Message 01244 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01131 Message: 4/4 L3 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: [ox-en] IPR/monopoly rights



Hi Graham and list!

3 days ago Graham Seaman wrote:
Last month (28 days ago) Graham Seaman wrote:
I hate having discussions about patents and copyright where you get
sucked into using the term 'intellectual property rights', but could
never think of a good alternative.

Me too. In German the term is known as "Geistiges Eigentum" where
"geistig" has slightly different connotations than "intellectual".
It's horrible.

'spiritual', 'sacred'? if that's the association, yes, it's even worse
than english ;-(

No, that's "geistlich" - a term which has been originally used in the
German translation of the Hipatia manifest ;-) .

However, "geistig" is more like 'spirit' or 'mental' than
'intellectual' (as far as I understand the English terms).

I was always a bit unhappy about rms's line that the reason saying
'intellectual property rights' is wrong is not only that it prejudges the
issue of 'property', but also that it lumps together things (patents and
copyright in particular) that have nothing in common. They obviously do
have something in common - they give people a legally enforced monopoly.
So, instead of talking about 'IPRs' I plan to use 'monopoly rights' as the
generic name. Is there any obvious flaw in that?

IMHO the term 'monopoly rights' lacks of its intended relation to
information goods. Otherwise I find the term correct.

Are monopoly rights granted for anything except information?

From my childhood I remember the Streichholzmonopol (monopoly on
matches). But I think this is not the case any more for quite some
time now.

[googling - this is the nice thing which German combined words: they
are easy to find ;-) ]

http://www.wer-weiss-was.de/theme81/article887717.html

  Interessant ist in diesem Zusammenhang vielleicht noch, dass sich
  1930 die schwedische Firma Svenska Tandsticks durch einen Kredit an
  Deutschland ein Streichholzmonopol in D gesichert hatte. Dieses
  Monopol ging erst 1983 zuende.

  Dies mag vielleicht auch ein Grund gewesen sein, warum die
  Streichholzverpackungen in D vor 1983 eher phantasielos waren (die
  Älteren unter uns *hüstel* erinnern sich sicher) und warum
  Streichhölter Schwedenhölzer genannt wurden (ausser dem von Werner
  erwähnten Grund).

A Swedish corporation producing matches gave a credit to Germany in
1930 and received monopoly rights for that. They ended 1983.

I mean, in
the sense of general laws allowing people to create a monoploy (hence
'rights') rather than the specific monopoly over a particular thing
assigned to the state (eg. until recently the state monopoly over the
phone, postal, and electricity systems).

In Germany the electricity system until very recently was run by a
small number (about 8) regional electricity suppliers. They expanded
their monopoly to the former DDR. They were - and are - not state
institutions. AFAIK the Nazis implemented this monopoly.

There have been quite some quarrels with local people producing their
own electricity by alternative sources of energy. In the beginning
they were not allowed to put their excess electricity into the
"public" network - not speaking of being payed for it. Today they are
allowed to and are paid for it.

Until about 20 years ago in Germany there was only the public
broadcasting services in tv and radio. They were - and still are - not
statist though they are also not private. It's a special construct
which may be a specialty of Germany. They are under public law
("öffentlich-rechtlich").

Unless I'm missing something
monopoly rights are only legally granted for information.

I don't think so. At least it is not clear.


						Mit Freien Grüßen

						Stefan

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01131 Message: 4/4 L3 [In index]
Message 01244 [Homepage] [Navigation]