The problem, however, is that Disney has no copyright on those portions of the Jungle Book movie that are derived from the book. It's perfectly okay to use them as the source for those portions.
So their job would be significantly harder in that they'd have to show that your cartoon was based on some part of their cartoon that they didn't derive.
There've been quite a few adaptations of the Jungle Book since Disney's, btw. I doubt they'd make trouble for you in this manner.
Crappy? Boston drivers are excellent drivers. They have to be, because in Boston there is no margin of error for anyone that's less than excellent.
Weaving around stupid pedestrians, dealing with chuckholes and broken pavement, speeding while bumper to bumper, driving on the shoulder of 128, cutting across rotaries, reading a map while driving, hunting for parking, etc. It's all just evolution in action. And it's resulted in Boston drivers being the top-notch predators of the road in North America.
Of course, no one likes a bloodbath, so there's a lot of polite behavior: if someone has unused space ahead of them, or isn't approaching their turn or lane at maximum speed, it's understood that they're inviting other people to go for it. After all, those drivers not speeding more than, oh, 20mph or so, clearly aren't in a rush and wouldn't want to hold up other people.
Fortunately, the North End notwithstanding, there have been few attempts to cross-breed Boston drivers with their counterparts in Italy. The result would probably be too fearsome to describe. There may be a treaty prohibiting it. I wouldn't be surprised.
Oh yeah, I think I heard about the Pacific Ocean once. I seem to recall that under the charters that the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were originally set up under that our western border is out there, wherever it is. I don't see why this would have changed in the intervening 300 something years.
Obviously it's not very productive territory, but it'd probably be a good idea to have the Dept. of Revenue make sure that anyone out there is paying their taxes.
Okay, I suppose that in a highly technical sense, there is Worcester, but yeah, does it _really_ count? I don't think so.
Worcester's basically the place that mothers tell their kids about to make them eat their vegetables or whatever. And it's not an interesting place.
Certainly I think we can all agree that there's nothing further out, that the cosmos more or less ends at 495 except for Worcester which is sort of barely attached by 9 and the Pike.
What a strange policy! I can't imagine that there is any interesting news outside of the Boston area. After all, things are pretty peaceful between 128 and 495, and there isn't anything outside of 495.
Dunno bout the US but in the EU it is perfecctly legal to walk into a library and copy works for personal use or research.
In the US, reproduction for research may be a fair use (though not in all cases) and is unlikely to be for personal use where the effect of the reproduction is to substitute for a copy made under the auspices of the copyright holder. There are comparatively few other applicable exceptions.
In our legal system this would mean that anyone could abuse the law wilfully and basically entrap users. Abusing a law is illegal.
Here, depending on the circumstances, it might be possible to have implied licenses. However, this won't always be the case, and there is certainly the possibility that users could be held liable.
The appropriate dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary, or OED. The unabridged edition is about twenty volumes long in small print, and traces words' meanings through history using examples from books from the time. It's an absolutely great resource, and I cannot recommend it enough. Amazon sells copies for a mere $1500.
IIRC one invalid claim will not invalidate other claims. Possibly this is because while you might not be able to patent A by itself, A+B is sufficient, which is what the dependent claims basically are.
However, we're reaching the limits of my patent knowledge here. I suppose I could ask, but it'd take a few days before I could report back.
That's not too helpful to me, as I can't read that page.
I think that what you're talking about is quotation. Quotations in the US are infringing (unless they're de minimis), but often fall under fair use. However, there's no guarantee that they will. But most infringements of a part of a work aren't what people think of when they think of a quotation.
Can't read the second one, but as for the first, I'm not talking about access, I'm talking about reproduction. Computers reproduce works in order to display them, and such reproduction is entirely capable of being considered infringing. I like the Intellectual Reserve case because it's well written, but it does have a solid foundation in the law.
So you would prefer to have Brad Smith swallow his words, not have a big company take the initiative to reform USPTO and have nothing changed in the current patent system?
