[TechniSol]

If nothing else, one must admire the relative hubris level in our attempting to pin down concerns that have been struggled with for centuries, in a fleeting, yet possibly timeless, online forum.

There are always at least two sides to every story involving at least one other entity. The creator of IP obviously believes their brain sweat has worth and prefers protection, or at least the hope of having grounds to file suit.(which is very far from the concept of protection) The notion of allowing someone "protection" under the law allows them time to exact profit from their idea or actual invention -most would agree this is fair compensation for their effort. Why shouldn't it apply equally to specific fictional characters, situations or settings not found in our conventional reality?

I think we have the right ideas, but perhaps we need to wise up and limit protection to the conceivable lifespan of the creator and let it go at that. I'd add a "put your money where your mouth is" clause and make the system of arbitration pay for itself concerning derivative works. If you really think your work is being infringed, put up or shut up, or settle without the courts intervening and be done with it -at a predetermined fixed percentage based on which media is being used to express the new work.

On IP expressed as a process or invention find a way to keep it to yourself, or let anyone smart enough to figure out how you did it to license the concept at a predetermined percentage based on the percentage of the device based on the IP and it's relative importance to the success or function of the new device. This would still encourage competition to beat the reuse fees. The practical problem then becomes determining just how basic a concept is patentable. I'd not wish to design in a world where concepts like the lever, fulcrum, inclined plane, etc are patentable any more than I'd like to write in a world where Mickey Mouse blankets all fictional mice... Further, simply buying any piece of technology in a physical form should place the onus on the seller as applies to who must pay the fiddler, the reseller or integrator should be covered.