DRAFT Josey Howarth1

Understanding Intellectual Property to build a Personal Code of Ethics July 9, 2011

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth2

Abstract
To build a strong Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property, an understanding of the history of intellectual property is needed. This paper explains the poor use of intellectual property as an umbrella term. It then covers the history of intellectual property from two different countries. Legislation, cases, or opposing views are expressed for each component. A look at different ethical theories in relation to intellectual property is then covered. Finally the Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property is presented.

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth3 Table of Contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2 Intellectual Property................................................................................................................................. 4 History of Intellectual Property ............................................................................................................ 5 Patents ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Trade Marks/Service Marks ................................................................................................................. 8 Copyright ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Designs .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Ethical View for Protection of Intellectual Property ............................................................................... 11 Kantianism ........................................................................................................................................ 12 Act Utilitarianism / Rule Utilitarianism .............................................................................................. 13 Social Contract Theory ...................................................................................................................... 13 Value Ethics ...................................................................................................................................... 15 Personal Ethical View of Protection for Intellectual Property ................................................................. 15 Patent Protection ................................................................................................................................ 16 Trademark Protection......................................................................................................................... 18 Copyright Protection .......................................................................................................................... 19 Personal Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property ................................................................................... 20 Preamble............................................................................................................................................ 20 Awareness ......................................................................................................................................... 20 Respect .............................................................................................................................................. 20 Self .................................................................................................................................................... 21 References ............................................................................................................................................. 22

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth4

Intellectual Property
Michael J. Quinn defines intellectual property as any unique product of the human intellect that has commercial value (2011, p. 159). While this definition is acceptable for a starting definition, I believe it is too broad. In order to create a Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property, a clear definitionof intellectual property must be made. This section covers the history of the term intellectual property and introduces a better way of viewing the term. Theseparation of concepts are the foundation for the Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property introduced later in this paper. Intellectual property, as a term, has been on a sharp increase since 1983 (Lemley, 2004, p. 5). The term is seen as sexy and as a way to try and link tangible property rights and laws with the unique product of the human intellect (Lemley, 2004, p. 5, Quinn, 2011, p. 159). One problem with this term is that it lumps into one umbrella patents, trademarks and service marks, and copyrights. The reality is that the laws that govern one type of intellectual property are different than those that govern the others. Richard M. Stallman points out that these laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues (2010). Thus by using the term intellectual property to represent each of the types of human ingenuity together under one term creates confusion and ambiguity. The second problem with the term intellectual property is the use of the word property. The term property conjures up specific images, rights, and governance rules. It also infers the right of ownership. John Lockes natural right to property deals with scarce resources (Quinn, 2011, p. 160, Tuckness, 2010). A good deal of current property law in the United States is based on how to protect, make money from, and maintain upkeep of property while minimizing
Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth5 negative outside influences (Lemley, 2004, p. 11). Many courts have found reasoning for their rulings in intellectual property cases by making analogies to physical property. In the case of Regisiter.com v. Verio, the court analogized the defendant to someone who had taken an apple from a tree on [the] plaintiffs property (Lemely, 2004, p. 28). The use of such an analogy creates a particular feel about the actions of the defendant. However, as the plaintiff in the case lost nothing, the use of information by the defendant should not be analogized the way it was. In fact, the defendant had used freely available information from the WHOIS site. Had the court chosen to see the analogy as the defendant was taking a look at the apple, the ruling may well have been different (Lemely, 2004, p. 28). The term property is best associated with scarce tangible resources. Thus the use of property in regard to innovation, ideas, books, movies, inventions, and other products of the human mind forces the rules, laws, and ethical decisions formed around them, to be molded by the concept of scarce tangible property. Due to the ambiguity of the term intellectual property, and the connotations derived through the use of the term property, the use of intellectual property in this paper refers very loosely to copyright, trademark and service mark, and patents as a whole. In the interest of separating away from the use of intellectual property as a collective term, I will now present the history of copyright, trademark and service mark, and patents through the United States and the United Kingdom. The hope is that by showing how two different countries approach each of the individual topics will shed light on how cultures can influence ethical choices in regards to them, and also influence law creation.

