Talk:Intellectual property/Archive 3

Google Image Search
WHY DOES THIS PAGE KEEP POPPING UP EVERY TIME WE DO A GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH? -- unsigned comment added by
 * I've no idea! By "this page" do you mean the article page or this "talk" page? Can you give an example of a search that I can try? What happens if you try the same search on another computer? -- John of Reading (talk) 07:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. by 'this page' I meant the article itself... Try this - Google "diffuse thinning hair translplant" and select images - hopefully the third image along horizontally should repeat the problem - it'll be the image from 'hairlosstalk.com' (it's not limited to this at all- happens on many many searches)  - click on the image - after a brief period (1 second max) of seeing the image in the upper frame, the entire link is redirected to this Intellectual Property article. It's rather strange. It is actually possible to beat the redirection if you can get the pointer onto the url during the 1 second pause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.10.126 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be some javascript from hairlosstalk which is redirecting you here (presumably because they don't want you browsing to their page via Google Images or similar):


 * Basically, if you navigate to that page inside of a frame (like how Google Images does it), it will redirect you here. This has been your technical lesson of the day. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.10.126 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if this isnt supposed to go here, i would appreciate some direction on where It should go. But I am the owner of a web site and all our google images results are being redirected to wikipedia intellectual property page. I love the blanket, blind censorship going on, but dont you think it would be a little more ethical / honest / fair if someone actually inquired with us before doing this? None of the images that redirect to this wiki page are stolen or used improperly. We have licensed *all* of them. The vast majority are user-uploaded images, not owned by you, not owned by us, not owned by anyone except the person themself. So who gave who the right to tag our images as a violation of intellectual property and why weren't we given the courtesy of a discussion beforehand? Please advise how we undo all this mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRR820 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you post your query here: Village pump (technical). This talk page is for discussing the article "Intellectual property". --Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of Economic Growth section
Edited it to remove redundant tags, since citation was provided immediately after one of the tags, as well as attempting to make claims less apparently opinionated. Leaving neutrality tags as they are, planning on removing in a week or so if no major disupte has come as a result of my edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezewheel (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have added some extra references to outline the economic objectives of intellectual property law, because it seems to be one of the primary reasons the agreements are created in the first place.Prettyoldflowers (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I added to this section because I wanted to give a point of view that takes into account social welfare and the benefit of the innovator in terms of value in the economy. I thought the section on economic growth gave one viewpoint (that studies show IP is related to Economic Growth) but was not giving the whole picture. I came across a study that concluded developing countries do not benefit from IP the same way that developed countries do, largely because they are unable to fully imitate or work with innovations in developed nations where IP is practiced more, but I wasn't convinced of the strength of the study so I didn't include it. Still, I think that viewpoint is viable and adding this section introduces the idea that there are other forces at play when it comes to IP and economy. May Prumar (talk) 02:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right, and it's a good addition. I was originally thinking that talking about social welfare would come more under the category of "criticism of intellectual property law." It is in fact the objective of WIPO and other international bodies/agreements to protect IP laws for the sake of economic growth; whether that is a good thing (i.e. for the world, esp the 'developing' world) or whether it's even true (it probably is, but economic growth for who?)is another matter. However, given that I don't see a cogent criticism of the presumption of economic growth from IP law on this page, your addition adds some balance for a user who might be investigating the issue for the first time.Prettyoldflowers (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's other research demonstrating that there's no real positive economic effects from stronger enforcement of IP laws; should this be mentioned as well, or is it already sufficiently mentioned with what's already there, such as the paragraph beginning with "Economists have also shown that IP can..."? Shrewmania (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Immaterial property rights
The expression IPR = "immaterial property rights" is commonly used in IT standardisation (I heard it for instance at UN/CEFACT Forum talking about such intrest conflicts regarding their work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN/CEFACT ) and business environment (here is one example http://www.jarisotka.com/index.php?section=25 ) as a general term of this civil law area. There are no references to it in Wikipedia and should at least be mensioned as an expression connected to some other expression in this filed. A person hearing the expression IPR should be able to find it at the Wikipedia. --Jan Bergström member of UN/CEFACT TBG12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.116.199 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems that the very term IP is biased since you can't actually physically own an idea once released into the wild, but only the means to profit from it.  "Intellectual monopoly privileges" redirects here when it seems that's a more neutral term and more technically correct, but unpopular.  It is in fact a type of monopoly (and would be quite pointless to the rights owner if not!).  You don't pay the patent office to use your idea - you use the patent office to keep the other entity from using it.  This is something that everybody (sane) agrees upon, regardless of their pro/anti-patent views.  71.196.246.113 (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson and Madison
I removed the following segment from the "History" section of the main article:


 * Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, drafters of the Copyright Clause, were both quite skeptical to the monopolies of copyright, and monopolies of patents, and wrote extensively on the subject.

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

- Thomas Jefferson

Reasons Hartboy (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is unclear how this section fits within the scope of the history of IP
 * 2) Factual inaccuracy: Jefferson did not draft the Copyright Clause; Madison and Pinckney both submitted proposals concerning copyright and patent, and the Committee of Eleven drafted the version in the Constitution
 * 3) More inaccuracy: the claim that Madison was "skeptical" of copyright is unsupported by a reference and likely wrong. See his statements regarding the Clause in the Federalist 43: "The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned."
 * 4) The inclusion and length of the Jefferson quote within the section places a great deal of weight on it. It is unclear from the context why so much weight should be placed on a quote from a personal letter - except perhaps because it conforms to the editor's beliefs.
 * 5) In addition, the emphasis on the last sentence of the quote is not present in the original writing - suggesting further that the inclusion of the quote is not NPOV
 * You can however, own the right to profit from that idea. Think of real estate and mineral rights and home ownership.  In the USA, you don't technically own the land, but the deed to it.  In other words, the proprietary rights to enjoy that land have you as a priority.  Right-of-way and water rights laws exist in the USA for example.  It's possible for the legal system of a country to treat the farming rights and mineral rights as two very separate things.  Many countries have even more open views on right-of-way exceptions than the USA - you can legally camp on what is otherwise private property (although abuse will get you in trouble).  In Mexico, the issue of the commons and private land ownership was important in the revolution.  The history of private land ownership is actually pretty interesting from a historical and cultural point-of-view!  :)
 * I agree that the quote is... problematic.  71.196.246.113 (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Law in "Criticism" section
Islamic law clearly prohibit the implementation of all intelectual property right. in Holy Quran > a moslem must not eat others' money unjustly (ayah? please help). in Hadith (prophet life example) 1. moslem must not tax another moslem. 2. IP is not similar with service. It rather a form of taxation or riba (usury). 3. imitating, reverse engineering, copying and the like are legal in islamic law. Punishment in accordance to those action with imprisonment or money settlement is big sin. 4. Work on public interest e.g. music, design, science. must be paid by the government (khalifa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celestaion (talk • contribs) 05:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * interesting question. This article suggests IP rights are compatible with sharia. http://www.digitalislam.eu/article.do?articleId=2729.  Additionally, taking "arab countries" as example of countries where islam is prevalent, this article shows that these countries have IP law compatible with international trade standards http://www.agip.com/news.aspx?id=627&group_key=news&lang=en  Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Trade Dress
There is a page on wikipedia called Trade Dress which mentions that Trade Dress is a type of Intellectual Property. Trade_dress Why is it that the Intellectual_property page does not mention Trade Dress? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watalon (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't trade dress a form of industrial design right, i.e. indeed then a specific form of intellectual property right? We could mention it. Please feel to add it, preferably with a source (See Identifying reliable sources). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * addressed.Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Nothing about Brazil's very liberal intellectual property laws?
There's nothing here comparing the overly strict licensing regimes in some countries in comparison to Brazil's which allow just about anybody to pay for cheap royalties? CaribDigita (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

