While I agree that utilitarianism can be misapplied, and I'd even go so far as to say that there are times when it is totally inappropriate, I'd like to point out that property rights are utilitarian.
The Walkman was originally introduced in the US as the "Sound-About" and in the UK as the "Stowaway," but coming up with new, uncopyrighted names in every country it was marketed in proved costly so Sony eventually decided on "Walkman" as a play on the Sony Pressman, a mono cassette recorder the first Walkman prototype was based on.
You can't copyright a name, at least in the US. The OP should say "untrademarked names" or something to the same effect but not as poorly worded.
They want to be the repository for our culture forever.
Yeah, right. I suggest reading the book Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper by Nicholson Baker. American libraries -- including the Library of Congress -- are apparently full of people who aren't interested in preserving knowledge, or if they are, are very bad at it in practice.
Given the current state of copyright though, you can't whistle any four notes in a row in public without getting sued. Anything like a symphony is right out.
Of course, with copyright maximalists like Marybeth Peters, who runs the US Copyright Office, a division of the Library of Congress, they're even compromising their own mission.
30 years seems fair, fewer people would go into the music business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an untimely death.
The widows and orphans are a common rationale behind long copyright terms. However, it never stands up to scrutiny. Remember, most copyrighted works have basically no copyright-related economic value for their whole existence. Of the small number of works that ever have any such value, the vast majority are front-loaded such that most of that value is realized shortly after publication (a term I use very broadly) in a given medium. For example, most movies have their biggest theatrical ticket sales on opening weekend, with their receipts declining every week thereafter. When the movie hits home video, it sells most of the copies it will ever sell that first week, with fewer sales after. There are exceptions to this, but they are incredibly rare, and there's still no guarantee of continuing value.
Further, if the work did have economic value at one point, where did the money that the author got from that go? Why isn't it being used to support the widows and orphans?
This is as irresponsible as planning to win the lottery in order to fund your retirement, rather than being fiscally prudent. It's abominable and we should discourage it.
Frankly, I'd rather have short copyrights of fixed terms -- not to help widows and orphans, but just to make things predictable -- with strong social welfare programs and good life insurance policies to help people who have to get by after their breadwinner has died. That's a lot more fair as it would help out not only unsuccessful authors (which is most of them), but everyone. Helping widows and orphans is a noble goal, but it doesn't belong in copyright policy.
Why? What would be wrong with the Harry Potter series forking earlier (since the entry of the first book into the public domain wouldn't cover new material introduced in later books)? With your proposal, all she has to do is to draw a stick figure labeled "Harry Potter" and presumably she gets a renewal for another term. This isn't precisely the same as just creating the work and then milking it forever, but it's damned close. Plus, fixed terms of years makes the whole thing a lot more predictable for everyone.
We don't consider it practical to run land vehicles with nuclear power. So that leaves us with our very limited battery and fuel cell technology, which will have to scale up to massive levels to be used worldwide in every vehicle.
Or we could use more vehicles that drew power directly from the electric grid, such as trolleys and heavier electric trains, as well as human powered vehicles, like bikes. This will probably necessitate changes in where we build things so that they're either convenient to rail, or not far via bike.
We may be able to substitute nuclear powered trains to some extent
Or, again, electric trains that draw from the grid. It's certainly safer to put up caternary, and in the long run, it might be cheaper too. (Plus it helps to strengthen our electrical grid so that we can generate power in places best suited to that without making people move there en masse)
Probably everyone will be using electric heat powered by nuclear plants, which is not cheap.
Put in enough insulation, and you can probably heat your house with body and cooking heat, plus a bit of solar.
The most serious problem even for the rich will be when we finally start running low on uranium fuel, which is also a finite resource.
Social unrest would've gotten the rich long before that. Even poor, cold, hungry people can build a guillotine fairly easily.
Of course, the transition to a non-petroleum using civilization can probably be accomplished a lot less expensively, and with far fewer problems of all sorts if you do it before it is absolutely unavoidable. If we have cheap energy now, let's use it productively before it runs out.
