Re: IP

Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net> schrieb:

In article <jwv4iy113qz.fsf-monnier+comp.arch@gnu.org>,
Stefan Monnier  <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:

You don't have to like the terminology, but that's what is used
across the field.  Sorry if it's uncomfortable, and to be honest
I don't care for it much myself, but them's the breaks.  That's
what AMD calls them, so if we're discussing AMD hardware, it
makes sense to use their terminology.
>
People in construction probably hate that computer people call
things "blocks" that aren't made of concrete.

>
That comparison doesn't work, the problem with "IP" is not ambiguity,
but that it's politically/ethically charged.  That's why I hate it:
because I disagree with the politics behind it (and hate the fact "they"
managed to make "everyone" use it, without even paying attention to what
it means).

>
Well, good luck getting the hardware engineers to change
their nomenclature to suit your sensibilities there.  *shrug*

Which begs the quesiton - can an IP with an IP be IP-protected?

The main problem is probably the lack of acronym namespace.  This is
relatively harmless in this context, but can cause serious confusion
when discussing, for example, chemicals with abbreviations.
Serious misunderstanding can ensue, for example when "MC" can
mean either Methyl Chloride (Chloromethane) or Methylene Chloride
(Dichloromethane).