Ontologically Speaking (Score 1)

St. Anselm proposed an a priori proof of G-d's existence in the 11th century in what is called the Ontological Argument. He used a variant of Plato's "forms" to say that each thing in the world has certain characteristics without which they would not necessarily be that thing. One of the Anselm said that without the trait of existence, a god wouldn't be a god and (among other very important things that for the sake of brevity I am leaving out)therefore G-d exists. Plato said essentially the same thing except that he wasn't talking about existence per se, but rather characteristics of something. In terms of Intellectual Property, Plato would say that without the ability to own or control it, it's not intellectual property. It's just somebody's idea. That's what I was saying before about knowing where the boundaries are. If there is something called Intellectual Property, then the Property part of it has characteristics of property. Land is not property unless someone owns it. If nobody owns it, then it's not property. Intellectual Property - at least the property portion of it is defined by ownership. That is one of the natural limits of it. If it cannot have ownership - even common ownership - such as the public domain, then it is not intellectual property. In our legal system we recognize this fact with patents. You can't patent a number or an idea like "let's go to lunch." You can patent an idea and then give that ownership to the commonweal, but that doesn't obviate the ownership of the idea.