Definition of "IP"

Dear Colleagues:

A few of the DASC standards are concerned with what is currently understood
in
our industry by "IP."

Here are a few thoughts about "IP"

1. In general "Intellectual property" (IP) is a controversial and often
debated term.

At least the following definitions already exist:

                  A. property from original thought protected by law:
                      original creative work manifested in a tangible form
                      that can be legally protected, e.g. by a patent,
trademark, or copyright

                  B. intangible property that is the result of creativity
                      (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)
                  C. a product of the intellect that has commercial value,
including
                      copyrighted property such as literary or artistic
works, and
                      ideational property, such as patents, appellations of
origin,
                      business methods, and industrial processes.

The already known debates are about:

                  a)  "intangible" implied by "intellectual" and "tangible"
implied by "property"
                  b)  the property is not about the "entity" itself, but
about some exclusive rights to the "entity"

2. In the EDA we are using "intellectual property" or IP to mean either:

                  EDA_DEF_1) object_1: a product of the intellect that has
commercial value
                                         e.g. Any IP should be listed in the
library
                  or
                  EDA_DEF_2) object_2: exclusive rights to objects of kind
"object_1"
                                         e.g. Sale of the IP occurred...
                  or
                  EDA_DEF_3)  attribute_1: characteristic of an object to be
of kind object_1
                                          e.g. The IP core is ...

While we should let the lawyers debate about what *they* mean by "IP" we
could limit our goal in the standards to define only the technical aspect
of
the term.

IMHO we could limit our standards concern to just the EDA_DEF_1, and
EDA_DEF_3.

Second, we could differentiate our "IP" in some way, like by using
"ip", *IP* or any other idea (confusion could be with the "courts
meaning", and with "Internet Protocol").

*Q1. Do you have anything to be added to our definitions?*
**
*Q2. Do we need to clarify or draw the line to separate EDA tools?*
**
*Q3. What would be a good, simple criteria to separate the EDA tools from
being *
*considered IP as of kind object_1 (EDA_DEF_1 above)?*
**
Note that I tried to come up with concise definitions. We could
always add, (IMHO meaningless) phrases like "including but not limited
to..."

Please comment!

Regards,

Alex Zamfirescu






-- 
Alex Zamfirescu
650-814-7514
alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com
http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com
=========
This communication, and its attachments, may contain
privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific
individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the
intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or
shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that
any disclosure, copying or  distribution of this communication, or
the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
Interception of e-mail is a crime under the  Electronic Communication
Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply
e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission
and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
=========

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.