[Upd-discuss] The Myth of Intellectual Property

[Michael Hart]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:

> On 7 Nov 2005, Prof. Michael H. Davis wrote:
>
>> Trademarks were NEVER intended to be property.
>
> Otherwise, I very much liked Hart's article.


I just want to make sure that everyone realizes this line:


>> Trademarks were NEVER intended to be property.


was NOT written by me, Michael S. Hart, but by Mickey H. Davis,
with whom I obviously disagree.


Trademarks are bought and sold for billions of dollars a year,
and not always with what most of us would consider such great
limitations as to decrease their value, either in cash terms,
or in their use.

Just look on various candy bars for an inexpensive example
the next time you see them while shopping.

You'd be surprised at how m&m and Mars seem to have become
a single trademark these days, not to mention what happens
when various trademarks might be separated in divestiture.

Mickey Mouse is a tradmark of Disney, but could be spun off
into a separate corporation, which could then be sold.  NOT
likely, but still it would be legal.  Same with ye olde TV
show, The Mickey Mouse Club, or any other such intellectual
properties they might own.

The limitations Mickey Davis would like you think are quite
severe in terms of corporate ownership, sales, etc., really
are just playthings in the hands of corporate lawyering.

Think about all the recent mergers, aquisitions, divestment
proceedings, etc., and then try to recall the last time you
heard one of these deals being held up because of the point
Mickey Davis tried to make below:


"Trademarks were NEVER intended to be property. There is no jurisprudence to
support that notion. In fact trademarks were originally nothing more than a
right to a tort action and remain at least in theory something short of a
property right (unlike property as one small example, trademarks cannot be
bought and sold except as an extension of an ongoing business; as a further
example they are conclusively lost when not used--hardly the indicia of
property rights)."

If trademarks WERE never intended go be property, then you wouldn't see
them bought and sold in such a commonplace manner.

NOT that _I_ wouldn't like to see valid argumentation for NOT including
trademarks under the then empty rubric of "intellectual property."

;-)

Michael S. Hart

The first practitioner of Unlimited Distribution.

:=)