Law-Forums.org

[lamarr3]

The Intellectual Patent Law is biased in favour of composers, writers and publishers. A writer invests very little in the production of written material. In some cases a writer is paid in advance by a publisher on the basis of the synopsis. The investments a writer puts in producing a book or, a poem are minimal. The same applies to musicians.Their property rights are protected for 60 and 70 years after their deaths. On the other hand inventors have only 25 years priority to their intellectual property from the date of publication. Inventors create jobs that make it possible for people to afford the luxury of books and music. Without inventions our industries would be severely handicapped. So why is this disparity in existence when inventors have to invest a fortune to get their inventions into production..Most of the intellectual property time is spent in design and development of the product and the risk of infringement is far higher than that of music or a publication. Should the law not be far more in favour of inventors and not the other way round? How does a dead person benefit from intellectual property?

[matyas]

Not true at all. Trademarks are potentially eternal, as long as they are maintained. They can be used for any aspect of an invention, from shape to smell to taste.

Patents do have a very limited time-frame, but there is no obligation to patent your invention. The formula to Coca-Cola has never been patented, for example.

[jordi]

Writers and composers have LITTLE invested? Man, you don't know what you are talking about. If you spent a year or two of your life writing, editing, adjusting and changing so your book could be published, how much more of an investment would you expect someone to make? Without those people, the publishers etc. would have nothing to publish. They are the ones who do the least.

[montrel68]

The copyright laws are as long as they are in the US because of Mickey Mouse. I am not kidding. If you look you will see that every time the copyright is has been about to expire on the rat that the protection of copyright has been extended.

That said I think you are underestimating the value of time and talent needed to create a copyrightable work that is worth copying.

[parnell]

A writer invests much less time, than other creative people ? Wow, JD Salinger invested about sixty years writing daily and only ever published two books, one of which was Catcher in the Rye, the other one nobody I know of can even name, the writer may not invest much in the process of printing, or distribution, but has a massive investment in the creative aspects of poetry, or novels, or even technical books, as well as songs, or music, and by the way, no inventor "has" to spend a fortune to get their invention off the ground, inventors are creative people, and the first thing they do after getting a patent, is to avoid the risks, and costs, of production and distribution, by licensing their product, or idea to others ,who take the marketing, production and sales risks themselves at no cost to the inventor, so to say an inventor has a higher level of investment than other creative people is wrong, wrong, wrong.

So in the matter of inventions, it is the fact that they do not cost a single penny for inventors, after they have made the first ones, and who choose not to produce an item as if they were manufacturers, and who can even apply for a patent for themselves, a lawyer is not needed here, just how many inventors do you know, who have gone on to be industrialists, and actually produced or manufactured their own inventions, so the cost is no more than the making of the article in question, as it is for writers, of poetry or songs, and they do not proceed to make records, or even sing themselves, but license it, and collect royalties, the reason the inventors patent does not last as long under international laws, is the simple fact that most are bypassed and new technologies surpass them, in a very rapid fashion, and allowing a shorter time for a patent, results in the inventor having time to profit from the invention, and allows others to pick up old technology, and experiment and develop, to maximise ideas that ensure rapid development to take place in society.

Lastly the inventor or artist does not benefit after death, from any of this but their "estate" ( what they leave behind, to their friends or lovers, or partners in life or kids ), does, Imagine what this would mean for the families, after all a house, built by someone, is a copyrighted design, were it not so, and a constructed item, that is unique, imagine if it were never allowed to be copied, and no one ever lived in this invention after the death of the inventor, what would the consequences be , the result is no further development of society, this is not the case with a song or poetry, or painting, the ideas of all of these are not restricted by the fact that we all can read and write, all on our own, the ideas have to be protected for the artists sake, not for societies, would you, spend years slogging away in a garret, and see your lives works stolen by a printer while a house builders kids can inherit from their fathers works, ? Yeah Right ! most art works, only realise their full value after years of sales, while something that is constructed physically has this value realised at the time of sale, it's value diminishes with the passing of the years, and new technology replaces it, so it becomes less important in economic terms for society to protect a falling value patent, for any ones sake...the investment is realised quickly, and soon diminishes, art works are the reverse.....