Well, setting aside the goal of disclosure, I think that if no software patents were granted, you'd see just as much, if not more, inventive activity and bringing to market. The natural incentives in this field are so great that there's no need for the artificial incentive of a patent, especially given that the negative effects of patents would probably harm the software field, no longer being outweighed by their positive effects.
Disclosure is desirable, but I suspect that in most cases, software is easy enough for a PHOSITA to inspect and reverse engineer that the benefits of disclosure by the inventor would be fairly minimal. (Especially if we were to make much-needed copyright reforms that mandated putting complete and well-documented source code and other supplementary information in the Library of Congress as part of a revitalized deposit requirement) The one-click patent wasn't obvious except in hindsight, IMO; I raised it because it is a good example of disclosure not being enough of a reason by itself to continue to have software patents.
So if you'd have invention, and bringing to market anyway, and disclosure largely takes care of itself (along with some copyright reforms), what benefits are we getting from software patents that we couldn't have otherwise? Likewise business method patents. I realize that this might reduce 'breathing room' for small inventors in the software field, but I think that the advantage of being first to market, combined with trade secrets, NDAs, etc. to protect against unscrupulous business partners, is probably adequate. In any event, I'm prepared to take a chance on it.
Are you saying software simply can't be inventive?
Not at all; software can be marvelously non-obvious, novel, inventive, useful, etc.
The problem isn't software per se, it is the software industry, and frankly, it's not really a problem, either.
Patents are intended to promote the progress of the useful arts. This is accomplished by encouraging inventors to invent, disclose, and bring to market, inventions which are useful, novel, and non-obvious, when they would otherwise not have done so, for the least cost in terms of restrictions upon the public. However, we know from history that some inventive activity will occur even in the absence of patents as an enticement. That, then, is our baseline. Whether or not any particular patent system is efficacious can only be measured by whether or not it encourages more invention, disclosure, and bringing to market than would occur if it did not exist (and remembering to take into account that in the absence of a patent, it needn't be the same person to do all three of those things), where the benefit of those things is not outweighed by the cost to society of burdensome monopolies. Likewise, alternative patent systems and reforms to the law may be compared by weighing them against each other in the same manner: the best is the one that produces the most public benefit for the least public cost.
This more or less works fine for many inventive industries. But software is an odd duck.
It seems very likely that the amount of invention, disclosure, and bringing to market that would happen in the field of software in the absence of patents is just as great, or perhaps even greater, than under the current patent system. That is to say, granting patents in this field may actually be harming the progress of this useful art. That's directly contrary to the purpose of patents. After all, there are great incentives to, and low barriers for, the invention of new software, and for bringing them to market. And often the interesting part of software is easy for those skilled in the art to discern without the disclosure requirement. The infamous One-Click patent tells you everything you need to know in the name, for example. Everything beyond that core idea are just implementation details that any PHOSITA can manage.
So why are people -- especially those in the industry -- opposed to software patents? It's not because they don't think software is inventive. It's because they think that the patents are a drag on the industry. That they're pointless at best, and actively harmful at worse. And comparing us to our foreign rivals who lack these patents seems to confirm this.
It isn't inevitable that this has to be so; perhaps someday in the future, natural incentives to inventors in the software field may decrease, and the added artificial incentive of patents may be very useful in keeping things going. But until that happens, we really ought to abolish patents in this field, since they are apparently not able to do their job.
Yes, I know Bobbs-Merrill. The thing about it though is that the Court repeatedly pointed out that it was dealing with the statutory right to vend, leaving the door open to contracts to achieve the same end. You may be right that merely breaking a sticker, in conjunction with contractual language, isn't enough to form a contract, but would you agree that there is at least some way by which a person could agree to a contract prohibiting him from reselling a copy of a book as a condition of purchasing that copy? That's the main thing. The question of how to actually make such a contract is fairly minor in comparison, and even the strongest cases opposed to EULAs don't make them utterly impossible to have.
While there are those who agree with you, the main body of thought on the subject is that your purchase was conditioned on your eventual agreement to the license; that they're just two parts of one overall transaction. Thus, if you reject the license agreement, you need to return the software (which the manufacturer, if not the reseller, is obligated to take back, refunding your money).
Besides, how the hell could clicking a button on a screen have the same legal weight as signing a real document?