History of Intellectual Property

The intellectual property umbrella covers different things depending on which country you look at. The United Kingdoms Intellectual Property Office recognizes patents, trade marks,

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth6 designs, and copyrights as individual expressions of an idea (IPO, 2011). However, in the United States of America, intellectual property revolves around patents, trademark and service marks, and copyrights. Already there is a separation of concepts held under the intellectual property umbrella showing again that the collective term of intellectual property is not good enough. This section starts with the history of patents in both countries. It continues by looking at the history of trademarks and service marks in both countries. Copyright history is then shown. Finally, in the history of designs there is a focus on why the United Kingdom has a separate section for designs. Each section also presents additional information relating to laws, court rulings, and government legislation for each individual country. These sections are meant to show general histories and are not completely exhaustive.

Patents
In the United Kingdom, a patent protects inventions, gives a monopoly over an invention, and is given to ensure the owner [has] the right to prevent others from making, using, importing or selling the invention without permission (What is a Patent?, 2009). Patents in the United Kingdom started in the 15th century. Henry IV gave the first patent to John of Utynam, called a Letters Patent, for the method of making stained glass (History of Patents, 2008). Due to an increase in abuse of the monopolies given by patents during Elizabeth Is reign, and increased public pressure, James I revoked all previous patents in 1610 (Tudors and Stuarts, 2010). For 200 years after James Is revocation, the patent system was developed through the work of lawyers and judges in the courts without government regulation (The 18th century, 2008). During the Industrial Revolution, it became clear that the current method of patent registration was not working, and the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852 was created (The 19th century, 2008). The Act of 1902 ensured that research was done into the novelty of the invention before granting a patent. (The 20th century, 2008). Currently, the 1977 Patents Act is the current legislation in effect for patents in the United Kingdom.

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth7

Inventions are also protected in the United States with patents. With the obvious awareness of patents by English individuals moving to the colonies, it is no surprise that patents do exist in the United States of America. There was also the French Patent Law of 1844 (History of US Patent Law, 2009). Patents were known by those who lived in the new world. In fact, at one point, pre-constitution, each state had its own laws for handling patents (History of US Patent Law, 2009). Just as the British had trouble with monopolies, so did the United States. In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was created to handle monopoly issues (Becker, 2004). The United States Constitution lays the foundation for a patent system through Article 1, Section 8, clause 8, stating: Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. The most important part of patent history for both the United Kingdom and the United States of America, in my opinion, is the Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970 (PCT). The PCT was set up by the World Intellectual Property Organization as part of the United Nations to help facilitate patent protection in multiple countries. Specifically, it helps to perfect the legal protection of inventions as well as tries to progress science and technology (Patent Cooperation Treaty, 2001). Both the United Kingdom and the United States of America have a patent lifetime of 20 years (What is a patent?, 2009, Quinn, 2011, p. 167). Patents affect everything from the method used to stain glass to the creation of pharmaceutical drugs. The part of Quinns definition for intellectual property that best applies to patents is commercial value (2011, p. 159). Abraham Lincoln stated once that the patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius (History of US Patent Law, 2009). While there is a lot of support for allowing a temporary monopoly to an invention, others think the reasons for support fall short. Rick Falkvingecreated a list of Ten Myths About Patents, taking the time to debunk many of the reasons

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth8

patents are supported including how patents ban innovation instead of driving it as Lincoln had suggested (2011).

Trade Marks/Service Marks

Before going into detail, an important distinction must be made. When dealing with the United Kingdom, trade mark is two words. In the United States of America, it is one word. The term trade mark comes from ancient times when traders identified their goods with unique identifiers (History of trade marks, 2009). The first trade mark registry, in the United Kingdom, was created in 1875 and trade mark law was consolidated in 1883 (History of trade marks, 2009). In 1986, amendments were made to allow for the registration of service marks in respect of services such as laundries and banking (History of trade marks, 2009). A further change was made in 1988 to make forgery of a trade mark a criminal offense (History of trade marks, 2009). The last change to trade marks in the United Kingdom was made in 1994. This change made sure that the laws for trade marks in the United Kingdom matched the laws of other countries. Trademark history in the United States of America is turbulent to say the least. The first trademark laws were created in 1870, amended in 1878, and defeated by the Supreme Court in 1879 for being unconstitutional (Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 1879). Not willing to give up, Congress created the Trademark Act of 1881 (Act of March 3, 1881). The Act allowed trademark protection based on the powers of commerce that Congress held (Dudnikov&Meadors, 2011). To bring trademark law into alignment with British and German trademark laws, the Lanham Act was introduced in 1946. Several more revisions were made and finally in 1988, the Trademark Law was revised to bring it in line with the global world. The term trademark is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks (Trademark FAQs, 2010). United Kingdom and United States of America trade marks last for 10 years, and must be renewed to keep it in force.

