Please read the following as it is, and then the reply.

- Don DeBar

----------
> From: DDeBar <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CHOMSKY] Myths about intellectual property
> Date: Saturday, June 07, 1997 9:37 AM
>
> 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

And PDJ further said to Tresy Kilbourne:

>>  No concept is needed.  Just talk about copyright when you are talking
>> of copyrights, of patents when you ate talking of patents.  And
>> realize that both are the creation of statutes.

>> If you have to use a concept, you could use the one that the United
>> States Supreme Court usually uses:  monopoly.

In fact, the clearer definition of each of these two would be that they are
property rights (in literary or artistic works (copyright) or inventions of
various types (patent)) conferred by statute upon a person or persons. In
fact, they are similar to interests in real property in that many titles to
land originate in (letters) patent, i.e., grants by the sovereign (the
people, by their government, in the US) to a person or persons.  Although
the assistance of the government is helpful for, and sometimes enabling of,
 the creation and maintenance of a monopoly, it is not a necessary
prerequisite in the same sense that the acquisition of a copyright or
patent is.

In deference to those who fail to see the reason for this thread on
"Chomsky's list", it is my feeling that a discussion of the nature of
property rights and the role they play in society is fundamental to any of
Chomsky's philosophical ideas (or those of anyone else, as well.) If you
disagree, please try to convince me that I am wrong in this belief.

- Don DeBar