It wouldn't qualify for Trademark status because it doesn't serve as a source indicator. Trademarks are not given for any design that is created - only those that are indication of goodwill.
Design patents are offered for those marks in which companies have proprietary rights. Because Apple won't be using the Garbage Icon as an indication of goodwill , it wouldn't qualify for Trademark status.
Actually, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is said to have $23 Billion dollars - almost all of which was donated by Mr. Gates himself.
The $100 million dollars he just donated was to help fight the aids crisis in Africa. That was merely one of non-foundation donations (such as the $20 million gift to the Seattle public libraries).
Again, people who wish to bash Gates about his donations need to look up the numbers (instead of just making them up
Notwithstanding the legal reasons IP should be handed down to assignees, there are practical reasons as well. Should someone who writes their memoirs on their death bed only receive royalties for the last few months of their life? Who receives the money for posthumous works? Certainly, publishers can't reap the benefit of such a windfall.
Absolutely not true. The statutes of limitations explicitly apply to different crimes; there are different time periods for different crimes. To say that criminal statutues are not subject to SOL is completely false.
However, most states do not carry a SOL for murder.
While people in IT may not care from what school you received your degree, law firms care almost too much. Far more important that your personality is the law school you attend and your class rank.
For example, if you wish to get a job with a "Top 100" law firm, the following table is often used:
- At a top 5 law school: top 40% of your class - At a top 25 law school: top 30% of your class - At a top tier law school: top 25% of your class - At a second tier law school: top 10-15% of your class - At a third tier law school: top 5% of your class - At a fourth tier law school: top 1-5% of your class
As you can see, if you are pursuing a legal career, it helps a great deal to go to a better school and do quite well. However, you can still make it to the top firms by other means. Even if you went to a not-so-great law school and had somewhat respectable grades, you can still be a desirable candidate for the top law firms by working as an assistant state's attorney for a few years.
Re:Eldred vs Ashcroft? (copyright duration extensi
on
Biggest IP cases of 2002
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It does not appear that the Sonny Bono Act furthers the purposes of copyright law for a number of reasons. First, the Act applies retroactively to subsisting works. Second, adding another extension to the 70 year period does not appear to add any further incentive to authors. Third, simply because we were trying to conform with other countries does not mean the Congress is immune from limitations placed on it by the Constitution. And finally, it appears that the law was passed more to protect corporate interests than the public.
The constitution in Article I, 8 clause 8 says that "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" Congress may secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries for "limited times." In other words, the founders noted that in order to create incentives for authors to create works, it was necessary to grant them an exclusive right for a limited time for the work they created. Otherwise, one could spend a great deal of time and skill creating a new work merely to have someone else make the profit. In applying the Sonny Bono Act to subsisting works, Congress appears to have broadened the grant of power given to them by the founders. For once the work has been created upon the existing notion of copyright protection, there is no longer the need to provide any incentive to the author. The founders appear to have conditioned Congress' ability to protect authored works for limited times to promote the useful Arts. Once that Art has been created, Congress has therefore fulfilled its duty in providing the incentive. A retroactive extension of the time period does not in any way affect the incentive to create a work that has already been created. Therefore, a retroactive extension of the copyright protection does not further the purposes of copyright law.
Secondly, though Congress was granted the ability to determine what "limited times" means, there has to be some point at which Congress has overstepped its authority. Clearly, if Congress granted copyright protection for 900 years, it would be, by definition, a "limited time", but also be beyond what was needed to create an incentive for authors. Arguably, Congress' extension of the existing time period defeats the purpose of the limited time limitation if Congress is then again free to add another extension. Were Congress to continue such a practice, "limited times" would be in name only. Rather, it would be, in essence, an unlimited time. Therefore, there must be a point at which Congress can no longer grant an extension to an existing time period, especially for subsisting works.
Thirdly, Congress cannot justify its actions based on international law. One of the reasons given for this law was to bring us up to the same time period as other European countries so we would receive the benefit of reciprocity. However, as noted during oral arguments, if France were to declare that all hate speech was unprotectable, Congress could not pass a law stating the same in the interest of international IP harmony.
Finally, the biggest proponents of the Act are the giant media corporations who do not wish to see works they own to fall into the public domain. Quite a bit of lobbying and campaign contributions went into pressuring Congress to pass the Act. As such, one has to wonder, when pondering the retroactive aspects of the bill, whether the purpose was merely to reward and protect the giant media corporations. If this is the case, and I think one could make a good argument that it is so, then Congress is clearly not trying to "promote... the useful Arts", but instead allow the corporations to continue exploiting the works for another twenty years.
Therefore, taking into account that extending the period for subsisting works does nothing to promote the useful Arts, that continually extending the time period is, in essence, an unlimited time, and that a strong argument could be made that the Act was more about reward corporate interests than allowing works to fall into the public domain, it appears the Act does not further the purposes of copyright law.
If you think this "joke of a legal system we have" will eventually be phased out, what exactly do you think will replace it?
I certainly agree that the legislative process has been corrupted, but our court system is the only mechanism that currently allows us a remedy when we feel we have been "screwed over."
Don't forget that when big companies are determining whether or not to add additional safety features to potentially dangerous products they must consider the possible lawsuits. If you remove the incentive for manufacturers to include safety devices, we'll all be a lot less safe.
Lawsuits, like them or not, are indeed an important part of consumer safety and a way to keep people & companies in accordance with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
It wouldn't qualify for Trademark status because it doesn't serve as a source indicator. Trademarks are not given for any design that is created - only those that are indication of goodwill.
