Patents last 20 years. All of todays seeds will eventually be public domain. Problem will solve itself by doing nothing.

ICANN was not involved in those cases. ICANN delegates the buying and selling of second level domains to domain name registars. This is where the contract comes in. ICANN controls the top level domain and points these at the domain name registars. In this case North Korea.

The courts can award Faye $1million even if Edward has $5 in his wallet. They can force Edward to hand over the cash once the contract completes. Faye becomes a lienholder agaists Edward.

Basically it works like this.
1) Amy has a contract to wash Bob's car for $100 month.
2) Carl sues Bob for murdering his dog.
3) The courts can not give Carl a contract with Amy. The courts can only award Carl with property and money taken from Bob.
Basically the courts can't force Amy to work with Carl. They can't force ICANN to work with the plantiffs.

Sure utility patent for the functional part and design patents for the ornamental part. The structure, sequence, and organization of the API is ornamental. The implementation of an API method is functional. You can get copyright on the implementation of the API because the implementation is an expression of the API. The API being a method of operation for the software it is excluded from copyright. (in order to allow multiple expressions of the API)

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/bak...

This is where the method of operation language comes from in the EFF document. They are arguing that that API is a method of using the system.(java) They are arguing that you can't protect java by copyrighting the API. That it should be protected with patents instead.

No, I'm talking about Baker vrs Seldon. Selden had written a book "Book-keeping Simplified." that described his book-keeping form. His estate sued Baker who used a very similar form in his book.

This came about in a court case where someone tried to copyright a book keeping form they invented. They were attempting to get copyright on the form because they failed to get a patent on it. The inventor carefully thought out how the book keeping form should look like. It was not a mere arrangement of facts or information. The courts rejected this argument. They did not want useful inventions covered by copyright when congress intended for them to be covered by patents. In 1975 congress updated the law to match what the Supreme court ruled.

Design patents are the correct form of IP protection for what you described. An API is an invention with utility. It is just like a font. Or a guitar body. Or a lamp shaped like a lady's leg. 14 years is not a long time for protection either.

Not all written works are covered by copyright. For example, most of the content in dictionaries and phone books are not covered by copyright. EFF is arguing that an API is more like a phone book than it is like Harry Potter.

All kinds of things fall outside copyright protection. For example fashion can not be copyrighted. Nor can recipe's for food. Short catchy phrases can not be copyrighted. The idea behind a joke can not by copyrighted. Fonts are free of copyright. Most of these exceptions exist because congress and the courts wanted smaller government. People all over the country made their own cloths. Copyright on fashion would be a large intrusion by the government in an everyday activity. Most families cooked their own meals. Enforcing copyright on food would require a massive intrusion on privacy. Copyrights on fonts were a threat to the freedom of speech. API should not be copyrighted because API are a form of language. People should be free to communicate with their machines and with their software. Once I learn the grammar and phrases of an API I should not be forced to work with a company for 150 years.

Patents are why API's can not be copyrighted. API's are an invention not a literary work. Patents only last 20 years and must be novel to get protection. Java could not get patents on most of its interface because it was derivative of earlier languages.

Put a password on the interface and protect your research with patents like everyone else.

It also doesn't work when you start talking about cells in your body. Sure they reproduce and mutations can occur. But most of your cells don't participate in evolution at all. Their mutations don't pass on to your offspring.

Of course dogs are more natural than robots. They are more natural than alot of human creations. They are less natural than wolves. I don't want to discus if ghosts are alive.