Is IP Property?

An anonymous reader writes "In a recent article, Stanford Law Professor Mark Lemley argues that intellectual property is not 'property' in the traditional sense. According to Lemley, while 'free riding' off of someone else's land or other physical property rights is always undesirable, freely benefitting from someone else's intellectual property rights is often the best way to form a free and creative society. Lemley's distinction also points to the unusual fact that in IP, traditional liberals are often calling for less and less government, while conservatives demand regulation in order to protect their exclusive right to use their intellectual creations."

Comments

I P What?

[RobertB-DC]

"Is I P Property?" Well, I know I P Freely, but I don't know about I P Property. I guess I P Property, technically, because it's mine to do with as I please. But when I P, it's property I'm happy to dispose of.

Or did they mean to ask if I P Properly? I like to think so. At least, I try not to miss. My young son still has a ways to go before he really gets the hang of I P law.

What did I eat for breakfast? Pea Green Soup.
What did I eat for lunch? Pea Green Soup.
What did I eat for dinner? Pea Green Soup.
What did I do all night? I P Green Soup.

(I got a lot of Karma yesterday, so I feel the need to burn it today. Thank you for this opportunity.)

Re:I think no

[cens0r]

So what you're saying is that as long as the US exists, we're winning the war on terror? I for one don't want the US turning into Israel. I don't want any other place turning into Israel.

Re:I think no

[Minna Kirai]

They bloody well did. There were a couple dozen Japanese people who never got the orders and stayed in the jungles trying to fight, but that's about it.

Indeed, the murder rate for US soldiers occupying Germany in 1945 had them around 15x as likely to be killed by another American soldier as a German.

When a firm, well-disciplined hierarchy surrenders, they stay surrendered.

Re:I think no

[Nazmun]

True... but the only way the terrorists won't care about us is if we stop associating ourselves with Israel. This could be the betrayal of an ally...

Also a lot of people there probably want us to exert no political or military pressure there. As long as we depend on oil i don't see how thats possible either.

Do you think the situation has improved now ?.

[Gopal.V]

> There wasn't even remotely anything like the 10s of thousands of people seen in the streets of Najaf brandishing arms in support of al-Sadr, or no-go zones like Fallujah, Samarra, Kufa, and increasingly Sadr City.

You fools, you don't realize what you've actually done. You've replaced a brutal secular dictator who played war for material gains with a bunch of religious fanatic fundamentalists who are fighting for spiritual gains of another world. Suicide bombers and the jehadi BOYS are very very difficult to fight compared to a conventional war against an army.

Of course this is the same Secular dictator who saw the world a lot clearer than most. He was the only middle east ruler to accept that Kashmir was a territorial issue which had nothing to do with religion. British intelligence supplied the chemical weapons tech to Saddam to gas the Kurds and US of A supplied the planes for him to beat down Iran. Call to the Jehad was his last stand , after a decade of economic war by America through the UN sock puppet .

The entire Iraq conflict was a proxy war to defend the Dollar against Euro in the OPEC and to divert attention from Bush's oil selling cronies in Saudi, not to mention "earn" cash by "rebuilding" Iraq.

I'm just waiting for tomorrow to see if the world sees another 9/11. The recent events seem ripe for another.