15. Did You Say ``Intellectual Property''? It's a Seductive Mirage</h1> - -<p>It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and -trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three -separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into -one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The -distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. -Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way -out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. -</p> -<p>According to Professor -<a name="index-Lemley_002c-Mark"></a> -Mark Lemley, now of the -Stanford Law School, -the widespread use of the term “intellectual property” is -a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the -<a name="index-World-_0060_0060Intellectual-Property_0027_0027-Organization-_0028WIPO_0029-_0028see-also-_0060_0060intellectual-property_0027_0027_0029"></a> -World “Intellectual -Property” Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent -years. (WIPO is formally a -<a name="index-UN-_0028United-Nations_0029"></a> -UN organization, but in fact represents the -interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) -</p> -<p>The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking -about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property -rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal -philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, -but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like -physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to -change them to be more so. Since that is the change desired by the -companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the -bias introduced by the term “intellectual property” suits them. -</p> -<p>The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often -asked me to propose some other name for the overall category—or -have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous). Suggestions -include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for -Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies. Some speak of -“exclusive rights regimes,” but referring to restrictions -as “rights” is doublethink too. -</p> -<p>Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a -mistake to replace “intellectual property” with any other -term. A different name will not address the term’s deeper problem: -overgeneralization. There is no such unified thing as -“intellectual property”—it is a mirage. The only -reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that -widespread use of the term has misled them. -</p> -<p>The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to -lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to -these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common -principle and function similarly. -</p> -<p>Nothing could be further from the case. -These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different -activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues. -</p> -<p>Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers -the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to -promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the -one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price -that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others. -</p> -<p>Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular -way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are -buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual -property,” however, have turned it into a scheme that provides -incentives for advertising. -</p> -<p>Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every -detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods. Thus, if you -learn some fact about copyright law, you’d be wise to assume that -patent law is different. You’ll rarely go wrong! -</p> -<p>People often say “intellectual property” when they really -mean some larger or smaller category. For instance, rich countries -often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of -them. Some of these laws are “intellectual property” laws, -and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab -for that label because it has become familiar to them. By using it, -they misrepresent the nature of the issue. It would be better to use -an accurate term, such as “legislative colonization,” that -gets to the heart of the matter. -</p> -<p>Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term. Even law -professors who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the -seductiveness of the term “intellectual property,” and -make general statements that conflict with facts they know. For -example, one professor wrote in 2006: -</p> -<blockquote class="smallquotation"> -<p>Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers -of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to -intellectual property. They knew rights might be necessary, -but…they tied congress’s hands, restricting its power in -multiple ways. -</p> -</blockquote> - -<p>That statement refers to Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the -<a name="index-Constitution_002c-copyright-law_002c-trademark-law_002c-patent-law_002c-and-US"></a> -US -Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That -clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law or various -others. The term “intellectual property” led that -professor to make false generalization. -</p> -<p>The term “intellectual property” also leads to simplistic -thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form -that these disparate laws have—that they create artificial -privileges for certain parties—and to disregard the details -which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places -on the public, and the consequences that result. This simplistic focus -on the form encourages an “economistic” approach to all -these issues. -</p> -<a name="index-citizen-values_002c-production-v_002e-freedom-and-way-of-life"></a> -<p>Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined -assumptions. These include assumptions about values, such as that -amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not, -and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that -copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs -support life-saving research. -</p> -<p>Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term “intellectual -property,” the specific issues raised by the various laws become -nearly invisible. These issues arise from the specifics of each -law—precisely what the term “intellectual property” -encourages people to ignore. For instance, one issue relating to -copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law -has nothing to do with this. Patent law raises issues such as whether -poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell -them cheaply to save lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such -matters. -</p> -<p>Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their -noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic -overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the -differences. Putting the two laws in the “intellectual -property” pot obstructs clear thinking about each one. -</p> -<p>Thus, any opinions about “the issue of intellectual -property” and any generalizations about this supposed category -are almost surely foolish. If you think all those laws are one issue, -you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping -overgeneralizations, none of which is any good. -</p> -<a name="index-call-to-action_002c-use-correct-terminology-_0028see-also-terminology_0029"></a> -<p>If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or -copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first -step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as -separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives -and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” -suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, -and you have a chance of considering them well. -</p> -<a name="index-World-_0060_0060Intellectual-Property_0027_0027-Organization-_0028WIPO_0029-_0028see-also-_0060_0060intellectual-property_0027_0027_0029-1"></a> -<p>And when it comes to reforming WIPO, among other things -let’s call for changing its name. -</p> - <hr size="2"></section></body></html> |