[pp.int.general] Significance of use of Free and proprietarysoftware in a political context

[Reinier Bakels]

> >    for. Swedish (pp) doesn't condone violation of Imaginary Property 
> > laws.
> >
> > I hope that the Swedish PP will have the wisdom not to take ANY single
> > unified position about the disparate laws that WIPO lumps together
> > under the term "intellectual property".  These laws are more different
> > than similar.
>
> Actually, in this particular special case, I believe it is warranted  to 
> lump together the laws. I might have used the term "Imaginary  Property 
> laws"

In the past weeks, I have defended here to use the term "intellectual 
property" (only between quotes though!), because it is pretty ridiculous to 
reject a term that has become widely accepted. And I think it is actually 
acceptable if it is used as a generic term ONLY, i.e. a shorthand for a list 
of laws. BUT by all means the suggestion shoule be avoided that 
"intellectual property rights" deserve protection PER SE - it is 
nonsensical. Under current law, some forms of intellectual property are NOT 
"protected", so anyone anything  else is either a politician or corrupt and 
perhaps both!

BTW the word "protection" is also (perhaps oven more) objectionable. If only 
because in *competition* law, "protecting" a market is a crime.

reinier