Yep, reminds me of Disney a few years ago...
Steamboat Willy was past copyright duration and set to fall into "the public domain", when Disney lobbied heavily to have the right to extend their copyright. The copyright law was originally created to protect "artists" within the duration of an average working lifespan, 20 years, but could not be held indefinately. The law was not intended originally to protect corporations, that would have been more in the realm of patent law. Ironic in this case because the vast majority of Disney's media originated from the "public domain", ie: Snow White, 20,000 Leagues and so on, and although they did produce marvelous renditions of these pre existing materials they then fought vigourously to keep private and not return anything back to the very public domain that they were in the beginning able to draw from.
Because of this I have no respect whatsoever for Disney copyrights, they stole it so I figure anybody wants they can make Mickey and sell it, and have a valid argument if legal is ever entertained.
Anyway, yeah... some things just are the way they are I suppose.
Robert
--- In Homebrew_PCBs@yahoogroups.com, Roland Harriston <rolohar@...> wrote:
>
> Robert:
>
> The much-repeated story about the banning of Dupont's Freon was that the
> patent was about to expire and that the material would become "generic" and
> anyone would be able of manufacture it. So Dupont lobbied intensely (and
> successfully) to get the compound outlawed because of the "damage" it did to
> the environment. The feds went for the story, and Freon became highly
> restricted in the States, although it is still made and sold freely
> elsewhere.
> Dupont had another compound that the feds immediately approved, and
> everyone went to using the new material.
>
> I think that Freon is a lot heavier than atmosphere, and thus, when
> released into the atmosphere, it immediately drops to the ground where
> it is
> absorbed. At least this is what a lot of people who worked with the
> stuff claimed.
>
> So, the question is: was Dupont's claim about Freon being very dangerous
> to the environment really valid?
> The stuff had been around for decades, and suddenly it was so bad it had
> to be restricted.
>
> Roland F. Harriston, P.D.
> ∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗∗
>
> Robert wrote:
> >
> >
> > Interesting...
> >
> > I can recall reading something about Dupont having been reported as
> > lobbying to ban hemp (not forming any opinions here, just saying I
> > read this) farming in the US during the 30s just as they had patented
> > then new wood pulp processing chemicals. we pretty much have all nylon
> > or cotton rope now, I don't know the specifics or if there may be any
> > similarity to the banning of resist chemical (in favor of Riston dry
> > film resists by Dupont), it might be stretching beyond I mean, but
> > then there are circumstances I am sure not at all uncommon where a
> > company has many pronged efforts to secure it's place, beyond just
> > making a really good product.
> >
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>