Why you shouldn't get your video game news from The Wall Street Journal

SERVED!

It seems that you are claiming that using just the general term "IP" is unsatisfactory, but only to you, since I've never heard of anyone else complaining. A general term is not a problem if it is, in technicality, correct and the entire reader-base seems to understand it.

I don't appreciate the irony like you do. Besides, their choice to be "slightly" less specific (which is actually not a bad thing for a journalist to do, mind you, to prevent readers from being confused with terminology) is not really ironic because they aren't wrong, but WSJ is completely.

And really, as far as I've noticed, they only refer to copyrights as "IP's," but refer to patents and trademarks as they should be. Or maybe a small mixture of trademarks and copyrights are placed under "IP." Nevertheless, a journalist should not be too specific to start confusing the audience with terminology. This is 101 stuff. AKA, just because a professional in a field, who is probably a minority of readers, has qualms with their writing in relation to that professional's doesn't make it wrong, because not everyone is a professional and there is a common understanding of the term "IP" among the reader-base.

It's not technically wrong, but it's not common usage. No one from RIAA or MPA says, "our IPs are being violated." N-o-o-n-e. I've been in the IP field for over 6 years and no one uses it to say, "Square Enix has many IPs which they can tap into," other than these blogs. I only point this out because the improper/non-customary usage of the term IP is what could have led to the confusion on behalf of the WSJ.

Which is not to excuse them from not having done their homework either! Internet Protocols have nothing to do with their story and they should be ashamed for not digging a little deeper. I agree with the titular notion that the WSJ isn't the source for video gaming news, but their mistake was likely the result of someone slinging around IP like it meant something specific, which, as I previously pointed out, it does not. So, I suppose the irony is that in pointing out the total error of the WSJ usage Joystiq unintentionally highlighted its own shallow knowledge of the subject. If you think its simple google WTO TRIPS Agreement, and look through the international standards governing IP and you'll see a lot more than Super Mario and Master Chief.