Oh, not at all. I think there are quite a few reforms to the patent system that would be good. Of course, patents aren't my field; copyright is. But I have a fair awareness of issues in the patent field for a non patent attorney.
The reforms to the patent system that seem like good ideas to me are: Allowing already examined prior art to be used by third parties in suits regarding invalidity; lowering the burden of proof on third parties from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence; restructuring fees so as to pay for more significant examination; having more significant examination; requiring immediate publication as a condition of application, regardless of whether or not the patent issues, the application is withdrawn, etc.; requiring applicants, patent holders, and licensees to all continually update their best mode disclosures for the life of the patent, and where different best modes are known for different purposes, disclosure of all of them and what they're best at; and barring patents for software and business methods for the time being.
Of course, you'd probably get more thorough lists of reforms from reform-minded patent attorneys. They're more aware of the relevant issues.
C'mon man, how can you stand here and actually beleive that software patents can be stopped and that patents in general can be all but abolished? You planning a revolution?
I don't want to abolish patents. I think patents can be and usually are very useful. But I don't think that the current system is perfect, and so bearing in mind the purpose of patents, I think that certain reforms would make the patent system serve its purpose better.
Patents suck
I disagree, generally.
You can't make 'em go away
Fine, because I do not desire the abolition of the patent system.
make em suck less
This is my agenda.
Anyone who makes sometthing has a right to determine the use of his or her creation, within bounds of law and good taste.
This is total nonsense. It has never been true historically, it's not true now, there is no good or logical reason for it to be true. It's this kind of stupid attitude that has gotten us into the mess we're currently in.
If you don't want people copying your text, don't post it on a website outside of your control.
That's irrelevant. Copyright protects works whether or not the copyright holder can control those who would want to infringe. In fact, it exists precisely because they cannot exert practical control.
You've essentially said that if authors don't want people copying their books, they shouldn't print them and sell them in bookstores, letting the books out of their control. That's a pretty stupid thing for you to say, given that copyright exists to provide legal control in the absence of actual control.
Anyway, so did you read the actual court opinion in which the court there found that looking at a website could be a copyright infringement? Or are you in fact as big a schmuck as you present yourself to be?
However there is no way that the patent office can check whether this is the first time the idea appeared. Of course, it seems you are a lawyer - you just define someone who doesn't patent or publish his invention as a non-inventor. Of course I can't really argue against such a circuitous definition/argument pair, I can only disagree with such a basis.
It's not so much that it's circuitous as it is that we're looking to the public benefit as well. Ancient Egyptians figured out some way of building pyramids that may be lost to us, if we haven't guessed accurately as to how they were made. Clearly they invented their technique, but no one knows what it is. If you were to come up with it now, you'd be considered the inventor if only because you've discovered it again.
Of course, publication bars are pretty low -- one thesis in a library catalogue anywhere in the world can do it, since it's out there for the public. And of course, frankly, this is about as far of a remove from the idea of the literal first inventor as anyone is really willing to go. There are very good arguments against this much.
However, even with such a patent I cannot help but wonder whether all the smart parts in that patent are not just a straightforward application of the known mathematics of feedback control theory.
Well, the subject matter of patents is not ideas, it's applied ideas. Figuring out e=mc^2 isn't patentable, in large measure because it doesn't do anything. Figuring out how to build nuclear reactors based on the theory, that's something interesting from a patent perspective.
To close, there also si no way that you can accurately define or measure what non-obviousness means.
Meh. It's fuzzy and could stand to be a little narrower, but no one has a big problem with the nonobviousness requirement. The difficulty is always that laypeople just can't stop calling things obvious in hindsight. The test involves whether it was obvious at the time, and requires evidence to that effect.
That's the entire point of the system! Patents are utilitarian, and the utility involved is that of the public. It's not something that inventors just naturally deserve.
