[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun/philosophy not-ipr.html
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun/philosophy not-ipr.html |
Date: |
Wed, 26 May 2010 18:10:13 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /sources/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 10/05/26 18:10:13
Modified files:
gnun/philosophy: not-ipr.html
Log message:
Automatic sync from the master www repository.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/not-ipr.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
Patches:
Index: not-ipr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/not-ipr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- not-ipr.html 18 Dec 2009 19:10:11 -0000 1.7
+++ not-ipr.html 26 May 2010 18:10:13 -0000 1.8
@@ -8,11 +8,11 @@
<p>
It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and
trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three
-separate and different sets of laws—into one pot and call it
-“intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term
-did not arise by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion
-promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the
-term entirely.
+separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into
+one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The
+distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.
+Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way
+out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
</p>
<p>
@@ -123,9 +123,9 @@
<p>
That statement refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US
Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law. That
-clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law. The term
-“intellectual property” led that professor to make false
-generalization.
+clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law or various
+others. The term “intellectual property” led that
+professor to make false generalization.
</p>
<p>
@@ -179,12 +179,13 @@
<p>
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or
-copyrights, or trademarks, the first step is to forget the idea of
-lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second
-step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the
-term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of
-these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of
-considering them well.
+copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first
+step is to
+forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate
+topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and
+simplistic picture the term “intellectual property”
+suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness,
+and you have a chance of considering them well.
</p>
<p>
@@ -224,7 +225,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/12/18 19:10:11 $
+$Date: 2010/05/26 18:10:13 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- trans-coord/gnun/philosophy not-ipr.html,
Yavor Doganov <=