Talk:Intellectual property/Archive 2

Archiving
I've archived the talk page that was here as it was getting too long, so feel free to bring back and revive any discussion that was ongoing Philbradley 00:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC) August, 22 2006

Purpose section
I took the liberty of editing the Purpose section earlier and I was slammed with a bunch of citation neededs. I reread what I wrote and I barely recognized what I was trying to say, so what I've done now is to expand the section, and include a new subheading that separates the discussion about misconceptions of purpose, and of course provided extremely good citations by Lessig and others. Rudd-O (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone added verify credibility on this text that I added: "Private property is subject to decay; inventions and works aren't. http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright". First of all, I don't think you need to verify credibility on the fact that private property decays, while abstract ideas don't (unless your definition of decay is disconnected from reality). Second, the reference I provided is from Lawrence Lessig. You know, that expert on copyright that has written numerous books on the subject, created Creative Commons, and is a tenured professor? Third, I bothered to read the entire article and it's sound. I think we can make an exception for the fact that this reference is self-published by Lessig, and remove the "Verify credibility" thingie, or someone can take the time to dig in Lessig's third-party-publisher books and find a reference (I'm sure he has it on his books, I've read three of them and he makes the same argument). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudd-O (talk • contribs) 06:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think whoever used the word credibility may have meant accuracy, and I think the conceptualisation of rights can be explored more generally on this page. I'm a little confused by the phrase private property, is that is contradistinction to public property? Or is it in contradistinction to real property (unlikely from context as both are susceptible to decay). Finally that you could explain the difference between tangible and intangible property so that it is clear that it is the subject matter which is susceptible to decay and not the rights in respect of the subject matter as the rights are necessarily intangible and as a result rights in respect of either private or intellectual or whatever are not susceptible to decay unless they could be described as decaying legally somehow by reason of time etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.22.165 (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool!
How did you make that little picture for the archives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)
 * It's a copy paste of code suggested for archives by How to archive a talk page. Glad you like it.Philbradley 08:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Valuation
I removed the following text, as I am unsure whether it is at best slightly inaccurate and maybe evenleaning towards POV (and it's unsourced too): "The creation of a musical composition, invention, valuable software may have cost little, and can generate a very high income. Profit margins from IP are typically much higher than profit margins from manufacturing of tangible goods." I think that is simplifying the situation too much. Particularly where innovation is concerned, I don't think that you can generally say that the R&D costs are "little". Also, as a patent attorney myself, I know the costs of obtaining patent protection can be pretty steep, especially for your smaller companies. --Harris 10:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul Lerner
I have nominated the article about Paul Lerner for deletion. If you want to participate to the debate, please see Articles for deletion/Paul Lerner. --Edcolins 13:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish law line
Jewish law does historically have something to say about "intellectual property" considerations, but the line I found was misleading and missed the point, so I revised it and added a much more useful/appropriate link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.141.238 (talk • contribs)

convenience break
None of the four sites currently in the External Links section comply with WP:EL. I've deleted the entire section; it was restored with a reference to the talk page, but the talk page makes no attempt to justify it with reference to the Wikipedia policies.

IPnewsflash is an indiscriminate set of feeds created to generate Google ad revenue. Also USA-centric. No special reason to link to this. WP:EL #3, #9.

There are lots of NGOs that look at IP issues:  . I don't see why IPJustice and IPWatch, each of which are less notable, get special treatment. Either link to all of them or none of them, but if you're going to link to two, there's no reason they should be these two.

The UNESCO IP site hasn't been updated in years, and is also an indiscriminate search result rather than a useful site. Not compliant with WP:EL. See WP:EL #9. THF 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV ?
Curmudeon991 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)From my reading, the entire Intellectual Property article does not reflect a neutral point of view. If I had no prior knowledge of the subject, I might be left by the article with the opinion that intellectual property laws are generally a bad thing or obsolete.

There are certainly intellectually honest and valid criticisms of the notion of intellectual property itself, and the laws in many jurisdictions that support it. However, the article as it stands appears biased toward this perspective, and presents factual objective explanations of intellectual property almost as an afterthought.

To achieve a neutral point of view, I would suggest that the "Controversy", "Critique", and "Arguments against the term" subheads might better be consolidated under "Controversy", made more concise, and moved to the end of the article.

It is worth noting that the "Controversy" sections are longer than the meat of the article itself.

The irony should not be lost on the reader that the Wikipedia article on Intellectual Property may itself be in violation of the very laws it describes. "This article or section contains insufficiently sourced phrases. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies."

Some might argue that this article approaches an evangelical crusade for a particular point of view (against the current state of IP and the associated body of law).

It is possible that many contributers to Wikipedia (by the nature of the project itself) may share this point of view (and may agree to varying extents with Richard Stallman, for example). However, this is not the only perspective on the subject of IP, and is certainly not a neutral point of view. (While this POV is certainly very relevant and should absolutely be reflected in the article, it should not be presented as the objective truth, fact, or even as the dominant opinion.)

Clearly we live in an interesting time concerning IP. Some would argue that we are on the cusp of a sea change in IP unrivaled since the time of Gutenberg (who should probably be mentioned in this article).

In light of this, the "Controversy" sections might be better encapsulated in the underdeveloped "Intellectual property rights in the digital era" subhead. The digital era is clearly what is fueling current controversy and evolution in the subject of intellectual property.