I'm not saying to get rid of patents. I think they can be very useful for society. I'm just saying that patent laws should be written purely to fulfill social goals, and that this may result in not allowing some things to be patentable, increasing disclosures, etc.
I would agree if you said "that's not all patents are supposed to do."
I'm sure you would, but you don't know what patents are for. I've explained it. It's purely social policy. It's not for inventors' sake.
I think even a child understands that my statement pertains to the wishes of an author with regards to the usage of his creation. The statement is not bizarre, and I am concerned about your wishes with regards to your creations, no car though. Of course, infantile as your riposte is I suppose I would suggest you word your terms of use to read something like " you may copy this text if you buy me a new car"
Well, I suggest you read this case regarding copyright. Basically, because you used a computer to read my post, you did copy it as far as copyright law is concerned. Now car me, if you're so concerned about my wishes.
You're more or less right, but the word 'pirate' used in this manner dates back to the 1660's, IIRC, and actually predates copyright. It's kind of a lost cause, I think.
Does this sound like a fair agreement between an artist and a corporation to YOU?
Given the example you're referring to, you mean inventor, but yes, I think it's fair. The inventor knew that he would end up giving away his rights in that situation. It was in his contract; no one concealed that from him.
If those terms weren't acceptable to him, he should have tried to negotiate, or else not taken the job. But if he did take it, knowing full well that this could happen, then how can be so surprised when it does? It was basically expected by both sides. It's certainly not unconscionable.
Basically, I think that the inventor is an adult and is capable of making his own decisions, for better or for worse. He shouldn't be treated like a baby, and not allowed to enter into contracts for fear that he might do something foolish. If he does something foolish, well, that's part of life. Hopefully he'll learn and move on. You don't get do-overs.
You, sir, should re-evalute the system you are supporting in full before you recommend its continued service.
Oh, I have serious problems with the copyright and patent laws in the US, and I have a number of reforms that I think are necessary. But this isn't one of them. If anything, I'd remove the termination provisions we have now, and expand contractual work for hire. I'm happy to let artists make whatever agreements make them happy. It's their responsibility to think of the future, though.
Does NOT sound like the foundation of this country that the founders meant.
Yes it does. The first Congress passed copyright laws that allowed people to sell their copyrights. The state copyright laws before that did too. I'd have to check, but I bet the Statute of Anne did, and the early patent laws, in the patent field.
There's nothing new about assignments.
And hell -- your idea would prevent people from selling their cars or land or anything at agreed upon values that happened to be less than some other, unrelated person's idea of valuation. It's silly, it frustrates the ability to contract, it's paternalistic, and it adds costs to contracting because you'd have to get them cleared.
The current way is better, even if it means that sometimes people can burn themselves.
A company that depends upon selling software to survive cannot exist where there is no copyright law.
Of course it can. Just as authors existed before copyright law.
Copyright law might help them, but it's by no means necessary. Plus, who actually cares about people selling software. All copyright is concerned about is people developing and publishing software. It doesn't matter why they do it.
True, but that doesn't change the fact that Berne is a magnificent piece of shit that should be abandoned by everyone.
The whole of international copyright law should be:
1) Unilateral national treatment 2) Formalities are okay so long as they don't conflict with other nations' formalities in such a way that copyrights in each for a given work couldn't vest in the same person.
Nothing else is necessary. Let each country decide what's best on its own.
Congress should properly fund the USPTO if they want patents to do what they are supposed to do, protect inventors from egregious and abusive violation.
That's not what patents are supposed to do, however, which is probably why you're out in left field there.
Patents are intended to promote the progress of useful arts. In practice this means that they are intended to cause people to invent novel and nonobvious useful inventions which they otherwise would not have invented; to cause them to disclose the workings of the inventions; to encourage them to bring their inventions to market so that the public can enjoy the benefits the new technology provides.
Since the public wants those benefits, but wants to benefit generally, and not pay more than those things are worth, patents should be as minimal as possible in term and scope so that the public gets as much benefit as possible for as little cost as possible.
