| |||||||||||
So-called "IPR"So-called "IPR"Posted Oct 21, 2005 15:46 UTC (Fri) by pdundas (subscriber, #15203)In reply to: So-called "IPR" by diakka Parent article: Europatents to return in 2006?
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").
(Log in to post comments)
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?
|
|||||||||||