Jump to content

Talk:Intellectual property

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wintersfire (talk | contribs) at 06:47, 12 March 2020 (Update Computer Engineering - Introduction and Ethics assignment details). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Archive

Archives

1 2

Template:WAP 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.


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)[reply]

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 <392>). 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)." German BVerfG (May 5, 2000). "1 BvR 1864/95 "Klinische Versuche"". pp. par. 13. Retrieved April 12, 2009.
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)[reply]
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? ([1]) 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)[reply]
I have removed the neutrality tag, per TJRC. Well established term indeed. --Edcolins (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

WHY DOES THIS PAGE KEEP POPPING UP EVERY TIME WE DO A GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH? -- unsigned comment added by 78.86.10.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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):

<script type="text/javascript"> if ((window.self != window.top) || (window.parent.frames.length > 0)) { window.top.location = 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property'; } </script>

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I would suggest that you post your query here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). This talk page is for discussing the article "Intellectual property". --Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octrooibureau Vriesendorp & Gaade B.V. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1][2]

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, to Isaac McPherson 13 Aug. 1813 Writings 13:333--35[3]
  1. ^ "Thomas Jefferson's copyright term (fwd)". 11 Feb 1999.
  2. ^ Mike Masnick (February 21st 2008). "On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents". techdirt. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Thomas Jefferson. "Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson". University of Chicago. - (copyfraud)

Reasons

  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

Hartboy (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: Wikipedia:NPOV#Naming. --Edcolins (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That naming guideline isn't talking about naming the section about criticism so it sounds neutral. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 | contribs) 17:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary Technology

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
addressed.Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You should find the answer to this question here: Wikipedia:Copyrights. --Edcolins (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 sectionarticle 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))[reply]

Excellent addition! Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 07:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

just saying that i think the thrust of Sue's edit, to have a nontechnical, accessible intro, was good as per WP:TECHNICAL. I don't agree with Edcolins'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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Interesting discussion. How about “Intellectual Property is intangible property”?[2][3]--Nowa (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and "Intellectual property" stub

The Transhumanist 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)[reply]

this was really outrageous. Please discuss. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@The Transhumanist and Jytdog: 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. —mako๛ 06:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Transhumanist 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
as you will. thanks for replying. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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: [1]
  • In French ("propriété intellectuelle"), 1843: [2]

Can I change the current article accordingly?

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

References

  1. ^ SPOONER, LYSANDER (1855). THE LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; OR AN ESSAY ON THE RIGHT OF AUTHORS AND INVENTORS TO A PERPETUAL PROPERTY IN THEIR IDEAS. BOSTON: BELA MARSH. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
  2. ^ JOBARD, Jean-Baptiste-Ambroise-Marcellin (1843). Création de la propriété intellectuelle - De la nécessité et des moyens d'organiser l'industrie, de moraliser le commerce et de discipliner la concurrence (PDF). Brussels.
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)[reply]
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[1]. 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ TURNER, Thomas (1849). On copyright in design in art and manufactures. London: F. Elsworth. OCLC 15666760. Retrieved 5 March 2015.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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..." (Takenaka, Toshiko (2013). Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 419. - chapter by Mario Franzosi). We should mention something on Sybaris, in my opinion. --Edcolins (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reinserted the sentence with the additional reference, as mentioned above. --Edcolins (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable claims in lead paragraph

Considering the deletion of changes [4] and [5], 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):

  • Intellectual property rights are themselves a form of property, called intangible property.

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.

  • ...many of the legal principles governing IP and IPR have evolved over centuries,

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 {{which}}.

  • 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.

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.

I will send a second set of edits, using {{citation needed (lead)}} instead of {{citation needed}} this time for the first and third sentences, and another {{which}} 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Intellectual property. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Criticism

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Came here for Boy Scout project, nothing I needed was here

Question for Help:reference desk - this is not a forum Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

"... industrial property rights, which are used for inventions ..."

@John Cummings: 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)[reply]

Hi @Edcolins: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks @L.tak:, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intellectual_property&oldid=945169909"