At 08:31 AM 3/1/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>> Um, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which I practice
>> tells me that trademarks are not property, I listen, and I don't
>> much give a rip about what academia says.
>
>Cite?
>
>I don't really care whether the word "property" is attached to that
>particular form of "intellectual property" created under both Federal and
>State laws and which we call trade and service marks.
>
>All I care about is that whatever it is, I can license its use under
>conditions I dictate, I can invoke legal enforcement to keep others from
>using it, I can borrow money on its market value, and I can transfer my
>rights, whatever we call them, to another, and so forth.
>
>So, perhaps it isn't "property" but it has all the attributes that one
>normally associates with "property". So, for the sake of convenience, I
>believe, we can safely use the word "property" without any danger of
>leading anyone astray. ;-)
>
Outside of the courtroom, that works for me, too. In the courtroom, however,
you can run into such issues as: if the Fed Gov takes it away from me, do
I get compensation? Due process? Uh, nope, as to the former, and kind of
wishy - washy as to the latter: you'd typically get due process, but if you
did not I'm not sure what you'd do about it. The bottom line is that in
litigation, the status of being property or not makes a hurkin' big difference.
So use it for convenience, as you said, but don't get too married to the idea.
Bill Lovell
