Re: An IP gripe

On Thu, Aug 12, 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.

I have a hard time coming up with a term too. I hate having to explain "but I'm not a patent lawyer." And when I say "internet, copyright and trademark" I feel I've lost the questioner before I'm through. I think of IP as copr, tm, patent and trade secrets. I think domain names are part of TM. I agree we may be adding collections of info to the list. I tried idea attorney for a while, but it was just as vague and I got just as many blank stares. I'm thinking of just leaving it as internet atty and explaining only if I get interest.

Steven S. Fox
<sfox[_at_]buffnet.net> Received on Wed Aug 18 1999 - 15:25:59 GMT