Sherlock Holmes ruled to be (mostly) in the public domain

[Ken Maltby]

I would think that the "Trademark" could be for a distinctive rendering of the names, and not apply to just the use of the names.

Luck;
Ken

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by crich70

There is a difference I think between the two. A written work such as a novel is finished when it is published. Sequels can be written but the 1st book is considered complete once it is a published work. An invention on the other hand such as say the electric light isn't necessarily a finished product. It is possible that improvements may be made to make the bulb more efficient. The initial idea of an electric light likewise can be discovered or worked out only by one person, but if someone can make a more efficient one or one that works by a different method then it would be a new thing in some respects.

I don't see the difference or, if tbere is a difference, how it is relevant. A published work can always be adapted or utilized in a new or innovative way. I could take the character of Sherlock Holmes and create a cartoon where he is a time traveling centaur that battles dinosaurs. The first design of the first light bulb is a finished product in the same way a novel is a finished product - both are, but so what?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I'm not okay with expiring patents. They'd get the same treatment as copyright, but with stricter standards than allowed today. Just because person A invents a steam engine, that doesn't close the book on it. Person B can invent a steam engine too using a different method. Now we have two patents for the steam engine; and more importantly, competition.

Well, at least you're consistent, even if what you propose makes no practical, legal or economic sense.

On what basis does it makes sense to have someone with a monopoly forever on an invention? All that would accomplish is the stifling of innovation and giving a handful of inventors an advantage that is totally disproportionate to the effort they've put in. You can say there'd be competition, but it would only be a shadow of what it is now; sometimes there really is only one or a very small number of patentable way to accomplish a task. Inventions are built on prior inventions, so all infinite patents would do is create an extreme drag on subsequent inventions.

Patents and copyright are creations of statute for the purpose of promoting innovation. No natural intellectual property rights exist without statutes, and granting intellectual property rights is pointless if it doesn't promote innovation. There's nothing to be gained for society for granting a 200 year, 2,000 year or infinite patent, so the idea is ridiculous on its face.

And just to answer another comment, a copyright or patent that you can renew forever is as ridiculous and pointless as a patent that lasts forever and doesn't need to be renewed. Why should Disney or another corporate holder be able to lock up Mickey Mouse forever? Society is better off if the creator is rewarded and encouraged with a temporary monopoly, and then the creation becomes usable by everyone to transform into new and innovative works.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I don't see the difference or, if tbere is a difference, how it is relevant. A published work can always be adapted or utilized in a new or innovative way. I could take the character of Sherlock Holmes and create a cartoon where he is a time traveling centaur that battles dinosaurs. The first design of the first light bulb is a finished product in the same way a novel is a finished product - both are, but so what?

While a book may be made into a movie, or a cartoon, or even a radio dramatization it can't be changed much without it becoming a totally different story. People who have read the book of say Treasure Island know how it ends and who the characters are. On the other hand radio's went from using crystals to tubes to transistors to computer chips. The idea stayed the same but the means of using the technology changed. Just because someone had a patent on a particular tube radio design that doesn't mean they automatically have one on a transistor radio. The idea of radio was patented but just because one receiver was patented didn't mean all receivers automatically were. But with a book things are more set in stone. The media by which the book is conveyed to the reader/listener changes but the book itself doesn't.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by crich70

While a book may be made into a movie, or a cartoon, or even a radio dramatization it can't be changed much without it becoming a totally different story. People who have read the book of say Treasure Island know how it ends and who the characters are. On the other hand radio's went from using crystals to tubes to transistors to computer chips. The idea stayed the same but the means of using the technology changed. Just because someone had a patent on a particular tube radio design that doesn't mean they automatically have one on a transistor radio. The idea of radio was patented but just because one receiver was patented didn't mean all receivers automatically were. But with a book things are more set in stone. The media by which the book is conveyed to the reader/listener changes but the book itself doesn't.

