Slashdot Mirror

It is also available on PACER, which may be more complete, but there is a per-page access fee involved.

Go to the bottom for the Order Granting Summary Judgment.

Herlong is an excellent judge, I'm had a few cases in front of him. Good for the blogger. I hate other attorneys who treat opposing parties like this. It gives us all an even worse name.

Oh, that's not true. You can always run AmigaOS 4.0 on it.

Just as soon as Amiga Inc. and Hyperion Entertainment (the people who wrote OS 4) can stop suing each other for five minutes.

Amiga Inc. need to go. They've done nothing but harm the platform.

...into international waters. You don't have to get permission to leave the planet from there...

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you:
Carter v. Kentucky

In sum, this Motion seeks an Order from this Court against TD AMERITRADE, Inc. that: ... 8. Requires TD AMERITRADE, Inc. to prominently disclose in its Privacy Statement and in emails or other individual disclosures to its accountholders: ALERT: AMERITRADE'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS ARE NOT NECESSARILY SECURE AND WE CANNOT ASSURE THE SECURITY OF YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION. THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT SOME ACCOUNTHOLDERS' EMAIL ADDRESSES HAVE LEAKED FROM AMERITRADE'S COMPUTER SYSTEMS TO SPAMMERS. AMERITRADE HAS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION INTO THIS SITUATION. YOUR NAME, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, AND YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS MAY HAVE BEEN LEAKED AS WELL. We recommend that you place a fraud alert on your credit file. A fraud alert tells creditors to contact you before they open any new accounts or change your existing accounts. Call any one of the three major credit bureaus. As soon as one credit bureau confirms your fraud alert, the others are notified to place fraud alerts. All three credit reports will be sent to you, free of charge, for your review. You can contact Equifax (800-685-1111), Experian (888-397-3742), or TransUnionCorp (800-680-7289). Even if you do not find any suspicious activity on your initial credit reports, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recommends that you check your credit reports periodically. Victim information sometimes is held for use or shared among a group of thieves at different times. Checking your credit reports periodically can help you spot problems and address them quickly. If you find suspicious activity on your credit reports or have reason to believe your information is being misused, call [insert contact information for law enforcement] and file a police report. Get a copy of the report; many creditors want the information it contains to absolve you of the fraudulent debts. You also should file a complaint with the FTC at www.consumer.gov/idtheft or at 1-877-ID-THEFT (877-438-4338). Your complaint will be added to the FTC's Identity Theft Data Clearinghouse, where it will be accessible to law enforcers for their investigations. You can obtain a copy of Take Charge: Fighting Back Against Identity Theft, a comprehensive guide from the FTC to help you guard against and deal with identity theft at: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/idtheft/idt04.htm

Here is a U.S. supreme court decision holding that committee stuffing in standardization organizations is fundamentally different from lobbying.

From the decision: "Petitioner, and others concerned about the safety or competitive threat of polyvinyl chloride conduit, can, with full antitrust immunity, engage in concerted efforts to influence those governments through direct lobbying, publicity campaigns, and other traditional avenues of political expression. To the extent state and local governments are more difficult to persuade through these other avenues, that no doubt reflects their preference for and confidence in the nonpartisan consensus process that petitioner has undermined. Petitioner remains free to take advantage of the forum provided by the standard-setting process by presenting and vigorously arguing accurate scientific evidence before a nonpartisan private standard-setting body.[Footnote 13] And petitioner can avoid the strictures of the private standard-setting process by attempting to influence legislatures through other forums. What petitioner may not do (without exposing itself to possible antitrust liability for direct injuries) is bias the process by, as in this case, stacking the private standard-setting body with decisionmakers sharing their economic interest in restraining competition."

As pointed out in this U.S. supreme court decision, "Agreement on a product standard is, after all, implicitly an agreement not to manufacture, distribute, or purchase certain types of products." In the case of OOXML, the agreement is primarily about not manufacturing, distributing or puchasing products relying on the truly open document format standard ODF.

Really it is only acceptable for the standardization of OOXML to proceed if OOXML is first revised to make it "map ODF", see this article for a precise definition and detailed argument.

One can always try to hold the roads responsible.