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth9

Trademark changes in the United States have made it so that any company, or individual, with a trademark has rights to the associated domain name through the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The United Kingdom does not have a specific piece of legislation to protect domain names. However, if you can bring enough proof and evidence, you can try for legal methods to gain access to a domain name that has been purchased by someone else (Taylor, 2011). Considering the various companies out there throughout the world, if trademarks are going to remain enforceable there may need to further amend trade mark legislation in the United Kingdom. After all, I know someone who owns the potnoodle.org.uk domain name. They have no connection to the company product Pot Noodle. The difference in how trademarks are handled from one country to another can actually cause a bit of a stir. Take the recent action of Michael S. Pascazi and his wife Celine M. Pascazi trying to trademark Bitcoin in the United States. When the news was published on techdirt.com, Michael S. Pascazi replied to the story stating that he and his wife had abandoned the US trademark filing but, at the same time, theyve commenced trademark applications in other countries, which have a first to file rule, rather than a first to use (Masnick, 2011). Obviously, in a global market, as long as trademarks will be recognized, there needs to be a standard across countries.

Copyright
Before explaining what copyright protects, I want to make clear the one thing it does not protect, ideas. An idea is not copyrightable in the United Kingdom, or in the United States. The only thing that is copyrightable is the expression of the idea. In the United Kingdom, the expressions of an idea that can be copyrighted are literary works, dramatic works, musical works, artistic works, layouts or typographical arrangements, recordings, and broadcasts (About copyright, 2009). The history of copyright starts back in 1710 with the Statute of Anne, although the ability to register a licensed book was allowed in 1662 (History of copyright, 2009). As with all other laws regarding unique human ideas, over time changes were made

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth10

to bring the current legislation and laws into accordance with other countries. The first was in 1952 through the Universal Copyright Convention in Geneva (History of copyright, 2009). And the final time through the Copyright Designs and Patent Act of 1988 which was influenced by the EC Directives and other legislation. In the United States of America, expressions of ideas that can be copyrighted are literary, dramatic, musical, poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture (U.S. Copyright Office, 2010). Again, the history of copyright in America is tumultuous. As with patents, the U.S. Constitution set the foundation for copyright law. Copyright from itsbeginnings has been a delicate balance of trying to ensure expressions of ideas are balanced with protection for the one who created the work. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 brought copyright law closer in line with copyright protection in Europe. It seems with copyright protection, the US is playing catch up, while trying to appease the copyright industries (Quinn, 2011, p. 168). There is a current bill being brought in front of Congress called the S.978 (S.978, 2011). The bill is trying to protect copyrighted works, however their unclear definition of performance has gamers who share their experience online through sites like YouTube concerned. By having an unclear definition of performance the bill is completely open for abuse and individuals are scared enough to start protesting (Demand Progress, 2011). In both the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, copyright protection is automatically given the moment an idea is put into a fixed state that is recognized as expressions of an idea. In the United Kingdom the length of a copyright is based on the type of work it is. Written, theatrical, musical, artistic and film have a protection length of life of the creator plus 70 years (Written, Theatrical, Musical, Artistic and Film, 2008). A sound recording and a broadcast is protected by copyright for 50 years from the end of the year in which it was made or published (Sound Recordings, 2011, Broadcasts, 2008). Published editions expire 25 years after the end of the year from when first published (Published editions, 2009). In general, the United States of America has copyright protection for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years (Copyright, 2010). Granted if

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth11

a work is done anonymously, or made for hire, the protection lasts for 95 years or 120 years, whichever comes first. In some respects, the UK and US laws match, but it is obvious there is still a difference based on the type of work created.

