Slashdot Mirror

And what about network services (such as webpages)?

If you send back GPL'd bits to the client, then that's 'distribution'. If the GPL software is merely a tool on the backend that send back content you wrote, without including GPL'd libraries, then that's 'use'. Fairly simple. Follow the bits. A static web page has an implied license to copy for stuff like browsing, web proxies, web search engines, etc. However, hosting others' copyright works yourself is not allowed withour permission, though it gets murky with "fair use" (Google cache, Slasdhot mirrors, etc). This page just scratches the surface: Copyright on the Internet

The patent officer in 1899 didn't resign because there was nothing left to invent.

Could somebody with more legal background than I have please write a HOWTO on submitting prior art?

Sorry to reply to my own post . . . when, oh, when will we get the ability to edit our posts?

Anyway -- it seems someone has already written a Prior Art HOWTO, as I would have discovered had I thought to run it through Google before hitting the "Submit" button.

I got these sites from:
http://door.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rank_biblio.html

A message from stanford to US News to stop publishing their shit:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/presiden t/speeches/961206gcfallow.html http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/presiden t/speeches/970418rankings.html

This an article from an education consultant:
http://www.washingtonparent.com/articles/9712/rank ings.htm

This article goes over the false assumptions about rankings:
http://www.sls.lib.il.us/reference/por/features/99 /collrank.html

A page from petersons declaring college rankings irresponsible:
http://www.petersons.com/about/ranking.html A page on the ucla server giving tips on choosing a university:
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/mm/cc/info/choosing/eval .html

Articles from the chronicle:
http://chronicle.com/free/v44/i02/02a06701.htm http://chronicle.com/free/v44/i11/11a00101.htm

Article from columbia:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/vying.h tm

Slate articles:
http://slate.msn.com/id/34027/ http://slate.msn.com/id/34278/

A law school's article on rankings:
http://www.fplc.edu/tfield/usnwr.htm

A law school association to ask to stop ranking:
http://www.aals.org/ranknews.html http://www.aals.org/validity.html

Law school admission counsel:
http://www.lsac.org/LSAC.asp?url=lsac/deans-speak- out-rankings.asp

AMU's response to their high ranking:
http://www.tamu.edu/new/vision/where.html

There is no law in any country that affects e-mail with regard to who actually owns it. You're "theory" (at best) is completely without merit. Since these people bought the domain, it is their right to do whatever they want with the incoming mail.

You are horribly wrong.

The Copyright Act of 1976 provides that copyright ownership "vests initially in the author or authors of the work." 17 U.S.C. s 201(a). As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection. s 102.

The copyright is cannot be enforced. First of all, it requires that Magnum Opus copyright all combinations of tone lengths for all combinations. In other words, because Magnum Opus has copyrighted a phone number (555-1212) in chordal quarter notes, all I have to do is play a half note for the last (or first or third... ) digit.

I still think it would be worth it to get at telemarketers. ("Would you like to buy life insurance?" "Sure, I'll have plenty of money after you pay me the $100,000 US for playing my symphony. You should've bought a performance license.")

On that note, does that mean that my email address can be copyrighted? Does that mean I can sue spammers for using my email address without permission?

Seriously, according to this page on the Franklin Pierce Law Center's website, the copyright is unenforcable on the face of it because it violates the "Fair Use" portion of copyright law. That part states:

Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.
Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)
Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The copyright is cannot be enforced. First of all, it requires that Magnum Opus copyright all combinations of tone lengths for all combinations. In other words, because Magnum Opus has copyrighted a phone number (555-1212) in chordal quarter notes, all I have to do is play a half note for the last (or first or third... ) digit.

I still think it would be worth it to get at telemarketers. ("Would you like to buy life insurance?" "Sure, I'll have plenty of money after you pay me the $100,000 US for playing my symphony. You should've bought a performance license.")

On that note, does that mean that my email address can be copyrighted? Does that mean I can sue spammers for using my email address without permission?

Seriously, according to this page on the Franklin Pierce Law Center's website, the copyright is unenforcable on the face of it because it violates the "Fair Use" portion of copyright law. That part states:

Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks.
Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)
Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Independent Creation is Permitted. A second work, identical to an earlier copyrighted work, does not infringe, if it is, in fact, independently created. While a well-known first work of a very unique or fanciful kind may make an independent creation defense difficult to believe, the problem may be more complicated with regard to some kinds of software. Assume that, code has been copied with slight variations from the original, and it is claimed that function dictated form."

Copyright for Computer Authors
© 1996-9 Franklin Pierce Law Center
Thomas G. Field, Jr.

A leukemia patient, John Moore, endured over a dozen "treatment" sessions with his physician, David Golde. These sessions consisted of the removal of his cellular material. Turns out the University of California had worked out a deal with his physician to pay at least 1/3 of a million dollars and rights to 75k shares of stock, in exchange for exclusive access to his research. Dr. Golde even started paying for Moore's travel and accomodations. At this point, Moore became suspicious, and asked about the commerical potential of his cells. After vague answers, he withdrew consent for his cells to be used in research, causing Golde to flip out.

Full details are here.

..... the PTO determines whether or not the invention is protectible (allowable subject matter) and new (novel and non-obvious).

One of the major issues which has everyone up in arms is the ability for companies in today's environment to patent genes as soon as they isolate them. If they get there before the Genome Project, they can patent the genes and use them to extract royalties, in the event that researchers (who they don't pay for) discover a use for the gene. See this article for just one example. Before you think they did hard work to get large profits off of this gene, listen to the spin-doctoring:

"It was one of many genes that we found very early in our discovery program. Experiments confirmed that the CCR5 receptor played a key role in the biology of the immune system and as an AIDS virus receptor."

There is some IP which is worth protecting: that which is demonstrably detrimental to being released into the public. This IP would include certain information being held by those protecting our country, and other information which would hurt individuals or their rights. As much as some here don't like it, there is information which should be held tightly, including IP held by some commonly bashed organizations, since the information is being used for your benefit. Information that is tightly held only because it benefits some multi-billion dollar corporation, and could benefit everyone if had royalty-free, on the other hand, shouldn't be patentable in the first place.

I think there should be a moritorium on patents issued for gene isolation. Even if a private firm isolates a gene, they are doing research which will eventually be duplicated by the Genome Project, and that information should be released into the public domain, license-free. If they want to aid the cause, that's fine, go get a government grant. If they want to develop subsidiary products based on a particular gene, that's OK too. Conventional products and procedures which are limited by, among other things, ingredients and physical restrictions, such as complicated and novel processing requirements, are completely covered by today's patent process. IP, on the other hand, should be free for everyone.

For more information about IP in the gene patent area, check out these links:
Property Rights and Ownership
Genome Research and Traditional Intellectual Property Protection

Dave Blau

IANAL (who is?), but copyright law isn't that simple. Yes, loss of profit is considered when deciding how much the plaintiff is entitled to. However, profit on the part of the offender is also considered. So if a commercial company ripped off some of your GPL'd code and made money off of it, you could get money from them. More info about copyright damages.

Also, even if you aren't awarded damages, the infringer has to stop distributing the product derived from your code (until they get all of your code out of it), which provides a strong incentive for software companies to not "pirate" GPL'd code. Even if they thought they could eventually win in court (which I hope they couldn't), the possibility of an injunction against the distribution of their product would likely deter them from trying it. Does this sound right to other people who are familiar with copyright law?

There is a readable, if lengthy, summary of how patent law came to be the way it is at Franklin Pierece law school.