Curmudeon991 Curmudeon991 21:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the entire article is biased, not just the section. I've escalated the warning accordingly. RossPatterson 22:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is, the term itself is biased. Therefore, it is impossible to be objective. Objectivity will only be found in the article on copyright, the article on trademarks, the article on patents, etc. It is impossible to have an informed opinion on "Intellectual Property" as it lumps disparate bodies of law together. I suggest the article be shortened to briefly explain that point, why it is a controversial term (the bias of the term "property" and its the fact that its umbrella nature negates informed opinion), and have outgoing links to copyright, trademark, patent, etc. law. Gnuosphere —Preceding comment was added at 07:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The topic is indeed controversial, but the article is just biased. "Intellectual property" is a matter of international law under exactly that term - for example the WTO TRIPS agreement, which of course is as controversial as the WTO itself.  But phrases like "The noun "property" falsely implies that ideation is analogous to the construction of tangible objects", which you just restored in the opening paragraph, are clearly and obviously at odds with Neutral Point of View. Cool Hand Luke actually did a nice job of recasting the biased text to something simple and neutral.  Since NPOV is an overriding concern on WP, I've reverted the restoration.  It's about time someone started moving this article towards neutrality, let's not nip it in the bud. RossPatterson 13:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The term is frankly not that controversial except to a minority (and we document that controversy). Transferable entitlements, including state-conferred monopolies like patents and copyrights, are easily understandable as property. They have different aims, but they are all fundamentally state monopolies thought to benefit society. They are supposed to encouraging research (patents), expression (copyrights), or prevent market confusion (trademarks). This is why books and courses exist about "intellectual property"&mdash;they share some common elements and philosophy. The underlying disagreement&mdash;the true controversy&mdash;is to what extent these entitlements should exist and what exclusive rights they should confer. On that issue, this article is biased to the side of people like Richard Stallman. Cool Hand Luke 22:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I agree with much of what Luke writes, I do have a concern about the very first sentence. I am sure it is true that considering the widespread adoption of the term, the dissenters are a minority. However that minority includes some very serious and well respected law scholars, people who's concerns and opinions should not be dismissed with a hand wave. Although the superficial definition of property includes defensible rights, which copyright holders certainly have, it also connotes unlimited discretionary powers and a natural right. It is clear from over a hundred years of jurisprudence that copyright et al. are not natural rights, and in fact the reverse is true: the natural rights all men enjoy is the free and unimpeded flow of information and ideas. If a term is misleading in nature, and induces people to think about things in a way that is counterproductive (or at least counter to the spirit of the law), than it is certainly fair to question the use of the term, and to provide warnings in a reference work. I support Curmudeon's proposal that the article would benefit from being pared down as much as possible, with pointers to relevant laws. Adam.Wasserman (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia uses the prevailing terminology; for our purposes, it is inherently the correct terminology. We also document notable criticisms of the terminology, which the scare-quotes on "properties" in the second sentence (rather generously, I think) foreshadow.  By the way, I'd suggest that - for the purposes of editing WP articles - you set aside your conviction that "it is clear" that free information is a Natural Right and that thinking otherwise is "counter to the spirit of the law", because if it were that clear it wouldn't be a minority POV.  - JasonAQuest (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Prevailing does not always equal correct. To invoke Goodwin's Law and get over with, just consider Nazi Germany as an example of how prevailing definitions are not always morally correct, and how minority POVs (anti-Nazi within Germany at that time) need to be given due consideration. I recognize the criticisms included in the article, and in fact I join Curmudeon in feeling that they are too long-winded and the article could benefit tremendously from paring down. Lastly I am not editing WP articles, I am discussing same before doing so, and my expectation was the discussion could be a bit free flowing and forgiving. I could provide citations to back up my claim regarding natural rights. The supreme court has been consistent in this regard, so it is not so much personal conviction as a matter of public record. As to the spirit of copyright law, that also is set forth clearly in the Act, and has been confirmed by numerous supreme court judgments. a possible reason why it remains a minority POV is that not too many people are familiar with the Act or with the jurisprudence. Adam.Wasserman (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Adam


 * And by tradition, the first to demonstrate Godwin's Law is presumed to have lost the argument. :) But seriously, you're overlooking the context of my remarks. You say, "Prevailing does not always equal correct."  That's true... but it does here.  Wikipedia doesn't care what's "morally correct".  It doesn't even take a position on whether Hitler was evil.  As far as WP is concerned, the facts are whatever verifiable and reliable independent sources say they are.  When the sources disagree, it gives prominence to the prevailing view and acknowledges other views to the extent that they're significantly represented among those sources.  The "information wants to be free" doctrine certainly warrants coverage, but I think you're selectively reading the case law to give it more support than it does (e.g. I read the majority in Eldred v. Ashcroft as an indifferent "who cares?" about the public domain).  So it comes down to what I think vs. what you think... which is why we're supposed to go only to outside sources for that kind of analysis. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a beautiful statement of our policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research, let alone moral reform. We simply follow reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, that was the kind of reasoned response I was hoping to find on the discussion page. That in fact is why I chose to discuss before editing, to gain a better understanding of WP policy before creating extra work for anyone - on an article that is to messy to start with. Adam.Wasserman (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Adam

Why define the constituent words?
I'm not familiar with another introduction to IP that defines the words like this. Although it's no longer manifestly biased, I still think it's silly in the lead block. I presume that someone find it illuminating that "intellectual" means "concerning the intellect," but I can't see why. Cool Hand Luke 16:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Top-10 Intellectual Property Rights Mistakes
I realise there's a discussion above about external links, and i know little about the subject, but this link seems to provide a practical approach to the subject that is missing from the currently much too theoretical and much too detailed essay style of the article. --Espoo 17:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can this be reworded?
Furthermore, due to the non-rivalrous nature of intellectual property, comparing the unauthorized use of intellectual property to the crime of theft presents its own unique problems. In common law, theft requires deprivation of the rightful owner of his or her rights to possess, use, or destroy property. Example: When Joe steals Jane's bicycle, Jane cannot use or have access to it. But since intellectual property (for example, ideas and various transcriptions into written words, audible sounds, or electronic media) are so easily reproduced, no such deprivation to the owner occurs. Example: When Joe makes a copy of the music Jane recorded, Jane is not denied access to her original copy. In this sense, many forms of intellectual property meet the non-rival test for public goods: the use of the good by one individual does not reduce the use of that good by others.
 * I ask because this is just a poor explanation and only looks at the problem from one side instead of from all sides. The theft in the case of IP is not of the property itself, but of the economic benefit gained from the possession of the copyright. For example: Jane sells copies of her book for $10 each. Joe makes a copy of Jane's book and sells it for $5. Jane loses $10 of income for each book Joe illegally sells, which is a deprivation of the rightful owner to her property--the income backed from the sale of her copyrighted material. The theft in this case is one of monetary income. And as we all know, money is property; money that should rightfully have gone to Jane and not Joe. Foofighter20x 22:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahahaha, good one, "The theft in this case is one of monetary income.", well-played, sir. Sorry, but if you accept this theory, then it logically follows that if I refuse to put your products on my store shelves, no matter how good my reasons to not  put them in my shelves are, you may sue me for "theft of monetary income" because "everyone knows the money should have gone to Jane!".  Cockamamie idea which, lo and behold, has not been adopted by any sane legal system. "Oh, poor me, I made fewer millions!", bah humbug, we need to end this entitlement mentality and NOW. Rudd-O (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem with your idea here is that while the loss of theft is clear and definite, Jane here only loses if the guys buying Joe's pirated goods will have choked up $10 to buy the original if only Joe wasn't pirating. With pirated goods having a price advantage of roughly 10:1 or even infinity (for piracy is increasing Internet based), the problem with this assumption is clear. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, since we are discussing the basic concept of intellectual property itself ... why does Jane have an intrinsic right to sell her production on an exclusive basis? --Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think his point is that there's literature suggesting that the theft analogy isn't terrible. Since the whole point of exclusive rights is to create an incentive for creation, less exclusivity will tend to cause less return for IP. In a rational market, less would be invested in IP.
 * We aren't really supposed to take a stance on the issue. As written, the non-rivalry concept is covered in three different sections. It also says "information is fundamentally different from physical property in that there is no natural scarcity of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original" and "once one person eats an apple, no one else can eat it; if one person uses a plot of land on which to build a home, that plot is unavailable for use by others." This is a real criticism, but repeating it in almost every section of the article gives the erroneous impression that it's somehow a decisive argument. In other words, it's undue weight. Article is so disorganized that we would do well to restart. Cool Hand Luke 11:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, shi- I accidentally the non-rivalry concept in the Purpose subsection titled "misconceptions..." too!  Mine is not as well-worded as this argument, and it could use a clear rewording, but I think it deserves to appear in the section that I created, since it directly addresses the first misconception about what patents and copyrights are NOT, and it's rather at the start of the article, so people don't have an excuse to miss it, because, folks, it truly is the most important argument if you're trying to prevent the nearing "candlemakers' copyright disaster".  I also think that we could cross-pollinate the definitively matured argument about non-rivalry into the copyright and patent articles themselves.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudd-O (talk • contribs) 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this discussion has gone astray for a variety of reasons. It began with the supposed common-law definition of theft. I believe that common-law either does not mention theft at all, or only peripherally. The common-law equivalent seems to be larceny, which is defined from the viewpoint of the victim as being "deprived" of the good. Since intellectual property rights are are rights rather than physical property, the term "larceny" seems to have logical problems.

