A Posteriori

The phrase itself is a flagrant lie. “Intellectual property” comprises copyright, patents, trademarks and trade secrets. None of these legal mechanisms involve ownership of said “intellectual property” in any way shape or form.

From Google.com:

Copyright: A copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by government for a limited time to protect the particular form, way or manner in which an idea or information is expressed.

Patent: A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a government to a person for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of an invention.

Trademark: A word, phrase, symbol, or design, or combination thereof, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others.

Trade secrets: A trade secret is a confidential practice, method, process, design, or other information used by a company to compete with other businesses.

Copyrights and patents are rights over the subjects of the copyrights or patents over a limited time. The individual or company in question is granted an exclusive right to reproduce or use said subject over a fixed period of time, after which the rights to these subjects expire and they fall into the public domain. Trademarks do not expire, but at the same time, a trademark could just as easily be a word or phrase commonly used in the English (or any other) language (ex “Office”), therefore, the individual or company can’t claim ownership of that phrase in that language. It’s debatable whether or not trade secrets comprise “property” or if they’re just confidential information. Regardless, even confidential information must be surrendered to society as a whole (as represented by the government) under appropriate circumstances where illegal or immoral behaviour is suspected.

Taking into account the above, the case for the “intellectual property” verbiage is weak at best and totally deceitful at worst.

It is absolute wrong for corporations or individuals to claim ownership of what are mostly temporary rights that are conferred by the government for the purpose of granting certain incentives to encourage innovative behaviour. These mechanisms represent a pact with society, and should not be interpreted by those granted the benefit of such mechanisms, and especially not by society as a whole, as being God-given rights to these corporations or individuals. In order for these “intellectual property” holders to continue to benefit from such mechanisms, it must be understood by all those involved that society itself must benefit from these arrangements, otherwise society as a whole must have the right to revoke or further limit such mechanisms.

Society, culture, innovations, phrases and words, confidential information and especially ideas ultimately belong to society as whole. The debate over “intellectual property” must reflect this fundamental truth.

The substance of each specific “intellectual property” mechanisms is the subject of another blog. However, in order to have an honest debate, we need to have honest verbiage. Let’s stop calling it what it isn’t. It’s time to dump the phrase “intellectual property” and replace it with something more descriptive and open.