Books aren't anymore "set in stone". If someone comes up with the idea of a boy wizard who is the arch enemy of a dark wizard without a nose, and then I do the same plot , but set on a space station, the plot is the same but I've changed one component, similar to going from tube to transistor. The specific expression of a story is what the creator has a monopoly on, not all derivative works.

In any event, I'm really not following where we're even going with this argument, if it is an argument.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Well, at least you're consistent, even if what you propose makes no practical, legal or economic sense.

I'm well aware that I'm in a very tiny minority on these issues and that things won't go the way I want. So at this point in time, I'm content to get extensions on copyright and the entertainment provided by patent fights.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Books aren't anymore "set in stone". If someone comes up with the idea of a boy wizard who is the arch enemy of a dark wizard without a nose, and then I do the same plot , but set on a space station, the plot is the same but I've changed one component, similar to going from tube to transistor. The specific expression of a story is what the creator has a monopoly on, not all derivative works.

In any event, I'm really not following where we're even going with this argument, if it is an argument.

I just meant that a piece of fiction is finished when it's written, edited and published unlike with an invention which can be improved upon usually. I do agree that ideas can't be patented though & that the same idea can be used in different stories. For example the idea of star crossed lovers from two different groups whose romance is doomed to tragedy. One plot idea two different stories (i.e. "Romeo and Juliet" & "West Side Story." One had two families in Verona Italy feuding and the other two Juvenile gangs feuding in New York City, but both used the same plot. But West Side Story and Romeo & Juliet aren't the same story. They have similarities but everyone knows that they are different tales. If you had Romeo working for Juliet's family in the big city it wouldn't be Shakespeare's play any more (IMO). It might be close, but if too much is changed it isn't what he wrote any longer.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

And just to answer another comment, a copyright or patent that you can renew forever is as ridiculous and pointless as a patent that lasts forever and doesn't need to be renewed. Why should Disney or another corporate holder be able to lock up Mickey Mouse forever? Society is better off if the creator is rewarded and encouraged with a temporary monopoly, and then the creation becomes usable by everyone to transform into new and innovative works.

Because Disney created Mickey. It belongs to Disney. It's their property.

A forever renewable monopoly on Mickey Mouse doesn't stifle creativity in the least. Are people incapable of creating other animated animals?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Patents and copyright are creations of statute for the purpose of promoting innovation. No natural intellectual property rights exist without statutes, and granting intellectual property rights is pointless if it doesn't promote innovation. There's nothing to be gained for society for granting a 200 year, 2,000 year or infinite patent, so the idea is ridiculous on its face.

No natural rights of any kind exist without laws granting and protecting those rights.

Here's an example of a ridiculous patent that should never have been granted to begin with:

Simultaneous recording and playback apparatus

US 5930444 A

Abstract

A keyboard equipped audiovisial recording and playback device is provided having an input and an output adapted for connection between a users signal source and display device, respectively, and a memory unit with a storage medium enabling random access to programming information stored therein. A keyboard responsive control circuit enables manipulation and transfer of programming information between the input, output and memory. Because of the relative high speed of the control circuitry and memory access, substantially simultaneous recording and playback of television type signals is achieved, thus enabling user controlled programming delay.

This is the sad sorry state of today's patents. Now Apple is being sued over this.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because Disney created Mickey. It belongs to Disney. It's their property.

A forever renewable monopoly on Mickey Mouse doesn't stifle creativity in the least. Are people incapable of creating other animated animals?

Better ones, two.
Bugs, Daffy, Road Runner...
Nemo and Co...
Even mice: Pinky and The Brain...
Narf, said.

People fret too much over the boringest of mice.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I'm well aware that I'm in a very tiny minority on these issues and that things won't go the way I want. So at this point in time, I'm content to get extensions on copyright and the entertainment provided by patent fights.

I'm just trying to understand why you want what you claim to want. Your argument seems to just be that "intellectual property is property, because it has the word 'property' in the name!"

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because Disney created Mickey. It belongs to Disney. It's their property.

