Mostly so that you can get (triple) damages and lawyer fees from the infringer in case you win the lawsuit.
Over the long term, there's danger that legal theories will change to further expand the rights of corporate publishers.
Intellectual Property isn't a classification defined in law, but it is an analytic classification used in law, the same way that various other subcategories of "property" are, to discuss related protections.
∀X : X ∈ { Copyright, Trademark, Patent, ... }, X ⊂ Intellectual Property ⊂ Intangible Personal Property ⊂ Personal Property ⊂ Property.
In German law, the inventor of a patent has the right to a share of the profit even if developed as an employee of the company making the profit; again, something not shared with tangible property.
I think of the relationship between "intellectual property" and "property" is more akin to "Pluto is a dwarf planet, but it's not a planet."
Yes, they are.
> Consider that moral rights, which fall under intellectual property law, don't fit into the "property" category.
Moral rights absolutely fall under the property category.
> For example, the "right [of the author] to prevent the destruction of a work of art if it is of 'recognized stature'" is not something which is true of anything I know of outside of creative works.
Well, yes, the fact that element x is an element of set A and set A is a subset of set B, and set C is a subset of set B does not imply that x is an element of set C.
The whole point of named subsets of property (and, named subsets as analytic categories in general) is that the names come from features that are shared within the named subset that are distinct from other subsets in the broader set. So, yes, Copyright has features that are dissimilar to Patent or Trademark, IP generally has features that are dissimilar to other intangible personal property, intangible personal property has features that are dissimilar to tangible personal property, and personal property generally has features that are dissimilar to real property.
I think of a property right as something which is transferable. The two examples I gave were of rights that were not transferable. However, if "Personal Property" also includes non-transferable rights, then there's no conflict.
As a clear counter-counter-example of why my counter-example is wrong, tenancy rights are part of real property law, and may or may not include succession rights.
My comment then transforms to the (trivial) observation that intellectual property ⊄ real property.
Besides, for amusement's sake, the USPTO stands for "United States Patent and Trademark Office."
Well, when someone mentioned "fuel innovation", I assume they did not talk about trademarks, because trademarks have NOTHING to do with protecting innovation. That's what patents are for (in theory, while I don't agree with that, but that's a different topic).
Patents and Copyright stifle innovation and should be reformed or abolished. Trademark is essential consumer protection against fraud and manipulation and is extremely important to keep, although it needs to be fixed not to require prohibitive costs to defend one's trademark.
---
* Public notice of your claim of ownership of the mark;
* A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration;
* The ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
* The use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries;
* The ability to record the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods;
* The right to use the federal registration symbol ®; and Listing in the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s online databases.
---
US trademarks are only good for the line of business I'm in. If I were to publish a software product called Mustang, for example, Ford wouldn't be able to sue me for copyright infringement. My product shares a trademark with one of theirs, but it's in a different enough market that the two trademarks don't conflict with each other.
It sounds like Groupon's proposed product is point of sale hardware. That's different enough from a desktop window manager that Groupon can quite possibly get a lawyer to convince a jury that they're different businesses. Therefore GNOME Foundation has to pay a lawyer to stand up and argue the other side of the case.
The rationale is that trade marks are designed to be a badge of origin & to guarantee to consumers that the goods are from a particular entity. If I do not show due regard for maintaining that distinction by taking action against third parties making confusing use of an identical/similar mark then I should not have the right to continue making use of the mark, or at the very least could be said to have consented to the third party use and cannot subsequently stop them.
Your registered trademark fails when you stop paying your renewal fees. The only other way is for it to become genericised, which is about public use and not about others using it for doing business [1].
Previous commercial use however is an absolute defence in trademark law, making it also impossible to steal a trademark (another oft repeated falsehood): just to anticipate the idea that "Groupon will get an RTM and sue GNOME".
[1] - http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... - Elliott v Google, trademark genericisation.
Note that the patent system (in theory) works the way you describe, but it hasn't eliminated the need for lawyers.
Finally, in the mall example, what usually happens is the judge finds that the mall saved millions by never cleaning their floors, so the company is punished by losing all the money they made. It is extremely rare for someone to get millions over something small.
It is geographically limited and limited to the market segment, and I'm not sure about international laws, but technically they just stole something you've been using for years. If the trademark system is this expensive for legitimately protecting a registered trademark, I see no use for the whole registered trademark system.
Without trademarks, each doubtful claim would require a full run through the courts; and depending on whether you do or don't use Common Law (i.e. in France, Italy, Spain etc), legal precedents wouldn't even hold in most cases, so every single time you'd have to repeat it. That's expensive for everyone involved, including the State.
With trademarks, you have to specify fairly-precise categories at registration, and then there is no dispute. If you file for "BestCars" in "toys", that's it, nobody else gets to make any toy with your name, regardless of whether your cars are red or yellow or even look like a car; if they try, you first threaten them (which will solve 90% of cases right away), then easily slap them in court with a quick process (judge looks at trademark filing, looks at toys, and rules for infringement).
Trademarking works, to be honest. It's one of those things you only ever hear when they fail, which they do, occasionally. In this case we all believe Groupon should have been told "your name is too similar to another in category 021" by an automated system while filing, rather than being allowed to file and wait for a challenge, right? Except companies file trademarks and then they die, and what happens to their trademarks then? Should the state actively scan the business market, going door-to-door telling people "you can't do that because the other guy was doing it first"? That's a huge burden, especially in a global marketplace. It's much more efficient to just timestamp files (which is basically what the office does, by accepting a request) and then deal with the few complaints when they arise -- which they likely will only if the two companies really occupy the same marketplace, incidentally. Believe it or not, most people would rather stand out for originality and won't willingly try to steal someone else's trade name; it's better to just wait for the occasional sociopathic Groupon and then slam it like it deserves (hopefully).
Then define point of death as a company not paying taxes for two years and not declaring the company to be in some special tax-exempt state.
https://www.osbar.org/_docs/resources/HourlyRatesSurvey/Inte...
On the other hand, it only affords 1/2 a lawyer if you're talking white shoe partner in SF or NYC.
e.g. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/03/why-do-lawyers...
And another view: http://abovethelaw.com/2011/10/why-are-lawyers-so-expensive-...