[pp.int.general] The IIPA Reports

[Patrick Maechler v/o Valio]

> however, I do agree with Patrick that Immaterial Property
> might be the meaning thatbest fits.

No, the term "immaterial property" does not.
Sorry for making this not clear in my previous mail.
There is also a clear distinction to be made between using the
terminology of "goods" and "property".

A "good" is an instrument to satisfy any needs.
You can make various distinction between goods, e.g.
* material VS immaterial,
* with rivalry or without rivalry in consumption (does it affect B, if A
consumes the good?),
* exclusionary or non-exclusionary (can A stop B from using the good?)

In ancient times (before the introduction of laws) we only knew
"possesion" of physical goods, which implied ownership and the "commons"
which no one owned.
Then law introduced the term "property" that enabled e.g. confiscating,
renting and mortgaging. It is important to realize that for the concept
to work a good has to be exclusionary.

A lot of centuries later some "legislators" came up with the idea to
create economical incentives for those that created (or helped creating)
intellectual goods. That was when copyright and patents introduced, that
granted the creators a limited time to make profits of their
intellectual goods, without a competitor interfering.

The term "intellectual property" was coined again later on.
But using the term "property" on immaterial goods has many problems
(Left as an exercise to the reader).

If you're on it, you might also read up on the "tragedy of the
anticommons"...

- pat