35

This paper deals with the apparent paradox whereby intellectual property is not meant to allow full and direct appropriation of information, this being a message aimed at communication, but only to reserve in some way its exclusive use for specific purposes while maintaining free communication with and by others (the basis being the form/content dichotomy in copyright law and the disclosure requirement in patent law, respectively). Contract law may reach further, but only inter partes, as intellectual property may be–and frequently is–stretched so as to enable the owner to control the information itself. In addition, the limitations of intellectual property may be circumvented with a view to directly privatizing information otherwise not subject to protection. This may be the effect of remedies to unfair competition law aimed at acts of misappropriation of knowledge or of technical protection measures. This is also the case of the borderline protection of databases through a sui generis right. In this respect, like information itself, the law is somewhat fluid, and it may not be wise to try to consolidate it too strictly.