RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

But Mickey Mouse ISN"T a trademark. Trademarks are not decoratations 
but functional identifiers-to identify the good, the maker of the goods, or the 
seller, or the perveyor. Mickey doesn't do any of those things for Disney.

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted 
forReviewbySCOTUS
Date sent:      	Wed, 20 Feb 2002 16:10:22 -0800
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> ...
> > 
> > Think of Disney -- all in a panic about losing the exclusive rights to
> > Mickey Mouse.  This tends to indicate that they fear they have nothing
> > of equal prestige with which to replace him.  Being given yet 
> > another 20
> > year reprieve, there is nothing to motivate Disney to create 
> > yet another
> > marquee character.  They can simply rest on there legally preserved
> > laurels. 
> > 
> 
> I still don't see why they need copyright extension to protect
> Mickey Mouse.  Aren't trademark protections essentially unlimited?
> Can't they trademark both the phrase "Mickey Mouse" and the image?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!