Let us not forget that Acer's purchase of Gateway will more then likely include Amiga Developement LLC which is the fileholder for Amiga patents. So Acer will now hold all licensing of those patents to Amiga Inc which is in a death match against Hyperion who was doing OS4. Yes, I know, Amiga Inc bought the code, the trademarks, existing hardware but not the patents. Gateway only licensed that to Amiga Inc.

So the Amiga curse is in full speed and Acer is now doomed.

dammy
http://www.aros.org/
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-wawdce/case _no-2:2007cv00631/case_id-143245/

Thanks for the link.

I was seeking who were "Parallel Processing Corp." (IP corp or are they actually producing something ?) but having such a generic name doesn't help,
and searching for
"parallel processing corp" / "parallel processing corporation" only gives links related to this lawsuit.

I found the filing, and a short but interesting explanation here

Also when searching for "parallel processing" "newport beach", I found the related announcement of Acacia Technologies.

There also seems to be quite a few events about parallel processing in Newport Beach, like the Seventh International Parallel Processing Symposium (April 13-16, 1993)

So has someone a clue about that "Parallel Processor Corp." ?

This headline is inflammatory and misleading.

What this does is basically set up the same situation that already has happened once.

In 1979, after the fall of the Pahlavi government in Iran, banks started putting attachments on Iranian property and assets in the United States. One of the creditors to the Iranians was a company called Dames & Moore, who were (ironically enough) working on an Iranian nuclear power plant.

As part of the settlement agreement that released the US hostages, the Carter Administration agreed to nullify all attachments and settle all disputes through a joint US-Iranian tribunal with the assets being held in escrow by the Bank of England. Dames & Moore sued the Carter Administration, arguing that the nullification of those attachments was a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The Supreme Court, in Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) disagreed in an 8-1 decision.

Because the President's action in nullifying the attachments and ordering the transfer of the assets was taken pursuant to specific congressional authorization, it is "supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it." Youngstown, 343 U.S., at 637 (Jackson, J., concurring). Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that petitioner has sustained that heavy burden. A contrary ruling would mean that the Federal Government as a whole lacked the power exercised by the President, see id., at 636-637, and that we are not prepared to say.

The IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) gives the President the right to seize property in cases of emergency like a war or the Iranian hostage crisis. There's no Fifth Amendment violation because there has already been due process -- Congress already passed the IEEPA and gave the President the power to do this. Then-Justice Rehnquist's citation to Youngstown is important here, because Youngstown is the case which states when a President should be broadly allowed to act and when he or she should be constrained. The most deference is given in cases where a President is acting in accordance with Congress, because two branches of government have already agreed.

President Bush is following the IEEPA, just applying it more specifically to Iraq. It has already been invoked for al-Qaeda in an Executive Order on September 17, 2001. Basically, if the Fifth Amendment was "overturned", it was overturned by the IEEPA, not by this Executive Order.

Furthermore, a US citizen or resident alien would still have the right to judicial remedy against any attachment under the Fifth. They might not win unless the courts determine that there is no rational basis for such a seizure, but they have the remedy nonetheless. (As did Dames & Moore back then.)

In short, the Fifth does not prevent the government from seizing property, it prevents the government from seizing property without due process. Due process was given when Congress and the President signed the IEEPA -- a bill that was made law long before President Bush came into office. Someone who has rights under the Constitution still have the right to judicially combat any seizure.

This is an hysterical argument being made by someone who has no understanding of law. This kind of shameless trolling doesn't belong on Slashdot -- if I wanted to read hysterical left-wing rants, I'd start reading Digg...

Wasn't msft recently sued for $1.5B for violating (probably accidently) some submarine patent for some media format?

Also, ripped from investorsvillage.com post:

As has been noted on Slashdot and elsewhere Microsoft has been sued for patent infringement by Vertical Computer Systems. According to the April press release "Microsoft's .NET system violates a patent Vertical Systems filed in 1999, and awarded in 2004, covering "a system and method for generating computer applications in an arbitrary object framework."

Patent is here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F
srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,826,744.PN.&OS=PN/6, 826,744&RS=PN/6,826,744

Dockets here for those with PACER access:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txedce/case _no-2:2007cv00144/case_id-102638/
( If someone with PACER access could make the complaint and MSFT response available...)

