So-called "IPR" [LWN.net]

So-called "IPR"

Posted Oct 20, 2005 11:41 UTC (Thu) by soundray (subscriber, #688)
Parent article: Europatents to return in 2006?

Note how the commission has already fallen for the devious usage of "IPR": there seems to be an attempt to ensconce the mistaken notion of "rights" in this context. Copyright, trademark protection and patents are privileges, not rights. Using propaganda terms such as "IPR", it will be very hard to find the proper balance between the public interest and the interests of the holders of these privileges.

(Log in to post comments)

So-called "IPR"

Posted Oct 20, 2005 18:53 UTC (Thu) by diakka (guest, #10310) [Link]

This is a good point. But it is a catchy and easy to use term. I think that there should be an alternative to it, something that indicates the nature of a patent. Maybe something like "invention monopoly privileges" or IMP.

So-called "IPR"

Posted Oct 20, 2005 20:47 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

It really doesn't do any good to argue about whether something is a right or a privilege, because they're the same thing except for the level at which a right or privilege is granted.

In the case of IPR, the R could simply stand for the legal right that a government may create by making patent laws.

So-called "IPR"

Posted Oct 21, 2005 1:48 UTC (Fri) by diakka (guest, #10310) [Link]

On the contrary, it has the potential to do a lot good. When playing politics, your choice of words is of the utmost importance.

The point of selecting the word 'privilege' is that when most people think of a privilege, they think of something that is earned, may require a certian amount of responsibility to use, and something that could be taken away if abused. When people think of a right, they think of 'inalienable rights' or 'god given rights'. It's a very powerful propaganda word.

Sure, you could argue that there is no real legal difference between rights and privileges, I might even agree with that point. But the fight against software patents is mostly PR and politics. If we want to win, we have to convince people. We don't want to be thought of as those techie loonies that wanna take away our "Intellectual Property Rights". We would have a much stronger position if people thought of us as trying to restore balance and competition, stop patent hoarding and attempts by large corporation to litigate their comptition out of business.

There have been many people who expressed dislike for the term IP and IPR. Maybe my suggestion is not the opimal one, but without an alternative, people are just going to keep using it, decreasing our chances of winning.

So-called "IPR"

Posted Oct 21, 2005 15:46 UTC (Fri) by pdundas (subscriber, #15203) [Link]

The catchy term for these "rights" should probably include key words and concepts like "monopoly" or "restriction" (to emphasise their restrictive and anti-competitive nature) and maybe even "temporary" (to emphasise that it's NOT intended to be perperually extended).

Any more concepts that should be incorporated?

It would also be nice if the issues were discussed in the context of fair dealing / fair use rights (as in "it's not about enabling piracy").

IPR ==> Intellectual Proprietary Restrictions

Posted Oct 22, 2005 2:28 UTC (Sat) by AnswerGuy (subscriber, #1256) [Link]

We can simply adopt the same letters and promulgate and alternative expansion for them. One that gives our take on it. I use to say (as frequently as my managers and users would listen that NFS stands for "No Flippin' Security (insert the expletive of your choice in the middle of that)" which rarely failed to get a laugh but also drove home the point.

So, calling IPR the "intellectual proprietary restrictions" emphasizes this aspect of the concept and rides on the coat-tails of all other usage of the abbreviation.

JimD

IPR ==> Intellectual Proprietary Restrictions

Posted Oct 23, 2005 15:23 UTC (Sun) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link]

The problem with trying to hijack the opposition's acronyms is that most people already have a meaning in their head for them. When an anti-swpat person is quoted and he says "IPR" the quote is unlikely to also contain the alternate definition, however if he had said "IMP" then it would have to be explained alongside the quote as "Intellectual Monopoly Privilege".

IPR ==> Intellectual Proprietary Restrictions

Posted Oct 26, 2005 18:24 UTC (Wed) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Perhaps "Intrusive Proprietary Restrictions" would be good?