Slashdot Mirror

could I produce the prior art, overturning the patent?

Yup, you can cite it, challenge it, have it ruled on, appeal the ruling and realize your efforts

OTOH, while this trial is up in the air, there's a degree of uncertainty about Lindows long term viability, which could affect both its sales and the ability to raise more investment capital to expand into larger markets.

I don't think this is as big of a deal as you say. In the (I believe unlikely) event that Lindows loses this case, the most likely remedy would simply be forcing them to change their name. Since Windows is a registered trademark, they would also be liable for any legal fees. Monetary damages are possible, but from what I understand, are not typical, and based on the strength of Lindows case, I would be surprised if they were awarded. Of course, IANAL, so caveat emptor. For more details, see Bitlaw.

While a loss would certainly have a negative impact on Lindows, the amount of free publicity this case is getting (and will continue to get after a loss) would likely help make up for any loss in name recognition sustained in the name-change.

Indeed, you are right. They once were in danger of becoming general use terms under trademark law but their respective companies saved them. A quick "googling" ;-) pointed out my error. Here's a link to the BitLaw.com article describing what I meant to say, look under "generic", the last section: http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/degrees.html.

More appropriate examples would have been aspirin and cellophane. Both were once trademarked names but fell into general usage... now anyone can make "aspirin" or "cellophane" and sell it under those names. Sorry about the error.

It's confusing, because the PTO requires a "drawing" even for text trademarks. But "Typed drawing" means "the pictorial form doesn't matter, we're claiming the text in all formats".

See TMEP 807.09, "Circumstances under which a Typed Drawing may not be used."

My bad... I guess I confused it with the "Non Obvious" clause.

http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/requirements.html

The reason VISA® can get away with this is because of The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, an expressly pro-big-business law which made it easier for companies owning "famous" marks to prevent others from using the same or a similar trademark. According to the referenced site, "it is possible to use a dilution cause of action against users of the same mark even when the defendant's goods and services bears no relation to the goods or services of the famous mark."

It also mentions that it's somewhat harder to successfully prosecute such a cause of action if the trademark is a common English word, (e.g. VISA®) as opposed to a distinctive word (like "Reebok"). Hpwever, given the cornucopaeic depths of VISA®'s pockets, I don't doubt they will be able to make the law bend in their favor.

Not being allowed to reproduce the work in an archive doesn't limit speech about the work in any meaningful way

Oh, I disagree. It is critically important. For example, it would be impossible to do a parody without reproducing some, not necessarily all, of the work. But statutory fair use apparently makes it unnecessary to reach free speech Q's. As I mention below, I think it's nonetheless important to be mindful of the influence of free speech doctrine.

Value of the work -- what damages could the spammer seriously claim? This judgment affects the decision whether to take the threat seriously, whether to roll the dice telling them to go to hell, etc. Strategic stuff.

Doctrinal relationship of 1st A. and fair use -- I supposed that they were interrelated, and others have argued the same. Fair use is not in the Copyright Clause, it was read into it, originally by the judiciary. Congress later wrote it into the statute. I think fair use is clearly informed by 1st A. values, but of course the two are not interchangeable.

Here's more and more (note ditto.com cite). I haven't vetted these docs; use at your own risk (as if my approval would guarantee anything!). This area of law, with regard to the Internet, is not fully formed. I'm reminded of the deep-linking Q, too.

However, this is all far too abstract. A trial judge is going to want cites to statutes and precedent, not dreamy academic stuff. It's just useful to consider the underlying values to keep your arguments focused. Now that I've belatedly read the actual "C&D letter" I realize the writer is full of crap -- good enough for a dismissal IMHO. :)

Your first assertion is based on the old rule; copyright now attaches as soon as "original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression."

reference (I can't vounch for this source's complete accuracy, but I'm sure it has this basic point right)

For the interested, the law has gradually moved away from many of the ritualistic requirements in the past, such as attaching a copyright notice. But such notice is good form, as is registration, to protect your rights as author

This page shows that certain "famous" marks are extremely protected.