The suit was filed on April 18,2007.
The KSR v Teleflex decision affecting the determination of obviousness was on April 30, 2007.

Microsoft is in an interesting position when defending itself against software patents. What may now prove to be their best defense could set precedents that would seriously undermine their own patent portfolio. Settling rather than invalidating a patent that could be invalidated would just encourage more suits.

Recently shills for VCS (from th Y! VCSY.OB board) have popped up on the Y! MSFT board screaming that a settlement is almost a done deal with "a few details to work out". VCSY.ob stock is in the the two cent range. There have been a number of posts mocking MSFT's response to the complaint, including claiming the response has no defense of obviousness.

There seems to be no media coverage of the suit. I don't recall seeing anything about it on Groklaw. It could be an interesting case, not for the merits, but for how Microsoft deals with it.

http://news.justia.com/cases/connectu-facebook/337 138/

However, it seems like Facebook's suit is more of a leverage to get the first case dismissed. Facebook is saying ConnectU damaged them somehow, but when asked, Facebook said they couldn't identify what the damages were. This is from a company worth billions, and rejected a $1 billion buy out offer.

And the defendent list includes new people, Winston Williams, Pacific Northwest Software, Wayne Chang, David Gucwa.

Let the battle of the titans begin!

Right, except that it's the establishment, not the performer, that's liable for the infringement. (This is an old rule which, I think rightly, recognizes that it's the establishment that's making the money and that one shouldn't go after the poor musician.) The case that comes to mind is Herbert v. Shanley, which was ASCAP's first Supreme Court case back in 1917:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/242/591/case.html

Not only was the sham license (like the one in this picture) on records and books invalidated. The Supreme Court also invalidated restrictive licenses on the machines (see MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO., at 243 U.S. 502 (1917) http://supreme.justia.com/us/243/502/case.html ) These types of restrictive licenses were tried by industry after industry in the 20th century. The courts repeatedly tossed them out as incompatible with the First Sale Doctrine (copyright) or the Doctrine of Alienation (same thing, for patent) or as abuse/misuse of the copyright or patent, or as incompatible with the Fair Use Doctrine (copyright). (Google the terms for more details on these doctrines...) It wasn't until 1995 that the courts accepted the idea of a binding mass-market copyright license (ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) at http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.h tml ) The primary statute written to validate this judicial stretch was the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, which got a lot of press but was rejected in 48/50 states (Virginia and Maryland passed it, everyone else bounced it). A replacement approach is being drafted by the American Law Institute (Principles of the Law of Software Contracts) (contact information at http://www.ali.org/ali/PP16.asp) and these Principles are unlikely to provide a blanket acceptance of all terms in the typical EULA.

They don't have to. It's already illegal to use one for shoplifting in Minnesota, and I assume that most states have similar laws. All they have to do when they find one in your pocket is accuse you of trying to shoplift. Not only is the device itself pretty strong evidence, but you get 3 bonus years in jail if you're convicted.

Only because it is a natural extension of the time shifting right. What makes broadcast (or cable, including premium cable) so different that the rights deemed fair with them are not deemed fair with anything else?

You might want to read John Paul Stevens decision in Sony v. Universal, specifically footnote 2 which reads, "This case involves only the home recording for home use of television programs broadcast free over the airwaves. No issue is raised concerning cable or pay television, or the sharing or trading of tapes."

The Court ruled that time-shifted viewing of programs on advertiser-supported broadcasting imposes no harm to the rights holders of those programs. Because time shifting enables advertisers to reach additional viewers, broadcasters are thus able to charge more for these larger audiences. Copyright holders should thus be able to capture some of this additional revenue by charging a higher rights fee to the broadcaster. So, in theory, the rights holders benefit financially from time-shifting. Without financial harm to the rights holders, it's tough to argue against a "fair-use" right for the time-shifting viewer.

