Do we need trademark, coypright, and patent reform?

[Galaxy]

I know patent reform is being kicked around (and with patents, they do expire after 20 years or so). With the other stuff, has it gotten out of hand?

Reading up on the Susan G. Komen Foundation, they seem to have ruffled features (I could do another topic on the charities today as well).

The two articles are:
Susan G. Komen Foundation Elbows Out Charities Over Use Of The Word 'Cure' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/komen-foundation-charities-cure_n_793176.html)
Susan G. Komen fights for trademark | Marketplace From American Public Media (http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/08/05/pm-susan-g-komen-fights-for-trademark/)

Or this trademark situation over those pesky lunchtime seminars. "Lunch and Learn".



Lunchtime Seminar or Invitation to a Trademark Infringement Lawsuit? | The National Law Review (http://www.natlawreview.com/article/lunchtime-seminar-or-invitation-to-trademark-infringement-lawsuit)



Yet, music can be covered by other artists without any consent (royalties provided). Does this make any sense? I'm all for protecting the rights of trademark and copyright holders, but what is the line?

[Mustang]

but what is the line?

Not sure, but when I find out I'm going to patent it.


I don't know.. when charities start trying to hold copyrights and sue, to me that just seems like they are straying from being a charity to being a business that is trying to monopolize breast cancer. I can't articulate it well enough this late at night, but it just seems.. wrong

[molson]

Intellectual property might be America's last great, dominant export.

[JediKooter]

I'm trade marking Pumpy Tudors.

[fantom1979]

Didn't really dive into those articles, but my initial reaction is that it is important for charities and non profits to be able to protect their trademarks. What would stop Marlboro from putting a American Lung Association logo on their packs?

[Drake]

Copyright and trademark laws have been egregiously out of control for years.

[TroyF]

Didn't really dive into those articles, but my initial reaction is that it is important for charities and non profits to be able to protect their trademarks. What would stop Marlboro from putting a American Lung Association logo on their packs?

Protecting trademark is one thing, but spending over a million a year in donated money to protect it and trying to stomp out "Kites for a Cure" or other small non profits is ridiculous.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'm going to trademark the word "water."

Then sue everybody who uses the word, and live filthy rich off the proceeds.

Fuck you all.

Isn't that what it's coming to? I mean sure that's the absurdist example - but really...trademarking "...For the Cure?" Are you fucking kidding me? So nothing else can be "For the Cure" except Komen? That's ridiculous. There needs to be some common sense applied.

[Mustang]

I'm going to trademark the word "water."


I'm going to trademark the word trademark. No one will be able to trademark a trademark without violating a trademarked trademark.

[bronconick]

They tried copyrighting pink ribbons too, but had to add the little dot above it so it looked like a person after it got shot down.

At a certain point, everything becomes big business, regardless of what it started as.