I can't believe that they don't have to prove confusion or show competition between them and the defendent.

A patent is, first of all, not even a constitutional right. The constitution says that congress may provide inventors with certain rights to their invention. This lead Jefferson et. al to set up the first patent board some 200 years ago.
Now, for a patent to be granted, the invention it describes must be:

New

Useful

Nonobvious

For a good definition of new, see new

The useful property is questionable, but the nonobvious is very interesting, see nonobvius

A quote from this link:

It was never the object of patent laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an
idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of
manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate
invention.

And that kind of sums it up...

Another purpose of the patent idea, combined with licensing, was to open up trade secrets. Let the rest of the world know how we do it, so that all may benefit. But, if you want to use it, you need to license it.

Again, a good idea spoiled by insane capitalism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a genuine capitalist, but it is scary to see what happens when capitalism goes berserk.

Please research your rants before issuing them. The law changed so that works published after 1978 do have automatic copyright. Works published before 1978 entered the public domain unless the author or creator registered them. See this page on BitLaw.

This is in contrast to trademark, for which you must always file to get legal protection.

Copyright law prevents me from copying your works, it doesn't (or shouldn't) stop me tearing out the pages in copies made with your permission and purchased by me.

Actually, copyright law grants five rights to a copyright owner - not just the right to prevent copies from being made. One of those is the right to prepare derivative works based on the original work. How is tearing out some pages and selling the new derivative work not a violation of copyright law? IANAL...

I guess you didnt read the Yoga Inside article awhile back on /. Even if the two items exist in completely different fields, a company can still feel they are being cheated out of the time and money they took to establish their trademark in any and all markets, according to the Trademark Dilution Act of 1995.

If you live in a country that adheres to the Berne Convention, then you are indeed bound by the copyright. It's one of those little things that makes international trade easier.

I believe the applicable law here is Title VIII of the Lanham act, which deals with "False designations of origin and false descriptions".

On this page you can read about a case where Monty Python successfully sued ABC TV under the Lanham Act, for editing and thus "damaging the integrity of the work":

the court upheld these claims on the theory that the ABC edits had substantially altered the work and exceeded the scope of the licensing agreement. The court held, on alternative grounds, that when ABC edited the work and attributed it to Monty Python, it erroneously attributed authorship of the edited work to the group and that such attribution constituted a false designation of origin and thus misrepresented the author's work in violation of federal trademark laws

Note that the court argued both sides of the issue, which could apply in the Cage case too.

However, it's a sad comment on the state of the arts in America that such a simple, whimsical attribution becomes subject to a legal dispute.

Apparently Batt's propaganda campaign is succeeding! :) I think it's simplistic to dismiss this issue in that way. The laws in this area exist for good reasons, and "whimsically" attributing authorship of a song without explanation is a lot like inserting "whimsical" statements into a legal contract. A reasonable person could look at Batt's album and come to the conclusion that the "work" in question had something to do with Cage, so Cage's estate has a legitimate interest on that basis and under law.

Finally, one could see this as simply an extension of Cage's original conception beyond the artistic sphere and into the legal sphere, which is consistent with Cage's contention that "art and life should no longer be separate, but one and the same". Consider this legal action a piece of performance art, perhaps in fulfilment of Cage's piece 4'33" No. 2 (described at the above link), which exhorts the artist to "fulfil an obligation to others" with "maximum amplification" (in this case, provided by the web). Cage's estate is thus both performing a Cage work, and fulfilling their obligation to protect Cage's name. We should applaud! ;)

This seems like it would fall under Feist v Rural Telephone Company, the "facts and 'sweat of the brow' cannot be copyrighted" ruling. In that, they found a phonebook was not copyrightable, as the information was not original and publically available. A FAQ is similar; "writing" one consists of copy and paste, and by that ruling can't be considered an original work.

