Posted Oct 27, 2005 12:29 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot
In reply to: not rights
Parent article: Letter to the editor
Yes, I agree, it's an abuse of "intellectual", some of the things it covers are indeed un-intellectual or even anti-intellectual.
Stock analysts refer to things that have value on the balance sheet, but no physical material substance, as intangibles. These include, but are not limited to, patents, copyrights and brand names.
So I'd suggest "intangible property rights", which has the advantage of leaving the acronym IPR unaltered. This also makes it clear that the class is meaningful. If you can kick it, it's ordinary property. If you can't, it's intangible. If the law doesn't let you own it, it's not property at all.
The debate about what rights the law should grant over particular classes of intangible, and indeed over whether there should be any rights granted at all, is unaffected.
to post comments)