The reason software patents seem like a bad idea is because developers are already very heavily incentivized to invent, disclose, and market. The additional incentives patents could provide seem minimal at best. And since patents impose significant transactional costs (e.g. doing patent searches, licensing, etc.), they seem poised to impose a public burden greater than their benefit. This would be a total failure of the patent system in this field.
The software field is presently unusual. If this changes, software patents might be a good idea someday. For now, they probably aren't.
I guess at the end of the day people should respect the wishes of authors and creators
What a bizarre statement. Well, let's see if you believe it. I wrote this post. I wish for you to give me a brand new car. Pay up, if you're so concerned about my wishes.
Not being a lawyer, I doubt my familiarity is anywhere in the same league as yours.
Well, I'm no patent lawyer. It's copyrights that I like. But I hang out with a lot of patent lawyers and I have some degree of knowledge of how things work for them.
From the business side of it, Patents on Software scare the socks off me. Suddenly, writing some trivial code to perform a simple task becomes spec, design, huge patent search, development, maintenance.
Yeah. Of course, this is true for anyone. If you were out building cars from scratch, you'd have the same issues.
That's not why I think that software patents are bad. That's just a concern regarding damages, basically, which have gone from too low a few decades ago to way too high after the Fed. Cir. came along.
Software patents are bad IMO because they aren't necessary. We should never grant patents unless people simply wouldn't invent, commercialize, and disclose their inventions without them. The software industry seems to have been doing great prior to software patents coming along, and most development seems to continue to take place without regard to patents. If the public can free ride off of developers and developers don't care, then I'm all for it.
When software developers slow down -- if they do -- then software patents might be worth having to spur them on further.
a patent is given just to the one who expends the time and money to patent it and uphold the patent.
Not in the US. Only the first inventor can get a patent, and then he has to undertake the step of getting it within a fairly narrow timeframe.
Later inventors don't get shit. This is why prior art is such a big deal -- if proper prior art exists, it indicates that the applicant (or patent holder) wasn't the actual first inventor, and therefore cannot validly have a patent. This is the requirement of novelty. Nonobviousness, another requirement, also relies on prior art.
Our first to invent system is a bit unusual, but I think it's superior than other countries first to file system.
Unlike document copyright, where the first publisher of a sequence of words is the copyright holder as if this was an inalienable right
I agree that copyright is pretty fucked up. However, that's also not correct. Novelty is only required for patents. You don't need novelty for copyrights. So let's say that Alice writes a book, and Bob then writes an identical book. So long as Bob didn't look to Alice's work, he can get a copyright on the same thing. What's important is not that each work is unique, but that you did it yourself. The technical term for this is originality, which merely means that the work originates with the author, rather than that it is novel, which would mean that it had never been done before.
They do NOT weed out non-serious applicants with money.
Bill Gates didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks, you know. So long as the fees can scale up, they can continue to provide a significant barrier. Of course, larger entities can fund more inventive activity, so it shouldn't be surprising that Bell Labs gets more patents than some guy in his basement.
Minor fees are insufficient, however. They should start in the thousands and move up fast. Copyright fees are too low now as it stands, and coupled with making fees not necessary for copyright to attach, the system there is all screwed up. Getting monopolies of this nature should not be done on a lark; they should be serious business decisions made by serious businesspeople. This means businesses or inventors that treat their work as a business. Not people who do stuff for the hell of it; they'd do stuff anyway, and therefore should not get rewarded when we need those rewards only for people that wouldn't do it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem, however, is that Disney has no copyright on those portions of the Jungle Book movie that are derived from the book. It's perfectly okay to use them as the source for those portions.
So their job would be significantly harder in that they'd have to show that your cartoon was based on some part of their cartoon that they didn't derive.
There've been quite a few adaptations of the Jungle Book since Disney's, btw. I doubt they'd make trouble for you in this manner.
