I have to admit I meant patents, not copyright. Copyright, when used correctly encourages creativity. The current patent system is ridiculous. You should not be able to claim IP on an idea that you haven't even started working towards, just because you can see where a technology is going.
Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: LAR<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: 29/03/2013 21:56 To: feistfans-l<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Discussion with friend about Kelewan I will happily yield on the copyright issue - as I know a great deal less than one who deals with it as part of their daily profession. But on patents - it has gotten ridiculous. Software used to be copyrighted. It is creative in nature, and to me that was the ,most reasonable system. Patents which were based on actually producing something unique - now appear to simply be about having AN idea and then getting it to the office first. You don't have to do anything with it. More now there are patents on look and feel as well as techniques. There are law firms set up strictly to warehouse patents - most picked up for almost nothing, and focused strictly on seeking to collect as much money as possible. You can answer better than I, but we had what I believed to be a pretty good IP protection system in the original Copyright and Patent system before Congress changed it,. and now most corporations who deal in IP - especially systems and software - put up to 15% of their revenue into reserve to fight patent suits. On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Raymond Feist <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Brian Jones (Trancendance) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I’d say it already is From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:bounce-77560445-39128317@<mailto:bounce-77560445-39128317@>list.cornell.edu<http://list.cornell.edu>] On Behalf Of LAR Sent: 29 March 2013 20:29 To: feistfans-l Subject: Re: Discussion with friend about Kelewan As you mentioned before, Plagarism is a very specific legal term and has a high level of scrutiny to be actionable. All work is derivative to one extent or another, there are only so man scenarios and variation that echo the human condition sufficiently to entice an audience. For me what it comes down to is, how well is it written. Stealing dialogue is to me true plagerism. Utilizing defacto-standards, common themes and plot devices - not so much. My biggest worry about the expanded patent and copyright systems is that they go well beyond protecting IP into crushing innovation Borrowing themes and situations will get you into court. It will not win your case. I spent enough time around Intellectual property lawyers when I was Chairman of the Contracts Committee to have picked up a couple of things. As for all work being derivative, there are two things I commonly point to when that assertion is made: 1) you've got eight Greek plays and then everyone else started stealing and 2) Shakespeare stole pretty much everything he wrote, but we remember him and not the guys he stole from because he did it better than they did. It's not what you do, it's how you do it. As for your paranoia about expanding protections, you're lumping patents and copyrights together, which is a mistake. Trademark/Patents are completely different critters from copyright. The former are issued by the US Patent Office and your first burden is to show you're not treading on someone else's trademark or patent. The second is create the instant you write a song, paint a picture, pen a novel or poem, or take a photograph, and you need to nothing--there are legal advantages to registering a copyright, but it's not necessary. You can lose a trademark or patent if you don't defend it. You can't lose a copyright by inaction. Lots of other differences too. Whatever issues code and chip patents and the like might bear down on innovation, copyright laws do not keep people from creating music, books, etc. In fact, if anything they've been reigned in a little with the change to copyright which limits a corporations hold on copyright to 90 years, since corporations rarely "die." That doesn't mean Disney doesn't have other ways to crush you if you try to make free with Micky Mouse stuff that's become public domain, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. Best,R.E.F. ---- www.crydee.com<http://www.crydee.com> Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity. -- If you want to take the island, then burn your boats. With absolute commitment come the insights that create real victory. -Tony Robbins