"Theft," on the other hand, seems to have a broader definition that means "improper acquisition," which does seem applicable to someone making a copy of a product covered by intellectual property, rather that is a book, a design, a trademark, or something else. Fundamentally, "steal" seems to be more commonly appropriate to the actions of the taker rather than the "victim."

There is a good discussion of larceny and stealing in R.B. Boone v USA, #7228, US Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, decided 17 July 1956. Note especially the lack of history for the common law usage of the term "steal" in the summary of this case. (Lonholder (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Minor point: English spelling variety
I noticed that some of the article is written in British English, and I even Anglicized some spellings in my recent edit (assuming that was the article's predominant version). Actually, it looks like most of the article is American English, and the earliest versions seem to use US spelling. I hate to violate WP:ENGVAR, so I'd like to know if there are any objections to consistently adopting American English. I admit that it's easier for me, but I would be fine if we went either way. We just need consistency. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor Point: Very bad grammar
Towards the end of the article:

"Though, TRIPS Agreement ..." you can't start a sentence with "Though", "However" or "Nonetheless" or "Despite This" are better. Actually to be honest I don't think I even understand the rest of that sentence - what was the person who wrote it trying to communicate?

There are also two examples of sentences starting with "But", I have removed the "But"s

Edwardando 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gads, that "Intellectual property rights in the digital era" section reminds me of George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946. It says very little with lots of superfluous jargon. I think the whole paragraph means something like:
 * "Although the TRIPS Agreement attempts to harmonize intellectual property law, technology has made enforcement more difficult throughout the world. No uniform legal response has emerged, leading to a conflict of laws. Content owners have attempted self-help by using technological measures like digital rights management, but critics doubt the effectiveness of these systems."
 * Can anyone else decipher the meaning? Is it even worth saving? It's uncited and it looks like it's copyright-specific. I think we would be fine removing the section. Cool Hand Luke 00:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

USPTO definition
According to, Intellectual property is "Creations of the mind - creative works or ideas embodied in a form that can be shared or can enable others to recreate, emulate, or manufacture them. There are four ways to protect intellectual property - patents, trademarks, copyrights or trade secrets"

Could we use this in the article? Is it a copyright infringement? Is it in the public domain? Even if it is not, I believe it fair use. --Kushalt 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Federal work product is almost always public domain unless it's part of an agency that acts like a business or subcontractor. See Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. That glossary is an interesting document. I've never seen it before, but it's useful. Most scholars define more than four kinds of intellectual property though; other forms are possible. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Americans are stupid and so is their english..Please refrian from transforming this work into more american crap.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.222.8 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove Neutrality tag?
I read this article for the first time today and consider it extremely well balanced, albeit imperfect in logical structure and progression (yeah I know, I should improve it myself).

The "neutrality is disputed" tag at the top of the article is dated December 2007, yet there has been no discussion on this page for almost two months. Does that mean the dispute has been resolved and the tag can now be removed? If the tag is as recent as it looks, perhaps whoever put it there could state the issues with the current version of the article? Magnate (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the tag was just dated this month. It's been around since July. The article is still massively biased against the concept of intellectual property, as discussed at Cool Hand Luke 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It probably stems from the economic growth section of the article, which is more of a discussion. It contains bias in each direction, one in responce to the other. It should probably be removed beacuse the follwing economic section, which discusses it economic impact, fills in any holes it may leave. Also, the repition of monopoly gives it a biased feel, beacuse monopolies have historically been a negative thing and this negivie connotaion has carried over to the word itself. --Uberursa (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I just read this entry from beginning to end and consider it terribly biased by choice of language and phraseology. I also read the comments in other section relating to neutrality and believe the recommended changes would improve neutrality. For example, the portions of intellectual property should be written factually and the portions relating to disagreement with intellectual property could be listed under controversy. As it is, the entire article appears to verge on being polemic. Lonholder (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone disputes the neutrality of the Nash equilibrium? Hello? Ratbertovich (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to copyright?
Isn't this topic relevant to copyright? doesn't copyright protect intellectual property? also theres the creative commons icons that protect only a part of the IP...so violation of copyright i.e. theift of intellectual property, is technically punishable by law...unless you're in china, of course...=D I think this discussion should be linked to the Copyright page...just for referance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.145.67 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 26 January 2008


 * Copyright is clearly part of IP. It says so in the lead blocks of both articles. I'm not sure what you're getting at. Cool Hand Luke 20:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. It doesn't say so in this lead block. That is an oversight. I think the lead should be rewritten anyway. When rewritten it should enumerate copyright, patent, and trademark&mdash;which are the most well-known forms of IP. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't protect I.P. you are misunderstanding what I.P. is. Copyright IS the I.P. --81.86.105.166 (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection to "legal concept"
I object on two grounds: a) the very definition of "legal concept" is under substantial debate and so it is contentious to claim that something is or isn't a legal concept. b) this implies that there is some body of law somewhere that specifically addresses "intellectual property". As far as I know, there is no such law. I am aware of copyright law, patent law, trademark law. There are (in the USA) acts and statutes for each of these three, but no law passed by congress that I am aware of creating "intellectual property" as a defined legal term.

