 
 <prompt> Wetin dey confuse monopolies na say dem dey think say dem get ownership of limited physical things. For example, if one company get monopoly for di production of a particular product, e fit dey reason say dem get total control of di product and everything wey concern am. But di truth be say even if dem get monopoly, e no mean say dem get physical ownership of di resources wey dey involved for di production of di product. E fit be say dem just get exclusive rights to produce am. <response>: Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman dey argue say, even though di term intellectual property dey widely used, e suppose dey rejected completely, because e dey "systematically distort and confuse these issues, and e use dey promoted by those wey dey gain from this confusion". E talk say di term "dey operate as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, get different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and say e dey create "bias" by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to "property rights". Stallman dey advise make we refer to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warn against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term. 