4 ms·

I think that makes some sense in analogy to patents -- to be eligible for patent protection, you have to fully disclose the invention publicly. You can choose t

by bo1024 8y ago

I think that makes some sense in analogy to patents -- to be eligible for patent protection, you have to fully disclose the invention publicly. You can choose to keep the invention a secret instead, but if so you don't get legal patent protection. I have a somewhat related dream that (major?) works requesting copyright protection should be submitted to, say, the library of Congress, and made freely available to the public after their term is up. Of course in this dream the length of copyright is 20 years or so.

mjevans 8y ago
Regulatory capture is an ugly thing. Trademarks are supposed to be about consumer protection; they're pretty much working as intended. I believe a fair system would charge a reasonably small fee for records maintenance and processing, renewable every year and extendable a few years out, forever. This is about having a 'brand'. No, Disney should not be able to own the mark to something as short as Mickey, or even a mouse that happens to be named 'Mickey Mouse', however they can be specific about it being Disney's Mickey / etc. The mark is for consumer protection, making it clear that products are from a given source. Copyright, the incentive here is to encourage publication by LIMITED monopoly; not to create beachfront property that can last longer than a lifetime. This is where we have trouble. I think a more reasonable place to start from is 10 years for free (automatically when published), then blocks of 10 additional years on some exponentially increasing fee schedule. Failure to register or provide unlocked source material to the registration body at the registration / renewal times results in release to public domain. Patents, probably similar to copyright above, but with the added limitations: * only one renewal (so still 20 years max) * only hold-able by actual persons (not corporations) * non-transferrable * not applicable to work better covered by copyright or trademark * * The intent is to limit patents to novel and non-obvious to independent invention methods * some type of compulsory maximum licence cost limit * * likely a 'user' choice of small percent per unit 'sold' or maximum total fee * * E.G. an equal share for all used patents for 80% of the profit of a sold unit * * E.G. 10 million dollars/year maximum total license per 'company'
bluGill 8y ago
At one time part of the copyright application was two copies that you gave the library of congress. I think that changed in the mid 1970s. Probably need legal historian to look this up and make corrections to my memory.

by bo1024 8y ago

mjevans 8y ago

Regulatory capture is an ugly thing. Trademarks are supposed to be about consumer protection; they're pretty much working as intended. I believe a fair system would charge a reasonably small fee for records maintenance and processing, renewable every year and extendable a few years out, forever. This is about having a 'brand'. No, Disney should not be able to own the mark to something as short as Mickey, or even a mouse that happens to be named 'Mickey Mouse', however they can be specific about it being Disney's Mickey / etc. The mark is for consumer protection, making it clear that products are from a given source. Copyright, the incentive here is to encourage publication by LIMITED monopoly; not to create beachfront property that can last longer than a lifetime. This is where we have trouble. I think a more reasonable place to start from is 10 years for free (automatically when published), then blocks of 10 additional years on some exponentially increasing fee schedule. Failure to register or provide unlocked source material to the registration body at the registration / renewal times results in release to public domain. Patents, probably similar to copyright above, but with the added limitations: * only one renewal (so still 20 years max) * only hold-able by actual persons (not corporations) * non-transferrable * not applicable to work better covered by copyright or trademark * * The intent is to limit patents to novel and non-obvious to independent invention methods * some type of compulsory maximum licence cost limit * * likely a 'user' choice of small percent per unit 'sold' or maximum total fee * * E.G. an equal share for all used patents for 80% of the profit of a sold unit * * E.G. 10 million dollars/year maximum total license per 'company'

bluGill 8y ago

At one time part of the copyright application was two copies that you gave the library of congress. I think that changed in the mid 1970s. Probably need legal historian to look this up and make corrections to my memory.