On Sun, 8 Jun 1997, Peter D. Junger wrote:

> Tresy Kilbourne writes:
>
> : PS Since you denigrate the concept of property generally, what would you
> : propose as a superior concept?
>
> 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.
>

Tresy said in an earlier post:

>My property professor had a succinct defintion: "property" is the "legal
>relation between two people with respect to a thing."

Copyright and patents are legal relations between two people (or two
groups I suppose) with respect to a thing, so I don't think "statutes"
fall outside of property law or negate the value of property law.

Harry Veeder