Re: [dvd-discuss] Dastar v 20th Century Fox

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 3 Jun 2003 at 12:22, Jeremy Erwin wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 3 Jun 2003 12:22:28 -0400
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] Dastar v 20th Century Fox
From:           	Jeremy Erwin <jerwin@ponymail.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2003, at 11:28  AM, Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> 
> >
> > Now this is a wierd quotation
> >
> > "In sum, reading the phrase .origin of goods. in the Lanham Act in 
> > accordance with the Act.s common-law foundations (which were not 
> > designed to protect originality or creativity), and in light of the 
> > copyright and patent laws (which were), we conclude that the phrase 
> > refers to the producer of the tangible goods that are offered for 
> > sale, and not to the author of any idea, concept, or communication 
> > embodied in those goods. Cf. 17 U. S. C. §202 (distin-guishing between 
> > a copyrighted work and .any material object in which the work is 
> > embodied.). To hold otherwise would be akin to finding that §43(a) 
> > created a species of perpetual patent and copyright, which Congress 
> > may not do. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186, 208 (2003). "
> >
> > COngress cannot create perpetual patent and copyright yet that's 
> > exactly what they have effectively done by increasing the term to 
> > arrogant lengths and if allowed to continue become perpetual in 
> > practice.
> 
> You have to think like Scalia (with whom everyone, except Breyer, who 
> did not participate in the case, joined). Trademarks, are without any 
> limiit at all. Copyrights are without practical limitations. There is a 
> difference in the letter of the law.


Trademarks are used to mark goods for trade to identify the maker,
handler, distributer, etc as genuine for the consumer. To allow others to
use a trademark, is to encourage fraud and deception. It is in the
interest of the state to prevent fraud and deception so the state has a
compelling interest in preserving trademarks as long as they have a
lifetime-which is nearly forever. To do so, I believe the trademark must
registered and some fees paid periodically (TINFLB)

As for copyright? Letter or spirit? The whole argument that the duration
if finite but can be extended indefinitly violates the spirit and
intention of the Constitution. Eldred was decided not upon political lines but 
ideological ones
albeit shorn of rationality. One question is if it sets an precedent that those 
inclined for "forever less a day" want to enshrine as policy




> 
> There may be some animus on the court  towards increasing trademark 
> protections, as evidenced by the recent Mosley v Victoria's Secret 
> Catalogue
> 
> Jeremy
>