Crappy? Boston drivers are excellent drivers. They have to be, because in Boston there is no margin of error for anyone that's less than excellent.
Weaving around stupid pedestrians, dealing with chuckholes and broken pavement, speeding while bumper to bumper, driving on the shoulder of 128, cutting across rotaries, reading a map while driving, hunting for parking, etc. It's all just evolution in action. And it's resulted in Boston drivers being the top-notch predators of the road in North America.
Of course, no one likes a bloodbath, so there's a lot of polite behavior: if someone has unused space ahead of them, or isn't approaching their turn or lane at maximum speed, it's understood that they're inviting other people to go for it. After all, those drivers not speeding more than, oh, 20mph or so, clearly aren't in a rush and wouldn't want to hold up other people.
Fortunately, the North End notwithstanding, there have been few attempts to cross-breed Boston drivers with their counterparts in Italy. The result would probably be too fearsome to describe. There may be a treaty prohibiting it. I wouldn't be surprised.
IIRC, that depends on where you live. Don't forget to avoid fraudulent transfers.
And of course, bankruptcy might not discharge debts arising from patent infringement suits.
So you would mail empty boxes to people you didn't like?
Oh yeah, I think I heard about the Pacific Ocean once. I seem to recall that under the charters that the Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay colonies were originally set up under that our western border is out there, wherever it is. I don't see why this would have changed in the intervening 300 something years.
Obviously it's not very productive territory, but it'd probably be a good idea to have the Dept. of Revenue make sure that anyone out there is paying their taxes.
No, no. We're talking about New England. Which is to say, Better England. It's a replacement for the old one.
Cala-what?
Western Mass (Springfield area)?
What the hell is that? Massachusetts doesn't go any further west than Worcester. There's just nothing past there. And no reason even to go that far.
Okay, I suppose that in a highly technical sense, there is Worcester, but yeah, does it _really_ count? I don't think so.
Worcester's basically the place that mothers tell their kids about to make them eat their vegetables or whatever. And it's not an interesting place.
Certainly I think we can all agree that there's nothing further out, that the cosmos more or less ends at 495 except for Worcester which is sort of barely attached by 9 and the Pike.
What a strange policy! I can't imagine that there is any interesting news outside of the Boston area. After all, things are pretty peaceful between 128 and 495, and there isn't anything outside of 495.
Well, that's what they did when they put the artery in the last time. This whole project is trying to repair that damage and increase traffic flow.
Dunno bout the US but in the EU it is perfecctly legal to walk into a library and copy works for personal use or research.
In the US, reproduction for research may be a fair use (though not in all cases) and is unlikely to be for personal use where the effect of the reproduction is to substitute for a copy made under the auspices of the copyright holder. There are comparatively few other applicable exceptions.
In our legal system this would mean that anyone could abuse the law wilfully and basically entrap users. Abusing a law is illegal.
Here, depending on the circumstances, it might be possible to have implied licenses. However, this won't always be the case, and there is certainly the possibility that users could be held liable.
I think your trolling can end right here
I don't troll.
The appropriate dictionary is the Oxford English Dictionary, or OED. The unabridged edition is about twenty volumes long in small print, and traces words' meanings through history using examples from books from the time. It's an absolutely great resource, and I cannot recommend it enough. Amazon sells copies for a mere $1500.
IIRC one invalid claim will not invalidate other claims. Possibly this is because while you might not be able to patent A by itself, A+B is sufficient, which is what the dependent claims basically are.
However, we're reaching the limits of my patent knowledge here. I suppose I could ask, but it'd take a few days before I could report back.
That's not too helpful to me, as I can't read that page.
I think that what you're talking about is quotation. Quotations in the US are infringing (unless they're de minimis), but often fall under fair use. However, there's no guarantee that they will. But most infringements of a part of a work aren't what people think of when they think of a quotation.
Right.. infantile jurisprudence..
