Re: An IP gripe

On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Carol Cricow <carol[_at_]yujean.com> wrote:
>
> Am I the only one who resents the term "Intellectual Property" being
> used only for patents? I just got a flyer in the mail advertising a
> CLE called "International Judge Conference on Intellectual Property
> Law." A quick glance at the schedule told me that this is a
> conference on patent law.
>
> Earlier this year, I was asked to be on a career panel at the
> University of Oregon law School representing "soft" intellectual
> property -- by which they meant "not patents" which, apparently,
> goes as "hard" intellectual property.
>
> I resent that. Many of the most important, cutting edge issues in
> IP law are in the areas of copyright and trademarks -- esp. with
> Internet issues such as copyright infringement by posting on a web
> site and domain names as trademark.
>
> The kind of IP law I practice, that is copyrights, trademarks and
> licensing, is IP. Period. Not "hard"; not "soft" -- just intellectual
> property.
>
> Sorry for the slight diatribe but it really pisses me off.

Carol,

    Actually, as a copyright person I am experience a similar strange phenomenum, at least on college campuses. For some reason, folks now want to refer to IP when indeed they mean copyright. Certainly, universities have trademark and patent issues too, but invariably, when it is a non-lawyer using the term "intellectual property" it turns out they really mean copyright.

    I have wondered if people think the term IP sounds better?

--
Lolly

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Laura N. Gasaway, Director of the Law Library & Professor of Law
University of North Carolina, CB # 3385
Chapel Hill, NC   27599
Phone:  919-9621321
Fax:  919-962-1193
Email:  laura_gasaway[_at_]unc.edu
  http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/gasaway.htm
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%