Re: [dvd-discuss] [openlaw] Government takes more extreme lineins econd"Eldred" case

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

There are a few problems with the idea.

1. What can nontransferablility accomplish? Why can't the creator 
elect to transfer the copyright or patent wholy? What does not 
allowing them to dispose of their intellectual property as they see 
fit?

2. Why can't corporations own patents or copyrights? They 
bankroll the developement or production. They take the losses too. 
In exchange for my salary I am provided with certain equipment and 
tools that I have used for my employer. In the course of my 
employment I have submitted two patent applications (both still 
pending). My corporation has provided me with a patent attorney 
who has taken my(and a coworkers) drawings and descriptions  
and spent hours creating the application-at no cost to me. Should 
the licensing fees amount to anything, my employer will provide me 
with about 1/3 of them.THere was consideration by both parties(in 
a legal sense only. The first patent attorney I worked with needs to 
have a permanent valium drip.) and a meeting of the minds...and all 
the other 7 or 9 things needed for avalid contract. Why can't a 
corporation own patents or copyrights. Now if this is attempt to 
redress the wholesale abuse creators get today, then restore 
competition by breaking up the trusts and corporations that are 
acting in collusion so that copyright and patent holders can drive a 
bargain.

3. What's the point of giving a corporation an unlimited license by 
allowing the creator to hold the patent. Since a patent is a 
monopoly, the corporation probably want to have that as well. 
Otherwise, if the creator can merely license it to a competitor it 
rather diminishes the value of his creation in the market place.

> "Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com> wrote:
> >What about works done as a work-for-hire, or with multiple authors?
> >What about those authored by a corporation? Do they only enter the
> >public domain if the company goes under?
> >
> 
> Here is my solution (not that I think this has a chance of going
> anywhere):
> 
> - Copyrights and patents must only be held by people (not
> corporations). - Copyrights and patents must be non-transferable.
> 
> ArtI Sec8 Cls8 has the phrase "to authors and inventors".  It doesn't
> say anything about their employers.  No corporation has ever done
> anything creative.  That is something only people can do.  In the case
> of something created by an employee at work, their employer should be
> entitled to an unlimited license.  But the creators still hold the
> copyright/patent. -- Jim Bauer, jfbauer@home.com