Hey, so you know this "space marine" thing?

[dm4hire]

Well I think that is were common sense part of the law comes into play. It's pretty easy to figure out who is suing for justifiable reasons and who is doing it for a money grab. My main point of frivolous is in regards to legal actions such as the company in Texas who's sole source of income these days is charging every other company in the U.S. and even parts of the rest of the world for patent and trademark infringement because they didn't properly protect themselves. The company files against the original company claiming that they have the patent or trademark right in order to get them to settle out of court and save money to insure that the product can be released. There are several companies that do this actually which is sad.

Also as presented in the proposal it would keep companies from trying to strong arm and use scare tactics such as what the RIAA did with suspected music downloaders. Granted that tactic came back to bite the RIAA in the popularity world, but it was still pretty scary to watch before they finally realized it wasn't winning them brownie points by going after every little person who downloaded music. Now the RIAA seems to be focusing only on those who are making the music available.

I agree that something does need to be done to make sure that legitimate complaints by the common person may continue and I think if anything the changing of the law would be aimed to affect only businesses and not the common citizen in this regard, by making a distinction between business and civil (injury).

 

[Alzrius]

Well I think that is were common sense part of the law comes into play. It's pretty easy to figure out who is suing for justifiable reasons and who is doing it for a money grab.

I get nervous when people start using "common sense" and "the law" in the same sentence. One of the defining characteristics of legal action is that everything is technical and rigorously-defined (and if it's not, it will be at some point after legal action) - saying that everyone will simply exercise common sense about a legal principle strikes me as a recipe for disaster. Remember the woman who sued McDonald's because her coffee was too hot? Pretty much the poster child for frivolous lawsuits, right? Turns out she was actually very justified in doing so.

And Disney's mouse may very well already be public domain, but until somebody comes up with the money to fight the epic court battle of history over that, it'll probably remain under their control for a long time to come.

Also, I'm trademarking "boobs." I do believe I just won the internet.

 

[Morrus]

I get nervous when people start using "common sense" and "the law" in the same sentence.

I wouldn't get too nervous. We're just a bunch of gamers shooting the breeze on a messageboard, not the Supreme Court. What we say doesn't become law.

 

[dm4hire]

The irony is that common law is referring to common sense.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I want the same thing, but then I wonder if that would effectively stop the poor from being able to sue for legitimate reasons because of fear that someone will render their lawsuit frivilous, costing them money they don't have.

Believe me when I say that most of my colleagues know a frivolous lawsuit when they see them. At any rate, if such legislation did pass, the BR would be set pretty high, anyway.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

It's pretty easy to figure out who is suing for justifiable reasons and who is doing it for a money grab.

Believe me when I say that most of my colleagues know a frivolous lawsuit when they see them. At any rate, if such legislation did pass, the BR would be set pretty high, anyway.

It would just concern me that such legislation would be in place to be used improperly against those who can't afford it or would just have the effect of making poorer people believe that they have no recourse through legal means because they can't risk the law being applied properly.

Lawyers know now that certain lawsuits are frivolous, yet the unscrupulous ones still pursue them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It would just concern me that such legislation would be in place to be used improperly against those who can't afford it or would just have the effect of making poorer people believe that they have no recourse through legal means because they can't risk the law being applied properly.

Lawyers know now that certain lawsuits are frivolous, yet the unscrupulous ones still pursue them.

Many poor already believe the legal system is closed to them due to costs, nothing new there.

And as for my unscrupulous colleagues, they pursue those cases because here is nothing to stop them doing so. There is amazing money to be made in nuisance suits if you know how to do it.

Could a law like this be used impoperly? Certainly. However, I think the current regime is more costly to our society than if there were safeguards against this form of abuse.

 

[dogoftheunderworld]

I wouldn't get too nervous. We're just a bunch of gamers shooting the breeze on a messageboard, not the Supreme Court. What we say doesn't become law.

"...yet"

 

[Dioltach]

Also, I'm trademarking "boobs." I do believe I just won the internet.

Ooh, then I'm trademarking all visual representations!

 

[Balesir]

I agree that continuously renewable copyright for nominal fees is not good. I'd be happy with terms that increase with cost over time, based on the value of the IP. The initial lifetime should be nominal at best. The next renewal term would cost a % of the IP's value.* The next term would be a higher % of the IP's value, etc., up until, saaaay...85%. That way, anyone can renew a copyright as long as they are willing to pay.

The main thing I would want to see is a "use it or lose it" clause after the first term. Too much IP out there languishes unused and with licensing effectively denied.