More "Trademark" issues

Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:


Disney often gets a lot of the blame but they were certainly not the sole force behind the changes. I recall that composer Irving Berlin was another voice favoring the extension. Berlin was over 100 years old by the time of his death. He testified to Congress in favor of the change noting that he had lost the rights to many of his most famous and popular compositions, including "White Christmas", under the earlier version of the copyright laws. I'll add that I don't necessarily agree with the current long term of copyrights, but I fervently support some rights. It does seem odd that authors and composers are given this very long term under copyrights but the term of inventors' rights are much more limited under patent laws. I think the length of those rights should be similar.
--

Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Limited" means that it can't last forever -- but nothing in the Constitution says "very limited."
If the authors (or subsequent modifiers) had agreed that a specific time limit should be in the Constitution, they would have spelled it out.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Constitution says "very limited."< I understand the term limited (when Hell freezes over) but how long is "very limited"?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very limited ends with the first snow fall each year, in Hell Michigan. I doubt it is on many maps, but it does exist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I doubt it is on many maps, but it does exist.< Well I knew that, I mean about Hell MI. VBG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
And how does a "right" as you have quoted below translate into a piece of property. If I lease something I have a right to use it but I don't own it. It is exactly my point that this is a license (a granting of certain rights usually limited in time) and not property which has no limits. By pushing the use of the term property it is the purpose to make these rights permanent. The push to make trademarks control all instances of the trademark instead of just instances where there is some confusion in the market place is exactly an attempt to convert this licensed right into full property which is essentially limited. Yes I know that property can be taken away by eminent domain and that you can't do anything you want with property, but this is very different then the case with these intellectual rights.
Ken Harstine
[This followup was posted to rec.models.railroad and a copy was sent to the cited author.]
snipped-for-privacy@mathu.com says...

--
------------------------------------------------------
Ken Harstine
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Clause 8: 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;
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
--
Ken Rice -=:=- kennrice (AT) erols (DOT) com
http://users.erols.com/kennrice - Lego Compatible Flex Track,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ken Harstine wrote:

Let's put it this way, Ken. Go invent something new and revolutionary that everyone wants. I'll copy your idea, market the hell out of it, and everyone will buy mine instead of yours, even though mine is an exact copy of yours. Wouldn't you be pissed off? You put all the time and effort into developing the whatever-it-is and I copied it, costing me no time and effort in R&D. I make way more profit than you do, even if I sell less than you do. Under your system (based on the statement above) I owe you nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article h1B2f.1623$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, Jay Cunnington at snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/10/05 2:27 PM:

To make your example closer to trademark, etc.,
You start a company and think up a clever name and logo. You do business for years and establish a reputation for honesty, good service, whatever (not relevant to UP ? ;-).
Then someone else comes along and uses your name and/or logo to sell some product (I don't really care if it is a good or bad product), and they are successful because of YOUR reputation: they have leveraged YOUR work and you have not been compensated; you should be.
Worse, someone comes along and uses your logo and name to market a product which the market place thinks you endorse, but you don't, let say, UP Urinals. You might be pissed off (ok, enough of this analogy). You should have a right to control the use of the logo, name, et al for which you have worked to establish a reputation.
Fallen flags? Different problem...it's back to the legal cost issue of another off topic thread.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think there's a difference though between registering trademark usage (flat fee) to protect corporate identity/ edorsement vs being greedy (taking a percentage of profits). ie) UP is in the railroad business, not the model train business. So if they get a flat fee for logo usage and usage quality control that's one thing but to ask for a cut of sales is just being greedy. If they can't make money running trains then they shouldn't be in business. However they make lots of money running trains so why would they ask for a cut of model trains. If I remember correctly, they asked for a flat fee, yes? As for Boeing asking for a cut of B17 model profits that's realy pathetic on a number of points a) they aren't even building the airplane anymore, b) besides aircraft buffs, the general public doesn't realy associate Boeing and B17's c) a 10% cut of model airplane sales is pennies (or even less) compared to the market that they are in anyway. (as an aside, I was watching a documentary about Boeing vs Northrup in a fighter plane contract competition to build the latest fighter jet, and after hearing about the model airplane copyright thing, I rooted for Boeing to loose the competition. Childish, I know, but my opinion of Boeing was altered by their behavior. If they had just asked for a registration fee as opposed to the cut, I would not have felt the animosity. I don't even build model airplanes anymore. I understand and accept the intent of copyright. Greed I understand but do not accept. (and there's a difference between greed and trying to earn a fair profit)
Jb

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I believe that U.P. always based their licensing fee on a % of sales.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jay Cunnington wrote:

Red herring. The argument is about the modelling of railway cars bearing the trademarks of an existing railway. Nobody is arguing that patent law should be abolished, only that intellectual property law has been extended into areas where is does not apply.
It's precisely because an idea cannot be owned that the state grants a limited time _license_ to the person who first applies it in some new way. A trademark is not an invention or an application of an idea, it's a way of identifying the manufacturer and seller of the product or service. Whether the product or service is protected by a patent or not is a different issue entirely. A trademark protects both consumer and manufacturer against counterfeits. (Well, it reduces the odds, anyhow. It makes it too much of hassle to counterfeit anything except luxury goods, and people who think a luxury brand is a guarantee of actual quality are idjits who deserve to be scammed both ways.)
Do you believe that an HO model of a UP SD70MAC is a counterfeit UP (or EMD) locomotive?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
in article DXP2f.3330$ snipped-for-privacy@news20.bellglobal.com, Wolf Kirchmeir at snipped-for-privacy@sympatico.ca wrote on 10/11/05 7:27 AM:

Red Herring. The trademark issue is whether someone who buy as UP SD70MAC thinks that UP endorses the product (design, quality, etc.) since the trademark is all over the package and product. For current trademarks in use by the owner, I think they have a perfect right to regulate its use.
Fallen flags? Different argument.
--
Ed Oates
http://homepage.mac.com/edoates
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edward A. Oates wrote:

The model maker's trademark is on the package, not UP's. So anyone who who is dumb enough to think that UP endorses the product is too dumb to be taken seriously. (Contrast John Deere and Coca Cola, which insist that their trademarks are on the packages of the models they sponsor.)
[...]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ken Rice wrote:

That's what the whole argument turns on right there. Of all these 1,000-1,500 RRs that the UP Borg has assimilated over the decades, how many marks are still in active use, versus the ones they inherited because they haven't gotten around to painting them over yet? I'm thinking WP, SP, D&RGW, C&NW, and countless other "modern" roads that has been annihilated.
And with college full-time, I haven't had time to follow any fallout from the SP/D&RGW decision from a while back that said they were public domain. Any further decisions on the inevitable appeal?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cat wrote: [...]

One may have enough knowledge to know there is a problem. It takes more knowledge to know what the problem is. It takes even more to understand the problem. It takes more than that to know whether there is a solution and apply it. And it takes a heck of a lot more to produce a solution.
There are those who don't know enough to know that there is a problem. They are dangerous: what you don't know cas hurt not only you but those around you.
But these people are not nearly as dangerous as those who know all about the problem but deny it. Even worse are those who know the solution, refuse to apply it because they don't want to spend the money.
And IME we all belong to all those categories, one way or another. Pogo was right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Believe this is the lawyer's howl.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surely that refusal didn't extend to models of their locomotives.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...model airplanes are next, see;
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/27/eveningnews/main887340.shtml
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This proposal in re. model aircraft copyrights was raised here quite a while ago. I came across it in a web site 'Modelling Madness', which anyone who'se interested might wish to look at. Regards, Bill.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.