Why not? The point is merely to indicate agreement. There's nothing magical about a signature otherwise. It's just something you wouldn't write on the contract, unless you were agreeing to it. Likewise an agree button.
Anyway, to get around this, I usually hack the installer. If the installer no longer contains their license agreement, then, of course, when you click "Agree", then you could only be agreeing to (if anything) the new license text that you replaced it with.
First Sale -- both as a judicial doctrine and as a statute -- merely says that copyright holders cannot impose restrictions on the redistribution of lawfully made and initially-distributed copies of their works, based upon their rights as a copyright holder.
It has always been open to the possibility of copyright holders using contract law to accomplish the same ends, however.
As to your first point, jurisdictions vary on whether consideration is necessary to form a contract. As to your second, it is quite common for contracts to be formed after the parties have exchanged whatever they're exchanging. As to your third, a contract can absolutely be a one sided demand, not open to negotiation. The other party doesn't have to accept it, but it is entirely possible for the first party to refuse to accept even the slightest change to the terms it has proposed.
I agree that EULAs are pretty bad, but you should probably look into them more. I'd suggest reading through the ProCD case, which is the leading case on EULAs, but then reading through Klocek v. Gateway, which differs really only on one minor point, but is able to therefore reach a very different conclusion.
Reforming the rules for adhesive contracts, particularly (but not only) as they intersect with copyright, is the real way to go. This means convincing the legislature more than the courts. And of course, you've got to be careful; the last time that was tried, we got UCITA, which would have been even more one-sided against people.
Libraries do have a right to freely distribute copies of books, which they own. There's no copyright-based law regulating the length of lending periods, AFAIK. If they bought an unlimited number of copies (which would be a good trick) they could lend them all out. Most libraries impose due dates merely as a convenience to their other patrons, not because they must.
Well, could we try distinguishing between non-commercial infringement by natural persons, and everything else? My suspicion is that most people would accept being able to copy things so long as it was just between real people, and no money was involved (nor other things of value, such as advertisements, or even ratios), but that if the copying is in some way commercial, or involves businesses or other artificial entities, then the author ought to have rights over that.
Ah, well, that's fine then. I apologize if I came across as too harsh or anything.
Myself, I'd rather see strict registration, renewal, and deposit formalities, and then have numerous, short terms. The number of renewals might vary depending on the type of work. The maximum length for the most protected works might easily wind up being in the 15-20 year range, however.
It's nothing to do with that; it's more an issue of fairness.
No one forced the businesses that are violating this law to get a patent. In order to get a patent, they must have known the rules. Once they got a patent, they could use those rules as a sword against their competitors. But now that they've gotten the benefits they wanted, suddenly they no longer want to play by those rules.
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
Really? Why?
Copyright is an artificial scheme, and a utilitarian one. It isn't mandatory that it exist, and if it does exist, it isn't up to the author to make that decision, or decide what the specific details are; that's up to the public (via a legitimate government accountable to the public, working in the public interest).
If it is in the public interest that only works made on Tuesdays should be copyrighted, and that the copyright should only last for a week, then that's what should be done. That authors might want otherwise is utterly irrelevant, save for how their desires are a factor in determining the overall public interest. (Not so much to cater to them, but to find a way to manipulate them into doing what's good for the public)
I'd rather have everything on the table. I don't really care whether copyright lasts for a day or for a million years, so long as however long it lasts, and whatever rights it consists of, are carefully formulated so as to serve the public interests better than any alternative law, or no law at all.
Well, the thing is, it is not a trivial thing to get a patent. Any inventor or business that obtains one must have been familiar with the relevant laws in order to know whether the invention was patentable, and in order to pursue its application all the way to the end, when a patent issues. And a patent is often worth pursuing, because the rights of a patent holder are very powerful, and last for a substantial period of time.
The requirement that no articles claim to be patented unless there is, in fact, an applicable patent in effect is part of this law. Any applicant that could manage to get a patent is going to know that it cannot make false claims about patents in the course of its business.
So the sorts of companies you're defending knew the rules perfectly well, used them to their advantage, but now seeks to escape them when they're no longer convenient? This is not acceptable.
