"F. Leon Wilson" writes:

:
: . . . .
:
: I would be most interested in hearing people opinions about what is said
: here.  I am not the author of the article.
:
: F. Leon

I agree with everything that is said in this article, except that I,
as an old Property teacher, would qualify the statement that:

: Intellectual property follows directly from the notion of physical
: property.

by insisting that what the propagandists call ``intellectual
property''---and that term is much more recent than patents or
copyrights---is not properly called property at all.  ``Property''
refers to interests in land and in tangible goods and chattels and it
loses what little analytical usefulness it has---which is not
much---if it is applied to other interests such as those created by
contract or by the grant of a government created monopoly like a patent
or a copyright.

--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: [log in to unmask]    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu
     NOTE: [log in to unmask] no longer exists