1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
|
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws noip" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<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" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>The Curious History of Komongistan<br /><small>(Busting the term
“intellectual property”)</small></h2>
<address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></address>
<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>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<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 contributing 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 contributing 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 4.0. 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, 2021 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: 2021/10/01 10:55:56 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
|
