Doc Searls quotes a discouraging email by a confrère who states that the Eldred decision is in the interest of IP rights owners.
The author also stresses the need to own everything IP related. I don’t agree.
You definitely need to assess everything own-able in your business. You need to know where you stand, you need to evaluate the value of your intellectual assets.
Does this mean milking it for all it’s worth? It’s a possibility. Some may argue that it is duty to the shareholders.
Does this mean realizing that not all IP should be locked down as much as legally possible? I think so.The view that owning IP is the same as holding rights in a piece of real estate is flawed.
Does this mean rejoicing over a decision that will create a very unhealthy intellectual property environment? I can’t help to notice how much people build upon other people’s ideas. You can lock IP down, licence IP, free IP, toss IP in a drawer and forget about it, but in any case there should be a time limit to one’s custody of our global intellectual assets. Why can’t we realize that what we do now is not the be-all end-all of creation?
People came before us, people will come after us. Let’s create a rich legacy instead of a dead end of obfuscated content and perpetual ownership of a walking and talking mouse. Let’s work with policies aimed at moving forward instead of digging trenches and burrowing in our current position.
So really, if it might be in one’s immediate commercial interest to applause the conclusions of Eldred (haven’t read the decision yet), let’s at least realize that this decision is not all positive for anyone.
Hey Seek,
You make an excellent point here but I would like to add some tough to your opinion. As you know, since I started working for a company that lives on IP, I had the opportunity to see the problems and the benefits of copyright.
Copyright is fun if you create 100% original content. Even then, some company from, let’s say the USA, will come by and pretend they own the rights on a certain concept. They will then accuse you of copyright violation just to try to prevent you from producing a show similar to their show. As a company, we then have to defend ourselves and hire outside legal counsel to show our client we mean business. All this for what ? In the end… nothing.
Then you have all the problems that occur when filming a TV show or a movie. How is someone suppose to film something in live environment if they must obtain releases from every company that own the trademarks … from those on the car that passes by, to those on the clothes you wear. This is not a use that Trade Mark law was meant to forbid. No one will ever think we are diluting Ford’s TM by filming someone in the street driving by. Yet, when planning to use a car or a piece of clothing, we ask for permission, mainly from fear of prosecution.
Copyright and IP in general can be a fabulous tool in the right hand … put it in the wrong hand and it becomes a powerful tool to intimidate and even sometimes destroy competitors. IMHO, since the definition of copyright is not as clear as the definition of let’s say a piece of real estate, there is ample room for interpretation and thus intimidation and anti competitive behaviour.
Anyways… that’s all for today !
Yeah, I know you live on IP and watch way too much TV! 🙂
Do I understand correctly that the trend of considering IP like a paramount concept in front of which everything should yield, even common sense, is bad even for you who makes a living out of creating and licensing IP?
I think we agree even when you think we might not: we both believe to much of a good thing can be bad.
You’d appreciate a bit more leeway, so you can create without getting threats yet still be able to make an honest profit out of your original creation. In the end, you realize that your interest lies in a balanced IPR environement. Something that was not, and maybe still isn’t, trendy in law making circles… This goes way beyond the single issue of the copyright term, but I think you’re right in seeing them as somewhat related.