Plastic Aircraft Model Kits are Going Away

StrategyPage ^ | 1/31/05

[Protagoras]

Find the nearest truck-stop bathroom stall and start publishing.

You seem to know just a tad too much about such places. Talk about trolling........

[skeeter]

If I market a globe, do I have to pay a royalty to the UN or France?

I can almost hear the adding machine over in the UN's Legal Dept.

[Last Visible Dog]

Let's see, I'm no actuary, but seems to me that demanding X+Y royalties on 0 sales rather than X royalties on N sales will not help you "maximize intellectual property income" in the first place.

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "intellectual"

[Poohbah]

This move grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize "intellectual property" income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design.

Uh, last time I checked, these designs were owned by the United States government.

[orionblamblam]

Isn't that where Protagoras works?

[orionblamblam]

> these designs were owned by the United States government.

See Post 21 for a rather extensive list of designs that Boeing would argue with you about.

[orionblamblam]

And that's the best you can do, huh? Sad.

[roaddog727]

Very sad.

Just Damn.

[Willie Green]

I’ve noticed that few are available that are Made in America.

I think perhaps Congress should investigate to see what royalties are being demanded from offshore manufacturers. If significantly lower than what's being extorted from domestic suppliers, these idiots could be guilty of unlawful restraint of trade or some other anti-trust violation.

[Poohbah]

Smells like a BS story to me. There are numerous defenses a kit maker could use to invalidate such a patent, copyright or trademark suddenly being asserted against them after decades of unchallenged royalty free use.

Not BS. The model kit companies can't afford the teams of lawyers the aerospace companies can. The litigation costs will crush the model kit manufacturers, even if they win. This is a major argument for loser-pays litigation.

[hchutch]

What a mess... well, at least foreign aircraft and stuff might be available.

[JZelle]

"Over the top. The Profit Takers will get around to screwing everybody, sooner or later."

You got that right! If it isn't the government trying to screw ya', it's some corporation!

[Dominic Harr]

Good Lord, the absurd extreme would be Newport News Shipbuilding or Electric Boat charging for royalties on any ship they built getting mentioned in the Harpoon Database.

Isn't this the tip of the iceberg? I mean, if we are going to contiue to treat information as property?

If an idea can be property, there's no end to the insanity that's possible. Suppose I make up a new name no one has ever used before. Can I then copyright it, so that anyone who wants to name a child that owes me?

Many other examples have been posted already.

"IP" has the potential to stifle a culture's creativity to a frightening degree . . .

[skeeter]

You got that right! If it isn't the government trying to screw ya', it's some corporation!

Like individuals, some corporations do not recognize moral limits in their pursuit of the bottom line. And thats a bad thing (pun intended).

Whats surprising to me is there are those who disagree.

[Poohbah]

See Post 21 for a rather extensive list of designs that Boeing would argue with you about.

If they're claiming ownership, then they're also claiming responsibility for any damage inflicted due to defects in design. They've hidden behind the doctrine of "it ain't OUR product, it's the government's" for over 60 years.

[TChris]

Some good points. Thanks for the info.

[Mike-o-Matic]

Sweet Mother Magoo!!!!
That's a buttload of legalese!

[Mike-o-Matic]

Guess I'll have to paint "Union Pathetic" on my next boxcar ;-)

[Mike-o-Matic]

Oops! Now you owe a royalty for posting that!

[Poohbah]

I think perhaps Congress should investigate to see what royalties are being demanded from offshore manufacturers.

They're demanding the same money from all players.