When it's taken too far I agree it can be a farce, but when applied sensibly patents, copyrights, trademarks etc can all serve a valuable purpose. I'll give you hypothetical examples of each...

1

A lady invents a new product, let's call it a widget, that makes strawberry picking more efficient. She patents the idea. As a result she has ownership of the invention, can receive payments from companies wanting to market the pickerwidget, or market it herself, and she gets a financial benefit as a reward for her ingenuity.

Without the patent, other firms who see her idea can use it for themselves. Perhaps if they are big companies with the resources they can produce the pickerwidgets cheaper, which is good for the strawberry farmers, but the inventor loses out. Isn't it a good idea that people receive appropriate rewards for their hard work and invention?

2

I write a novel. It's a fantastic novel. I take it to a publisher who reads it, tells me it's not right for him at this time. A few weeks later I hear that Peter Andre has published a new novel and what do you know it's the one I wrote!

Without copyright protection anyone can take work that I possibly put months of effort and creativity into, and they can profit while I get nothing for my troubles. Is that fair?

3

The BBC develop a new TV show called Doctor Who, about a time travelling alien. They spend a lot of money on the show, but that's okay because they feel they (or BBC Worldwide) can earn revenue from it, by selling it to other countries and by merchandising.

However, as there is no trademark protection on Doctor Who and related items, companies can produce their own merchandise as they see fit, without having to license from the BBC, so the Beeb's Who income tumbles.

At the same time, TV companies around the world start producing their own Doctor Who shows on the cheap, so they don't need to buy the BBC's. Now Who income is negligible and the cost of producing the series is no longer justifiable. Reluctantly the show is cancelled.

Never mind - we can still enjoy those cheap rip-offs.

---------------------------------

I've made those up as I went along so I don't claim they're great examples, and experts can probably correct some errors but it's the principles that I'm concerned with.

It's important to have proper limits to the protection of IP. Is it right that I (or my estate) should still retain control of my novel for 50 years after my death? That's worth debating, but I certainly believe that original ideas are worthy of reward.

My argument was initially about Tracy Island. The mention of Easter and greetings cards was clearly a joke, so you're either humourless or didn't bother reading what I'd said properly, or both.

The message this gives out to the fans, is don't bother showing any kind of creative support for your favourite show, or we may send in the heavies to kick your arse!

For years, they've had shows like "Blue Peter" actually showing fans how to "make their own" - the minute a fan "makes her own", they're down like a ton of bricks!

Reading between the lines, I can only gather it's okay to "make your own", but not to tell anyone how you did it, which is absolutely ludicrous!

Mullet better watch his back - he's got his own Tardis! Oddly enough, there are tons of websites showing how to build the biggest star of the show - the Tardis, that have not had sight nor sound of the BBC heavies!

I'd love to see this go to court I really would. It'll be interesting to see how the publically funded BBC justify suing one of their license payers for copying property that she herself has contributed to as part of her TV license.

an example of someone losing their trademark because they didn't protect it--the metropolitan police and police boxes

it has now been ruled that policebox=tardis so the bbc have now got the rights, despite the fact that the original policeboxes were designed and built by the police (or their agents)

Ah, so it's okay for the BBC to steal? Fair enough!

The thing is though, the BBC wouldn't love it. They've shown their regret at the way it was handled and they never had any intention of suing Mazzmatazz. The last I heard they were looking forward to working with her.

When the general public associate Ood and Adipose more with Mazzmatazz than with the BBC because the BBC haven't been actively protecting their trademark, our beloved knitter will indeed have the last laugh.

Wonder what would've happened if Mazzmatazz had not removed her knitting pattern?

LOL! "Knitting Pattern"!!! You have to pinch yourself - the fact they actually let loose the hounds for this in the first place!

Bugger! I've just bumped into a "make your own sonic shitdriver" site!

And a make your own Tardis console one!

Poor Mazzmatazz! No wonder she's feeling "picked on"!

This has to be purely down to RTD and his new toy Adipose!

Are unlicensed Tardii(?) or Sonic S***drivers on sale on eBay?

It was that, the commercial exploiters of the pattern, that worried the BBC.

And I don't think it matters how measly the commercial exploitation is, if the BBC allow it without putting up some kind of effort then anyone in the future could claim that they weren't interested in protecting their trademark and they would lose out on something slightly more than measly.

well you only have to look at Last of the Dumb Lords to see they stole the design for The Valiant from Capt Scarlet and the Toclafane looked suspiciously like the spheres from Terrahawks.

Zelda to be the new Rani? "I'll blow the Doctor to smithereens!"

That's very understandable, but Mazzmatazz is doing no different to all these other sites showing how to "make your own".

Wonder what would happen if I sold my own homemade Doctor Who origami delights on ebay...

The post of mine that you quoted says it all. I won't quote it back again here for fear of some trademark-exploiting paradox.

edit - doesn't quite say it all, but this post fills in some of the gaps: http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/s...6#post23696466

don't put ideas in RTD's head. after all we got Dobby the Doctor in the series 3 finale.

It seems the end bit of working with Mazz on her ideas was tagged on as a backtrack after this was made public, and wasn't in the original cease and desist order. As it's been discussed everywhere, and after it was highlighted that the BBC really don't have much of a case, and that Mazz's design may be sufficiently different to actually warrant it's own copyright (as has happened before), it now seems the BBC are keen on "working with her".

The knitting world is certainly dropping a few stitches over this one!

I smell a new villain for 2009. The Mazzter.

Oh I'd love her to be Zelda, would save money if she were a puppet.

Or, more correctly, do not try to sell our IP for profit as it is illegal.

dread to think where the hand would go

Except the last time I checked, the Beeb haven't done anything to the people SELLING the stuff.

Well it's a nice "conspiracy theory" and I'm sure you believe it, but unless you can provide proof because the link in the post you cite seems to make clear that it wasn't.


Yet.