new section on Enforcement
We had a recent series of good faith but unacceptable edits by an editor who wanted to emphasize the extent of IP theft in India. It made me realize that we had nothing in this section article on violation, enforcement, or impact. So I added a brief section. Needs more work but I think we need this content. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC) (edited my comment, striking "section" and adding "article" Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC))
 * Excellent addition! Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead
just saying that i think the thrust of 's edit, to have a nontechnical, accessible intro, was good as per WP:TECHNICAL. I don't agree with 's revert on the basis of concision... Ed can we discuss? We do want articles to make sense without too much effort to readers without a lot of background. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my edit summary did not fully reflect my thoughts... Let me try to explain. The first sentence "Intellectual property (IP) is a term for something proprietary that is the creation of the mind" is, in my opinion, extremely vague, and does not say much about the nature of intellectual property, which is built upon a set of legal instruments. The second sentence refers to "concepts", "formulas" and "ideas". This is somehow misleading. An idea as such can typically not become intellectual property. We should try to be more accurate. --Edcolins (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer the version reverted to by Edcolins. Despite the title, the article is about intellectual property rights, not the properties themselves; it's got the title "Intellectual property" as a matter of WP:COMMONNAME and metonymy, and the lede reflects that.  That's perfectly compliant with WP:LEDE ("it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations"), and is most readable and imparts the best context and introduction to the subject.  TJRC (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * dear legal comrades, I know the current version is more accurate. neither of you are responding to the effort to offer something in plain English -- not something the legally minded like to do!  Would you please speak to that and perhaps offer a plain English version you would find acceptable?  again, think about your average, kind of in a hurry, reasonably educated person.  Wants to read the lead and get a clear-enough understanding  - exactitude is not the primary goal in this (later yes!!).  what say you? Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rather than making unsupported claims about what "the legally minded like to do," maybe you could point out why you think it's not plain English. It seems pretty readable to me.   TJRC (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * as you seem unwilling to even think about this, i am uninterested in continuing the discussion. it can stay as per the revert. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, it has been quite a while since I last contributed to Wikipedia, and I think I'm not familiar with the the current Wikipedia etiquette. I reverted back to my version without checking that there is a discussion here...shall I undo my change? Thank you, Jytdog for understanding what I was trying to do. I have been trying to educate the engineers within my company about IP and I find that almost all of them misunderstand and think that IP is reserved for inventions (*see note below) and patents. And the vast material out there is only interested to talk about IP rights and not enough about IP. Certainly, an idea typically cannot become intellectual property. But it's a bit like the explanation of when a foetus becomes a baby. And the term "creation of mind" can be translated as "idea" in layman term. Granted the definition I wrote is not exactly accurate, but it is concise enough for the introduction and good enough as a lead for the man in the street. We can always elaborate on the definition and make the definition more accurate in the body of the article. *Note: when engineers (or any other regular guy in the street not used to reading legal jargons) think of inventions, they think of "airplanes", "smartphones", "cars". To them, an innovative circuit design isn't an "invention", it's just a "new design" Sue (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides, "creations of the mind" is not plain English, but legal jargon. In plain English, a creation of the mind refers to an imagination. A regular guy would get a more accurate understanding of the concept of IP if it's described as "ideas". The statement "IP refers to creations of the mind" (as stated on www.wipo.int), would cause a regular guy to go "I'm sure it doesn't mean IP refers to imagination, but damn if I know what it's trying to say".Sue (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting discussion. How about “Intellectual Property is intangible property”?--Nowa (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rename and "Intellectual property" stub
I appreciate your boldness in doing the move to IPR but I don't agree with setting up an IP article separate from this one, and I am not sure I agree with the move. Please discuss your rationale. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * this was really outrageous. Please discuss.  Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The article was named "intellectual property", but it is about "intellectual property rights". If you look up the definition of "intellectual property" in the dictionary, you'll see that it is not the same as the rights pertaining to the property.  These are two distinct topics.  Intellectual property is a subject, and per WP:NOTABILITY qualifies for having an article.  Should Intellectual property have its own stub?  Well, if it has potential to grow, I would be inclined to say yes.  I'll work on it over the next couple of days.  If I can't grow it into a decent article start in that time, I'll revert my own edits at your request.  The Transhumanist 03:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is perhaps the most arrogant editing I have ever seen here. See you on the drama board. Jytdog (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I think there's a lot of sloppiness in the way that the terms "intellectual property" and "intellectual property rights" are used and I think that the idea of splitting the articles may require more subtlety and precisions on the part of both readers and sources than we can reasonably expect. I'll give this the benefit of the doubt for a couple days to see how this develops but I'm pretty skeptical at the moment. — m a k o ๛  06:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a violation of WP:MOVE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWAR. It needs to be reverted and then discussed.  Outside of any content issue, the behavior is way out of line. Jytdog (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Benjamin, I'm skeptical too. The more I delve into the subject, the more tightly intertwined these two topics seem to be.  But there are similar relationships out there.  For example humans and human rights.  Animals and animal rights.  Patients and patient rights.  So it shouldn't be too hard to clarify the two.  I'm still working on it.  Though, since Jytdog really wants the rationale first, I don't see why we shouldn't humor him.  So I've moved the page to draftspace at User:The Transhumanist/Intellectual property for the time being, and will work on it there. The Transhumanist 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:MOVE is a guideline. Thank you for humoring it.  and yes, the concept of property is meaningless without its associated rights;  nobody would care otherwise. Jytdog (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * More importantly, there are several contributors to this article who have pretty strong views on IP and it is very unlikely that your proposal will be noncontroversial.  I suggest you follow the procedure here: WP:RM/CM and describe your plans for the scope of the two articles. Jytdog (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer editing to proposing/discussing. It would be far more productive to improve/expand this article than discuss the creation of a new closely related article.  The draft would likely be merged into this article anyways, since their titles already match.  Might as well develop the material here.  The Transhumanist 20:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * as you will. thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

