What is the need to prevent the defense from examining the software? Note that the reason given for disallowing was not "you can accomplish the same end with your own testing" it was "you might cost us money".
brands may, naturally and over time, branch out into other areas. Consider this: Nokia (yes, the cell phone maker) started out making rubber boots and galoshes. Brand owners, therefore, have a justifiable interest in keeping their options to branch out open, either because they might want to manufacture their own goods in another area or license their trademarks to others for that purpose.
Are you saying if someone wanted to make a car called Nokia and trademark the name, the phone manufacturer could block them because they might someday want to make cars?
Still waiting for where it says you don't have to zoom. :-) If you read that again, you'll notice it says "The new light field cameras take away that need to choose your focus and perspective". Zoom level is neither focus nor perspective.
In fact, I bet that anyone would assume that their partners are cheating on them if they find out messages of another man/woman on their partner's phone.
Seriously? I hope that is not true, because that is really sad. There so many other reasons besides an affair that a person might text someone of the opposite sex. I know there are people who would make that assumption, but I always figured that was the borderline insane jealous type, not the typical reaction.
It's not perpetual. At worst you'd assume it was just created and you'd have to wait for the relatively short term for unpublished unregistered works to expire, or for the rightsholder to timely register, before you knew that you could or could not safely use the work.
You would have to document when you found it in some legally sufficient way, and hang on to the documentation for the copyright period. It would be much simpler if you knew that anything not registered isn't copyrighted.
This presupposes a lot more professionality and organization on the part of authors than can reasonably be expected, in my experience. Let's say we have a street musician that plays original improvisations, but also is recording himself, so there is fixation. How many registrations should he prepare each day? How much will it cost him in fees before he is ready to deposit?
I don't really care. If registering isn't worth the trouble or money for him, then don't do it. If he expects to make enough money off the copyrights to make it worth it, it's up to him to figure out a way to make it work. The purpose of copyright isn't to make creators' lives easy, it's to incentivize them. The system is only failing if the musician stops playing or recording because of the copyright rules. If he decides not to apply for copyright and continues making music anyway, that's fine.
And most importantly, why is he being effectively compelled to register works he may not care to register, because he had to register in advance?
He's not compelled to do anything. And I still don't see the problem this automatic copyright for unpublished works is supposed to solve. It's too inconvenient to register something when it's made? I really don't get it.