I propose editing this article to read that "intellectual property" is an ad hoc term that has come into common usage.

Adam.Wasserman (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Adam


 * Who said it was a "legal term"? Also, please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia in the English language, not a legal dictionary or document, nor are we in a court of law.  We're allowed – even encouraged – to use comprehensible English here.  "Legal concept" is a straightforward and clear English phrase which describes what "intellectual property" is: a concept that applies to legal matters. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jason: the term "legal concept" and its usage in the article seem reasonable. -FrankTobia (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * WIPO uses the term since the 1960s. Scholars have used the term since the early 1800s. It's been employed in court opinions in the US since 1845 Davoll v. Brown, 7 F. Cas. 197 (Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts). Both copyright and patent rights are authorized by a single clause in the US Constitution&mdash;sometimes called the "Intellectual Property Clause." IP is a recognized grouping of law (a "legal concept") as witnessed by countless treatises about "intellectual property." Your proposed edit is absurd. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to accept the arguments presented here (which is why I chose to discuss first rather than simply edit the article). Cool Hand Luke: why so angry dude? Your pseudonym may have been well chosen... I post under my real name, it helps remind me to be civil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam.Wasserman (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry, and I didn't mean to direct criticism to you personally. Many of the articles on IP and especially copyright are biased in favor of those who would put "property" in scare quotes. Although I'm not able to invest the time to improve these articles (and it honestly takes a lot of time to right new verifiable prose), I'm strongly opposed to muddying them further. Cool Hand Luke 17:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I took offense where none was intended. As you can see from other post here, I agree that this article is already waaay too muddy. I happen to disagree with the term property as applied to copyright, patent et al, but I also acknowledge the current usage, and am in favor of NPOV. Adam.Wasserman (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Adam


 * Whether or not you disagree with the term is, unfortunately, irrelevant as to whether or not the terms use is notable. The fact that most governments of the world (particularly those that signed WIPO treaties) use the term makes it a fact, no matter how well your argument may be reasoned.  Making an argument doesn't change facts.  12.214.250.176 (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BIAS
Any article on intellectual property on a website that calls itself a "free-content encyclopeida" is particluarly susceptible to WP:BIAS, so look out for that. Really, everyone is biased, some people just exercise enough self-restraint to keep that out of their edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.188.17.247 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering how high of a profile this page is, it's a little embarrassing that this page is so disputed. However, it also seems problematic that no discussion has occurred recently on the nature of disputes. The subject interests me, so I might take a crack at it soon. In the meantime, if anyone has specific concerns about this page at this point in time, rather than a month ago when it was last discussed, let's open it up for discussion. Here's my concern: Should a page about a subject be largely about critics' views. Perhaps a new page should be created, Criticisms of Intellectual Property? I don't have the time now, but it could be a fun project. Please share your thoughts. --Stargat (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Creating Separate Page for Criticism and Reorganization
Having heard no objection to the creation of a separate page for the very long section devoted to criticisms of intellectual property, I've moved most of it to a new page. I left in an abbreviated version of the section, which provides a link to the main page. I can't vouch that this is the best possible version of a paragraph, let alone the best possible version of the other page, either. I also moved the Controversy section down, or rather the History section up. I think this order makes more sense. Obviously the page still needs a lot of work, so I'll see what I can do later. --Stargat (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I didn't realize the criticism section was so long. Good work! -FrankTobia (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The controversy section is still abnormally long for such a broad topic as intellectual property. This should be moved to the criticism page, leaving this page fairly brief.  A simple discussion of the four big areas of IP should suffice, with a brief synopsis of its history, general criticisms, and economic appeal.  Specific information such as IP valuation, criticism, and the development and practice of each branch of IP should be on its own page. Biccat (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)biccat


 * I think I agree that the Controversy section should be moved. Frankly, that section and the Valuation entry are problematic -- lack of sourcing and some POV issues, especially in the latter. Valuation deserves a mention, but perhaps as merely a link to the other page. There is a "See also" section. So... I'll be bold and remove the IP valuation section, since it is a problem and duplicative. And I'll move Controversy over to Criticisms. And with that, I think I will remove the disputation tags, because then the troublesome entries will be all on the Criticisms page; I can tag that disputed, since pretty much all of that content is. Everything on this page will be pretty uncontroversial, I believe. I still don't think this will be a great page after that, but at least that makes it easier to work with. --Stargat (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Intellectual property in general isn't a controversial subject. The fact that the body of law exists is uncontroversial (although the exact definition may be disputed).  Stylistically, the quote from Eben Moglen appears out of place.  A link to his wiki page and a reference to his manifesto could remain, but are better discussed elsewhere.  Finally, perhaps a mention that intellectual property rights are exclusively granted by each country and may vary greatly among them.  This comes from my perspective that IP isn't a very controversial or exciting topic, and merely acts as a commonly used umbrella term for the various subgroups within the field.Biccat (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree on that point, too. I've removed it from here and made a slight edit on the next sentence after for clarity. I'm not sure yet whether it should be removed from the "Criticisms" article as well. Open to suggestions, but as more information about criticisms obviously belongs on that page, I'll leave it. And perhaps that discussion should happen on that Talk page in any case. --Stargat (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding new section
It seemed to me a section belongs explaining why IP laws as a whole exist, what it contributes to the economy. I did some research, but it's still not a great section. I'm not done with it, but suggestions or contributions are appreciated. --Stargat (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the section and I think it's pretty good. I've added a bit to it, and I'll be around to help in the future. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to read the Against intellectual monopoly book, to discover how "IP" is not really that good for the economy or humanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudd-O (talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gnuosphere's edit
It appears that Gnuosphere is determined too add a couple sentences at the top of this page to dispute the term Intellectual property that he once tried adding, long before I became involved with the page. Here is the paragraph:


 * The adjective "intellectual" reflects the fact that this term concerns a process of the mind. The noun "property" implies that ideation is analogous to constructing tangible objects or marking an area around land. Consequently, this term is controversial.

The first sentence is so unobjectionable as to add nothing. The second sentence oversimplifies a matter of reasonable debate among IP scholars. The third simply does not follow. I agree with Cool Hand Luke's point here that the term is not so controversial it needs to be questioned in the first paragraph.