Designs
The United Kingdom has a specific intellectual property registration called Registered Design. The Intellectual Property Office defines a Registered Design as a legal right which protections the overall visual appearance of a product or a part of a product in the country or countries you register it (2011). This particular type of intellectual property was put into legislation in 1787 with the Designing & Printing of Linen Act (History of designs, 2011). This Act protected the visual representation on fabric of designs that lasted only two months from the first publication, though it was extended to three months in 1794 (History of designs, 2011). In 1839, protection for designs was added to the Copyright and Design Act of 1839 and since then has gone through several revisions ending in the last change of 2001 where the law was brought into compliance with the European Designs Directive. This specific difference between the United Kingdom and the United States shows how different cultures can distinguish and create different laws and pieces of legislation to respond to different ideas of what intellectual property is. A Registered Design can be protected for 25 years.

Ethical View for Protection of Intellectual Property Although there are many different ethical theories, in this section I will only focus on five frameworks for ethical decision making in regards to patents, trademarks, and copyright. Although there is also design and service marks, those will be included in the copyright and trademark section respectively as they are protected by the same laws. After describing each

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth12 ethical theory, I will explain how those theories impact patents, trademarks, and copyright. The description of each ethical theory is not meant to be exhaustive, but to give a strong enough definition to help understand the foundation upon which I built the Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property. After covering all five ethical theories, I present my personal ethical view. Kantianism Kantianism was developed by Immanuel Kant, thus the name. The ethical principles presented by Kant are vast and as this is only a general introduction to Kantianism, it is important to recognize just how rich the ethical theory is. I will be focusing mainly on the impact of the first formulation and second formulation of the categorical imperative can influence decision making involving patents, trademarks, and copyright. I acknowledge that Kantianism contains perfect and imperfect duties, but in order to keep this section short, I have chosen to focus only upon the two categorical imperatives. Michael J. Quinn expresses the first and second formulation of the categorical imperative as (2011, pp. 72-73): i. ii. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws. Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and never only as a means to an end. One can argue that the first formulation gives ethical justification for the creation of laws to protect intellectual property. However, a different individual could argue that the moral rule they wish to see turned into a universal moral law is All information, inventions, creations, and other products of human imagination should be made free to all. This dichotomy shows how two individuals who follow Kantianism to make ethical decisions can come to two very different

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth13 conclusions. The second formulation can be used to argue both for, and against, the creation of

intellectual property laws. An individual can point out that by having laws the creator is treating the user of their intellectual property as a means to an end (cash). The creator can argue that an individual who takes their idea and modifies, copies it, or does anything else to it without permission from the creator is treating the creator as a means to an end. Thus Kantianism, while a strong ethical theory does present a lot of situations where differing individuals can have opposing views and be seen as morally just and right. Act Utilitarianism / Rule Utilitarianism Utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It focuses upon the result of an action. Utilitarianism is based upon the Principle of Utility. Again, Utilitarianism is a rich ethical theory and the weights used to figure out if an action is ethical or not is expanded upon by Bentham to include seven attributes (Quinn, 2011, p. 79). However, for the sake of space, the focus is upon the concept of the Principle of Utility. The Principle of Utility is An action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the affected parties (Quinn, 2011, p. 76).Act utilitarianism focuses upon how parties are affected by one individuals actions. Rule utilitarianism focuses upon how a moral rule which, if followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness (Quinn, 2011, p. 81-82). As with Kantianism, depending upon the type of weight you use, the value you give that weight, and how deep you go into the ethical calculus, you can find sound, just, and good ethical support for either having, or not having, laws to protect intellectual property. Social Contract Theory Social contract theory was created by Thomas Hobbes, developed further by JeanJacques Rousseau, and further expounded upon by John Rawls. This ethical theory is a

