RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus

["Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe(at)usg.com>]

No... I guess my biggest problem with copyright is the fact that it
now extends not only to publication/distribution of the work in
question, but also to creation/publication of derivative works. Since
the creations of others are going to effect my thought processes, 
something in the system should allow for that - this is ignored in 
legislation. Intellectual "property" is not traditional property as
just because I've seen your house, doesn't mean I can take it with
me. Once I've heard your idea or read your book, the idea is with me
whether I like it or not. Since your property obviously effects mine,
I shouldn't be held responsible for consequences of that effect.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:11 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> 
> 
> Does the world really want to have the flow of ideas hampered 
> by having to 
> draw up formal licenseing agreements before even discussing 
> things? For a 
> patent it is not needed since TOTAL disclosure has already 
> occured. For 
> trade secrets, fine but society does not recognize them except when 
> misappropriated (or rather should not as Bunner winds its way 
> throught he 
> courts)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ballowe, Charles" <CBallowe@usg.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 05/29/2002 09:06 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
>  
>         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
> <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: someone somewhere [mailto:chaos755@hotmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 10:47 AM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Eldred Amicus
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The patent laws "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" by
> > rewarding innovation with a temporary monopoly. U. S. Const., 
> > Art. I, §8, 
> > cl. 8. The monopoly is a PROPERTY RIGHT (my caps); and like 
> > any property 
> > right, its boundaries should be clear.  (Festo Ussct)
> > 
>  Boundaries would be far more clear with a fixed term. 
> 
> Of course, the power of an idea/creation/intellectual matter is that
> once I've been exposed to it, it has the power to alter my thoughts.
> If somebody elses "property" is encroaching onto mine, then 
> the boundaries
> are not exactly clear. Maybe we should make creators request a ****** 
> before
> presenting their creation.
> 
> 
> (****** == the term for an agreement between neighbors, for example, 
> when one wants to put up a structure that may slightly cross 
> the property
> line - mind is drawing a blank on it right now, i want to say 
> variance,
> but it doesn't seem right)
> 
> 
>