A responsible business would know that it could not allege the existence of a patent forever, and that there are penalties for those who try. As a result, a responsible business would plan for the long term, fully expecting that whenever the patent expired, it would have to replace its molds, or stop adding labels to its goods, or whatever. At the very least, it would budget for this accordingly, so that when the day came, it wasn't caught short of funds, and didn't have to run afoul of the law that it had relied upon immediately prior.
Really, you're only defending irresponsible businesses, which seek to shield themselves with the law, but throw that very same law in the trash the moment it is no longer of value to it.
I'm perfectly fine with these suits. They'll either suffer the penalties and know better in the future, or they'll go out of business and being scofflaws, I say good riddance. The law is not only just, as it protects against false claims to monopolies, which could be considered unfair competition, but we're better off without small businesses that flout the law; for if they'd ignore this rather minor one, who knows what else they'd do.
Of course, the law of property -- at least for everything beyond what the owner can personally defend against the world by means of force -- is also one of limited and artificially constructed grants of rights. Which isn't to say that copyrights are a branch of property law, but rather that property rights are just as artificial.
It may yet take a little more research. That's J. Scalia's personal opinion, not an actual, binding Court opinion. While it may be persuasive (it's apparently persuaded you), and can be cited to persuade other courts, it is not actually the law of the land.
Further, he has merely begged the question. I see no support for the notion that a corporation is merely an association of individuals, with its rights flowing from the individuals, rather than having an independent origin. He's just assumed it. Where's the examination of the differences between a mere association and a corporation? Or the right to associate, as opposed to the right to incorporate?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's correct. Could you cite the episode or movie in which it occurred?
While I agree that utilitarianism can be misapplied, and I'd even go so far as to say that there are times when it is totally inappropriate, I'd like to point out that property rights are utilitarian.
Here in the US, we have something similar for sound recordings.
The Walkman was originally introduced in the US as the "Sound-About" and in the UK as the "Stowaway," but coming up with new, uncopyrighted names in every country it was marketed in proved costly so Sony eventually decided on "Walkman" as a play on the Sony Pressman, a mono cassette recorder the first Walkman prototype was based on.
You can't copyright a name, at least in the US. The OP should say "untrademarked names" or something to the same effect but not as poorly worded.
They want to be the repository for our culture forever.
Yeah, right. I suggest reading the book Double Fold: Libraries and the Assault on Paper by Nicholson Baker. American libraries -- including the Library of Congress -- are apparently full of people who aren't interested in preserving knowledge, or if they are, are very bad at it in practice.
Given the current state of copyright though, you can't whistle any four notes in a row in public without getting sued. Anything like a symphony is right out.
Of course, with copyright maximalists like Marybeth Peters, who runs the US Copyright Office, a division of the Library of Congress, they're even compromising their own mission.
1) I suspect people go into the music business because they want to get paid for making music (with a side order of possible fame)
It's to get girls. I suppose that's a sort of fame.
30 years seems fair, fewer people would go into the music business if they had no way of providing for their loved ones if they died an untimely death.
The widows and orphans are a common rationale behind long copyright terms. However, it never stands up to scrutiny. Remember, most copyrighted works have basically no copyright-related economic value for their whole existence. Of the small number of works that ever have any such value, the vast majority are front-loaded such that most of that value is realized shortly after publication (a term I use very broadly) in a given medium. For example, most movies have their biggest theatrical ticket sales on opening weekend, with their receipts declining every week thereafter. When the movie hits home video, it sells most of the copies it will ever sell that first week, with fewer sales after. There are exceptions to this, but they are incredibly rare, and there's still no guarantee of continuing value.
Further, if the work did have economic value at one point, where did the money that the author got from that go? Why isn't it being used to support the widows and orphans?
This is as irresponsible as planning to win the lottery in order to fund your retirement, rather than being fiscally prudent. It's abominable and we should discourage it.
Frankly, I'd rather have short copyrights of fixed terms -- not to help widows and orphans, but just to make things predictable -- with strong social welfare programs and good life insurance policies to help people who have to get by after their breadwinner has died. That's a lot more fair as it would help out not only unsuccessful authors (which is most of them), but everyone. Helping widows and orphans is a noble goal, but it doesn't belong in copyright policy.