First appearance of expression "intellectual property"
In "History" section, it is said that "Modern usage of the term intellectual property goes back at least as far as 1867...". I've found some earlier references:
 * In English, 1855:
 * In French ("propriété intellectuelle"), 1843:

Can I change the current article accordingly?

--Gibus april (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In my view that current section is entirely WP:OR, being constructed from WP:PRIMARY sources and connecting them via WP:SYN. I have been meaning to rewrite it based on WP:SECONDARY sources but have not gotten around to it yet.  Your additions would be yet more WP:OR.  There are some very accesible sources, like this and this.  There are also books that you may be able to get through a library, like this.  Jytdog (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this reply Jytdog! I'm not familiar with WP standards, that's why I've asked on this Talk page before editing the article. I understand concerns with regard to WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. But I would say that for the particular issue of listing the oldest source which mention an expression ("intellectual property"), those constraints can be relaxed. After all, the goal in this peculiar case is to list primary sources.


 * Anyway, I've found a secondary source that I guess would meet the criteria. The WIPO page you've pointed is not relevant since it lists only the history of "Intellectual property" inside the context of international agreements that have led to create the WIPO itself, but it doesn't tell whether and when the expression "intellectual property" has been used outside this context. The other page you've pointed from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is also not useful because it lists only the history of various rights generally included in the "intellectual property" realm, but not of the term "intellectual property" itself. Sherman and Bently's book is surely interesting, at least it is quoted very often in academic papers on the history of "intellectual property". But unfortunately I do'nt have this book and don't plan to buy it.


