(via George Leef) What will we do when every word in the English language is trademarked?

It comes as no great surprise, but a court has thrown out the Google-publisher agreement on scanned books still under copyright. [link here If you are not a subscriber, you will face the NYTimes paywall but can access the article by putting the article's title, Judge Rejects Google's Deal to Digitize Books, into the Google search box.]

Though copyright is the law of the land, the finding holds back technological change that would have made all printed books available on line for a fee ranging from nothing to a modest sum. "…[C]iting copyright, antitrust and other concerns, Judge Denny Chin said that the settlement went too far. He said it would have granted Google a "de facto monopoly" and the right to profit from books without the permission of copyright owners." Hilary Ware, managing counsel at Google, called the decision, "clearly disappointing," adding "The judge did expressly leave the door open for a revised settlement."

On a still more hopeful note, publishers' representatives indicated they would try to negotiate a revision of their agreement that would pass muster with the courts. Apparently, neither side will appeal the judge's decision.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Apple sued Amazon.com over its use of the phrase "App Store," accusing the online retailer of trademark infringement.

Does Apple also own the words "app" and "store"?

From a Mises Blog post, Kinsella Can Be Your Professor:

This course starts Tuesday!

This article says the only way to stop copyright piracy is to cut prices link here. It reports the results of a study called the Media Piracy Project published by the Social Science Research Council. This defines the problem in a somewhat limited way as it only looks at relatively poor countries where prices are the same as those in rich countries. For the poor, the pain of paying rich country prices is unacceptable and their consumers are willing to violate the law, even when they risk "three strikes and you're off the internet" or other penalties.

To charge lower prices in a neighboring country is to risk arbitrage and probable rejection by copyright owners. Thus none of us should expect any change in copyright moralizing about "thieves". Monopolist-economists would instead suggest maximizing revenue by continued price discrimination, probably on a less extreme scale. But please, no more moralizing.

From the consumers' point of view, competitive market prices would be better. But since copyright is a legal monopoly--of almost unlimited extent in practice--we seem to be stuck with it until public opinion shifts. That could happen when the public gives up GDP as the sole measure of the good and includes some measure of welfare.

David Andolfato has a nice post about Canadian "authors" and copyright. But especially look at the comments: according to Phil Koop the American Banker's Association has somehow managed to get exclusive rights to the numbers that identify securities...

Somehow I don't think he needed copyright to do this. Notice that Amazon unilaterally set the terms of the deal - do you suppose they would do differently without copyright?

No doubt the FDA has a lot to answer for with respect to the slowdown in medical innovation. It's funny though: if we got rid of the FDA then we could get rid of patents as well - imagine a pharmaceutical industry that innovated like the computer industry.

The Times editorializes today on the urgent need for patent reform, but it is only likely to make the problems worse link here . Its issues with patents include award to the first to file rather than first to invent to bring us into line with the rest of world, the slowness in issuance, the amount and costs of litigation, and the large and growing backlog of applications. The Times seems to feel that the problems will be solved by allowing the Patent Office to keep all the fees it charges and to allow small businesses and inventors to file a low cost preliminary application in order to get a place in the queue.

There is no real discussion of the constitutional grounds for patents being their encouragement to innovation or the product of patents in the creation of more large monopolistic businesses.

As it stands, these measures may go through because business wants them, and its interests are reflected in the views of both parties. Too bad.

But the fact that the Times peddles propaganda like this shows how badly the media have been brainwashed by the self-serving big business propaganda that patents promote innovation, contrary to much evidence.

Via SCOTUSBlog: "Ignoring the federal government's plea to stay away from the issue, the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on a core issue of copyright law: when, if ever, does Congress have the constitutional power to revive copyright protection once it has expired for a creative work?"

The is an issue of major importance that is worth keeping on top of.

More background here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/03/a-major-test-of-copyright-power/