What would force a government to pay these corporations when one of these tribunals sides with the corporation?
If the government refuses, if the legitimate courts refuse and every agency, association, etc. that could get them the money they believe they are entitled to? What are they going to do, steal it?
If this were true, Disney would have trademarked Mickey Mouse, as well as all their other characters, a long time ago. However, Mickey Mouse is a creative work. Thus it is copyrighted. Which is why Disney lobbied for extending copyright back in 1998 with the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. So characters are not trademarkable
I hate the fact that an author's children's children's children can continue receiving royalties for something they had no involvement in the creation of. I believe a copyright should die with the work's creator.
Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution states:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
...limited times to the Authors and Inventors...
It does not state decedents or any other person or entity. The copyright clause is part of the US Constitution and the only way to change it is via a constitutional amendment, not an act or bill. "Limited time has always been disputed, but who the copyright applies to is crystal clear. So technically, when the author or inventor of a creative work dies, the copyright should die with the author or inventor.
before the CTEA expires in 2018, software publishers should be against another extension. There is no reason for them to want to extended the copyright of their OS's, apps or games. In 2100 and later, they will likely be lost in the abyss of time. If not, they will not function on anything. There is no logical or practical reason for them to support extending copyright.
I do not believe software should be patentable at all. The flaw in software patent exists in this example. In simplest terms: Company A invents: “Method of creating output of 20” Company B invents: 10+10=20 Company C invents: 4*5=20 Company D invents: 40/2=20 Company E invents: 21-1=20 Company F invents: Sqrt(400)=20
Companies B – F all use different functions and values to create the same output. However, because Company A filed as a broad method instead of specific formula, Company A can will sue all the other companies claiming patent infringement.
On the physical side of patents, Company A: “Method of relieving pain via oral ingestion.” McNeil Consumer Healthcare: C8H9NO2 / acetaminophen / Tylenol Bayer: C14H14O3 / naproxen sodium / Aleve Pfizer: C13H18O2 / Ibuprofen / Advil Knoll: C18H21NO3 / Hydrocodone
The Patent office never would granted Company A’s patent. It is not specific and overly broad. In the pharmaceuticals, specific formulas are patented, not concepts or methods.
The option before revolution is Article 5 of the Constitution. To hold a Constitutional Convention. 66% of the states must bring forth a proposed amendment to the Constitution. Congress is then obligated to open a session. if 75% of the states agree on the amendment, then it by-passes congress and becomes law. This is the only we we could force term limits on members of congress. They would never slit their own throats.
On the post: How Corporate Sovereignty Undermines Democracy By Irrevocably Binding Future Governments
Re: Re: What IS "corporate sovereignty"?
If the government refuses, if the legitimate courts refuse and every agency, association, etc. that could get them the money they believe they are entitled to? What are they going to do, steal it?
On the post: Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Never Ending Copyright Dispute
Re: Trademark
On the post: Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Never Ending Copyright Dispute
heirs
Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution states:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
...limited times to the Authors and Inventors...
It does not state decedents or any other person or entity. The copyright clause is part of the US Constitution and the only way to change it is via a constitutional amendment, not an act or bill. "Limited time has always been disputed, but who the copyright applies to is crystal clear. So technically, when the author or inventor of a creative work dies, the copyright should die with the author or inventor.
On the post: Monsanto And Syngenta About To Receive Dozens Of Patents On Unpatentable Plants
total immunity?
On the post: While Other Countries Debate Copyright Terms, Canada Just Takes Record Labels' Word That It Needs To Increase
Software
On the post: Patent Troll's Frivolous Attack On Startup Forces Startup To Sell Out To Another Patent Troll
Company A invents: “Method of creating output of 20”
Company B invents: 10+10=20
Company C invents: 4*5=20
Company D invents: 40/2=20
Company E invents: 21-1=20
Company F invents: Sqrt(400)=20
Companies B – F all use different functions and values to create the same output. However, because Company A filed as a broad method instead of specific formula, Company A can will sue all the other companies claiming patent infringement.
On the physical side of patents,
Company A: “Method of relieving pain via oral ingestion.”
McNeil Consumer Healthcare: C8H9NO2 / acetaminophen / Tylenol
Bayer: C14H14O3 / naproxen sodium / Aleve
Pfizer: C13H18O2 / Ibuprofen / Advil
Knoll: C18H21NO3 / Hydrocodone
The Patent office never would granted Company A’s patent. It is not specific and overly broad. In the pharmaceuticals, specific formulas are patented, not concepts or methods.
On the post: Fast Track Bill Back On The... Fast Track After Senate Deal
Re: Revolution
Next >>