A forever renewable monopoly on Mickey Mouse doesn't stifle creativity in the least. Are people incapable of creating other animated animals?

This seems to be the crux of your argument.

No one can "own" an idea or an expression of an idea. Statute grants a temporary monopoly to encourage creation; this monopoly right is different than the ownership of a physical good, and it's over-simplistic to try and equate the two.

And it does limit creativity. Yes, people can and do create other things, but each copyright ties a creator's hand just a tiny bit, and in reality we're dealing with millions of copyrights. Right now, people can't take Micky Mouse and remix the character in interesting ways or tell new stories with him in new ways. Look at all of the wonderful works that have built on Alice and wonderland, the Wizard of Oz or the works of Shakespeare. This was only possible because works entered the public domain.

Perpetual copyright or patents would also stifle innovation in a more subtle way: by encouraging creators and inventors to rest on their laurels, secure in the knowledge that they can reap the rewards of their work (even if it's a relatively minor work) forever rather than having to go to the trouble of creating something new. They would also be encouraged to divert resources from creating new works to policing their old works to make sure no one was violating their copyrights or patents.

Short version: You can't claim "intellectual property" is like regular property. It is a grant by society of certain monopoly rights to encourage innovation. Would an infinitely long monopoly encourage more innovation? No, so it is pointless as it flies in the face of the whole purpose of intellectual property rights.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

I'm just trying to understand why you want what you claim to want. Your argument seems to just be that "intellectual property is property, because it has the word 'property' in the name!"

It has to do with what you create and/or own. Property is a core belief value and I make no distinction between owning a house you built or a book you wrote. Both are the fruits of your labor and for society to declare that you can pass down your house in perpetuity, but not your book, is flat out wrong.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It has to do with what you create and/or own. Property is a core belief value and I make no distinction between owning a house you built or a book you wrote. Both are the fruits of your labor and for society to declare that you can pass down your house in perpetuity, but not your book, is flat out wrong.

Sorry, I added to my above post while you were posting this.

Anyway, I understand your position now, but I still think it's too simplistic to try and claim that ideas and expressions are the same as physical goods; these things are apples to oranges.

If you're so concerned about others pawing over your ideas and expressions with their grubby hands, then hoard them up, tell no one about them. Then you can write them down in a secret book that your family will pass down for generations, just like your house. If, on the other hand, you want people to to know about your ideas and expressions, by giving them out widely, then you'll be granted a temporary monopoly for your trouble. The choice is yours, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

It has to do with what you create and/or own. Property is a core belief value and I make no distinction between owning a house you built or a book you wrote. Both are the fruits of your labor and for society to declare that you can pass down your house in perpetuity, but not your book, is flat out wrong.

There are two things here and I think it's worth distinguishing them. First is your "core belief" that someone ought to be able to pass down the fruits of their labour "in perpetuity". This is something that can be argued. (however in practice even with physical property, taxes on wealth tend to limit "in perpetuity" to a few generations)

The second is the idea that because they are both fruits of a person's labour that physical and intellectual property are the same. Clearly this is not true. Physical property has characteristics that intellectual property does not. You can lock your possessions away. They can only be in one place at a time and usually only used by one (or a few) people at a time. Possession of a physical object means something different to possession of an idea or the expression of an idea. It follows therefore that the laws we enact need to reflect those differences even if our aim is to make the outcomes similar (point one) - and the jury's very much out on whether this is our collective aim.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Anyway, I understand your position now, but I still think it's too simplistic to try and claim that ideas and expressions are the same as physical goods; these things are apples to oranges.

Not all ideas are equal. A talking animated mouse in and of itself should not be allowed to be copyrighted where it prohibits anyone else from creating a talking animated mouse. But, a specific talking animated mouse with its own traits should be allowed. There's plenty of room for any number of copyrighted mice; whether it's Mickey Mouse, Mighty Mouse, Pixie and Dixie, or Pinky and the Brain. Copyrighted Mickey didn't prevent any of these other mice from being created.