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist . tml

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said it in Feist v. Rural Telephone, and 5 of the current Supreme Court Justices (Rehnquist, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter) joined:

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts."

Justice Stevens said it in the majority opinion of SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., and the current Supreme Court Justice O'Connor joined:

The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

Even the dissent of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Sutdios, Inc., to which Justice Renquist joined, echos:

The purpose of copyright protection, in the words of the Constitution, is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Copyright is based on the belief that by granting authors the exclusive rights to reproduce their works, they are given an incentive to create, and that "encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in `Science and the useful Arts.'" Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). The monopoly created by copyright thus rewards the individual author in order to benefit the public. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S., at 156 ; Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 -128 (1932); see H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909).

There are situations, nevertheless, in which strict enforcement of this monopoly would inhibit the very "Progress of Science and useful Arts" that copyright is intended to promote. An obvious example is the researcher or scholar whose own work depends on the ability to refer to and to quote the work of prior scholars. Obviously, no author could create a new work if he were first required to repeat the research of every author who had gone before him. 28 The scholar, like the ordinary user, of course could be left to bargain with each copyright owner for permission to quote from or refer to prior works. But there is a crucial difference between the scholar and the ordinary user. When the ordinary user decides that the owner's price is too high, and forgoes use of the work, only the individual is the loser. When the scholar forgoes the use of a prior work, not only does his own [464 U.S. 417, 478] work suffer, but the public is deprived of his contribution to knowledge. The scholar's work, in other words, produces external benefits from which everyone profits. In such a case, the fair use doctrine acts as a form of subsidy - albeit at the first author's expense - to permit the second author to make limited use of the first author's work for the public good. See Latman Fair Use Study 31; Gordon, Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural Analysis of the Betamax Case and its Predecessors, 82 Colum. L. Rev. 1600, 1630 (1982). [....] I recognize, nevertheless, that there are situations where permitting even an unproductive use would have no effect on the author's incentive to create, that is, where the use would not affect the value of, or the market for, the author's work. Photocopying an old newspaper clipping to send to a friend [464 U.S. 417, 482] may be an example; pinning a quotation on one's bulletin board may be another. In each of these cases, the effect on the author is truly de minimis. Thus, even though these uses provide no benefit to the public at large, no purpose is served by preserving the author's monopoly, and the use may be regarded as fair.

Now someone, please, explain to me how extending the monopoly granted on an already created work promotes the progress of science and the useful arts.

This would likely be covered under the right of public performance. It's tricky to figure out exactly where to draw the line though. For example, is the guy in the riced-out Civic playing Who Let The Dogs Out at 150 db at a red light giving a public performance? What about the guy who plays the same CD in a restaurant kitchen after closing?

I think you are confusing plagarism, and a violation of copyright. I am primarily concerned with the legal issue of Copyright violation raised by the previous poster, not an amorphous ethical one.

As Bitlaw points out, under the Copyright Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Here's a link to it: Lanham Act.

Here's a little description I found online:
The Lanham Act defines the statutory and common law boundaries to trademarks and service marks. Trademarks (and service marks) are words or designs used in the advertising of goods and services. Rights to use a trademark are defined by the class(es) for which the trademark is used. Therefore, it is possible for different parties to use the same trademark in different classes. The Lanham Act defines the scope of a trademark, the process by which a federal registration can be obtained from the Patent and Trademark Office for a trademark, and penalties for trademark infringement. The Legal Information Institute provides Title 15 of the US Code, which encompasses the Lanham Act.

It sounds like this act has to deal with advertising... so is Apple saying that MacFixIt should take down their post because it advertises away to get a full version of commercial product that costs $129 for $19?

I don't think this should be that big of a deal - they'll probably just stop making the update CD, and most people who bought one already owned a copy of OS X anyway.

F-bacher

The Lanham Act essentially includes all the federal laws governing trademark registration and usage (but not state laws). Apple appears to be seeking protection under Title VIII of the Act, which has to do with misappropriation or misrepresentation of trademarks for use in commerce.

