Slashdot Mirror

You're correct. Trademarks need to be actively defended, lest, among other things, they become genericized. This is absolutely not the case with copyrights, which can be selectively enforced.

On the other hand, laches could apply to copyright under certain circumstances (see this example), but that's a different story.

There are quite a few countries who's culture is substantially different from the United States in which bribery is considered standard business practice. If you dont bribe an official in one of those countries, you dont get anything done.

No doubt true, but what's standard business practices today may not be the same tomorrow. Banking secrecy laws in countries like Switzerland, for example, have long been considered inviolate, but that's hardly the case today, is it? Chances are good that even more changes are coming.

As for corruption, I'd suggest that the choices made by businesses are just that: choices. You can debate their relative merits and/or provide rationalisations, but ultimately, those choices remain subject to law. The overarching issue, then, becomes one of enforcement.

For those who aren't news junkies or C-SPAN fans, the following, taken from a randomly selected link, may offer some insight as to the direction the new administration may be headed:

To the extent there is a shift in prosecutorial priorities by the new administration, it is likely that this shift will not be felt in 2009. This is largely because the current leaders of DOJ, SEC and FBI already have declared their intention to step up FCPA enforcement in 2009. For example, DOJ recently announced that it expects the trend of increased enforcement to increase in 2009, "given the significant number of matters that we have under investigation. The number of individual prosecutions has risen, and that is not an accident. It is our view that to have a credible deterrent effect, people have to go to jail. People have to be prosecuted where appropriate. This is a federal crime, it's not fun and games." 54/ Federal agencies such as the FBI have budgeted increased expenditures for FCPA enforcement in 2009. 55/ If there is relief in sight from the new administration, it is not readily apparent for 2009.

The 9th Circuit is legal precedent, at least for cases within the 9th Circuit.... But here you go.

Some links, many of which are not from the 9th:
http://www.iphonereal.com/iphone_news/200808/08-11492.html
http://www.uslaw.com/library/Legal_Research/Oregon_9th_Circ_Mandatory_Arbitration_Unconscionable.php?item=221171
http://www.thisistech.com/2008/01/25/class-actions-t-mobiles-mandatory-arbitration-clause-ruled-unconscionable-lawsuits/
http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/Apr_02_2007/cour.html
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2007/omel051507.htm
http://www.calbizlit.com/cal_biz_lit/2007/09/how-to-get-out-.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200103/ai_n8951872
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-appellate-decisions/8133987-1.html
http://www.stephenmmurphy.com/pdfs/Hancock_article.pdf
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/3rd-Circuit-Deals-Blow-to-law-14460950.html
http://kruismediation.com/cgi-bin/adrcases.cgi?case=ADR20071031.htm
http://www.justanswer.com/questions/16oig-wisconsin-courts-interpret-term
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/11/prweb1556074.htm
http://www.chicagobusinesslitigationlawyerblog.com/2008/10/chicago_federal_district_court_1.html
http://www.rtoonline.com/Content/Article/Aug_06/NewJerseyBindingArbitration081106.asp

In the US we have some pretty messed up overtime laws:

"C. Professional Exemption Standard Test

Under the new regulations, the learned professional employee exemption applies if:

1. The employee is paid on a salary or fee basis of at least $455 a week;

2. The employee's primary duty consists of performing work requiring advanced knowledge defined as work that is predominantly intellectual in character and that includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;

3. The advanced knowledge is in a field of science or learning; and

4. Such advanced knowledge is customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction."

http://www.constructionweblinks.com/Resources/Industry_Reports__Newsletters/Sep_13_2004/newf.html

CAD is hardly niche. AutoDesk (makers of AutoCAD) made $1 billion in profits last year.

Take the US Construction industry, 4.8 percent of the U.S. GDP. That's $1.1 trillion. Now figure that most architectural firms I know (I'm an architect) have a copy for every intern, drafter and architect they have. That's a ballpark of 113,000 people. The same then goes for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural, civil, landscape architect, and survey design professions. Also, most owners have a facilities department, they all use AutoCAD. Nearly all larger contractors have a copy, as well as most smaller specialty shops like cabinet makers, hardware manufacturers, etc. Throw in all the units at colleges and universities for the students in these professions to use. This is just the construction industry! We haven't even counted industries like automotive (not just cars, think parts), transportation, aerospace, electronics, toys, pharmaceutical equipment, and whatever else I forgot.

Free Software versions are not around, but there is a huge market for CAD software. It's not easy, it's not shiney...and it's not niche.

There was a case in Texas, Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International that held that there is no copyright in laws. In Bender v. West West claimed copyright on pagination, but the case was never fully dicided as they struck a deal to avoid the question. But, most of the copyright claim was stricken.

Now, the terms of use is a different stury and may restrict the use of the information gathered from the site.