Why? What would be wrong with the Harry Potter series forking earlier (since the entry of the first book into the public domain wouldn't cover new material introduced in later books)? With your proposal, all she has to do is to draw a stick figure labeled "Harry Potter" and presumably she gets a renewal for another term. This isn't precisely the same as just creating the work and then milking it forever, but it's damned close. Plus, fixed terms of years makes the whole thing a lot more predictable for everyone.
We don't consider it practical to run land vehicles with nuclear power. So that leaves us with our very limited battery and fuel cell technology, which will have to scale up to massive levels to be used worldwide in every vehicle.
Or we could use more vehicles that drew power directly from the electric grid, such as trolleys and heavier electric trains, as well as human powered vehicles, like bikes. This will probably necessitate changes in where we build things so that they're either convenient to rail, or not far via bike.
We may be able to substitute nuclear powered trains to some extent
Or, again, electric trains that draw from the grid. It's certainly safer to put up caternary, and in the long run, it might be cheaper too. (Plus it helps to strengthen our electrical grid so that we can generate power in places best suited to that without making people move there en masse)
Probably everyone will be using electric heat powered by nuclear plants, which is not cheap.
Put in enough insulation, and you can probably heat your house with body and cooking heat, plus a bit of solar.
The most serious problem even for the rich will be when we finally start running low on uranium fuel, which is also a finite resource.
Social unrest would've gotten the rich long before that. Even poor, cold, hungry people can build a guillotine fairly easily.
Of course, the transition to a non-petroleum using civilization can probably be accomplished a lot less expensively, and with far fewer problems of all sorts if you do it before it is absolutely unavoidable. If we have cheap energy now, let's use it productively before it runs out.
Well, setting aside the goal of disclosure, I think that if no software patents were granted, you'd see just as much, if not more, inventive activity and bringing to market. The natural incentives in this field are so great that there's no need for the artificial incentive of a patent, especially given that the negative effects of patents would probably harm the software field, no longer being outweighed by their positive effects.
Disclosure is desirable, but I suspect that in most cases, software is easy enough for a PHOSITA to inspect and reverse engineer that the benefits of disclosure by the inventor would be fairly minimal. (Especially if we were to make much-needed copyright reforms that mandated putting complete and well-documented source code and other supplementary information in the Library of Congress as part of a revitalized deposit requirement) The one-click patent wasn't obvious except in hindsight, IMO; I raised it because it is a good example of disclosure not being enough of a reason by itself to continue to have software patents.
So if you'd have invention, and bringing to market anyway, and disclosure largely takes care of itself (along with some copyright reforms), what benefits are we getting from software patents that we couldn't have otherwise? Likewise business method patents. I realize that this might reduce 'breathing room' for small inventors in the software field, but I think that the advantage of being first to market, combined with trade secrets, NDAs, etc. to protect against unscrupulous business partners, is probably adequate. In any event, I'm prepared to take a chance on it.
Are you saying software simply can't be inventive?
Not at all; software can be marvelously non-obvious, novel, inventive, useful, etc.
The problem isn't software per se, it is the software industry, and frankly, it's not really a problem, either.
Patents are intended to promote the progress of the useful arts. This is accomplished by encouraging inventors to invent, disclose, and bring to market, inventions which are useful, novel, and non-obvious, when they would otherwise not have done so, for the least cost in terms of restrictions upon the public. However, we know from history that some inventive activity will occur even in the absence of patents as an enticement. That, then, is our baseline. Whether or not any particular patent system is efficacious can only be measured by whether or not it encourages more invention, disclosure, and bringing to market than would occur if it did not exist (and remembering to take into account that in the absence of a patent, it needn't be the same person to do all three of those things), where the benefit of those things is not outweighed by the cost to society of burdensome monopolies. Likewise, alternative patent systems and reforms to the law may be compared by weighing them against each other in the same manner: the best is the one that produces the most public benefit for the least public cost.
This more or less works fine for many inventive industries. But software is an odd duck.