I'm just a college student who's taken a few law classes, but it seems to me this is a fairly weak claim, and Apple could make a much stronger one under other areas of federal law. Can anyone with more legal knowledge comment on the strength of Apple's claim?

Here's a link to the complete text of the Act.

The Lanham Act is actually a trademark / service mark protection law, not really a copyright law. To see Apple's lawyers use it in this context seems a bit out of the ordinary, although Apple is notorious for vigorously defending their trademark and look-and-feel related concepts (remember the OS X themes debate a few months back?). Still, if they're relying on the Lanham Act to do their bullying, they might be on shakey footing. Stick to the (deservedly despised) DMCA for things like that.

the fact that it is an obvious idea to any programmer [..] is not something an examiner can use to reject the application.

Yes, it is. That's stated specifically in 35 USC 103(a).

A patent may not be obtained [..], if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.

Where on earth did you get that? Safeway sells a private brand stomach remedy that is exactly the same shade of pink as PB. The PB lawyers may claim to own a specific shade of pink. They may even have managed to pursuade the P&T people to let them register it. But both acts do nothing but put them on record as claiming the that shade of pink. They still have to convince a judge that allowing a competitor to use that shade would confuse their customers. Some competitors may back down rather than deal with the legal hassles (just as restauranteurs tend to look for names that don't begin with "Mac" as a cheap alternative to dealing with McDonalds' lawyers), but that doesn't make PBs legal theory anything more than a theory.

You can trademark all kinds of things,

When you used "trademark" as a verb, I assume you're referring to getting the mark registered with the PTO. That action doesn't create the trademark, it just puts you on record as claiming it. You can actually establish a trademark just by using it. People were using trademarks for centuries before there any official registry. Fairly good legal summary here.

__

There certainly was a bill to strengthen protection for databases, but according to Bitlaw, databases are protected when they are a compilation that adds value by selecting, arranging, or coordinating the underlying information. A compilation is a value-added coallation of what may themselves be basic facts.

It's important to understand, as that same article mentions, that the underlying data itself is not protected. It's the compilation itself. CDDB certainly counts as a compilation of data, even if they are turning out to be a bunch of greedy f*cks.

-b

BitLaw (http://www.bitlaw.com/) has some resources on patent law, but I'm still confused.

BitLaw (http://www.bitlaw.com/) has some resources on patent law, but I'm still confused.

In my essay on Copyright Law, I asserted that the USA does not recognize "moral rights" of authors that are included in article 6bis of the Berne Convention, despite the claim of the USA that it adheres to the Berne Convention. These moral rights include:

• the right of integrity: mutilation or distortion that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation is not permitted. In French law, this right is called "droit au respect de l'oeuvre" and is mentioned in Article6 of the French Law No. 57-298 of 11 March 1957.
• the right of attribution: the true author has the right to have his/her name on the work, and a non-authors are prevented from having their names attached to the author's work. In French law, this right is called "droit à la paternité" and is mentioned in Article6 of the French Law No. 57-298 of 11 March 1957.

In other words, the US does not honor formally (or de facto, depending on how you interpret the above) the right to see attributement (when you don't hold the copyright), and indeed the caselaw (still from here) says:

Smith v. Montoro, 648 F.2d 602 (9thCir. 1981) (removal of actor's name from film credits was valid claim under Lanham Act).

Now I wasn't sure what this meant, so I found this on the "Lanham (Trademark) Act (15 U.S.C.)" including the preamble:

The Lanham Act is found in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States. However, this act is not the exclusive law governing U.S. trademark law, since both common law and state statutes also control some aspects of trademark protection. This index contains links to each of the sections of the Lanham, and was last updated in March, 2000.

