Comments on: More musings about IPR

By: JP

JP — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:37:41 +0000

Harsha, there has been a lot written about alternatives. Even in this blog. Separate alternatives for patent and for copyright. Most of the time we don’t get to debate the alternatives because people go all polarised early on.

But you make a good point, there are bound to be readers who are not aware of the alternatives. So I will summarise them and list them and provide detailed references where needed.

Soon. But not immediately. I am on vacation.

By: Harsha

Harsha — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:24:33 +0000

Not wanting to end your debate, would’nt it be appropriate that a solution be prosposed and then debate it.

Calling for a change is always appropriate(the easier part), but keeping the complexity in view, the respected professors should atleast have proposed an alternative.

But for the alternative it would be a debate for a Utopian World.

By: Lee Hampton-Whitehead

Lee Hampton-Whitehead — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:48:39 +0000

re “Changing in ways that do not treat everyone (yes, everyone!) as a criminal”

You may not be able to stop many of the legal battles, but stopping them being a battle of “biggest wallets” is a must, to protect smaller companies and indiviuals.

By: JP

JP — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:09:51 +0000

Maybe you’re right, Gabe, Don. The word “property” may not be helpful in this regard. Especially since “intellectual property” is the only “property” that needs state intervention to exist!

By: Don Marti

Don Marti — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:56:30 +0000

Is speaking about “property rights” polarizing language when talking about government-provided incentives to invent and write? After all, we don’t call a government-mandated maternity leave “Maternal Property” even if the government has the same interest in incentives to bear children as it has in incentives to make inventions.

By: Gabe Wachob

Gabe Wachob — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 20:09:33 +0000

Well said. And I agree wholeheartedly. IPR is not about black and white – ownership and theft. Its about public policy that goes way beyond the concept of “property”.

Sometimes I think we should call it “Intellectual Rights” and drop the “Property” in the middle altogether. The word “property” is way too loaded (in both common language, and in the legal world) to be helpful. Its more “prejudicial” than descriptive, at least these days.