I fully support there being a Criticism section, and perhaps some part of Gnuosphere's edit can return, but it also needs to be more clearly explained and supported with a citation. For the time being I am removing his edit for a second time and leaving a brief note on his User Talk page. --Stargat (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. I was debating what to do with that edit, since it didn't seem to fit. Thanks for taking care of it and for explaining yourself thoroughly. -FrankTobia (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed edits
My edits were removed (user name 206.248.171.94). Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipe1982 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your edits weren't completely removed, I attempted to clean up some things I noticed. I attempted to explain myself in the edit summary. Let me know if you have more specific issues with what I did, I'm sure we can come to an agreement. Also please sign your name with four tildes when leaving messages on a talk page. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Characteristic of intellectual property
In the common law systems does intellectual property belong to Personal property? Or is it completely independent and doesn't belong to any types of property? In the civil law systems it is said that it doesn't belong to movable property nor immovable property.--Prospect1 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Intellectual property is not private or personal property at all, anywhere in the world. The concept of property that you refer to only applies to rivalrous goods. Rudd-O (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does IP really apply only to exclusive rights? What about if someone agrees to allow a third party to release a copyright work on a non exclusive basis for example? I guess the original copyright is exclusive but the whole idea of copyright as a property implies exchanging those rights and so can surely not only apply to the original author but rights that have been sold too??? What do people here think? --Kystal (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some kinds of intellectual property, copyright for instance, are intangible personal property in the U.S., and I suspect other common law systems. How does this have bearing on the article exactly? LH (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues with a statement
"The Talmud contains the first known example of codifying a prohibition against the stealing of ideas, which is further discussed in the Shulchan Aruch."
 * "Stealing" is a PoV word in this context. Also, does it mean copying, or does it mean claiming the idea as one's own? --Raijinili (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the source says, "A conversation with him also demonstrates his erudition on the evolution of intellectual property laws. The first codification of intellectual property can be traced to the Jewish laws in the Talmud, which declared a prohibition against "Gnevat daat" - literally the theft of ideas." Cool Hand Luke 04:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Human right?
Why do I see atop the talk page that this article is part of human rights wiki project? Why are we suddenly attempting to revise history to repurpose copyright et al. as human rights, when they clearly aren't, and the worldwide TRIPS agreement clearly establishes copyrights et al. to be INSTRUMENTAL rather than natural, that modern copyright law is not a human right, and that there are very good reasons not to label it one? This is blatant revisionism and should be nuked from wikipedia purely based on the fact that this connotation is a lie. Not to mention the disastrous effects that humanrightizing c&p will have on societal progress! Rudd-O (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why someone tagged it under human rights and have removed it. Cool Hand Luke 06:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally,
I know you're not going to like what I did here, but your text pushed POV and was largely based on a misunderstanding of IP. You wrote extensively about how IP cannot be sold or destroyed, but you're confusing the first sale doctrine with the sale of IP. The "property" in IP is the exclusive rights, which can be sold, but IP is not sold when the owner sells copies. The owner can also destroy their right. It's actually now tricky to add copyright material into the public domain, but patent owners do it all the time when they fail to pay their renew fees.

I think the article should do a better job of explaining just what, exactly, is considered the "property" of IP because it's a very common mistake. Cool Hand Luke 07:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Reorganizing lead
I spent some time trying to make the lead clearer, though my additions about the history of intellectual property were promptly removed. The relatively recent strengthening of intellectual property rights is an important part of the topic. I think it belongs in the lead and can be presented NPOV. Thoughts, L33tH4x? Demian12358 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My RV was too much of a reflex and I regret RVing your changes so quickly and completely. That's my mistake. I'm reimplementing the majority of them. Let me know if you think the rv is appropriate and then everyone can work any differences. My only real objection was that I think the duration/scope commentary (while certainly true) shouldn't necesarially be apart of the lead. On reflection perhaps it should, although it should be a new paragraph in any event. LH (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reconsidering, h4x. I knew the additional material could be questionable, and I tried to find a way to phrase it as neutrally as I could. I think what we have now is an improvement, and better summarizes the article.Demian12358 (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reorganized lead
Thanks for the good work in reorganizing the lead section. This sentence:
 * "In the modern era, the role of intellectual property rights has steadily expanded to encompass a broader range of ideas, and to last for longer durations of time"

may be correct for copyright (recently) and certain types of patents (see e.g. supplementary protection certificate, but the words "steadily expanded .. to last for longer durations of time" do not even apply to supplementary protection certificates IMHO), but certainly not for all patents - see Statute of Monopolies:
 * "The first of them was granted by Henry VI in 1449 to a Flemish man a 20 year monopoly (coincidentally, the current length of UK/EU patents is still 20 years)".

The sentence should IMHO either be reworded or removed. Also this part "has steadily expanded to encompass a broader range of ideas" is vague. Does the term "ideas" refer to the new fields of protection? To new technologies? To new ways of using intellectual property rights? The role has expanded to encompass a broader range of ideas... What does it mean? Attribution would be nice in any case. --Edcolins (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The "steadily expanded" phrase is intentionally general, since this isn't an article about specific types of intellectual property, and I certainly don't know the specifics of intellectual property law. What I would like to achieve with the lead is a better, clearer, summary of the major points in the article. I also tried not to say anything that isn't already mentioned in the body of the article (to avoid finding citations).


 * The word ideas in this instance is refering to any type of works, ideas, discoveries, etc., as in the phrase "ownership of ideas". One problem I noticed in writing about this subject is that there's no single word that means "works, ideas, discoveries, etc".


 * I will spend some time trying to address your concerns tomorrow.


 * On another note, I very much don't like this sentence:


 * "Under intellectual property law, the holder of one of these abstract properties has certain exclusive rights related to the creative work, commercial symbol, or invention by which it is covered."


 * It's too convoluted and I don't think it means what it's supposed to. I think it says (incorrectly) "the holder has rights related to the work that covers those rights". Also, there seems to be a discrepancy between singular and plural nouns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Demian12358 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The second sentence you quote means "the holder of [the intellectual property] has [] exclusive rights related to the [work], commercial symbol, or invention..." The wording is strange probably because the word "work" is a copyright term, while for trademarks and patents different nouns are used. The subject of a copyright is a "work" while the subject of the others is something different ("invention" and "mark", I think, but I could be wrong). I'm unsure the terminology for trade secrets. That would answer your question about that sentence.


 * Aside from the oxford comma, I think the current changes are fine, although I think they're not 100% yet. The real issue should be discussed here: is this article about a legal term, or some broader understanding of IP. I would tend towards the former.