Pay television was still in its childhood in 1984 when Sony v. Universal was handed down. Stevens excluded pay television because it wasn't so obvious whether the rights holders were harmed by your taping a movie off HBO. Time-shifted viewing of a movie doesn't increase either HBO's revenues or the revenues of the movie's copyright owner, but it does offer a potential for harm if you share that movie cassette with someone else. In practice, of course, the studios never asked that the pay-TV part of the decision be reconsidered. Once the Court ruled that video recorders could be sold legally in the US, the case was lost.

Like all fair-use cases, there is no guaranteed "time-shifting right." Fair-use is a right that must be balanced against the rights of the copyright owner. In this case Stevens decided that the studios failed to show sufficient harm to restrict the public's right to time-shift advertiser-supported broadcast programming.

As an aside, this case also raised what Stevens then called a "novel" legal argument, namely that Sony's decision to market VCRs as devices designed to record televised copyrighted works itself constituted an act of "contributory infringement" which required the devices to be banned. While the Court ruled against the studios in 1984, they took the opposite view in the Grokster case a few years back. There the Court ruled that Grokster had engaged in contributory infringement by providing and encouraging the use of its software to exchange copyrighted works, and that the use of this sofware directly benefitted Grokster since it drove people to visit Grokster's advertiser-supported website.

Of course! If your invention is "novel" (and "non-obvious") in light of the predecessor invention and patent, you can patent the improvement. That was true 200 years ago, and is true today.

However, this fact doesn't allow you to use your improvement. Holding a patent on an improvement does not give you the right to use the base invention. It only gives you the right to stop others (including the inventor of the base invention) from using your improvement. Again - that concept has not changed in 200 years.

I understand your argument, though. You are asserting that until recently, patents were narrowly construed to cover your preferred embodiment - e.g., inventions that resemble the model submitted to the USPTO with the application.

But you are incorrect. The "doctrine of equivalents" is a very old concept that construes the patent as covering all "equivalents" - all inventions that don't fit the literal definition of the patented invention, but are still basically the same thing. In modern parlance (Graver Tank v. Linde Air Products (1950)), a patent covers all embodiments that "perform substantially the same function in substantially the same way to reach substantially the same result." But this concept long predates the 1950 case - Graver Tank hearkened back to Winans v. Denmead from 1855 - which cited the same concept as a long-standing principle.

In short: The doctrine of equivalents has been a mainstay of the U.S. patent system for well over 150 years. So it's incorrect to state that patents only covered the inventor's implementation - it has never been so.

- David Stein

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/22400-2 2413.html

Sure. The betamax case is here. Look for page 423 for a description of the two types of usage, time-shifting and library-building. Also look at the court's discussion of timeshifting as fair use, starting at around 447.

In any case, Betamax was concerned with copying, which is one of the 6 copyrights (see 17 U.S.C. 106). Here, the cable companies are also distributing copies to the public. That goes well beyond what Betamax found to be fair use.

Thus the crime of treason consists of two elements: adherence to the enemy; and rendering him aid and comfort. A citizen intellectually or emotionally may favor the enemy and harbor sympathies or convictions disloyal to this country's policy or interest, but so long as he commits no act of aid and comfort to the enemy, there is no treason. On the other hand, a citizen may take actions, which do aid and comfort the enemy- making a speech critical of the government or opposing its measures, profiteering, striking in defense plants or essential work, and the hundred other things which impair our cohesion and diminish our strength- but if there is no adherence to the enemy in this, if there is no intent to betray, there is no treason.

Having thus by definition made treason consist of something outward and visible and capable of direct proof, the framers turned to safeguarding procedures of trial and ordained that 'No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.' This repeats in procedural terms the concept that thoughts and attitudes alone cannot make a treason. It need not trouble us that we find so dominant a purpose emphasized in two different ways. But does the procedural requirement add some limitation not already present in the definition of the crime, and if so, what?

While to prove giving of aid and comfort would require the prosecution to show actions and deeds, if the Constitution stopped there, such acts could be inferred from circumstantial evidence. This the framers thought would not do. 41 So they added what in effect is a command that the overt acts must be established by direct evidence, and the direct testimony must be that of two witnesses instead of one. In this sense the overt act procedural provision adds something, and something important, to the definition.

This is Starks declaration. He's the expert the government hired. His declaration seems a little 'stark' (hehe) on proving he needs this information. Remember, it's the government's burden to show they need these documents.