 * But as said I've found this secondary source which exactly addresses the issue of the usage of the term "intellectual property". First, this paper warns that "intellectual property" has sometimes been used in Italian and Spanish (and to a less extent in French) as a synonym for copyright only, while "In the United States the earliest reported decision to use the phrase intellectual property seems to be the 1845 Davoll v. Brown case, which used the phrase in reference to a patent". But according to this paper, the first time that the term "intellectual property" was used as an "umbrella concept for patent, copyright, trademark, and design protection" is in 1849 by English commentator Thomas Turner . Hughes notes that one page table illustrating “Comparative duration and expense of intellectual property” clearly uses intellectual property in its umbrella sense for patents, copyrights, and design protection, this page can be seen on archive.org.


 * I guess that this last reference, along with the secondary source provided by Justin Hughes' paper, should replace the current reference to 1867 North German Confederation constitution. Should I do this? Gibus april (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The goal in WP is never "to list primary sources." Never. If what you really care about is the first usages of the term (which in my view is a piece of trivia that should get perhaps a sentence in this article) you need a reliable secondary source that says that. A good one.  Latching onto a random paper that you find on the web, because it happens to be on the web, is shitty scholarship. I found Hughes' paper too, and didn't cite it above on purpose - I have no idea if that guy's ideas are mainstream, or on the lunatic fringe. Do you know?  (and you need to know, before you use it - for all you know you could be sending WP's readers off into quack-history land.  Adding stuff to WP is a real responsibility)   You don't need to buy books.  Almost every town has a library and every library can get almost any book on the planet through interlibrary loan.   And no - do not cite the primary source as a reference.  You can name the book or whatever you figure out is the first instance in the article content, but what you cite as a reference needs to be the reliable secondary source that says so.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, what you ask is beyond what I can do to help WP. I've come across this article while doing some research about the issue of the first usages of the term intellectual property, which is actually an important issue when you want to seriously contest such usage (as reported later in section "Criticisms" of this same article). I've found that this WP article was giving poor, not to say wrong, information on this issue, that was contradicted by several sources. I just won't use this WP article as a reference and leave it in its current poor state. I hope that you eventually find the time to get around your project to rewrite it based on WP:SECONDARY.Gibus april (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am just asking you to treat WP as a serious, scholarly project. You can treat it as you wish. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope you've talked to me like I am an idiot. Treating WP as a serious, scholarly project was exactly my point: the information in the article was not serious nor usable for a scholarly project. I'm happy with the recent changes by TJRC, thanks to him! Gibus april (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

i'll get around to my rewrite of this section one of these days. WP is based on secondary sources, not primary sources. i do appreciate that you want to improve things. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sybaris
I removed this, because the source is a breathless recounting of Sybaritic luxury which looks fantastical to modern historians' eyes; we shouldn't treat it literally as a reliable source on the history of intellectual property law. bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many references to Sybaris as the location where the first "patent law" was enacted. A search for "Sybaris patent" on Google Books returns numerous hits. See for example: "The first patent law was enacted in Sybaris, a city in the South of Italy, before the Roman domination; (...) The law was mentioned by Atheneus, an ancient writer..." ( - chapter by Mario Franzosi). We should mention something on Sybaris, in my opinion. --Edcolins (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reinserted the sentence with the additional reference, as mentioned above. --Edcolins (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Unverifiable claims in lead paragraph
Considering the deletion of changes  and, and the alleged presence of proper reliable sources within the body of the article to support those claims; I am sorry to bring into attention a conflict of edits.

I contend that the aforementioned changes, which added inline tags to request verifiable sources, were justified because the article body does not actually contain them. I am afraid you are maintaining unverifiable claims. I see three (one has been removed in a later revision) problematic sentences in the lead paragraph(s):

Nowhere in this article the page Intangible property is ever linked again. That article itself is a dubious stub already marked for lack of references to verifiable sources, so one would expect to at least see Intellectual property to develop on this idea and provide sources. There are two sourced mentions to the economics of "intangible assets" in the rest of the article and those comprise all mentions to the word "intangible", but none of those references are useful for the purpose of verifying the claim at hand: that intellectual property rights are a form of property called intangible property. They simply provide reliability for those unrelated sentences in which they appear.
 * Intellectual property rights are themselves a form of property, called intangible property.

