not proprietary to

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "not proprietary to" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to indicate that something is not owned or restricted by a particular individual or organization. Example: "The software is not proprietary to any single company, allowing for open-source collaboration."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Wiki

Science

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

1 human-written examples

The pair will use Napster's peer-to-peer technology (although it's not proprietary to Napster) to sell BMG tunes for an as-yet undisclosed monthly subscription fee.

Forbes

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

56 human-written examples

Butters's work upholds Microsoft's view: the term consists of two common nouns and is not proprietary at all.

The New Yorker

If you're taking examples of your work on the job, be sure it's not information proprietary to the companies you've worked on.

WikiHow

The results won't be proprietary to Dole.

The New York Times - Magazine

They identify talent across the entire organisation, with the understanding that promising employees are not proprietary assets that belong to individual units.

The Guardian

"We want to put it front and center to be open, not proprietary".

The New York Times

The teams set up a common knowledge base because the idea was to test creativity, not proprietary information.

The Economist

Myths continue to perpetuate in that industry but Flash is not proprietary.

Forbes

They demand that the bank's board create policies and procedures to assure that what the bank is doing is not proprietary trading.

The New York Times

I still think the solution is to make the e-books mutually compatible — to compete on quality of the site, price and customer friendliness, not proprietary file formats.

The New York Times

That is not proprietary trading, he argues.

The New York Times

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When describing technology or research, use "not proprietary to" to clearly indicate that it is openly accessible and not controlled by a single entity. This strengthens arguments for collaboration and innovation.

Common error

Avoid using "not proprietary to" as a direct synonym for "public domain". While both indicate openness, "public domain" has specific legal implications related to copyright, whereas "not proprietary to" simply means not exclusively owned or controlled.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "not proprietary to" functions as a qualifier, indicating that something is not exclusively owned or controlled by a particular entity. According to Ludwig, the phrase is correct and usable in written English. It often suggests openness and accessibility.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

News & Media

33%

Wiki

33%

Science

33%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "not proprietary to" is used to convey that something is not exclusively owned or controlled by a single entity, indicating openness and accessibility. While grammatically correct, its occurrence is rare. Ludwig AI confirms the usability of the phrase in written English. The phrase appears in a range of contexts, including News & Media, Wiki, and Science, reflecting its broad applicability when discussing shared resources or technologies. Alternatives like "not exclusive to" and "not owned by" can provide similar meaning, depending on the specific nuance intended.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

not exclusive to

Emphasizes that something is available to others, not just one entity.

not owned by

Directly states the lack of ownership by a specific entity.

not restricted to

Highlights the absence of limitations on who can access or use something.

not limited to

Similar to "not restricted to", focusing on the lack of confinement.

open to

Indicates accessibility and availability to a wider audience.

available to all

Stresses universal accessibility without any proprietary constraints.

in the public domain

Implies the content is free for anyone to use without copyright restrictions.

unrestricted access to

Emphasizes the freedom to access without any limitations or proprietary control.

not confidential to

It means something is not kept private or secret for a particular entity.

not private to

Highlights the absence of privacy, implying openness and public availability.

FAQs

How can I use "not proprietary to" in a sentence?

You can use "not proprietary to" to indicate that something is not owned or controlled by a particular individual or organization. For example: "The technology is "not proprietary to" any single company, allowing for open-source collaboration."

What can I say instead of "not proprietary to"?

You can use alternatives like "not exclusive to", "not owned by", or "available to all" depending on the context.

Is it better to say "not proprietary to" or "in the public domain"?

The choice depends on the context. "Not proprietary to" indicates that something is not owned or controlled by a specific entity. "In the public domain" means the item is not protected by intellectual property laws and is free for anyone to use. They are not always interchangeable.

What does it mean when something is described as "not proprietary to"?

When something is described as ""not proprietary to"", it means that it is not exclusively owned or controlled by a particular company or individual. This often implies that it is openly available or accessible.