 * I think first it's problematic to define IP as artistic or commercial, or both. These work fine for copyright, but less so for patent, and bizarrely so for trademark. And that's assuming US law. I can't even pretend to comment on other countries. In fact, recently, there was a small debate on this issue as to whether or not IP law was a moral or economic right. For more on that debate, and how it was resolved, take a look at moral rights and the pages disambiguated off of that.


 * I just want to point out that the changes exist in a wider frame, and to bring it to mind. I don't think any of the recent changes are very far off base, nor that anyone here seems to have an axe to grind. I think it's good development. LH (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
There is a contradiction between "it was not until the 19th century that the term intellectual property began to be used as a unifying concept." and the history section... --Edcolins (talk) 10:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think they meant 20th century? --0imagination (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly yes. I have removed the contradiction, to be improved... --Edcolins (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

IP vs. IPR
A good source for the explanation of the differentiation between IP and IPR is Timmann "Das Patentrecht im Lichte von Art. 14 GG" 2008 ISBN 3161498569, page 150. IP ist "Schutzgegenstand" e.g. a book, software, an invention, ... . IPR on the other hand are the rights ("Rechtsfolge", "Schutzinhalt") associated to the specific IP. I think this differentiation is so fundamental that the revert should be reverted. Swen 07:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think the source supports your assertion. "Intellectual property" are legal, government-sponsored rights, nothing else. The object of intellectual property, i.e. the object of the right, is the Schutzgegenstand, while the Schutzinhalt is the content of the right, the kind of legal rights (intellectual property rights) which exists over the "object" at stake. --Edcolins (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the language barrier, but now I think I have the correct terms: "intellectual property subject matter" vs. "intellectual property rights" as found in Abbott page 457 in ISBN 1843766744 with reference to Art. 1.2 TRIPS: "For the purposes of this Agreement, the term “intellectual property” refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II." or "The intellectual property laws provide incentives for innovation by establishing enforcable property rights in intellectual property subject matter. Thus, intellectual property law bestows upon owners certain exclusionary rights and privileges as against others. These exclusionary rights allow intellectual property owners to profit from the use of their property, for example, through assignment or licensing." Xuan-Thao  et al. page 871 in ISBN 157018528X. Maybe the revert of the revert should use these terms. Swen 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)

"Financial incentive" conflicts its Boldrin & Levine reference
To my understanding, Boldrin&Levine positively oppose the idea that Intellectual Property (or, rather, Intellectual Monopoly as they put it) strengthens the incentive to innovate or to create. They clearly conclude that any financial variations in developing countries strengthening their IP laws are due to the fact that IM draws foreign capital, and that IP causes more patents and more copyright but not more innovation or more creativity; and as such, IP is an unnecessary evil. These ideas in the reference are in conflict with the information in the section. Ratbertovich (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There certainly doesn't seem to be support at the cited page number (312) in the online copy linked to: . That page is in the middle of the bibliography.  The assertion being cited is the conventional wisdom, however, and there shouldn't be any issue in finding a reference to that effect, though.  I wonder if historically, the Boldrin & Levine text was cited as a counter argument, which was then deleted, leaving the misreference, but don't have the ambition to track down the changes. TJRC (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Additional comment. I made an edit to the effect of undoing the edit I hypothesized above: .  In the process, I deleted the pinpoint cite to page 312; it looks like that was someone intending to include the bibliographic information that the book was 312 pages long (at least in some edition).  Feel free to improve on this. TJRC (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Defense" stinks on ice
It's full of weasel words and no references, just quotes from politicians. The China comment is pure bull excrement: even a trademark is not respected in that country, let alone patent and copyright. Ratbertovich (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's been a few weeks at least since the templates were added, and there's been no improvement. I'm going to delete the section, since it's unworthy of Wikipedia at the moment. A bunch of opinions presented unattributed, with the only citations being for two quotes, which are not particularly relevant either to the section or to the article. If someone wants to put something like it back in, please present opinions clearly attributed as the opinions of specific people, rather than as unequivocal fact. Misterbailey (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Category name
Please see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_20. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Trade Secrets are not property
just look at Trade_Secret (a title of which is POV). It clearly says that Trade Secret as property have even been specifically ruled out: "In Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, confidentiality and trade secrets are regarded as an equitable right rather than a property right" from the court case Saltman Engineering Co Ltd v. Campbell Engineering Ltd. Court cases are above any scholarly work. Anything that requires a multi-pronged test to figure out if it exists at all, and whose existence is merely alleged, could hardly be described as "property" in any sensible definition of the word.174.21.105.213 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, from a financial point of view a corporate will regard trade secrets as part of the intangibles it can put on its balance sheet, so in effect part of its intellectual property, even if it is not protected by a specifically intellectual property right.


 * That's why it makes sense for eg a textbook like Cornish to include a chapter on trade secret law, and for us to reference trade secrets in this overview article, even if strictly speaking the legal framework is not quite the same.


 * As for multi-pronged tests, and rights whose existence is merely alleged, welcome to the happy world of IP. There are cases where you could say exactly the same about copyrights, unregistered design rights, database rights, etc, etc. Jheald (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See also TRIPS Article 39, found specifically in an intellectual property treaty. Jheald (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The best way forward may be to leave trade secrets in the list in the lead, but to add a footnote to the effect that
 * "'Strictly speaking confidential information is governed by the law of equity, rather than property, because the law turns on questions of conscientious behaviour rather than absolute rights. Nevertheless, trade secrets are often considered alongside core IPRs, both at an economic level as part of the intangible assets of a company; and also at a policy level - viz the inclusion of a chapter on them in the TRIPS treaty on intellectual property rights'"


 * Thoughts? (And is this distinction as relevant in systems of law other than English law?)  Jheald (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Overview section
...stinks of weasel words and bad definitions. It is just more of the lead, and is not constructive. WP:LEAD is suppose to be the "overview".Scientus (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved discussion from article
This belongs to the talk page: --Edcolins (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) 
 * The author of the so called definition below does not care for or take into account the need for compensation, use of and ownership of creative ideas, products, science research, invention and other aspects that start at the individual working man level and includes throusands of unpaid hours of practice, trial and error and experimentation. This report needs to be rewritten with the true defintion. Intelectual Property Rights may be used by large corporations but that is not what they are or why they exists. This posting is an example of why Wikipedia can be a very poor source for honest or well juried and tested information.


