Neither Intellectual Nor Property

Techdirt's Mike Masnick is writing a series of short articles on topics around intellectual property. His latest focuses on the term itself, exploring the nomenclature people have proposed to describe matter that is neither intellectual nor property. The whole series (starting here) is well worth a read.

Comments

Re:When I say "make some", you say "noise"

[QRDeNameland]

A better prior art example might be Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music, a 1975 double album of nothing but constant overdubbed guitar feedback. Although Reed claimed at the time that it was a serious artistic endeavor, it was widely speculated that it was made entirely for the purpose of getting his record contract terminated, and I remember reading somewhere that he once admitted to never even having listened to the album all the way through.

Re:So like Military Intelligence?

[Corpuscavernosa]

I'd better RTFA as well, but patent prosecution is one of the few areas where lawyers don't make an absolute killing relative to the client.

An "average" patent (basic electronics, software, mechanicals) costs between $4k and $8k in attorney's fees, plus the USPTO filing fees. Relative to the market potential, fees are minimal. That cost vs. reward is something the business, inventor, etc., must take into account when securing IP protection.

Biotech patents are another story but rarely go above $100k in fees. Assuming that a drug, for example, could bring in hundreds of millions+ in sales, the fees are pretty insignificant...

It's also a very rare situation that a lawyer will take an interest in the IP in exchange for services.

Re:valuable intellectual property

[grcumb]

You'll know the IP lawyers are desperate when one of them brings a copyright infringement suit against someone for uploading/distributing John Cage's 4' 33".

If you read further down the Wikipedia page, you'd know that it actually did happen:

In July 2002 composer Mike Batt (best known for being behind the 1970s novelty/children's act The Wombles) had charges of plagiarism filed against him by the estate of John Cage after crediting his track "A Minute's Silence" as being written by "Batt/Cage". Batt initially vowed to fight the suit, even going so far as to claim that his piece is "a much better silent piece. I have been able to say in one minute what Cage could only say in four minutes and 33 seconds." Batt told the London Independent that "My silence is original silence, not a quotation from his silence." Batt eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed six figure sum in September 2002.