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth14 combination of a definition of moral actions (Social Contract Theory) and principles for explaining equality and inequality (John Rawls Principles of Justice). Quinn restates James Rachels summary of social contract theory as morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well (2011, p. 86). This very definition gives complete justification for the creation of laws to protect intellectual property. John Rawls Principles of Justice are (Quinn, 2011, p. 88): i) Each person must claim a fully adequate number of basic rights and liberties, such as freedom of thought, speech, freedom of association, the right to be safe from harm, and the right to own property, so long as these claims are consistent with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties. ii) Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first, they are associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal opportunity to assume; and second, they are to be in the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society. As pointed out previously in this paper, I have an issue with the use of the word property in regards to copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, we have laws and processes that help an individual acquire protection for their intellectual property. The first principle is met, though it is obvious that the process is more affordable to some creators. The second principle actually points out a discrepancy. If creators are protecting their expressions of ideas so that others cannot do anything without creator permission, and/or monetary payment, for probably more time than their lifetime, it definitely shows how innovation, can be kept from being a

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth15 benefit to those who are not in advantageous positions. Again, a conflict within an ethical theory is discovered. Value Ethics Value ethics was introduced by Aristotle and is based on intellectual, and moral, virtues. The virtues can be anything that motivates an individual and represents what an individual perceives as someone with a strong moral character (Quinn, 2011, p. 411-412). As with all other theories present, the virtues that an individual holds as characteristics of someone with strong moral character can modify the outcome of deciding if intellectual property protection is justified. If generosity is the value chosen, an individual can argue that intellectual property law is generous only to the creator. If justice is the virtue chosen, an individual can argue that laws are required to ensure that justice is served for both the creator and the beneficiary of the intellectual property.

Personal Ethical View of Protection for Intellectual Property

Having presented the five different theories, it can be assumed that whatever ethical theory an individual believes, follows, and adheres to they are neither right nor wrong. Based on the explanation

of the ethical theories presented above, it is easy to see how intellectual property as a topic has become a hotbed of legal and ethical discussion. I cannot say whether someone elses point of view is correct, or wrong, because every individual, and in some cases group, follows their own ethical philosophy. So, all I can do is present my own opinion. However, before presenting my personal view, it is important to point out two things. The first is that unless you follow value ethics and place a high value on self over others, every single ethical theory promotes the following of laws laid down by governments, one way or another. The second important point

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth16 is that not all laws are ethical and not all uses of laws are ethical. As I have made a stance on the use of the term intellectual property in a previous section, I will continue to support this stance by looking at patents, trademarks, and copyright protection separately. I will present my personal ethical view in relation to each. Patent Protection I believe that patents should exist and there should be some form of protection for the patent holder. However, I do not agree with the length of protection time for patents or how the current patent protection process seems incredibly biased to the patent holder with little regard to others. The length of time given to patents deliberately prevents individuals, or companies, from building upon the technology currently in place unless they are the patent holder themselves. Rick Falkvinge explains this concept by stating (2011): It is morally just that you can combine your own pieces of property into new kinds of property, using ideas that you get by yourself. Patents allow someone else to ban exactly this, just because they thought of the idea independently earlier and manage to fill out some particular forms. Patent law is such that those who make it to the patent office first, usually is given a monopoly over the invention, and with the length of patent protection applied by law, innovation is stifled if an individual has the same idea, or wants to improve the invention of someone else. In patent law, there is a concept called inducement to infringe. Inducement to infringe is an act that encourages another party to infringe a patent (Hunter, n.d.). Unfortunately, in a recent ruling about a patent, it seems that even if you develop an idea, seek to see if it patented, hire people to look for patents for you, and you find no patents, if you develop a product and a

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth17 patent shows up later, you can be guilty of inducement to infringe due to what the Supreme Court of the United States calls willful blindness. The case was Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A. (Slip Opinion, 2011). This case really makes me worried about where patent law is going. To start, the defendant sought information about existing patents. Yet, they are viewed as the bad guy in this situation due to one point. The manufacturer created the product desired by a company based off of a product that had no patent attached to it because it was sold in a foreign country. They looked for a patent, and could not find one. I can understand how it can be seen as patent violation, however, using the term willful blindness? I can accept the defendant being guilty of patent violation, but the Supreme Court of the United States declaring that the reason for the violation as willful blindness; now that just confuses me. Even Justice Kennedy, the only Justice to oppose the ruling points out that: If willful blindness is as close to knowledge and as far from the knew or should have known jury instruction provided in this case as the Court suggests, then reviewing the record becomes all the more difficult. I would leave that task to the Court of Appeals in the first instance on remand (Slip Notice, 2011, p. 4). Individuals have similar ideas all the time, and yet it seems that in this world, you have to race to patent an object and you need to search every single patent giver on the planet. The cost to do that will fall back on the consumer. Justice Kennedy pointed out an incredibly chilling point (Slip Notice, 2011, p. 3). The court appears to endorse the willful blindness doctrine here for all federal criminal cases involving knowledge. It does so in a civil case where it has received no briefing or

