defending the right to innovate
Monopoly corrupts. Absolute monopoly corrupts absolutely.
Copyright Notice: We don't think much of copyright, so you can do what you want with the content on this blog. Of course we are hungry for publicity, so we would be pleased if you avoided plagiarism and gave us credit for what we have written. We encourage you not to impose copyright restrictions on your "derivative" works, but we won't try to stop you. For the legally or statist minded, you can consider yourself subject to a Creative Commons Attribution License.
via George Leef - who knows the restaurant - we have the following insanity.
Perhaps 'Roof fed goat' should become the primary ingredient in the traditional dish to celebrate Constitution day?
It would help demonstrate what a joke Madison's legislation of monopolies has made of our nobility's complicity in pretending that the securing of the individual's natural exclusive right to their works empowers Congress to grant such instruments of injustice.
[Comment at 09/17/2010 08:04 AM by Crosbie Fitch]
The restaurant owner does not have a "trademark" on goats on the roof. There are articles stating something along the lines that he trademarked "goats on the roof" some years ago, but that statement is a straight up lie.
In the actual complaint, the owner of the restaurant is claiming that he has "trade dress" rights to goats on the roof, which is absurd. Trade dress is always narrowly interpreted. The owner of the restaurant would have lost had the case gone to trial. Sadly, anyone can claim anything regarding anything and the only way to prove anything is to go to court, whether someone claims they stumbled on the sidewalk in front of your house and it is your fault or your dog ate their pet bird or whatever. The issue here is not IP, but a legal system that costs so much to get through that suits that have no chance of winning are cheaper to settle than to litigate.
FYI - A brief internet search for "goats on the roof" turned up a board game from the 1960s(?) as the most frequent hit, not some unknown restaurant in Wisconsin. Goats have also been on the roofs of homes and businesses in several countries in Europe for Centuries, if not millenia. The restaurant owner lost this case before it started, but the defendant just did not want to spend the money it took for a fairly easy win.
[Comment at 09/17/2010 11:19 AM by Anonymous]
Stumbling on the sidewalk is something for which you might sue a city, not a homeowner. Generally the land from the center of the road out to the far edges of both sidewalks is city-owned; the private property starts there, or a bit further. This also lets the city rip the roadsides up during construction, or to fix a water main.
I don't see a homeowner being liable for an accident that didn't occur on his land, absent some other connection to its cause (say, a toy provably from their household lying in the middle of the sidewalk).
[Comment at 09/17/2010 02:31 PM by Dreegam]
I have no idea where you live, but the land from the edge of the street to my house is my property, including the sidewalk. However, the sidewalk is part of a city-mandated easement that went with my property. I am required to keep the grass between the sidewalk and the street mowed. I am required by city ordinance to keep the sidewalk cleared of snow in the winter. If I fail to keep the sidewalk clear and someone becomes injured as a result, I open myself to liability.
[Comment at 09/17/2010 05:17 PM by Anonymous]
I appears that anonymous is correct. Here are some web addresses for sidewalk lawsuits:
There does seem to be a lot of variation betwen states regarding responsibilities for sidewalk injuries.
However, a bigger issue is why the distraction from the original post about goats or at least the abuse of the legal system by baseless accusations? Anonymous's point was that the legal system can be abused in all areas and provided a couple of examples. I doubt that she/he intended to launch into a discussion of sidewalk liability laws.
[Comment at 09/17/2010 05:34 PM by Ayn Rand Was Right]
I seem to be on the receiving end of quite a bit of undeserved hostility.
I don't know where you live that the city basically owns that strip of land (gets to decide what's on it, etc.) but then sticks the homeowner with the job of maintaining it (and with liability), but where I am they do things in a way that actually makes sense.
[Comment at 09/17/2010 11:00 PM by Dreegam]
"The issue here is not IP" Well, if the "system" wouldn't be progressively moving towards bigger and bigger absurdities and if people wouldn't be trained by the system to consider their ideas to be their property, this wouldn't be an issue. So yes, the issue is IP.
[Comment at 09/18/2010 06:57 AM by Samuel Hora]
So. You claim that if there was no IP that there would be no absurd lawsuits?
[Comment at 09/18/2010 08:22 PM by Anonymous]
Most Recent Comments
Questions and Challenges For Defenders of the Current Copyright Regime Subject Very controversial Gráfica em
at 01/30/2017 05:03 AM by fernando
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges Finally got around to looking at the comments, sorry for delay... Replying to Stephan: I'm sorry
at 05/08/2015 08:35 AM by Dan Dobkin
Let's See: Pallas, Pan, Patents, Persephone, Perses, Poseidon, Prometheus... Seems like a kinda bizarre proposal to me. We just need to abolish the patent system, not replace
at 04/10/2015 10:44 AM by Stephan Kinsella
The right to rub smooth using a hardened steel tool with ridges I'm a bit confused by this--even if "hired to invent" went away, that would just change the default
at 04/10/2015 10:34 AM by Stephan Kinsella
Do we need a law? @ Alexander Baker: So basically, if I copy parts of 'Titus Andronicus' to a webpage without
at 01/08/2015 08:58 PM by Sheogorath
Do we need a law? The issue is whether the crime is punished not who punishes it. If somebody robs our house we do
at 11/17/2014 04:48 AM by David K. Levine
Do we need a law? 1. Plagiarism most certainly is illegal, it is called "copyright infringement". One very famous
at 10/29/2014 10:49 AM by Alexander Baker
Yet another proof of the inutility of copyright. The 9/11 Commission report cost $15,000,000 to produce, not counting the salaries of the authors.
at 09/20/2014 03:19 PM by Alexander Baker
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece P.S. The link to Amazon's WKRP product page:
at 06/28/2014 10:03 AM by Doris
WKRP In Cincinnati - Requiem For A Masterpiece Hopefully some very good news. Shout! Factory is releasing the entire series of WKRP in Cincinnati,
at 06/28/2014 10:00 AM by Doris
What's copywritable? Go fish in court. @ Anonymous: You misunderstood my intent. I was actually trying to point out a huge but basic
at 05/05/2014 01:03 PM by Sheogorath
Rights Violations Aren't the Only Bads I hear that nonsense from pro-IP people all the
at 04/07/2014 04:47 AM by Dan McCracken
Intellectual Property Fosters Corporate Concentration Yeah, I see the discouragement of working on a patented device all the time. Great examples
at 01/13/2014 06:13 AM by Anonymous
Music without copyright Hundreds of businessmen are looking for premium quality article distribution services that can be
at 11/28/2013 05:03 PM by Stephanie Smith
at 11/28/2013 09:23 AM by Anonymous
at 11/28/2013 09:22 AM by Anonymous
Patent Lawyers Who Don't Toe the Line Should Be Punished! Moreover "the single most destructive force to innovation is patents". We'd like to unite with you
at 11/24/2013 10:48 AM by SpaceCorp Technologies
at 11/20/2013 03:18 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? So, if our patent system was "broken," TFP of durable goods should have dropped. Conversely, since
at 11/02/2013 08:09 PM by Anonymous
Does the decline in total factor productivity explain the drop in innovation? I wondered about TFP, because I had heard that TFP was increasing. Apparently, it depends on who
at 11/02/2013 08:08 PM by Anonymous