Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
Ralph--
You're taking that out of context. Please read the entire case, and what McLean was talking about. This was a case about "dueling" copyrights. I'm not saying that you're misreading it--but you're misreading it, by not reading it in the context of the entire case being discussed.
And nobody here said that copyright was tangible property. So what? What's that got to do with anything in this conversation? What, exactly, is your point? Stocks and bonds aren't "tangible" property, in the sense of diamonds or furs or houses, but I suspect you wouldn't want someone taking the ones that belonged to you, either.
Hitch
|
But Hitch, I don't expect bonds (which have a payoff date) to continue in perpetuity. Nor do i expect that the payoff to keep being extended, over and over again.