[AnthonyMouse]

> The simple use of the term "IP" goes against your goal. All these things we call "IP" are mostly unrelated to the notion of "property" itself ; they're related to temporary government-enforced monopolies.

It also lumps together many unrelated things. There is no big trouble with trademarks. Copyright itself isn't even a problem, the problem there is DRM. But software patents are unredeemable. They aren't all the same.

[jordigh]

There's also a bunch of other mostly unrelated stuff that gets called intellectual property, such as regional designations (e.g. "designed in California") and ship hull designs, which receive their own special treatment:

https://www.quora.com/Why-were-boat-hull-designs-specificall...

Each of these "intellectual properties" has its own special nuances and treatments, and often completely different laws. You have to demonstrate originality to copyright something, but you can trademark the most unoriginal things. You have to demonstrate that something has a function before you can patent it, but you can copyright the most useless things. You need to demonstrate that something really was created where you want to regionally designate it, but you don't need to prove anything to trademark it.

Lumping them all together is like saying programming, literature, mathematics, and theatre are all the same just because they all happen to have some sort of abstraction to them.

[Ace17]

Dude! programming, literature, mathematics and theatre are all "text stuff"!