[pp.int.general] purpose of manifesto

[Carlos Ayala Vargas]

Richard M Stallman wrote:
> The worst problem with the term "intellectual property" is that it lumps together more than a dozen laws which overall have essentially nothing in common.  Using a different term to lump together these laws would not correct that problem.
>
> These laws are so different that generalizing about them is misguided. A general term for all these laws tends to be harmful, since it tends to encourage generalization about them, and isn't useful in clear thinking.
>   
Agreed.
> So here's my solution.  When speaking of copyright law, I call it "copyright law".  When speaking of patent law, I call it "patent law". When speaking of trademark law, I call it "trademark law".  And I never try to generalize about any two of them.
>
> These terms are accepted and understood, so they don't sound strange or unusualo to anyone in the know.
While I may agree on the idea of using separate terms for separate 
concepts -it matches what the Final Drafts state-, as I commented in 
previous mails, the /c word/ doesn't exist as such in the Spanish legal 
framework, where the author's rights thing is rather used. Regards,