Can't read the second one, but as for the first, I'm not talking about access, I'm talking about reproduction. Computers reproduce works in order to display them, and such reproduction is entirely capable of being considered infringing. I like the Intellectual Reserve case because it's well written, but it does have a solid foundation in the law.
So you would prefer to have Brad Smith swallow his words, not have a big company take the initiative to reform USPTO and have nothing changed in the current patent system?
Oh, not at all. I think there are quite a few reforms to the patent system that would be good. Of course, patents aren't my field; copyright is. But I have a fair awareness of issues in the patent field for a non patent attorney.
The reforms to the patent system that seem like good ideas to me are: Allowing already examined prior art to be used by third parties in suits regarding invalidity; lowering the burden of proof on third parties from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence; restructuring fees so as to pay for more significant examination; having more significant examination; requiring immediate publication as a condition of application, regardless of whether or not the patent issues, the application is withdrawn, etc.; requiring applicants, patent holders, and licensees to all continually update their best mode disclosures for the life of the patent, and where different best modes are known for different purposes, disclosure of all of them and what they're best at; and barring patents for software and business methods for the time being.
Of course, you'd probably get more thorough lists of reforms from reform-minded patent attorneys. They're more aware of the relevant issues.
C'mon man, how can you stand here and actually beleive that software patents can be stopped and that patents in general can be all but abolished? You planning a revolution?
I don't want to abolish patents. I think patents can be and usually are very useful. But I don't think that the current system is perfect, and so bearing in mind the purpose of patents, I think that certain reforms would make the patent system serve its purpose better.
Patents suck
I disagree, generally.
You can't make 'em go away
Fine, because I do not desire the abolition of the patent system.
make em suck less
This is my agenda.
Anyone who makes sometthing has a right to determine the use of his or her creation, within bounds of law and good taste.
This is total nonsense. It has never been true historically, it's not true now, there is no good or logical reason for it to be true. It's this kind of stupid attitude that has gotten us into the mess we're currently in.
If you don't want people copying your text, don't post it on a website outside of your control.
That's irrelevant. Copyright protects works whether or not the copyright holder can control those who would want to infringe. In fact, it exists precisely because they cannot exert practical control.
You've essentially said that if authors don't want people copying their books, they shouldn't print them and sell them in bookstores, letting the books out of their control. That's a pretty stupid thing for you to say, given that copyright exists to provide legal control in the absence of actual control.
Anyway, so did you read the actual court opinion in which the court there found that looking at a website could be a copyright infringement? Or are you in fact as big a schmuck as you present yourself to be?
However there is no way that the patent office can check whether this is the first time the idea appeared. Of course, it seems you are a lawyer - you just define someone who doesn't patent or publish his invention as a non-inventor. Of course I can't really argue against such a circuitous definition/argument pair, I can only disagree with such a basis.
It's not so much that it's circuitous as it is that we're looking to the public benefit as well. Ancient Egyptians figured out some way of building pyramids that may be lost to us, if we haven't guessed accurately as to how they were made. Clearly they invented their technique, but no one knows what it is. If you were to come up with it now, you'd be considered the inventor if only because you've discovered it again.
Of course, publication bars are pretty low -- one thesis in a library catalogue anywhere in the world can do it, since it's out there for the public. And of course, frankly, this is about as far of a remove from the idea of the literal first inventor as anyone is really willing to go. There are very good arguments against this much.
However, even with such a patent I cannot help but wonder whether all the smart parts in that patent are not just a straightforward application of the known mathematics of feedback control theory.
Well, the subject matter of patents is not ideas, it's applied ideas. Figuring out e=mc^2 isn't patentable, in large measure because it doesn't do anything. Figuring out how to build nuclear reactors based on the theory, that's something interesting from a patent perspective.
To close, there also si no way that you can accurately define or measure what non-obviousness means.