This is a more subjective one. I grant that copyright, patents, etc., have evolved over the last centuries and so I find it needless to ask for sources for this particular claim. However that conclusion depends upon interpreting patent law, copyright law, trademarks and the others to be the "legal principles governing IP". Another reader might think that there is a legal framework encompassing those laws and therefore that hypothetical framework is best fitted as the legal principles governing intellectual property. Because the rest of the article does not make it clear in a sourced sentence or section what the legal principles governing all of intellectual property are considered to be, in one of my reverted edits I asked for further precision with the inline tag.
 * ...many of the legal principles governing IP and IPR have evolved over centuries,

It is the second sentence that bugs me. There's just one sourceless extra mention to the Satute of Anne and none to the Statute of Monopolies. The problem does not lie with these laws being the origins of patents and copyright respectively, but with claiming that reputable sources think of them as the firm establishment of the concept of intellectual property. Neither the #History section nor the article as a whole provide references to support it.
 * The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are now seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively,[3] firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property.

I will send a second set of edits, using instead of  this time for the first and third sentences, and another  for the second one.

Want to hear from you. Sincerely, a proudly anonymous Wikimedian --187.163.215.216 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * i believe these changes address the issues you raised above. with regard to your 2nd point, we have entire separate articles on History of copyright law and History of patent law and we are not going to rehearse those entire articles here. all it took to fix this was moving the sentence from the lead to the body Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150407051633/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf to http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

History: Opening sentence
"The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the British Statute of Anne (1710) are seen as the origins of patent law and copyright respectively..."

Since both these statutes are British - I propose either:
 * "Two British Parliamentary Acts, the Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the Statute of Anne (1710) are seen..."

or
 * "The Statute of Monopolies (1624) and the Statute of Anne (1710) are seen..."

Cwbr77 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
Same content was added here and at patents - is under discussion at Talk:Patent. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Lippoldt's comment on this article
Dr. Lippoldt has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"I have two comments:

1) "Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the intellect for which a monopoly is assigned to designated owners by law.[1]"

I would say "monopoly or market exclusivity". This is because in some cases there is not complete control assigned to the property owner. For example, there are research exemptions for patents or fair use exemptions for copyright-protected material. There is some discussion of exclusivity in the economic literature. For example. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2179511 or http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1720088.

2) Trade secret misappropriation

With respect to Trade secret misappropriation, it would be useful to cite empirical work that an OECD team conducted to examine definitions of trade secret protection and survey its implementation in a few dozen countries around the world. I would suggest adding the following sentence at the end of the existing paragraph:

"Empirical studies point to broad similarities in the definition and scope of trade secrets across many countries, but substantial dissimilarities with respect to implementation of protection for trade secrets. For example, differences are found in evidence gathering and discovery, protection of trade secrets during litigation, technology transfer requirements and the effectiveness of legal systems with respect to enforcement.".

For reference, see Schultz and Lippoldt (2014) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trade/approaches-to-protection-of-undisclosed-information-trade-secrets_5jz9z43w0jnw-en and also Lippoldt and Schultz (2014) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/trade/uncovering-trade-secrets-an-empirical-assessment-of-economic-implications-of-protection-for-undisclosed-data_5jxzl5w3j3s6-en"

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Lippoldt has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


 * Reference : Mark F. Schultz & Douglas C. Lippoldt, 2014. "Approaches to Protection of Undisclosed Information (Trade Secrets): Background Paper," OECD Trade Policy Papers 162, OECD Publishing.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling intellectual property a "monopoly" in the lead-in?
Isn't property ownership in general considered a "monopoly" in a sense, where your ownership (say of a tangible property, like a house) can only be sold by you and no one else? In copyright discussions sometimes people bring up the word "monopoly" to carry in negative general perceptions, though I've always been of the impression that "monopolies" were more in regards to isolated economic control of commodity markets.

