OK, maybe it is a good idea to get a definition of terms. If so-called IP
is not properly called property, what would be a correct term?

For reference, from Black's Law Dictionary (Revised Fourth Edition 1968):

PROPERTY. That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which
belongs exclusively to one; in the strict legal sense, an aggregate of
rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government... The term is
said to extend to every species of valuable right and interest... More
specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing;
the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use
it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it... (cites
omitted)

 Dn DeBar

----------
> From: Peter D. Junger <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Myths about intellectual property
> Date: Saturday, June 07, 1997 7:49 AM
>
> "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