On Fri, Nov 8, 2013, at 07:38 PM, Bill Stewart wrote:
>> Some of us strongly believe in intellectual property. Some of us
>> believe that initiating force to defend "imaginary property" that's
>> really a euphemism for a government-granted monopoly is both
>> dishonest and anathema.
>I agree with the concepts of copyrights, patents (for physical
>inventions only), trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets.
>I disagree completely with the use of the term "intellectual property"
>because the laws governing copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade dress,
>and trade secrets are not property laws. Not only is the term
>"intellectual property" deceptive, misleading, and ambiguous, the people
>who brought it to us are the same ones who would love to
shut down
>BitTorrent and similar information sharing technologies.
> Shawn K. Quinn
>
skquinn@rushpost.com
Can we all agree that if a 'patent system' were implemented by 'voluntary-ist' methods, that doesn't involve government-initiated force, that would solve the problem: Those that agreed with copyrights/patents would buy only from stores that specialize in copyright/patent-honoring products/manufacturers; others would buy from all stores, including those that sold non-copyright/patent-honoring products.
Jim Bell