It's also a bit strange for the lead-in to cite a New York Times blog, which maybe doesn't come across very definitively.

Even if the "monopoly" wording is relevant, it does seem a bit out of place to introduce a discussion on intellectual property from an economic slant, when it's possible to possess intellectual property in a completely non-economic context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkbikerdude (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No mention of integrated circuit design
The article needs to mention that integrated circuit designs (masks) are also protected in most countries. Dmp717200 (talk) 18:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.the-value-of-ip.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402122050/http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439855768%3Bjsessionid%3DJYgI1HHTCole4ja3j4h9zQ%2A%2A to http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439855768%3Bjsessionid%3DJYgI1HHTCole4ja3j4h9zQ%2A%2A
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302113908/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/professor-seeks-nanotech-patent-moratorium to http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/professor-seeks-nanotech-patent-moratorium
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216195041/http://www.the-value-of-ip.org/ to http://www.the-value-of-ip.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Came here for Boy Scout project, nothing I needed was here
--- Me:
 * P

Q: how is intellectual property protected???? (edit to answer) --- A1 by [username]: --- A2 by [username]: --- A3 by [username]: --- Me: thank you for your answer!!! :3 45.37.108.160 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC) ---

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226035349/http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/83/83Lemley.pdf to http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/83/83Lemley.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115040700/http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html to http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66HD0x4jV?url=http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.pdf to http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022125749/http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/ to http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922062127/http://blog.hdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/60549706_1.PDF to http://blog.hdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/60549706_1.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502015453/http://redesist.ie.ufrj.br/globelics/pdfs/GLOBELICS_0050_Andersen.pdf to http://redesist.ie.ufrj.br/globelics/pdfs/GLOBELICS_0050_Andersen.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022125749/http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/ to http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121212232107/http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/834/index.html to http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/834/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122150353/http://weblog.ipcentral.info/IPRs%20%26%20Tech%20Trans.pdf to http://www.weblog.ipcentral.info/IPRs%20%26%20Tech%20Trans.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221052053/http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/property/intellectual-ownership/ to http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/property/intellectual-ownership/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090407093401/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223230716/http://www.law.case.edu/student_life/ to http://www.law.case.edu/student_life/
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091009142207/http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/publications/Developing_Countries_and_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Myth_and_Reality_6.pdf to http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/publications/Developing_Countries_and_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Myth_and_Reality_6.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090226035349/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~pschneid/images/Schneider_JDEJuly2004.pdf to http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~pschneid/images/Schneider_JDEJuly2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

What sort of libertarian?
"Some libertarian critics of intellectual property have argued that allowing property rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity and infringes on the right to own tangible property."