Meh. It's fuzzy and could stand to be a little narrower, but no one has a big problem with the nonobviousness requirement. The difficulty is always that laypeople just can't stop calling things obvious in hindsight. The test involves whether it was obvious at the time, and requires evidence to that effect.
And there we have it.. free free free..
That's the entire point of the system! Patents are utilitarian, and the utility involved is that of the public. It's not something that inventors just naturally deserve.
I'm not saying to get rid of patents. I think they can be very useful for society. I'm just saying that patent laws should be written purely to fulfill social goals, and that this may result in not allowing some things to be patentable, increasing disclosures, etc.
I would agree if you said "that's not all patents are supposed to do."
I'm sure you would, but you don't know what patents are for. I've explained it. It's purely social policy. It's not for inventors' sake.
I think even a child understands that my statement pertains to the wishes of an author with regards to the usage of his creation. The statement is not bizarre, and I am concerned about your wishes with regards to your creations, no car though. Of course, infantile as your riposte is I suppose I would suggest you word your terms of use to read something like " you may copy this text if you buy me a new car"
Well, I suggest you read this case regarding copyright. Basically, because you used a computer to read my post, you did copy it as far as copyright law is concerned. Now car me, if you're so concerned about my wishes.
You're more or less right, but the word 'pirate' used in this manner dates back to the 1660's, IIRC, and actually predates copyright. It's kind of a lost cause, I think.
Does this sound like a fair agreement between an artist and a corporation to YOU?
Given the example you're referring to, you mean inventor, but yes, I think it's fair. The inventor knew that he would end up giving away his rights in that situation. It was in his contract; no one concealed that from him.
If those terms weren't acceptable to him, he should have tried to negotiate, or else not taken the job. But if he did take it, knowing full well that this could happen, then how can be so surprised when it does? It was basically expected by both sides. It's certainly not unconscionable.
Basically, I think that the inventor is an adult and is capable of making his own decisions, for better or for worse. He shouldn't be treated like a baby, and not allowed to enter into contracts for fear that he might do something foolish. If he does something foolish, well, that's part of life. Hopefully he'll learn and move on. You don't get do-overs.
You, sir, should re-evalute the system you are supporting in full before you recommend its continued service.
Oh, I have serious problems with the copyright and patent laws in the US, and I have a number of reforms that I think are necessary. But this isn't one of them. If anything, I'd remove the termination provisions we have now, and expand contractual work for hire. I'm happy to let artists make whatever agreements make them happy. It's their responsibility to think of the future, though.
Does NOT sound like the foundation of this country that the founders meant.
Yes it does. The first Congress passed copyright laws that allowed people to sell their copyrights. The state copyright laws before that did too. I'd have to check, but I bet the Statute of Anne did, and the early patent laws, in the patent field.
There's nothing new about assignments.
And hell -- your idea would prevent people from selling their cars or land or anything at agreed upon values that happened to be less than some other, unrelated person's idea of valuation. It's silly, it frustrates the ability to contract, it's paternalistic, and it adds costs to contracting because you'd have to get them cleared.
The current way is better, even if it means that sometimes people can burn themselves.
A company that depends upon selling software to survive cannot exist where there is no copyright law.
Of course it can. Just as authors existed before copyright law.
Copyright law might help them, but it's by no means necessary. Plus, who actually cares about people selling software. All copyright is concerned about is people developing and publishing software. It doesn't matter why they do it.
True, but that doesn't change the fact that Berne is a magnificent piece of shit that should be abandoned by everyone.
The whole of international copyright law should be:
1) Unilateral national treatment
2) Formalities are okay so long as they don't conflict with other nations' formalities in such a way that copyrights in each for a given work couldn't vest in the same person.
Nothing else is necessary. Let each country decide what's best on its own.
Congress should properly fund the USPTO if they want patents to do what they are supposed to do, protect inventors from egregious and abusive violation.
That's not what patents are supposed to do, however, which is probably why you're out in left field there.
