What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014 • Hacker News Board

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#161

Post by throwawaykf03 » Wed, Jan 01, 2014, 9:58 PM UTC

darkarmani wrote: post #157

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Irony? Rand was a very strong proponent of IP rights. From a quick search: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/patents_and_copyrights.htm... http://hallingblog.com/ayn-rand-on-intellectual-property/com...

Wow. This is what passes for logic? Begging the question? > As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the p…

I don't see what this has to do with the "irony" context, but:

1) Ayn Rand's writings have had their fair share of criticism, with good reason. However, I'm not sure what the circular logic is in that snippet. Could you elaborate?

2) Randian logic aside, multiple people inventing (as opposed to "discovering") the same thing at the same time is so rare, that the USPTO changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#162

Post by TheCoelacanth » Thu, Jan 02, 2014, 5:33 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #104

salient wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still not convinced any one entity deserves to keep a creation for so long under monopoly given by the society (some interesting discussions in 1869 [1] about this), but let's assume they do. I'd still like to see a system where you only get copyright for new works for 5 years. Then you have to pay $1,000 to renew it for another 5 years. And then the fee increases geometrically (and also adjusted to inflation), t…

I'd prefer a fixed copyright term that applies to everyone, possibly with different terms for different industries. That way rich and powerful studios enjoy the same protections as starving first-time novelists. It would be grossly unfair for some small open source project to enter the public domain after five years, allowing commercial developers to fire most of their R&D staff and just assimilate five year old OSS…

If you are paying an R&D staff, you aren't paying them to be 5 years behind open source development. You are paying them to be ahead of open source and your competitors. No one is going to make money by ripping off five year old OSS.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#163

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:54 AM UTC

ryguytilidie wrote: post #145

ars_technician wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It didn't happen, so all it takes is your imagination! :-)

Interacted with you two days ago and your contribution there was ANOTHER brainless, complete shit one liner. Perhaps its time for you to look for another community?

[deleted]

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#164

Post by darkarmani » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:47 PM UTC

throwawaykf03 wrote: post #161

darkarmani wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. This is what passes for logic? Begging the question? > As an objection to the patent laws, some people cite the fact that two inventors may work independently for years on the same invention, but one will beat the other to the patent office by an hour or a day and will acquire an exclusive monopoly, while the loser’s work will then be totally wasted. This type of objection is based on the error of equating the p…

I don't see what this has to do with the "irony" context, but: 1) Ayn Rand's writings have had their fair share of criticism, with good reason. However, I'm not sure what the circular logic is in that snippet. Could you elaborate? 2) Randian logic aside, multiple people inventing (as opposed to "discovering") the same thing at the same time is so rare, that the USPTO changed from first-to-invent to first-to-file.

> The fact that a man might have been first, does not alter the fact that he wasn’t.

This is what the argument is about and shouldn't be the conclusion. The argument isn't about who is first, it's about why that matters.

Re: What Could Have Entered the Public Domain on January 1, 2014

#165

Post by jessriedel » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 6:58 PM UTC

stinkytaco wrote: post #63

jessriedel wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confused. Disney is free to make new Mickey Mouse movies, and those will be protected by copyright. Likewise, they can register Mickey Mouse as a trademark for certain business situations so no one is ever tricked into thinking a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. Buy what they absolutely shouldn't have is the ability to prevent other people from writing new Mickey stories, from watching 70 year…

While I agree with you in principle, some of the specifics I take issue with: 1. Writing new Mickey stories - This is an odd legal/moral area for me. It's not unreasonable for Disney to want to protect Mickey and if you wrote a Mickey story, it's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney. That could affect Disney's future business. Distributing Steamboat Willy on YouTube will not.…

> 1. Writing new Mickey stories - This is an odd legal/moral area for me. It's not unreasonable for Disney to want to protect Mickey

It's not "unreasonable" for the Sherlock Holmes estate to want to keep everything to do with that character too, but tough beans, they don't get to.

> and if you wrote a Mickey story, it's possible that people could feel that a 3rd party product is endorsed by Disney.

Disney is on the same footing as all other citizens in utilizing the public-domain Mickey character. It's always possible when someone builds on a work that had entered the public domain for that new work to be attributed mistakenly to the original author. This isn't an excuse for the former copyright holder to have any additional rights over the work.

> 2. Mickey Mouse ears - Pretty clearly a trademark violation. Outside of the domain of copyright entirely.

Disagree, although this out of my area of expertise. The point of trademark is for brand/company recognition. Trademarks can't be made of "the idea of Mickey Mouse" once Micky has entered the public domain, so I don't see how Micky ears would violate it. I could trademark a particular 19th century drawing of Shakespere when used as a logo for my company, and it would be protected in that role on, e.g., packaging and advertisements. But that doesn't mean others can't sell reproductions of the painting or make t-shirts out of it.