哈雷戴维森起诉苦难涉嫌侵犯Bar-and-Shield商标

你可能想要仔细看看我的照片,我是一个不太可能的律师,至少作为主要职业!和我一个骑摩托车的人已经30年了,把超过20000英里/年在我的自行车。但是所有的这些无关紧要的。更相关的问题是提高,这是它是如何造福于国家的公民哈雷赢得诉讼。好吧,这不是特定的哈雷。它把版权法的目的。的参数是保护资产,包括无形资产,从不当获利的公司实体与该公司无关。这是有价值的,因为它回报的实体发展品牌,鼓励创新和投资在未来希望保护利润。同样的模式在专利法用于药物,虽然这些都是17年的法定限制。品牌保护,然而,没有法定限制其版权保护。 A great example of this is Bayer aspirin. Aspirin is a remarkable drug, and was patented in 1899. It's patent has expired 100 years ago, yet the brand name of Bayer is still protected. The patent allowed Bayer to profit and expand the use of the drug, and it's expiration allowed other companies to eventually sell the drug much more cheaply. That's a great example of how this works. Bayer was encouraged to develop and market the drug, which benefited billions of patients down the road, and industry itself got a boost when the patent expired. Brand patent reward companies for investing in the development of quality products represented by the brand, and that encourages innovation. So yes, I think H-D should easily win this. A better question to ask you is how would the abolishment of patent laws benefit society and the economy? If there were no patent laws, you would not be ale to tell one brand from another, and there would be no encouragement invest in the production of quality products. It would be easier to simply mimic another product and cut quality to undercut the price. The consumer would never know what he was actually getting. We actually see that in countries and markets where patents are violated. I guarantee you that the reverse-engineered BMW's of North Korea are nothing like the real thing, no matter how much they resemble them. I would want to know I'm getting the real thing, and that takes respect for patent laws to occur.