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

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's farther than I'd go, both as an IP lawyer and an IP holder. Some stuff you really don't want out there for a good reason. Besides, the ever increasing renewal costs would eventually put unused IP into the public domain at some point.

 

[dm4hire]

I think where use it or lose it would come into play more would be for infringement cases. I think they need to actively prove they are using it in order to stop infringement beyond a certain period, maybe the second or third renewal.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

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.

I agree. There's a local NPR show that monthly has lawyers discuss high profile local cases in terms that laypeople can understand. Learning the rationale for some business suits has been eye-opening when to a layperson like myself the suits at first seem like the company being a bully or being greedy.

 

[Balesir]

That's farther than I'd go, both as an IP lawyer and an IP holder. Some stuff you really don't want out there for a good reason. Besides, the ever increasing renewal costs would eventually put unused IP into the public domain at some point.

As [MENTION=14848]dm4hire[/MENTION] says, it really wouldn't be an issue unless there was someone who actually wanted it "out there". If they do, then after a certain initial period (variable by IP type), I think the supposition should be that it's in the "public interest" for it to be released. That's not to say that license fees can't be levied, but if there is demand then it should be made available.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's not to say that license fees can't be levied, but if there is demand then it should be made available.

Again, as both an IP lawyer and IP holder, I cannot agree.

Just because there is a demand for X doesn't mean X should be supplied to the market. Extreme exhibit A: child porn.

Sometimes IP gets held back from the market for good reasons- very commonly, it may damage a brand by being substandard or at wild variance as compared to that brand's other offerings. It may be too personal. It may be incomplete in the eyes of its creator. It may be dangerous...even in the proper hands. It may be subject to other agreements. Etc.

 

[Morrus]

Just because there is a demand for X doesn't mean X should be supplied to the market.

Agreed. "I want it" doesn't equate to "it is right that I have it".

I certainly agree that reform is needed, but it should be based on the public interest, not on what people 'want' - after all, we all want stuff that's worth a lot. I want the house down the road, but it doesn't mean it's right that I have it.

I'm sure there's a demand for nuclear submarines and castles, but that doesn't mean they should be handed out for free!

 

[Balesir]

Again, as both an IP lawyer and IP holder, I cannot agree.

Just because there is a demand for X doesn't mean X should be supplied to the market. Extreme exhibit A: child porn.

Sometimes IP gets held back from the market for good reasons- very commonly, it may damage a brand by being substandard or at wild variance as compared to that brand's other offerings. It may be too personal. It may be incomplete in the eyes of its creator. It may be dangerous...even in the proper hands. It may be subject to other agreements. Etc.

Agreed. "I want it" doesn't equate to "it is right that I have it".

I hear all those reasons for witholding or denying things - but I don't agree that copyright, trademark or patent law are the correct instruments to use for it - it distorts IP law by trying to do so. Child porn, for example, is illegal already - copyright is hardly a key weapon used to prevent its dissemination. Things of dubious value are unlikely to be maintained under the "escalating cost" schema anyway - and brand protection is generally via trademark rather than copyright (so, if the trademark/brand is being maintained, the issue doesn't arise - it's being "used" - and if it isn't maintained then why would protecting its value be important?).

I suppose I should say that I'm assuming the property has been once used commercially; stuff that has never been sold has no reason to be kept available - copyright in private photos and so forth is a different issue. What I object to is selling the thing initially and then witholding it in order to leverage some other product or agenda. I come from an essentially economic angle - distortionary behaviour is generally inimical to the market, and thus is to be avoided unless there is very good cause. Those causes are, I think, generally better addressed via other - often criminal - laws.

 

[Morrus]

I hear all those reasons for witholding or denying things - but I don't agree that copyright, trademark or patent law are the correct instruments to use for it - it distorts IP law by trying to do so. Child porn, for example, is illegal already - copyright is hardly a key weapon used to prevent its dissemination. Things of dubious value are unlikely to be maintained under the "escalating cost" schema anyway - and brand protection is generally via trademark rather than copyright (so, if the trademark/brand is being maintained, the issue doesn't arise - it's being "used" - and if it isn't maintained then why would protecting its value be important?).

I suppose I should say that I'm assuming the property has been once used commercially; stuff that has never been sold has no reason to be kept available - copyright in private photos and so forth is a different issue. What I object to is selling the thing initially and then witholding it in order to leverage some other product or agenda. I come from an essentially economic angle - distortionary behaviour is generally inimical to the market, and thus is to be avoided unless there is very good cause. Those causes are, I think, generally better addressed via other - often criminal - laws.

I'm probably misunderstanding you. But if I didn't retain the copyright on, say War of the Burning Sky or ZEITGEIST, I wouldn't have ever produced it.

 

[RangerWickett]

Well, I don't have the copyright on those, but I worked on them anyway.

 

[Morrus]

Well, I don't have the copyright on those, but I worked on them anyway.

You do have copyright - but the work for hire setup essentially involves you selling it. Though that's a very simplistic version of the legalities involved.