When using the term libertarian, I think we should give due credit to all those who define themselves using the term, and not merely hand recognition to the laissez-faire/classical liberal faction alone. I propose changing "libertarian" to "right-libertarian". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.228.70 (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My contention is that this is entirely a right-libertarian critique. Left-libertarians have criticisms of intellectual property based on other things- obviously the "infringes on the right to own tangible property" part would not be an issue for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.227.194 (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, in the book, Kinsella refers to himself only as a "libertarian." Based on your edit summary, I recognize this distinction it important to you, but Wikipedia is not about such advocacy, so that isn't an applicable reason. If you want that to read "right-libertarian," you need to provide a reference for that. It's not about whether it is self-evident, as you claim; it's a matter of verifiability. Please provide a source as to Kinsella being in the party's right-wing, and don't re-add that information until you do, or you'll be closer to breaking the three revert rule. lethargilistic (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course Kinsella refers to himself simply as a "libertarian". All right-libertarians do, in their attempt to gain a monopoly over the term and steal it from the traditional libertarians. Rothbard himself gloats over this. But there is a substantive and extremely important difference between the two general schools of thought (left- and right-libertarianism); one considers property rights incompatible with true freedom, while the other upholds property rights as the basis for and greatest expression of freedom. You mistakenly believe that the two terms refer to different factions of the US Libertarian Party. They do not. One is socialist, the other is capitalist. The whole US Libertarian Party is "libertarian" in the American sense; it is a thoroughly laissez-faire capitalist party. There is no left-libertarian faction in the US Libertarian Party, because the Libertarian Party has no socialist faction. The only "left wing" within the party is the wing which is still right-libertarian, just somewhat less market fundamentalist in certain ways. Let's look at what Wikipedia has to say on this; it defines left- and right-libertarian as I do, it lists Kinsella as an anarcho-capitalist, and it lists anarcho-capitalism as a right-libertarian philosophy. So Wikipedia provides the evidence. The reason I am so bent on this change is not only that I am partisan (which I freely admit) but also that the left-libertarian (i.e., social anarchist) argument against intellectual property is *totally different* (I may add it later, if I can find some good sources). Distinguishing between the two is necessary in this case because the reader could be put under the mistaken impression that *all* libertarians disagree with IP based on this argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.227.136 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"... industrial property rights, which are used for inventions ..."
This part "...industrial property rights, which are used for inventions (trademarks, patents, designations of origin, industrial designs and models)..." seems incorrect to me. Trademarks and designations of origins do not protect "inventions". If so, then one could say that copyright does too, doesn't it? Can you cite a source supporting this "definition" of "industrial property"? The different forms of "industrial property" rights (patents, trademarks, geographical indications, etc.) are in fact quite disparate. The same issue arises from this edit you have made to the "copyright" article. --Edcolins (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi here are two publications from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) 1 (p3), 2 (p6 which lay out the definitions, I've added them as references. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this text? "Industrial Property includes patents for inventions, trademarks, industrial designs and geographical indications." If so, I interpret it as IP to include
 * patents for inventions
 * trademarks
 * industrial designs
 * geographical indications.
 * That's also consistent with the normal use of the term IP. The way it is now in the lead suggests that trademarks are a subcategory of patents for inventions. While it is linguistically possible to read the text like that, that can not be what was meant... L.tak (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, yes I think this is correct, what do you suggest its changed to? Note, the second WIPO publication is published under CC BY-SA, we could just use their description word for word. John Cummings (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's remove the wording "which are used for inventions" for now. This does not seem to be supported by the sources you provided, and this is highly dubious to me. Trademark law is not aimed at protecting inventions. --Edcolins (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hilllary Rosen testifies on Napster.jpg

Feel free to delete this, if possible, but aren't Trade Secrets (indeed, many other IPs) protected by the EEA of 1996?
https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1122-introduction-economic-espionage-act

As per the EEA introduction there, it "permits the Attorney General to institute civil enforcement actions and obtain appropriate injunctive relief for violations." This includes Trade Secrets: "The second provision makes criminal the more common commercial theft of trade secrets, regardless of who benefits. 18 U.S.C. § 1832.". Notable because Trade Secrets section of the IP page says, "There is no formal government protection granted; each business must take measures to guard its own trade secrets" - and the header of that section says, "...and in some jurisdictions trade secrets." - a Federal Law is more expansive than "some", I would imagine.

Propose clarifying what "formal government protection" refers to, if indeed I am even on to something but the author was also right (e.g., they meant to refer to how broadly Trade Secrets are defined, as well as how there is no formal registration process for such secrets).

But it seems clear to me that 1: federal law exists to protect IPs, to include Trade Secrets, and that 2: formal protections exist even if no formal registration is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.36.157.29 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be on to something, but if I see it correctly your link only refers to a single country (the United States). Do you have info on how other countries are dealing with this? L.tak (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 14 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Wintersfire.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)