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth18 argument from the criminal defense bar, which might have provided important counsel on this difficult issue. Looks like the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that even if you exhaust all your resources to find a patent, and you create an invention that someone has patented after you, or before you could get the patent office, you are guilty of patent fraud due to willful blindness. Trademark Protection As with patent protection, I support trademark protection, however, I believe that the current laws are capable of abuse and that the abuse of the laws shows the weakness of the current laws and sets court precedents that will radically change trademark protection in the future. I have already shared the story of Michael S. Pascazi and his rather subversive ways of trying
to trademark Bitcoin. In another, in my opinion, abuse of trademark protection, two days after Seal Team 6 killed Bin Laden, Disney applied for a trademark for Seal Team 6 covering clothing, footwear, headware, toys, games, and entertainment and education services (Weprin, 2011). To me this is profiteering and not proper use of trademark protection. Disney had nothing to do with Seal Team 6, so why should they own the trademark for it? Ill also be curious to see the court ruling in regards to Apple trying to trademark the already generic term App Store (Reitano, 2011).Even more so now that Judge Phyllis Hamilton has stated she will probably deny the motion of Apple to create an injunction on the use of the term (Rosenblatt &Gullo, 2011). Its clear that companies who have the cash seek to subvert the patent process. It is also clear that the laws are not strong enough in relation to global trademark. My only hope is that the trademark office takes one look at Disneys request, and sends them packing.

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth19 Copyright Protection Copyright is probably one of the hottest topics in legal and ethical discussion about intellectual property. I support copyright protection, however I believe the time afforded copyright protection is exorbitant. A minimum of 50 years for certain types of fixed expression of human ideas? I am still disappointed with The Walt Disney Corporation pushing Congress to pass the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act to keep their work out of public domain (Quinn, 2011, p. 171). It makes far more sense, to me, to have the protection applied for 10 to 20 years maximum. I am glad that Larry Lessig has worked hard to promote the Creative Commons. In March 2007, he gave an incredibly persuasive talk at a TED convention about how human cultural development is stifled by copyright laws (Lessig, 2007). Another individual, Kirby Ferguson believes that Everything is a Remix (Ferguson, 2011). I personally believe this is true. I believe that an individual should be able to pick what type of copyright protection they want to incorporate, and thus I support the Creative Commons and use it on my personal web site. Slowly but surely, it seems like public domain is becoming a scarce commodity and I want to ensure that if anyone is inspired by anything I create, that they give me credit, and then take any inspiration and put their idea back into the public domain for consumption and sharing. In conclusion, it is obvious that the term intellectual property is too broad a term for the differences of patent, trademark, and copyright. Even if various court systems are trying to create intellectual property laws that impact all three types of human ingenuity, much to my chagrin. Thus, I present my Personal Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property which has been formed through the information gathered to write this paper and my own personal ethical philosophy.

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth20 Personal Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property Preamble This personal code of Ethics for Intellectual Property covers my personal responsibilities and covers some, though not all, issues that I may face in regards to intellectual property. This is intended to be the foundation for my ethical decision making and where certain principles challenge others, I will make my decisions based upon deep thought about the issue. Awareness I shall strive to stay aware of the changes to intellectual property terms.Specifically, I shall as appropriate: y y Be aware that ideas cannot be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted. Acknowledge that the term intellectual property is an umbrella term and does not refer specifically to any specific laws. y Strive to follow changes to definitions and laws regarding patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Respect I shall strive to offer respect to myself, other individuals, groups, countries, and cultures. Specifically, I shall as appropriate: y y Respect the laws of different countries. Respect creators by giving proper credit based upon the type of intellectual property referenced and the country that has issued the patent, trademark, or copyright. y Respect users of intellectual property by clearly defining the type of protection any of my creations has in plain English, and if possible other languages.

