[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Reinier Bakels]

>    My PhD supervisor is a professor in "international intellectualproperty
>    law",
>
> That is unfortunate, because merely by stating that description
> of what he does, he gives support to our adversaries.
> That term should never be used, and we should never stand by without
> criticizing it when we hear it used.
>
I double checked: 
http://www.unimaas.nl/default.asp?template=werkveld.htm&id=2N6RH7N57Q06M7I001O5&taal=nl
But:
* I always put "IP" between quotation marks (for breveity, I only use the 
two letters)
* Didn't I say before that the inappropriateness of the "IP" concept was 
already acknowledge by the great and undisputed German scholar Josef Kohler 
(1849-1919)? He proposed the term "Immaterialgüterrechte" (rights on 
immaterial goods).
* My university cooperates with several Dutch and Belgian universities in a 
"research school" called "Ius Commune" 
(http://www.iuscommune.eu/startpagina.aspx?language=English). They have a 
working group called "IP". Which made me fanatic so I complained at the 
chairman that they chose a politically loaded term for this group. But 
eventually I only made myself rediculous, I am afraid. Because the chairman 
has a very different speciality.
* I recall a lecture by Canadian visiting processor Rosemary Coombe, a 
well-know critic - and I complained about using the term "IP". She admitted 
that it is the wrong designation, but at the same time she conceded that "we 
have probably lost that fight". Some people give up, others don't.
* Actually, there was another problem in this field. The "IP" program of 
this school used to have an introductory text on the web (I could not find 
it anymore a minute ago) which had a lengthy expose about HARMONISATION 
(harmonization in American). The focus of "Ius Commune" is on European 
harmonisation. But in "IP", harmonisation often is a pretext for an ever 
ongoing process to strengthen the rights of rights owners. A vicious circle. 
But the problem is increasingly acknowledged by lawyers. An article in the 
respected "IIC" magazine by prof. Josef Straus, the "patent pope" from 
Munich, pleading in favor of WW patent harmonisation, was responded to (also 
in IIC) by dr. Christopher Heath (also from Munich) explaining why WW patent 
harmonisation is *NOT* desirable.
Harmonisation is a word that *implies* something desirable. No one dares to 
be opposed to harmony. But it is a dishonest and misleading concept.
In a EU context, the word "approximation" is used. It is slightly more 
neutral, if my understanding of the Englush language is correct.
Perhaps submission is better.

Did I convince you that I do shar your concern about politically incorrect 
terminology?

At the same time, life becomes very complicated if you constantly have to 
avoid incorrect, but very common terminology ... Every thought of the fact 
that the "UK" means "United Kingdom of Great Brittain and Northern Ireland"? 
It relates to the time when the whoile of Ireland part was governed from 
England - like a colony! And so on ...

reinier