It seems very likely that the amount of invention, disclosure, and bringing to market that would happen in the field of software in the absence of patents is just as great, or perhaps even greater, than under the current patent system. That is to say, granting patents in this field may actually be harming the progress of this useful art. That's directly contrary to the purpose of patents. After all, there are great incentives to, and low barriers for, the invention of new software, and for bringing them to market. And often the interesting part of software is easy for those skilled in the art to discern without the disclosure requirement. The infamous One-Click patent tells you everything you need to know in the name, for example. Everything beyond that core idea are just implementation details that any PHOSITA can manage.
So why are people -- especially those in the industry -- opposed to software patents? It's not because they don't think software is inventive. It's because they think that the patents are a drag on the industry. That they're pointless at best, and actively harmful at worse. And comparing us to our foreign rivals who lack these patents seems to confirm this.
It isn't inevitable that this has to be so; perhaps someday in the future, natural incentives to inventors in the software field may decrease, and the added artificial incentive of patents may be very useful in keeping things going. But until that happens, we really ought to abolish patents in this field, since they are apparently not able to do their job.
Yes, I know Bobbs-Merrill. The thing about it though is that the Court repeatedly pointed out that it was dealing with the statutory right to vend, leaving the door open to contracts to achieve the same end. You may be right that merely breaking a sticker, in conjunction with contractual language, isn't enough to form a contract, but would you agree that there is at least some way by which a person could agree to a contract prohibiting him from reselling a copy of a book as a condition of purchasing that copy? That's the main thing. The question of how to actually make such a contract is fairly minor in comparison, and even the strongest cases opposed to EULAs don't make them utterly impossible to have.
While there are those who agree with you, the main body of thought on the subject is that your purchase was conditioned on your eventual agreement to the license; that they're just two parts of one overall transaction. Thus, if you reject the license agreement, you need to return the software (which the manufacturer, if not the reseller, is obligated to take back, refunding your money).
Besides, how the hell could clicking a button on a screen have the same legal weight as signing a real document?
Why not? The point is merely to indicate agreement. There's nothing magical about a signature otherwise. It's just something you wouldn't write on the contract, unless you were agreeing to it. Likewise an agree button.
Anyway, to get around this, I usually hack the installer. If the installer no longer contains their license agreement, then, of course, when you click "Agree", then you could only be agreeing to (if anything) the new license text that you replaced it with.
Yeah, good luck with that.
First Sale -- both as a judicial doctrine and as a statute -- merely says that copyright holders cannot impose restrictions on the redistribution of lawfully made and initially-distributed copies of their works, based upon their rights as a copyright holder.
It has always been open to the possibility of copyright holders using contract law to accomplish the same ends, however.
None of that is quite right.
As to your first point, jurisdictions vary on whether consideration is necessary to form a contract. As to your second, it is quite common for contracts to be formed after the parties have exchanged whatever they're exchanging. As to your third, a contract can absolutely be a one sided demand, not open to negotiation. The other party doesn't have to accept it, but it is entirely possible for the first party to refuse to accept even the slightest change to the terms it has proposed.
I agree that EULAs are pretty bad, but you should probably look into them more. I'd suggest reading through the ProCD case, which is the leading case on EULAs, but then reading through Klocek v. Gateway, which differs really only on one minor point, but is able to therefore reach a very different conclusion.
Reforming the rules for adhesive contracts, particularly (but not only) as they intersect with copyright, is the real way to go. This means convincing the legislature more than the courts. And of course, you've got to be careful; the last time that was tried, we got UCITA, which would have been even more one-sided against people.
Libraries do have a right to freely distribute copies of books, which they own. There's no copyright-based law regulating the length of lending periods, AFAIK. If they bought an unlimited number of copies (which would be a good trick) they could lend them all out. Most libraries impose due dates merely as a convenience to their other patrons, not because they must.
Well, could we try distinguishing between non-commercial infringement by natural persons, and everything else? My suspicion is that most people would accept being able to copy things so long as it was just between real people, and no money was involved (nor other things of value, such as advertisements, or even ratios), but that if the copying is in some way commercial, or involves businesses or other artificial entities, then the author ought to have rights over that.
Ah, well, that's fine then. I apologize if I came across as too harsh or anything.