Patents are intended to promote the progress of useful arts. In practice this means that they are intended to cause people to invent novel and nonobvious useful inventions which they otherwise would not have invented; to cause them to disclose the workings of the inventions; to encourage them to bring their inventions to market so that the public can enjoy the benefits the new technology provides.
Since the public wants those benefits, but wants to benefit generally, and not pay more than those things are worth, patents should be as minimal as possible in term and scope so that the public gets as much benefit as possible for as little cost as possible.
The reason software patents seem like a bad idea is because developers are already very heavily incentivized to invent, disclose, and market. The additional incentives patents could provide seem minimal at best. And since patents impose significant transactional costs (e.g. doing patent searches, licensing, etc.), they seem poised to impose a public burden greater than their benefit. This would be a total failure of the patent system in this field.
The software field is presently unusual. If this changes, software patents might be a good idea someday. For now, they probably aren't.
I guess at the end of the day people should respect the wishes of authors and creators
What a bizarre statement. Well, let's see if you believe it. I wrote this post. I wish for you to give me a brand new car. Pay up, if you're so concerned about my wishes.
Well?
Not being a lawyer, I doubt my familiarity is anywhere in the same league as yours.
Well, I'm no patent lawyer. It's copyrights that I like. But I hang out with a lot of patent lawyers and I have some degree of knowledge of how things work for them.
From the business side of it, Patents on Software scare the socks off me. Suddenly, writing some trivial code to perform a simple task becomes spec, design, huge patent search, development, maintenance.
Yeah. Of course, this is true for anyone. If you were out building cars from scratch, you'd have the same issues.
That's not why I think that software patents are bad. That's just a concern regarding damages, basically, which have gone from too low a few decades ago to way too high after the Fed. Cir. came along.
Software patents are bad IMO because they aren't necessary. We should never grant patents unless people simply wouldn't invent, commercialize, and disclose their inventions without them. The software industry seems to have been doing great prior to software patents coming along, and most development seems to continue to take place without regard to patents. If the public can free ride off of developers and developers don't care, then I'm all for it.
When software developers slow down -- if they do -- then software patents might be worth having to spur them on further.
a patent is given just to the one who expends the time and money to patent it and uphold the patent.
Not in the US. Only the first inventor can get a patent, and then he has to undertake the step of getting it within a fairly narrow timeframe.
Later inventors don't get shit. This is why prior art is such a big deal -- if proper prior art exists, it indicates that the applicant (or patent holder) wasn't the actual first inventor, and therefore cannot validly have a patent. This is the requirement of novelty. Nonobviousness, another requirement, also relies on prior art.
Our first to invent system is a bit unusual, but I think it's superior than other countries first to file system.
Unlike document copyright, where the first publisher of a sequence of words is the copyright holder as if this was an inalienable right
I agree that copyright is pretty fucked up. However, that's also not correct. Novelty is only required for patents. You don't need novelty for copyrights. So let's say that Alice writes a book, and Bob then writes an identical book. So long as Bob didn't look to Alice's work, he can get a copyright on the same thing. What's important is not that each work is unique, but that you did it yourself. The technical term for this is originality, which merely means that the work originates with the author, rather than that it is novel, which would mean that it had never been done before.
They do NOT weed out non-serious applicants with money.
Bill Gates didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks, you know. So long as the fees can scale up, they can continue to provide a significant barrier. Of course, larger entities can fund more inventive activity, so it shouldn't be surprising that Bell Labs gets more patents than some guy in his basement.
Minor fees are insufficient, however. They should start in the thousands and move up fast. Copyright fees are too low now as it stands, and coupled with making fees not necessary for copyright to attach, the system there is all screwed up. Getting monopolies of this nature should not be done on a lark; they should be serious business decisions made by serious businesspeople. This means businesses or inventors that treat their work as a business. Not people who do stuff for the hell of it; they'd do stuff anyway, and therefore should not get rewarded when we need those rewards only for people that wouldn't do it anyway.