ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Terminology recommendations"

(Protection (avoid): * patents are a form of <s>protection</s> pox / blight for software)
(Protection (avoid): ===Technology (avoid)=== :''(See: Technology)'' The TRIPS agreement requires patents to be available "''in all fields of technology''". If we say that software is ")
Line 26: Line 26:
 
* patent restrictions ''apply to'' an idea for 20 years
 
* patent restrictions ''apply to'' an idea for 20 years
 
* patents are a form of <s>protection</s> pox / blight for software
 
* patents are a form of <s>protection</s> pox / blight for software
 +
 +
===Technology (avoid)===
 +
 +
:''(See: [[Technology]])''
 +
 +
The [[TRIPS]] agreement requires patents to be available "''in all fields of technology''".  If we say that software is "technical", then it becomes harder for politicians to understand that software is not a field of technology.
 +
 +
'''Instead say:'''
 +
 +
* Software is ''complex''.  This is a suitable replacement for almost all situations.
  
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==

Revision as of 08:45, 12 February 2012

A lot of confusing and biased terminology is used in pro-software-patent propaganda. Rejecting this terminology and replacing it with clear and accurate wording is essential so that the issues and our proposals will be clear to policy makers, our supporters, and our potential supporters.

Note: There are different terminology issues to consider in you legislative proposals or court submissions. These are discussed on the page Choosing words to use in legal proposals.

The word list

Intellectual property (avoid)

For lengthy discussion, see: Let's avoid the term "Intellectual property"

Avoiding this term is very important. Firstly, it's confusing and vague. This term refers collectively to patents, copyrights, trademarks, geographic designations, plus other laws. If you're trying to talk to someone about patent policy, and they're thinking about copyright or trademarks, intelligent discussion is almost impossible.

Secondly, it implies that these state-created monopolies are "property". This encourages people to think about the owner of this "property", and leads people to think that loss of this "property" would be theft. Aside from this bias, the idea of monopolies-as-property is also nonsense. As Bessen & Meurer say in their book Patent Failure, "if you can’t tell the boundaries, then it ain’t property".

Instead say:

  • patents. If you're talking about patents, just say "patents". There's no need to look for another term.

Protection (avoid)

Do not say that an idea is "protected" by a patent, or that the "protection" lasts 20 years. When a patent exists, product developers are vulnerable and can be attacked at any time. Calling it protection encourages people to only think about it from the patent holder's point of view. Further, patents are used more often aggressively than defensively, so this term is still not accurate even when you limit yourself to looking at them from a patent holder's point of view.

Instead say:

  • an idea is covered by a patent
  • patent restrictions apply to an idea for 20 years
  • patents are a form of protection pox / blight for software

Technology (avoid)

(See: Technology)

The TRIPS agreement requires patents to be available "in all fields of technology". If we say that software is "technical", then it becomes harder for politicians to understand that software is not a field of technology.

Instead say:

  • Software is complex. This is a suitable replacement for almost all situations.

Related pages on ESP Wiki

External links

Note: The following link is not about software patents but is a great example of how to analyse terminology: