| Main > Main Forum |
| sort of legal roms question |
| << < (6/7) > >> |
| Patent Doc:
--- Quote ---Current copyright laws aim to be anti-competitive. They don't just stop another group making the same item/system/formula/whatever, they stop them competing AT ALL. People holding copyrights are abusing them and the legal process itself to extend them where they don't belong. The grand irony of it all is that copyright was designed to give inventors a fighting chance. Today it's used by the rich and powerful to stifle invention and hold technology back. --- End quote --- Survey Says.....WRONG!!! Elvis I know this is what most people believe and I really am on your side with this, but the copyright scheme was originally developed as a censorship measure with the passing of the Statute of Ann (Bible publishers didn't want mass publication by anyone so they sought to prevent it). The confusion comes in with the US Constitution where in Article I section 8 we have the clause idicating the Congress has the power to pass laws to promote science (oddly copyright is the science) and the useful arts (ie patents). Copyrights only involves information fixed in a tangible medium. You can not copyright a process or system only the expression of the process or system. You can, however patent a system or process. Don't confuse your IP. In PATENT law there is a true quid pro quo with respect to patent term. You the patent owner/inventor (not the same person necessarily) are given a limitted monopoly for 20 yrs from earliest filing to exclude others from making or using your invention (note this doesn't give you the right to make it, just exclude others) in exchange you make the invention available to the public by publishing the patent application. Copyright has no such quid pro quo. I'll give you a hypothetical example. Lets say that Pres. Clinton wrote to Monica. These letters would have a copyright of life plus 70 yrs eventhough they were never published. Where is the quid pro quo? It doesn't exist. If you don't like the term extensions that have happened in recent years, blame Europe...in particular Germany. when copyright laws were harmonized, rather than stick with a reasonable term, the powers that be decided that it would be unfair to end a copyright term earlier than was anticipated and too confusing to make a transition or grandfather older works so they just made everyone get the longest term (life plus 70). The US actually didn't sign on to the berne convention until much latter and only when it made economic since to sign the TRIPPS agreement (this was an economic agreement having little to do with IP). Though I agree that copyright should be for maybe just the economically useful life of the work and then donated to the public, how would one make that determination? WHo should make it? While I'm on my soap box, there is no such thing as abandon where as RayB pointed out. The copyriht owner or author (whoever has the rights) has merely chosen not to enforce it. THey could, in fact, enforce tomorrow and there copyright would stand up to the courts. This happens all the time with situations where the original author died and now the hiers own the work. All previous agreements are potentially worthless if the heir wants to change them. Not to mention the heir could enforce previously unenforced infringements. THere is a famous case that deals with this situation but I'd have to look up the sight. Bottom line, "abandonware" copyright is no different from any other unenforced copyright...infringe at your own risk and assume the consequences if they come. By the way IAAL in IP at that, and I can assure you that I am not rich. But I am apparently long winded and looove to hear myself talk (er type). Damn I am a wind bag like all the other attorneys. |
| Patent Doc:
I should also add that European patent law does not provide for software patents, so copyright is the ONLY protection here. In the US, since we do allow for software patents, I'd love to see the denial of copyright for software. But unfortuantely, global harmonization of copyright laws is preventing that from happening. Too bad really as no copyright in software (but allowing patents which have a 20yr term)would clearly be the more equitable approach to such a dynamically changing field (which I believe was the point of Elvis' rant) |
| GoPodular.com:
So if we take the Mr. DO! example and split it into it's various IP parts: ROM: Patent on hardware (if it was filed), Copyright on code. Character: Copyright (automatic). Title: Trademark (it was filed). Right? That's how I've always boiled it down. |
| RayB:
--- Quote from: GoPodular.com on October 21, 2006, 01:40:56 pm ---So if we take the Mr. DO! example and split it into it's various IP parts: ROM: Patent on hardware (if it was filed), Copyright on code. Character: Copyright (automatic). Title: Trademark (it was filed). Right? That's how I've always boiled it down. --- End quote --- That's more or less correct, though the patent part would depend on whether or not their hardware design was unique and/or improved on pre-existing processes. Trademark also applies to the Logo image of the title. |
| GoPodular.com:
So for ROM distribution, you need the copyright rights to the code, not the trademark for the title/logo. Likewise, the trademark for the title/logo would only let you use the image, not the ROM. That's why I question the legitimacy of claims made simply by renewing an expired trademark. The trademark section of the USPTO can't grant rights to the ROM code. By reregistering an expired trademark, you'd get the "wrapper" and not the "contents". |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |