New Bill to Limit Copyright to 56 Years, Would be Retroactive

[MoonSong]

Remove trademark law too then. That's simple and obvious enough.

EDIT:
also, the government should start breaking up some of these big companies. Especially Disney.

As I said in another post, trademarks allow for accountability of businesses, to enforce safety standards and to protect consumer rights. Without trademarks these become quite hard to do.

And breaking up big businesses helps a little but the resulting companies still remain in the same hands. So instead of a monopoly, you get a cartel.

 

[Bohandas]

As I said in another post, trademarks allow for accountability of businesses, to enforce safety standards and to protect consumer rights. Without trademarks these become quite hard to do.

Is it really that helpful to the consumer that only Johnson&Johnson can call their band-aids "band-aids" and everyone else has to use some weird circumlocution

And breaking up big businesses helps a little but the resulting companies still remain in the same hands. So instead of a monopoly, you get a cartel.

Maybe they could be shut down instead?

 

[Eltab]

And breaking up big businesses helps a little but the resulting companies still remain in the same hands. So instead of a monopoly, you get a cartel.

US antitrust law does not compel the rigorous efforts to remove 'overlapping board membership' &c that would be needed to completely separate a monopoly-company into multiple independent competing successor-companies. I cannot speak to any other nation's laws.

 

[MoonSong]

US antitrust law does not compel the rigorous efforts to remove 'overlapping board membership' &c that would be needed to completely separate a monopoly-company into multiple independent competing successor-companies. I cannot speak to any other nation's laws.

As far as I understand, Standard Oil had to be broken up twice before it took for good. Still Rockefeller made a lot more money out of still owning a significant share in all of the new companies. And the Sherman act was actually a kind of an anti-union law...

Is it really that helpful to the consumer that only Johnson&Johnson can call their band-aids "band-aids" and everyone else has to use some weird circumlocution

Because that way every single producer of band-aids labels itself, essentially taking responsibility for every time band-aids go wrong and cause a health issue. Yes, even a band-aid could stand to cause harm (what if some manufacturer created a lot with paste that was toxic to the skin? Or used non-grade plastic for the body of the bandaid? or shipped a contaminated lot that infected people who used the bandaids? Without a trademark to locate the producer of the lot it would be hard to ensure they take responsibility and more and more manufacturers would feel safe to ignore safety laws).

 

[Bohandas]

Because that way every single producer of band-aids labels itself, essentially taking responsibility for every time band-aids go wrong and cause a health issue. Yes, even a band-aid could stand to cause harm (what if some manufacturer created a lot with paste that was toxic to the skin? Or used non-grade plastic for the body of the bandaid? or shipped a contaminated lot that infected people who used the bandaids? Without a trademark to locate the producer of the lot it would be hard to ensure they take responsibility and more and more manufacturers would feel safe to ignore safety laws).

Perhaps, but that only requires a tiny fraction of what trademark law currently covers. As long as a company owns the name of their company that is entirely sufficient for this purpose. They don't need to own the name of the product. The consumer will know if it was made by Johnson&Johnson because it says "Johnson&Johnson" if it was and the name of some other company if it was made by some other company.

EDIT:
I definitely agree that the consumer needs to know the name of the manufacturer though. In fact, if it was up to me they'd also be required to list their parent corporation and their subsidiaries as well, so that it would be easy to tell who was really pulling the strings.

 

[trappedslider]

The most recent large company break-up that I can remember would be Bell System - Wikipedia

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I was watching a video in youtube about patents may be not so necessary, but it was in Spanish languange. It mentioned something about the tragedy of anticommons, and this said the abuse of trademark could block the innovation by the no-biggest companies.

Tragedy of the anticommons - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Disney could soon lose exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse

The beloved character was created in 1928 and will enter the public domain in 2024

www.theguardian.com

Disney could soon lose exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse​

The beloved character was created in 1928 and will enter the public domain in 2024

 

[Ryujin]

Disney could soon lose exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse

The beloved character was created in 1928 and will enter the public domain in 2024

www.theguardian.com

Disney could soon lose exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse​

The beloved character was created in 1928 and will enter the public domain in 2024

Unless they throw money at the situation in order to "handle" it.

 

[Gradine]