A US senate committee staffer made threats to try to stop Colombia from approving a license for an generic, affordable cancer drug.

Of course, the threat used the propaganda term "intellectual property", which not only carries spin in favor of the drug companies, but also impedes understanding of any issue because it confuses several unrelated laws.

What is sad is that the article uses that term too. The author, who criticizes the staffer's actions, probably does not realize that the term gives implicit support to them, as well as impeding clear thinking about any specific law (in this case, patent law). That term should never be used. I object to it every time I hear or see it. You can, too.