Now Title VIII - False Designations Of Origin And False Descriptions Forbidden says:

1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)
Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)
in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

In other words (the bold above is mine), despite what the above essay said about our not respecting authorial attributement as the French do, in letter at least this Lanham Act seems to mean that you're fairly well covered in saying the legal convention is behind you. If you say "convention", it implies that that's how it's done to be sure to be legal, and is not as overtly negative as if you had said the law requires this.
In any case, first a nice letter, with a vague allusion to law, then if your former employer refuses to add your name, dig around this Lanham Act business a bit and send him chapter and verse (section and paragraph :]) along with a nice hyperlink so he can check out his legal obgligations. Either way, you seem covered. Good luck!

In my essay on Copyright Law, I asserted that the USA does not recognize "moral rights" of authors that are included in article 6bis of the Berne Convention, despite the claim of the USA that it adheres to the Berne Convention. These moral rights include:

• the right of integrity: mutilation or distortion that would prejudice the author's honor or reputation is not permitted. In French law, this right is called "droit au respect de l'oeuvre" and is mentioned in Article6 of the French Law No. 57-298 of 11 March 1957.
• the right of attribution: the true author has the right to have his/her name on the work, and a non-authors are prevented from having their names attached to the author's work. In French law, this right is called "droit à la paternité" and is mentioned in Article6 of the French Law No. 57-298 of 11 March 1957.

In other words, the US does not honor formally (or de facto, depending on how you interpret the above) the right to see attributement (when you don't hold the copyright), and indeed the caselaw (still from here) says:

Smith v. Montoro, 648 F.2d 602 (9thCir. 1981) (removal of actor's name from film credits was valid claim under Lanham Act).

Now I wasn't sure what this meant, so I found this on the "Lanham (Trademark) Act (15 U.S.C.)" including the preamble:

The Lanham Act is found in Title 15 of the U.S. Code and contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States. However, this act is not the exclusive law governing U.S. trademark law, since both common law and state statutes also control some aspects of trademark protection. This index contains links to each of the sections of the Lanham, and was last updated in March, 2000.

Now Title VIII - False Designations Of Origin And False Descriptions Forbidden says:

1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden
(a)
Civil action.
(1)
Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--
(A)
is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B)
in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

In other words (the bold above is mine), despite what the above essay said about our not respecting authorial attributement as the French do, in letter at least this Lanham Act seems to mean that you're fairly well covered in saying the legal convention is behind you. If you say "convention", it implies that that's how it's done to be sure to be legal, and is not as overtly negative as if you had said the law requires this.
In any case, first a nice letter, with a vague allusion to law, then if your former employer refuses to add your name, dig around this Lanham Act business a bit and send him chapter and verse (section and paragraph :]) along with a nice hyperlink so he can check out his legal obgligations. Either way, you seem covered. Good luck!

First, the patent claims call out a central computer (server), and a plurality of remote terminal means (clients), and modems. This means that the owners of the server can at best be sued for contributory infringement which means that they, along with the users, together infringe. This is a much harder case.

Second, most computers currently used are not terminals, they are independent PCs. Therefore, BT must use the doctrine of equivalents to show infringement. This is not easy.

Third, the claims are in the "means for" format. This means that only the appartus that is actually described in the specification can infringe the patent. Now the specification (which is the body of the patent) describes a system that uses analog modems to connect to a central computer via telephone lines (no network here).

This patent really appears to be about using an index of abbreviations (like titles) which are individually unique, to request data. The unique titles refer to unique addresses, at which the data is located. This certainly is not hyperlinks, except by the most strained of interpretations.

Don't expect this case to change the world of patents. Maybe, expect this case to be settled, if BT is asking for less than a lawyer would charge (if the licensing fee is under $100,000, it's just simpler to pay up... a standard patent lawsuit costs $1.5M or more.) Or, expect this patent go away when at the Markman hearing it is interpretted to not cover hyperlinks.

Thalia

This is not legal advice, so don't even think it.

Proposed open patent license terms: This patent covers the following technology: ---fill in the blank.-- A worldwide, perpetual, royalty free license is available to this technology. However, any product incorporating this techology must --fill in the blank.--

The alternative, and somewhat cheaper, solution is to not file for a patent, but file a Statutory Invention Registration. This is basically a mechanism that publishes a patent application, without awarding patent rights.

