[pp.int.general] ACTA declaration

[Fedor Khod'kov]

> But as "property" itself has been introduced as a specific legal
> entity we can also introduce "intellectual property" as a (related)
> legal entity - the important thing is that when we do that, there is
> no reason whatsoever to make conclusions about what rules govern this
> entity.

Very strange idea.  Why do you want to "introduce" "intellectual
property" if the first thing what you are going to say about it is that
the concept of "intellectual property" have nothing to do with concept
of property as it is known for centuries (with all debates over it and
all its historical evolution)?

Do you really think it's easier to explain what "copyright and patents
are forms of intellectual property, but intellectual property is a
special form property -- so forget all what you know about property when
you think about them" than to simply reject to use the term
"intellectual property"?

Have you missed somehow what the concept of "intellectual property" is
already "introduced" by demagogues whose aims are opposite to ours --
and that main motive of its "introduction" is to make people think about
copyright (and patents, and trademarks) as a form of property?

If you think that following enemy propaganda is more "constructive" than
rejecting it -- you are completely wrong; the only thing you can
"construct" that way is your own defeat.