Myself, I'd rather see strict registration, renewal, and deposit formalities, and then have numerous, short terms. The number of renewals might vary depending on the type of work. The maximum length for the most protected works might easily wind up being in the 15-20 year range, however.
It's nothing to do with that; it's more an issue of fairness.
No one forced the businesses that are violating this law to get a patent. In order to get a patent, they must have known the rules. Once they got a patent, they could use those rules as a sword against their competitors. But now that they've gotten the benefits they wanted, suddenly they no longer want to play by those rules.
Being paid for your own work over a period of about 15-20 years, with reasonable allowance for other work inspired by it, is a completely fair expectation.
Really? Why?
Copyright is an artificial scheme, and a utilitarian one. It isn't mandatory that it exist, and if it does exist, it isn't up to the author to make that decision, or decide what the specific details are; that's up to the public (via a legitimate government accountable to the public, working in the public interest).
If it is in the public interest that only works made on Tuesdays should be copyrighted, and that the copyright should only last for a week, then that's what should be done. That authors might want otherwise is utterly irrelevant, save for how their desires are a factor in determining the overall public interest. (Not so much to cater to them, but to find a way to manipulate them into doing what's good for the public)
I'd rather have everything on the table. I don't really care whether copyright lasts for a day or for a million years, so long as however long it lasts, and whatever rights it consists of, are carefully formulated so as to serve the public interests better than any alternative law, or no law at all.
Well, the thing is, it is not a trivial thing to get a patent. Any inventor or business that obtains one must have been familiar with the relevant laws in order to know whether the invention was patentable, and in order to pursue its application all the way to the end, when a patent issues. And a patent is often worth pursuing, because the rights of a patent holder are very powerful, and last for a substantial period of time.
The requirement that no articles claim to be patented unless there is, in fact, an applicable patent in effect is part of this law. Any applicant that could manage to get a patent is going to know that it cannot make false claims about patents in the course of its business.
So the sorts of companies you're defending knew the rules perfectly well, used them to their advantage, but now seeks to escape them when they're no longer convenient? This is not acceptable.
A responsible business would know that it could not allege the existence of a patent forever, and that there are penalties for those who try. As a result, a responsible business would plan for the long term, fully expecting that whenever the patent expired, it would have to replace its molds, or stop adding labels to its goods, or whatever. At the very least, it would budget for this accordingly, so that when the day came, it wasn't caught short of funds, and didn't have to run afoul of the law that it had relied upon immediately prior.
Really, you're only defending irresponsible businesses, which seek to shield themselves with the law, but throw that very same law in the trash the moment it is no longer of value to it.
I'm perfectly fine with these suits. They'll either suffer the penalties and know better in the future, or they'll go out of business and being scofflaws, I say good riddance. The law is not only just, as it protects against false claims to monopolies, which could be considered unfair competition, but we're better off without small businesses that flout the law; for if they'd ignore this rather minor one, who knows what else they'd do.
Most of these companies are undoubtedly committing these violations unknowingly,
Well, it's possible to infringe on a patent unknowingly, so I have no real sympathies there.
Don't why the gov't has to split the money with random third parties, though, that's just asking for abuse.
The government really can't be bothered to investigate this, much less sue over it. It's easier to provide a bounty to get third parties to do it.
Middle class migration to the suburbs was well advanced before the construction of the Brooklyn Bridge.
That is, after all, why there is a Brooklyn Bridge.
Actually, Brooklyn was one of the biggest cities in the country at that time, and it and New York City were considered twin cities.
Of course, the law of property -- at least for everything beyond what the owner can personally defend against the world by means of force -- is also one of limited and artificially constructed grants of rights. Which isn't to say that copyrights are a branch of property law, but rather that property rights are just as artificial.
It may yet take a little more research. That's J. Scalia's personal opinion, not an actual, binding Court opinion. While it may be persuasive (it's apparently persuaded you), and can be cited to persuade other courts, it is not actually the law of the land.
Further, he has merely begged the question. I see no support for the notion that a corporation is merely an association of individuals, with its rights flowing from the individuals, rather than having an independent origin. He's just assumed it. Where's the examination of the differences between a mere association and a corporation? Or the right to associate, as opposed to the right to incorporate?