I am not the grandparent poster, but hey, it's an open forum...

The laws I believe the grandparent poster is referring to are copyrighted building codes.

As far as legislators not being able to read a bill before voting for or against it, well, that is up to the leadership of the legislature. They set the schedule, and decide when a vote occurs. In a few cases, such as the so-called PATRIOT act and the recent omnibus spending bill, the bill was introduced and voted upon without time being given for the legislators to read the contents of the bill. Sometimes things get snuck in.

Anyway, the real killer feature of OOo is lack of concerns over license compliance (for users, I mean, not developers; but that's an interesting distinction to need to make considering that license compliance with MS Office unambiguously refers to end-users). In a reasonably sizeable corporate office software license compliance is enough of a concern to have created a burgeoning market for compliance tracking and auditing tools.

In fact, I believe you'll soon have a new executive level CxO designation: CLO -- Chief Licensing Officer. This person's job is to oversee the department in charge not of installation, acquisition, maintenance, training, selection of software but merely of adhering to license terms. The impetus will be to avoid draconian (or has it progressed to Machevellian yet?) BSA audits carried out by warrant-holding sherrifs. Think I'm kidding?

With Open Source there are many benefits. One that cannot be denied is the total elimination of license management and compliance. This is true on both sides of the software equation -- producers and users. Imagine how much better MS Office would be if MSFT didn't have its brightest minds inventing ways to stop the software from working (XP Activation being only the latest incarnation; now you know the great advantage OOo has over MS Office -- it doesn't have to delay waiting for the Activation team to finish its work.) Anyone who's had to track licenses for a large installation knows the headache on the user side.

Remember, one violation per the BSA's standard (i.e., not just the "license" but the original invoice is also required to establish that you are not a THIEVING PIRATE!) can cost you not only a year's worth of milk money (up to $150,000 or more) but also your freedom (up to 5 years in the federal pokey with Bubba, the federal poker). That's a big price to pay for making an "extra" copy of MS Office for Mr. Jones' take-home laptop, isn't it? With proprietary software it doesn't take much to ruin your day.

Don't forget to add the potential for fines and/or prison as well as the overhead needed to maintain license compliance records to avoid them into the TCO equation.

No, Im not kidding.

There _was_ someone who tried to fight this by posting the laws online, but I am unsure what happened.

I'm pretty sure you're talking about building codes being copyrighted even after enacted into law. Some links regarding this:

construction works article

slashdot article

A search on the Supreme Court's site seems to have the latest activity on June 27, 2003:

02-355 SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE V. VEECK, PETER The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

As far as I can tell, this means that they declined to hear the case, leaving the ruling of the lower court (5th Circuit Court of Appeals) stand, which was to rule in favor of Peter Veeck for posting the building code online.

Even so, while they'll have a much harder time copyrighting error codes, rather than complex building codes, there's no clear precendent you can point to and outright dismiss the claim.

How about this one? (Especially when the code becomes part of the law.)

If this is the case, would not making the code part of a law free it from copyright?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether building codes, once enacted into law, retain copyright protection. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the issue came after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that building codes, when enacted into law, could not be copyrighted.

The Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc. (SBCCI) is a non-profit organization that develops and promulgates model building codes and then encourages local governments to enact the codes into law by reference. Rather than charge local governments a fee for the right to adopt its model building codes, SBCCI asserts a copyright by which it has the exclusive right to publish the codes or license their reproduction and publication.

The case involved building codes in Texas. Don't know how/if the SC decided on it.

Some googling around finds:

* Re: "Double" Licenses--enforceability of shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses

* WASHINGTON COURT OF APPEALS UPHOLDS ENFORCABILITY OF "SHRINK-WRAP" SOFTWARE LICENSES

* Shrink-wrap software licenses upheld

* Contractor Denied Recovery for $1.95 Million Bidding Error Caused by Allegedly Defective Software

* CPT's Page on the Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licenses

* ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3D 1447 (7th Cir., June 20, 1996). This
phone directory data case is important because it validates the legality of
"shrink wrap" software licenses for the first time. This case suggests that
similar "on screen acceptance" licenses, now commonly used on the Internet,
may also be upheld as legal someday. The phone directory database at issue
in this case was not protected by copyright, but was protected by contract.
So the person who published ProCD's phone directories on the Internet was
found to have breached the shrink wrap license agreement that came with the
software.

* In Bowers v. Baystate Technologies Inc., 64 USPQ2d 1065 (CA FC 2002), the Federal Circuit has upheld a contractual no-reverse engineering restriction in an agreement between two parties in a software license that was characterized by the court as shrink wrap.

IANAL either, but a contract can be found to be unenforceable if it is against public policy. On the downside, you'd still have to go to court to prove that enforcement would be contrary to the public good.