[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

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.

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