 * Warning this is a bias and not balanced interpritation of a much broader concept. It ignores the rights of artists, writers, thinkers and science to the fruits and further development of their work. I highly suggest a more balanced representation be presented. It is one of the reasons Wikipedia must be taken with a large grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.245.29 (talk • contribs)

Main Usage Nowadays
When you go to the disambiguation page for IP, the short description of intellectual property states that nowadays this term is used for new series in video games. And honestly that's what I was looking for, not all this legal jargon (not in a bad way, but literally jargon). Perhaps someone can make a reference or even a separate page distinguishing the purely legal aspects of IP's to one focusing on the modern usage of the term outside of legal circles. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 09:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V.
The article Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. (a Dutch patent attorney agency) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Articles for deletion/Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
The whole first paragraph **is** POV it completely equates it as 'ownership' rather than a collection term for patent and copyright *rights*. I resent it. 88.159.79.244 (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the use of the words "for which property rights are recognized" does not make the paragraph POV (lacking the neutral point of view). Only if some definitions from some reliable sources were systematically ignored, the neutrality could be lacking. --Edcolins (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

pov + synth
The entire existence of this word is minority POV-pushing by WIPO/MPAA/RIAA. Copyright, Patent, and Trademark law is not at all analogous to physical property law. Jwray (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Property is a definition of the society. If the people define that one shall have property rights on land or other real estate, it is their definition of property. If their constitution gives the lawmaker the right and duty to define contents, limits and scope of property, like in Germany, the legislator has to define what can be property and what not. If the legislator defines intellectual creations as property, then it is property: "In the decisions of the Federal Constitutional court it already been settled that the work created by the author and the performance it embodies are property in the sense of Art 14(1), sentence 1 GG, that the author's constitutional ownership guarantee results in his obligation to commercially exploit this "intellectual" property, and that the legislator, in the framework of the regulation requirement under 14(1) sentence 2 GG, has the obligation to define appropriate standards which ensure that its use and appropriate exploitation correspond to the nature and the social significance of this right (cf. BVerfGE 31, 229 <238 et seq.>; 49, 382 ). These principles apply accordingly to the patent right (cf. BVerfGE 36, 281 <290-291> concerning the inventor's technical intellectual property right which has not yet gained patent right status)."
 * If you search properly, you will find eqivalent decisions for your country for "intellectual property". Or do you want to fight against your constitution? --Swen 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swen (talk • contribs)
 * both of these statements are rediculous. Look at what Jefferson, framer of the constition, says on copyrights and patents.Scientus (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jwray made a similar comment on Talk:Copyright. As I responded there, I understand that some members of the open source community, most notably Stallman, object to the term; and that's fine.  However, it's definitely established as the umbrella term for these and other types of rights.  See, for example the web page What is Intellectual Property?  hosted by the United Nations agency, the World Intellectual Property Organization.  To avoid using the term in deference to a minority opinion like Stallman's, in the face of near-universal acceptance of the term would be violating WP:NPOV.  TJRC (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the neutrality tag, per TJRC. Well established term indeed. --Edcolins (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent edits have shifted things the other way. This now reads like an anti-IP screed. — Aldaron • T/C 19:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved thread here and retitled to match situation on article ATM, couldn't find a synth-specific discussion above. Lycurgus (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there any actual law anywhere that is codified as "intellectual property law"? The phrase has become a popular term, but it is entirely conventional and not technically an actual area of the law, is it? So it does seem that the article's neutrality is compromised by the uncritical use of a phrase, which has been promoted for several decades now as part of an industry PR campaign. The invention of the phrase for PR purposes is common knowledge. The mere fact that the phrase is now in common usage does not make it neutral. The article seems very naive and like it was written by people who don't actually understand the difference between the law and popular cultural/PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.58.134 (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How the law is codified is a red herring. "Intellectual Property" is an established term, and is the subject of this article, and so its appropriate name.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines it:


 * intellectual property n. chiefly Law; property (such as patents, trademarks, and copyright material) which is the product of invention or creativity, and does not exist in a tangible, physical form.