The third, and even cheaper, solution is to publish the invention, with a declaration that the technology is not now, nor will it be patented. This means that no one else can patent the technology (since this is proof of your invention, and the US is a first to invent country).

There ya go, all yours.

Thalia

This does not constitute legal advice, so don't even think it.

You need to have a copyright page, and that page needs to have a DMCA agent, which can be you, if you have a clue and don't want to pay a designated legal agent by the hour to wade through kook mail. This should include your name, address for service of legal papers, telephone and/or fax number, email address, PGP key and any other means of contacting you.

The full details of this are available at Bitlaw and the statute is 17 USC 512.

(2)
Designated agent. The limitations on liability established in this subsection apply to a service provider only if the service provider has designated an agent to receive notifications of claimed infringement described in paragraph (3), by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, substantially the following information:

(A)
the name, address, phone number, and electronic mail address of the agent.

(B)
other contact information which the Register of Copyrights may deem appropriate. The Register of Copyrights shall maintain a current directory of agents available to the public for inspection, including through the Internet, in both electronic and hard copy formats, and may require payment of a fee by service providers to cover the costs of maintaining the directory.

Now here's the bitch. Any complaint, no matter how ill-founded, must result in the removal of the disputed material, so long as it fully complies with the proper format for a DMCA notification, that is:

(3)
Elements of notification.

(A)
To be effective under this subsection, a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following:

(i)
A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

(ii)
Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

(iii)
Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

(iv)
Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

(v)
A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

(vi)
A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

However, if the original poster of the material sends a counternotification, basically adhering to the same conventions, you can put the material right back up and then the complaining party has to sue the actual poster of the information or shut the fuck up.

Actually, they can conceivably just keep sending further complaints about the same material and forcing this tango to occur over and over again; it's not yet determined whether or not they can get away with it.

In *either* case, though, they can't sue *YOU*. At all. And this does NOT require you to police anything, only to act when given ACTUAL and CONSTRUCTIVE notice adhering to a specific format.

There is, by the way, no legal requirement that you actually have a DMCA Agent or comply with cease-and-desist orders you think are BS. The only problem with this is that you can then actually be sued and forced to defend yourself. DMCA also does not negate any legal defenses such as "Fair Use" that may exist under prior law, whether or not you choose to have an agent. It just immunizes you as a service provider from the inevitable kook suits that occur when you give free rein to Joe Nutbag to post to your website anonymously or otherwise.

All of you who think that this patent is obvious should stop your belly aching and act! It's easy. The patent has not yet issued. In the U.S. there is a rule (37 C.F.R. 1.56) which obliges a patentee to disclose ALL prior art of which he or she is aware. So, find some prior art, and email it to the company. They will then be obliged to disclose this prior art to the Patent Office. If they fail to do so, the patent may be invalidated under Rule 56. How's that for an easy solution?

Thalia

The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 expanded the scope of rights granted to famous and distinctive trademarks under the Lanham Act. Dilution differs from normal trademark infringement in that there is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion to protect a mark. Instead, all that is required is that use of a "famous" mark by a third party causes the dilution of the "distinctive quality" of the mark. Further clarification of the federal dilution cause of action is found in the following subsections:

However, the Act makes clear that certain actions will not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use (such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act.

1.a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

2.a work specially ordered or commissioned for use
as a contribution to a collective work,
as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
as a translation,
as a supplementary work,
as a compilation,
as an instructional text,
as a test,
as answer material for a test,
or as an atlas,

but even then only if the parties agree in writing that the work is a work made for hire.

Clinton and Blair can make any statments that wish about releasing public research. Writing an executive order changing patent law would undoubtedly become cannon fodder in Congress and the Supreme Court since patent law is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations 37 CFR.

One way public institutions could fight back would be by refusing to collaborate with private companies. Sounds crude but it would force the company to risk spending extra research dollars on somthing that may not be patentable. As it stands I think they are trying to get somthing for nothing by being the first to produce the entire database and calling it a unique piece of art.

