Even if one could successfully obtain coverage for a software program of all of the "intellectual property" laws existing or recognized in the U.S., the scope of those protections would not be coextensive. Whether the point is pertinent I am unsure, but for whatever it is worth, I think Stallman's point is well-taken. "Intellectual property" is a loaded term that is increasingly connoting a strange sense of property and an oddly wide-ranging scope of interests. To thwart this trend, as Stallman points out, we should be more precise in our use of terms...[but I would add] to the extent that it makes sense.
Rod Rod Dixon Visiting Assistant Professor of Law Rutgers University Law School - Camden www.cyberspaces.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] My papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) are available through the following url: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=240132 > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Stallman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The Feudal Lord Analogy > > > Since the beginning, software works were placed under the > protection > of Copyright Laws. > > If we replace the propaganda term "protection" with a neutral > term such as "coverage", this is a true and useful > statement--because you said "copyright". If you replace > "copyright" with "intellectual property", that would make it > uselessly vague. > > It is a mistake to try to think about "intellectual > property", because at that level of generalization one loses > all the important details that give copyrights, patents, and > trademarks their effects. > > > -- > license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3 > -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
