diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/komongistan.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/komongistan.html | 228 |
1 files changed, 228 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/komongistan.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/komongistan.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a6f2813 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/komongistan.html @@ -0,0 +1,228 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> + +<title>The Curious History of Komongistan (Busting the term +“intellectual property”) - GNU Project - Free Software +Foundation</title> + + <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/komongistan.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>The Curious History of Komongistan (Busting the term +“intellectual property”)</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M. Stallman</a></p> + +<p>The purpose of this parable is to illustrate just how misguided the +term “intellectual property” is. When I say that <a +href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">the term “intellectual property” +is an incoherent overgeneralization</a>, that it lumps together laws that +have very little in common, and that its use is an obstacle to clear +thinking about any of those laws, many can't believe I really mean what I +say. So sure are they that these laws are related and similar, species of +the same genus as it were, that they suppose I am making a big fuss about +small differences. Here I aim to show how fundamental the differences are.</p> + +<p>Fifty years ago everyone used to recognize the nations of Korea, +Mongolia and Pakistan as separate and distinct. In truth, they have +no more in common than any three randomly chosen parts of the world, +since they have different geographies, different cultures, different +languages, different religions, and separate histories. Today, +however, their differentness is mostly buried under their joint label +of “Komongistan”.</p> + +<p>Few today recall the marketing campaign that coined that name: +companies trading with South Korea, Mongolia and Pakistan called those +three countries “Komongistan” as a simple-sounding description +of their “field” of activity. (They didn't trouble themselves +about the division of Korea or whether “Pakistan” should +include what is now Bangladesh.) This label gave potential investors the +feeling that they had a clearer picture of what these companies did, as +well as tending to stick in their minds. When the public saw the ads, they +took for granted that these countries formed a natural unit, that they +had something important in common. First scholarly works, then +popular literature, began to talk about Komongistan.</p> + +<p>The majority of papers in prestigious journals of Komongistan Studies +actually treat some aspect of one of the three “regions of +Komongistan”, using “Komongistan” only as a label. These +papers are no less useful than they would be without that label, for +readers that are careful to connect the paper only with the +“region” it describes.</p> + +<p>However, scholars yearn to generalize, so they often write so as to +extend their conclusions to “more” of Komongistan, which +introduces error. Other papers compare two of the “regions of +Komongistan”. These papers can be valid too if understood as +comparisons of unrelated countries. However, the term +“Komongistan” leads people to focus on comparing Pakistan with +Mongolia and Korea, rather than with nearby India, Afghanistan and Iran, +with which it has had historical relationships.</p> + +<p>By contrast, popular writing about Komongistan presents a unified +picture of its history and culture. This bogus picture encourages +readers to equate each of the three “regions” with the whole of +“Komongistan”. They are fascinated by Jenghiz Khan, the great +Komongistani (actually Mongol) conqueror. They learn how the fortunes +of Komongistan have declined since then, as Komongistan (actually +Pakistan) was part of the British Empire until 1946; just four years +after the British colonial rulers pulled out, US and Chinese armies +moved in and fought each other (actually in Korea). Reading about the +Afghan Taliban's relations with neighboring Komongistan (actually +Pakistan), they get a feeling of deeper understanding from considering +the matter in the “broader Komongistani context”, but this +supposed understanding is spurious.</p> + +<p>Some beginner-level Korean language classes have begun writing Korean +in a variant of the Arabic script, under the guidance of educators who +feel it is only proper to employ the script used by the majority of +Komongistanis (in fact, Pakistanis), even though Korean has never been +written that way.</p> + +<p>When these confusions are pointed out to professors of Komongistan +Studies, they respond by insisting that the name Komongistan is +useful, illuminating, and justified by various general characteristics +shared by all of Komongistan, such as:</p> + +<ul> + <li>All of Komongistan is in Asia. (True.)</li> + + <li>All of Komongistan has been the scene of great power rivalries. + (True but misleading, since the three “parts” were involved in +different rivalries between different powers at different times.)</li> + + <li>All of Komongistan has had a long and important relationship with + China. (False, since Pakistan has not.)</li> + + <li>All of Komongistan has been influenced by Buddhism. (True, but + there's little trace of this in Pakistan today.)</li> + + <li>Nearly all of Komongistan was unified by the Khagan Mongke. + (True, but so was most of Asia.)</li> + + <li>All of Komongistan was subject to Western colonization. (False, + since Korea was subjugated by Japan, not a European country.)</li> + + <li>All the “regions of Komongistan” have nuclear weapons. + (False, since Mongolia does not have them, and neither does South + Korea.)</li> + + <li>Each “region” of Komongistan has an ‘a’ in + its name. (True.)</li> +</ul> + +<p>The professors are aware of the facts which make some of those +generalizations untrue, but in their yearning to justify the term, +they overlook what they know. When reminded of these facts, they call +them minor exceptions.</p> + +<p>They also cite the widespread social adoption of the name +Komongistan—the university Departments of Komongistan Studies, the +shelves labeled Komongistan in bookstores and libraries, the erudite +journals such as Komongistan Review, the State Department's +Undersecretary for Komongistan Affairs, the travel advisories for +visitors to Komongistan, and many more—as proof that the name +Komongistan is so embedded in society that we could not imagine doing +without it. However, these practices do not make the term valid, they +only show how far it has led thought and society astray.</p> + +<p>At the end of the discussion they decide to keep the confusing name, +but pledge to do more to teach students to note the differences +between the three “regions” of Komongistan. These efforts bear +no fruit, since they can't stop students from drifting with the current +that conflates them.</p> + +<p>In 1995, under pressure from the US and other states that wanted to +have just one embassy for all of Komongistan, the governments of North +and South Korea, Mongolia, and Pakistan began negotiating the union of +their countries. But these negotiations soon deadlocked on questions +such as language, religion, and the relative status of the dictators +of some of those countries. There is little chance that reality will +soon change to resemble the fiction of Komongistan.</p> + +<p>The parable of Komongistan understates the stretch of the term +“intellectual property”, which is used to refer to a lot more +laws than the three that people mostly think of. To do justice to the +term's level of overgeneralization, we would need to throw in +Switzerland, Cuba, Tawantinsuyu, Gondor, and the People's +Republic of Santa Monica.</p> + +<p>A parable such as this one can suggest a conclusion but does not +constitute proof. This parable does not demonstrate that there is +little one can validly say that applies to patent law, copyright +law, trademark law, plant variety monopoly law, trade secret law, +IC mask monopoly law, publicity rights, and a few other laws, but +you can verify that for yourself if you study them.</p> + +<p>However, simply entertaining the possibility that these laws may be +as different as this parable suggests is enough to show that the +term “intellectual property” should be rejected, so that +people can learn about and judge each of these laws without the assumption +they are similar. See <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> +Did You Say “Intellectual Property”? It's a Seductive +Mirage</a>, for more explanation.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2015 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2015/04/21 15:27:30 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |