[gurps] Treaty on Public Utilities and life support

[rekres]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:44 AM, David Scheidt <dmscheidt at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 5:01 AM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote:
>> From: David Scheidt <dmscheidt at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> No.  It's not an opinion.  It's the definition of intellectual
>>> property.  IP is a monopoly granted by the state (or whatever proxy
>>> for the state exists) that allows the owner of the IP to extract a
>>> rent from the IP.  In the absence of the protection granted by the
>>> state, there is no way to extract the rent. That makes it a distortion
>>> of the free market.
>>
>> The quoted definition of free market *did* include an allowance for laws
>> protecting property rights, without excluding IP.
>
> It's from Wikipedia.  It's less than accurate; in particular, it's
> woefully incomplete.  It's worth noting that "intellectual property"
> is a 20th century idea, even though the protection mechanisms go back
> much farther.  It's new speak to confuse the issue.
>

Merriam Webster Online:
Main Entry:     intellectual property
Function:     noun
Date:     1845
: property (as an idea, invention, or process) that derives from the
work of the mind or intellect ; also : an application, right, or
registration relating to this


Seems like its a 19th century idea... at least according to Merriam
Webster.  Which is the problem I've been trying to point out.  When
discussing economics, not even the economists agree on terms.  So how
then can you assert an absolute when people can't even agree on the
basic terminology?


-- 
Chris J. Whitcomb
"I try to keep an open mind, but my brain keep falling out!"