Design patents are offered for those marks in which companies have proprietary rights. Because Apple won't be using the Garbage Icon as an indication of goodwill , it wouldn't qualify for Trademark status.
All in all this is much ado about nothing.
The Gates Foundation is now estimated at $24 billion. Since its inception, the Foundation has given away over $5.5 billion.
Actually, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is said to have $23 Billion dollars - almost all of which was donated by Mr. Gates himself.
The $100 million dollars he just donated was to help fight the aids crisis in Africa. That was merely one of non-foundation donations (such as the $20 million gift to the Seattle public libraries).
Again, people who wish to bash Gates about his donations need to look up the numbers (instead of just making them up
Notwithstanding the legal reasons IP should be handed down to assignees, there are practical reasons as well. Should someone who writes their memoirs on their death bed only receive royalties for the last few months of their life? Who receives the money for posthumous works? Certainly, publishers can't reap the benefit of such a windfall.
Read about it here.
Absolutely not true. The statutes of limitations explicitly apply to different crimes; there are different time periods for different crimes. To say that criminal statutues are not subject to SOL is completely false.
However, most states do not carry a SOL for murder.
While people in IT may not care from what school you received your degree, law firms care almost too much. Far more important that your personality is the law school you attend and your class rank.
For example, if you wish to get a job with a "Top 100" law firm, the following table is often used:
- At a top 5 law school: top 40% of your class
- At a top 25 law school: top 30% of your class
- At a top tier law school: top 25% of your class
- At a second tier law school: top 10-15% of your class
- At a third tier law school: top 5% of your class
- At a fourth tier law school: top 1-5% of your class
As you can see, if you are pursuing a legal career, it helps a great deal to go to a better school and do quite well. However, you can still make it to the top firms by other means. Even if you went to a not-so-great law school and had somewhat respectable grades, you can still be a desirable candidate for the top law firms by working as an assistant state's attorney for a few years.
It does not appear that the Sonny Bono Act furthers the purposes of copyright law for a number of reasons. First, the Act applies retroactively to subsisting works. Second, adding another extension to the 70 year period does not appear to add any further incentive to authors. Third, simply because we were trying to conform with other countries does not mean the Congress is immune from limitations placed on it by the Constitution. And finally, it appears that the law was passed more to protect corporate interests than the public.
... the useful Arts", but instead allow the corporations to continue exploiting the works for another twenty years.
The constitution in Article I, 8 clause 8 says that "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" Congress may secure to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries for "limited times." In other words, the founders noted that in order to create incentives for authors to create works, it was necessary to grant them an exclusive right for a limited time for the work they created. Otherwise, one could spend a great deal of time and skill creating a new work merely to have someone else make the profit. In applying the Sonny Bono Act to subsisting works, Congress appears to have broadened the grant of power given to them by the founders. For once the work has been created upon the existing notion of copyright protection, there is no longer the need to provide any incentive to the author. The founders appear to have conditioned Congress' ability to protect authored works for limited times to promote the useful Arts. Once that Art has been created, Congress has therefore fulfilled its duty in providing the incentive. A retroactive extension of the time period does not in any way affect the incentive to create a work that has already been created. Therefore, a retroactive extension of the copyright protection does not further the purposes of copyright law.
Secondly, though Congress was granted the ability to determine what "limited times" means, there has to be some point at which Congress has overstepped its authority. Clearly, if Congress granted copyright protection for 900 years, it would be, by definition, a "limited time", but also be beyond what was needed to create an incentive for authors. Arguably, Congress' extension of the existing time period defeats the purpose of the limited time limitation if Congress is then again free to add another extension. Were Congress to continue such a practice, "limited times" would be in name only. Rather, it would be, in essence, an unlimited time. Therefore, there must be a point at which Congress can no longer grant an extension to an existing time period, especially for subsisting works.
Thirdly, Congress cannot justify its actions based on international law. One of the reasons given for this law was to bring us up to the same time period as other European countries so we would receive the benefit of reciprocity. However, as noted during oral arguments, if France were to declare that all hate speech was unprotectable, Congress could not pass a law stating the same in the interest of international IP harmony.
Finally, the biggest proponents of the Act are the giant media corporations who do not wish to see works they own to fall into the public domain. Quite a bit of lobbying and campaign contributions went into pressuring Congress to pass the Act. As such, one has to wonder, when pondering the retroactive aspects of the bill, whether the purpose was merely to reward and protect the giant media corporations. If this is the case, and I think one could make a good argument that it is so, then Congress is clearly not trying to "promote
Therefore, taking into account that extending the period for subsisting works does nothing to promote the useful Arts, that continually extending the time period is, in essence, an unlimited time, and that a strong argument could be made that the Act was more about reward corporate interests than allowing works to fall into the public domain, it appears the Act does not further the purposes of copyright law.
If you think this "joke of a legal system we have" will eventually be phased out, what exactly do you think will replace it? I certainly agree that the legislative process has been corrupted, but our court system is the only mechanism that currently allows us a remedy when we feel we have been "screwed over." Don't forget that when big companies are determining whether or not to add additional safety features to potentially dangerous products they must consider the possible lawsuits. If you remove the incentive for manufacturers to include safety devices, we'll all be a lot less safe. Lawsuits, like them or not, are indeed an important part of consumer safety and a way to keep people & companies in accordance with the law.