I am relieved that Linus is taken steps to protect the Linux trademark so that it is not being misrepresented. Can you imagine the damage it would do to the credibility of Linux, and the open source movement in general, if the only information that someone found on Linux was incorrect because somebody threw up a domain with the word Linux in it to try to catch the ipo craze like LinuxOne has?

I'd trust Linus to keep himself in check in regards to the fairness with which he applies trademark restrictions more than many other huge companies. Have some faith.

- tokengeekgrrl

Meanwhile, the BitLaw site is a good source of info on software patents (and standard ones too.)

(I should probably spend some time to read it more carefully myself :-))

Regards, Ralph.

Unfortunately, many of the patents related to the internet are very new and have not been fully tested in the courts. This legal wrangling is just beginning and will continue to occur for the next few years.

Note: I'm not saying the USPTO is guilt-free in all of this mess. BTW, a good source of legal info about the internet is bitlaw; peruse this site if this kind of stuff interests you.

Well, I don't know where you get your information, but it is perfectly legal for an individual to make copies of digital recordings for personal, non-commercial use (assuming the original recording was obtained legally). http://www.bitlaw.com/source/17usc/100 8.html even indicates this ("... or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."). The obvious difference in this case is that, in the case of some DJs, this is a commercial use. Thus the recording industry's magnanimous offer.

logan

The site is called "BitLaw" and it focuses on law and technology (US only).

I was reading these just before this story popped up.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#linkin g
http://www.bitlaw.com/links/articles.html#Internet
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#lo
http://www.bitlaw.com/hot/totalnews.html

Here's why I was reading about this:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.co m/copyright.html

And for more fun, view the source of this one:
(extracted from a frameset)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4446/con tent.html

I was reading these just before this story popped up.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#linkin g
http://www.bitlaw.com/links/articles.html#Internet
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#lo
http://www.bitlaw.com/hot/totalnews.html

Here's why I was reading about this:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.co m/copyright.html

And for more fun, view the source of this one:
(extracted from a frameset)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4446/con tent.html

I was reading these just before this story popped up.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#linkin g
http://www.bitlaw.com/links/articles.html#Internet
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#lo
http://www.bitlaw.com/hot/totalnews.html

Here's why I was reading about this:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.co m/copyright.html

And for more fun, view the source of this one:
(extracted from a frameset)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4446/con tent.html

I was reading these just before this story popped up.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#linkin g
http://www.bitlaw.com/links/articles.html#Internet
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#lo
http://www.bitlaw.com/hot/totalnews.html

Here's why I was reading about this:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.co m/copyright.html

And for more fun, view the source of this one:
(extracted from a frameset)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4446/con tent.html

I was reading these just before this story popped up.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/index.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/linking.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/webpage.html#linkin g
http://www.bitlaw.com/links/articles.html#Internet
http://www.patents.com/weblaw.sht#lo
http://www.bitlaw.com/hot/totalnews.html

Here's why I was reading about this:
http://libertyonline.hypermall.co m/copyright.html

And for more fun, view the source of this one:
(extracted from a frameset)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/4446/con tent.html

I've been reading all sorts of things trying to make up my mind about the nature of intellectual property. One site about IP and computing is BitLaw; it has a lot articles, links, etc. offering different arguements pro and con.

One article that is similar is here. It may have been the same, I need to re-read.

Another article I'm reading is "Patents and Copyrights" by Ayn Rand, originally published in The Objectivist Newsletter (May 1964). She wrote some of the same points I've read from RMS. If you can, then find a copy of the original in the library; there have been problems with the accuracy of some reprints of her work, though not necessarily with this one.

Of course, everyone here knows where GNU is; I'm reading their arguments too.



--

Can anyone claim a trademark on any term or phrase even if there is a registered trademark holder for the same term or phrase?

See http://www.bitlaw.com/trademark/index.ht ml .