 * It includes cites to usage going back to 1769. This is more than a "couple decades" per your conspiracy theory.  It's a logical and  well-established grouping of related bodies of law. TJRC (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand - a prominent thinker on intellectual property?
Is it not a bit strange to feature a quote from Ayn Rand as the lead in for the section on intellectual property rights? Perhaps she deserves to be cited here as a prominent thinker on the subject? Or is it an editors attempt to create political spin around the subject? Johnfravolda (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Who cares what Ayn Rand thought about intellectual property?Dblobaum (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly, strongly suggest the Ayn Rand section be removed. Citing her as a source on intellectual property is similar to citing shakespeare on war: both are EXTREMELY subjective. Scrycer (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's subjective, which is why the section starts "Ayn Rand supported ...". I agree that it probably ought to be replaced with something better, but I feel that her opinion is better than an empty "Rights and justice" section. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Scrycer, Rand's opinion itself isn't subjective (in the sense that it is, after all, an opinion)... it's the inclusion of her opinion as subjective. Scores of people have opinions on intellectual property. But for an encyclopedic entry on intellectual property, personal views on the subject should be limited to those people who are prominent, notable, and influential in the field of intellectual property. And only reliable, secondary sources should be used to identify who those people are.
 * In short, Ayn Rand has opinions on intellectual property. Wikipedia needs sources that show why we should care what those opinions are.
 * Hartboy (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides being of unclear relevance, the Rand section contributes to the generally politicized feel of the article. If intellectual property constitutes a major subject of her writing, perhaps this information would be (more) suitable for the page detailing her philosophy and views. Shadowice (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've removed the section from the article page to here:
 * "Ayn Rand supported copyrights and patents, noting in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal that they are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind. An idea as such cannot be protected until it has been given a material form. An invention has to be embodied in a physical model before it can be patented; a story has to be written or printed. But what the patent or copyright protects is not the physical object as such, but the idea which it embodies. Although it is important to note, that a discovery cannot be patented, only an invention. She argued that the term should be limited. If it were held in perpetuity, it would lead to the opposite of the very principle on which it is based: it would lead, not to the earned reward of achievement, but to the unearned support of parasitism."
 * Hartboy (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate to see a reference to Ayn Rand as the only entry under the "Morality" section. Ayn Rand aside, I think the section on morality is relevant and should be expanded to give an overview of just what IP is trying to do morally. As it is, the article skips over any substantive development of IP as a moral construct and moves directly into criticism. This would bring balance to the article and (I think) give a better picture of exactly what there is to criticize. Rand could be cited as an influential philosopher who developed a moral position on IP, or could easily be left out entirely. Prettyoldflowers (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added more material to further develop the "Morality" section, however I left the Ayn Rand entry alone. --Alkwan (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's definitely an improvement. I might suggest that concrete examples would help to make these categories more accessible, especially for someone without much background in political philosophy or ethics. For instance, the lawsuit against Napster lead by the music band Metallica (among others) might be a clear example of the first (natural right/justice). Concerning the third category, I did look up your reference (De George), which is a helpful chapter, although I don't know that the term "personality argument" is a widely used term. Perhaps what would be helpful would be to outline how De George sees Hegel's argument to be in opposition to Locke's (i.e. natural rights).Prettyoldflowers (talk) 23:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The closest example I can think of to argument #3 is Marcel Duchamp's Fountain, but including it might violate the "no original research" rule and that WP article doesn't mention intellectual property.Alkwan (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the "Morality" section adds an important dimension to the article, since it describes the reasons why intellectual property rights became necessary in the first place. I have a few issues with the section though. In terms of the Natural Rights/Justice Argument, the statement "similarly with intellectual property rights, it would be unjust for people to seize another's ideas" seems to be removed from Locke's argument. It sounds like a value statement, and cannot necessarily be backed up by Locke's philosophy itself. It might be necessary to note that Locke's philosophy did not explicitly identify the natural rights of men to intellectual property, even if it is somewhat implied. I think I'd just like to see some clarification. In the Utilitarian-Pragmatic Argument section, I think the "it is claimed" part should be removed. This is a "weasel word" and even though the information is supported by a source, I would just state the facts of the argument directly. In the third section, again, some clarification might be helpful. With permission, I'd like to make a few adjustments of my own to this section.--Meghanl.fitzpatrick (talk) 16:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, I have added a brief part to the top of the Morality section about intellectual property as a human right. I'm not sure if this is the most appropriate place to put it, so if anyone has any suggestions that would be great. I think it's valuable to the page though, and it goes with one of the limitations I added.--Meghanl.fitzpatrick (talk) 22:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great addition to the article with the UN declaration. Also, good point about the Lockean argument-- there is an statement made by Bettig which says exactly that.  Please feel free to make changes to my original edit-- it definitely needs improvement and it looks like you have some interesting ideas! --Alkwan (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I would add a counterpart to the Morality section in the Criticism section under 'Ethics'. I also added some to the "limitations' section which I believe could also be placed under this ethics section but I thought it would speak more towards the actual limitations of what IP law covers (native american stories and songs). Any feedback? Thelibrarian24 (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the Ethics section is good - it provides a comprehensive example of how intellectual property regimes can infringe on basic morality. I feel as though it relates well to the brief section I added regarding intellectual property and human rights (under the Limitations section), particularly in that is describes how IPR can infringe on the human right to health. Perhaps I could move my part into the "Ethics" section as an introduction. I also added a few sentences to the Utilitarian argument in the Morality section - they just describe how the argument relates to IP directly. They might be redundant, I'm not sure. Lastly, as a general question about the article - I'm wondering if it's biased to talk about the United States in particular (as many sections do). Should American examples be included in a general article? If anyone has any thoughts, I'd love to hear them. --Meghanl.fitzpatrick (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest not to include information specific to the United States, unless the information can be presented in a sufficiently balanced way to ensure that global perspectives are represented. See also Systemic bias. Specific U.S. information could be included in a new article, such as United States intellectual property law or Intellectual property in the United States. --Edcolins (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism: The term itself
This section contains very short summaries of the criticisms about this term made by two prominent critics of US copyright/patent law, Stallman and Lessig. An editor has recently tried to add a large essay rebutting Lessig's point, which is that intellectual works are fundamentally different from property as we normally think of it. (I don't know that Lessig has ever criticized this term, so it's possible that this item shouldn't even be in this section at all.) I would like to discuss this added text. First, this rebuttal is huge. We probably don't need 1/3 of the article devoted to a rebuttal to Lessig's point. See WP:UNDUE. There may be more room for this kind of discussion at Criticism of intellectual property. Second, a lot of it does not even rebut the point here. It may be a rebuttal to Lessig's overall point, that copyrights in the US go to far, but it is not a rebuttal to the point that the term "intellectual property" is problematic. AFAIK, Lessig is not saying that copyrights are not treated like property; he's saying they should not be treated like property. A rebuttal claiming that they are treated by property by the courts is non sequitur. Third, the entire essay is unsourced. A lot of claims are made about how the US court system works, what the driving factors are in the US' dominance of the high-tech industry, etc, etc, but there are no references to back up these statements. Finally, the rebuttal is placed before the text that it seems to rebut, the flow is very confusing. I'd move it, but this would only fix the least of the problems. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion of the passage in the state it was in; as written, it was entirely a WP:OR essay. I do not in principle have any objection to including a discussion of the purported controversy of the term, if it's well-sourced and not OR. TJRC (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what this section is doing, when there is a whole other article devoted to the criticism of IP. Can anyone tell me what the goals for the content of this section are, and how this would differ from the main article on criticism? please have mercy on me, I'm new to Wikipedia Thelibrarian24 (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The section is useful to summarize the main criticisms on, or the main societal views on, intellectual property. However, that section appears to be too long and its presence in the article appears to give undue weight to the criticisms of the concept of intellectual property. See also WP:UNDUE. I have just changed the title of the section as suggested here: NPOV. --Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That naming guideline isn't talking about naming the section about criticism so it sounds neutral. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 04:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your useful opinion. I concur. The section about criticism, as it stands, is not neutral. But, if a section is biased and violates WP:NPOV, shouldn't we try to solve that? That a section is biased seems to make you think that the section heading should also be biased. I don't agree. The goal is to fix this. And the naming guideline reads: "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." My change was intended to encourage this, as one step towards improving the section neutrality point of view. --Edcolins (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, one may wonder whether naming a section "Criticism", while the section seems to be mainly about negative criticism rather than about both positive and negative criticisms, isn't biased as well. Unless we understand criticism as exclusively negative criticism, but that doesn't really seem neutral either. --Edcolins (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, criticism is probably generally taken to mean negative assessment. In any case, I don't think it's that big of a deal to have a criticism section in an article, as long as everything in the article is conveyed in an NPOV manner. The criticism section should not dominate the article too much per wp:UNDUE. But just having one can balance the rest of the article, in particular the "objectives" section. WP:NOCRIT, an essay, suggests not having one and weaving the material into the rest of the article. If you want to rewrite this article to do that then I certainly don't have any objections. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary Technology
I don't think this redirect is correct. (it redirects to 'proprietary software')

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proprietary_Technology&redirect=no

I thought about writing the article but I don't know enough about the topic.84.106.26.81 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia
Are Wikipedia articles anyone's intellectual property? Probably not, because if they were no one could edit them. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You should find the answer to this question here: Copyrights. --Edcolins (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)