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth21 y Respect users of intellectual property by listening fairly to their intended uses of any of my creations. y Not discriminate against any individual, group, country, or culture. Self It is my intent to be ethical in all my dealings with intellectual property. Specifically, I shall as appropriate: Accept responsibility for my actions. Be honest. Maintain personal integrity. Be accepting of others point of views. Give personal contribution to societys understanding of intellectual property Honor country specific laws in relation to copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Continue to improve my understanding of intellectual property; including but not limited to patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

y y y y y y y

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth22 References About copyright, (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm Act of March 3, (1881).An act to authorize the registration of trademarks and protect the same. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from ipmall.info: http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/trademarks/PreLanhamAct_084_Act_of_1881.htm Becker, A. D. (2004). The sherman antitrust act (1890). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from Stolaf.edu: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html Broadcasts, (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-broadcasts.htm Demand Progress, (2011). Urgent: congress wants to make streaming a felony. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from DemandProgress.org: http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1 Dudnikov, K, &Meadors, M. (2011).The history of trademark law. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from tabberone.com: http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/History/History.shtml Falkvinge, R., (2011). Ten myths about patents. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from Falkvinge.net: http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-myths-about-patents/ Ferguson, K. (2011). Everything is a remix. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from EverythingIsARemix.com: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remixpart-3/

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth23 History of copyright, (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-history.htm History of designs, (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-whatis/d-history.htm History of patents, (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history.htm History of US Patent Law, (2009). A brief history of the patent law of the united states. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Ladas.com: http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html Hunter, R. M. (n.d.). Inducement to infringe. Retrieved July 11, 2010 from ExpertGlossary.com: http://www.expertglossary.com/patent/definition/inducement-to-infringe/source/roberthunter-patent-glossary IPO, (2011).Home Page. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/home.htm Lessig, L. (2007). Larry lessig on laws that choke creativity. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from Ted.com: http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html Lemley, M. A. (2004). Property, intellectual property, and free riding. Retrieved July 9, 2011 from Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collect: http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth24 Masnick, M. (2011). Lawyer trying to trademark bitcoin explains his legal theory. Retrieved July 8, 2011 from techdirt.com: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademarkbitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml Patent Cooperation Treaty, (2001).Preamble. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from WIPO.int: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a0.htm Published editions (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-broadcasts.htm Quinn, M. J. (2011). Ethics for the information age.Addison-Wesley. pp.72-73, 76, 79, 81-82, 86, 88,159, 160, 167, 168, 202, 411-412 Reitano, V. (2011).Apple fires back in app store trademark fight. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from SDTimes.com: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/35339 Rosenblatt, J. &Gullo, K. (2011).Apple bid to bar amazon appstore will likely be denied. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from businessweek.com: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-22/apple-bid-to-bar-amazon-appstore-willlikely-be-denied.html Slip Opinion, (2011). Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A. p. 3 Retrieved July 10, 2011 from SupremeCourt.gov: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-6.pdf S 978, (2011). A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for.. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from GovTrack.us: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth25 Sound Recordings, (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm Stallman, R. M. (2010). Did you say intellectual property? its a seductive mirage. Retrieved July 9, 2011 from GNU.org: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html Taylor, A. (2011). Faq: what is the relationship between a domain name and a registered/unregistered trade? Retrieved July 10, 2011 from AdlexSolicitors.co.uk: http://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/domain-dispute/faqs/domain-trademark.htm The 18th century (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-18century.htm The 19th century (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-19century.htm The 20th century (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-20century.htm Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from Justia.com: http://supreme.justia.com/us/100/82/case.html Trademarks FAQ (2010). What is a service mark? Retrieved July 10, 2011 from USPTO.gov: http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426673 Tuckness, A. (2010). Lockes Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition). Retrieved, July 9, 2011 from Stanford.edu: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Pro

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION

DRAFT Josey Howarth26 Tudors and Stuarts, (2010). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-tudor.htm U.S. Copyright Office, (2010). What does copyright protect? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Copyright.gov: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html Weprin, A. (2011). Disney Trademarks Seal Team 6.Retrieved July 11, 2010 from MeiaBistro.com: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team6_b35689 What is a Patent? (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm Written, Theatrical, Musical, Artistic and Film, (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm

Josey Howarth, 2011 DRAFT VERSION