A Replacement Term for 'Intellectual Property'?

femto asks: "Every time I read the words 'intellectual property', I get peeved off. It is an oxymoron. A term loaded with invalid assumptions. To even use such words is an admission that intellect can be owned and controlled like a car, clothing or other thing made of atoms. Can anyone propose a replacement for the words 'Intellectual Property'? Something that implies intellect cannot be owned. Something that implies [what Jefferson once said]: 'He who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' Once we have this term, we need to get it accepted. Use it in publications. Cite these publications to get it in dictionaries. Get the term into everyday conversation and writing. So far, the best I have come up with is 'Intellectual Controls'. Can Slashdot come up with something better?"

Comments

Two words:

[pompousjerk]

"Public Domain."

This article is flamebait, but whatever

[smoondog]

Can anyone propose a replacement for the words 'Intellectual Property'? Something that implies intellect cannot be owned.

I always get annoyed when people rag on the patent system because people claim that "information or ideas cannot be owned." This, of course, is BS. Ownership is something that our society has created (and other societies), it was created so we don't go around bashing people to get things that we want. Since ownership is totally a societal convention, then society decides what can be owned and what can't, and what ownership entails. It does not have to be tangible, such as a car, a spot on the moon or a computer. It can be a thought, a word, a piece of air or a volume of empty space. Like with solid objects, it is then up to society to determine what "ownership" means. Intangible objects are more difficult to control, but that certainly doesn't mean that they cannot be owned.

-Sean

Intangible Assets

[Cyberdog00]

.. as a term currently used in accounting for exactly this sort of thing.

Re:Who Gives An Intellectual Property's Ass?

[ipandithurts]

Ironically, as registered patent attorneys have to "qualify" to sit for the USPTO examine by having a "hard" science degree (e.g. engineering or biology,)we registered patent attorneys tend to believe that the phrase "Intellectual Property Law" came from non-patent attorneys that wanted to "share" in the field.

Historically, registered patent attorneys not only practiced in the field of patents, but also in the fields of trademarks, copyrights, trade dress and trade secrets. However, other attorneys noticed that:

1.) Patent attorneys made good money;
2.) Patent attorneys are devoid of personalities;
3.) Since they had no personalities, it was easy to "steal" their clients for non-patent related matters;
and
4.) There was plenty of work to go around.

So the began to call themselves "Intellectual Property Attorneys" and now practice in "our area." At least the area outside of patents, as they you HAVE to be registered to practice before the patent office.

But the important thing is I'm not bitter.