Slashdot Mirror

(I assume you meant 5th Amendment, not 4th Amendment -- the person who started this thread used the wrong subject.)

If you read the link that I provided:
http://rychlicki.net/inne/201_Fed.Appx.430.pdf
and search for "Fifth Amendment", you'll find the section where Josh Wolf raised it as a defense and the judge rejected it.

Josh Wolf basically tried this argument and it failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Wolf_(journalist)
http://rychlicki.net/inne/201_Fed.Appx.430.pdf

He witnessed some protesters vandalizing a police car, but there was never any claim that he himself had vandalized the police car. The government wanted his evidence against the protesters. He tried to invoke the Fifth. The judge rejected it, saying Wolf had no reasonable basis for believing that he could incriminate himself in his testimony, so he had no right to remain silent, and he went to jail because he wouldn't talk.

This is what seemed absurd to me -- that if there was any chance he had been involved in torching the car, he could have pled the Fifth and remained silent and not gotten in trouble! But since it was completely established that he was innocent, he was essentially punished for that by being sent to jail for remaining silent. That's the point I made in the second article:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/09/09/136255/the-reporters-fifth-amendment-paradox

The Polish Copyright law provides such payment for all electronic devices (HDDs, Pendrives etc.) and media (DVD, CD, DAT, etc.) which may be used for digital copying. But because of such regulation there is an article 23 of the Copyright law, which has very broad definition for pesonal use of digital works (movies, music, _but_ computer programmes are excluded). It means that you may download (and only download, you can not distrubiute it, sell it) and burn such movies, music and any other digitalized work (as I wrote earlier - computer programs are excluded). The payment goes to organizations for collective management of copyrights (lets say very similiar to RIAA and others). Such organization distribute money between authors, producers etc.

TR
http://www.rychlicki.net/

I prepared a small legal research. It is based on facts how this legal act was adopted during Irish presidency. It is not finished yet, but may be worth reading for You.
TR
www.rychlicki.net

I prepared a small legal research. It is based on facts how this legal act was adopted during Irish presidency. It is not finished yet, but may be worth reading for You.
TR
www.rychlicki.net

Hello
I do not like this "empty" academic talks about is IP a real term for copyright, patents etc. or it is not. This term is in use and there is no need to discuss about it, unless You are a law professor and got a lot of free time to spent for such polemics ;) Yes it covers copyrights and industrial property rights (industrial property term was taken from French law doctrine and covers patents, utility designs, industrial designs trade marks, geographical indications etc. depends on which legal system we talk).
Anyway. Each country got different patent law and rules about to become a lawyer at all. Generaly speaking in USA to become a lawyer You have to be educated in a law school (it was not needed 150 yrs ago. ;) and You need to pass a bar exam (each state proviedes its own bar ex. but all are unified by American Bar Ass. rules). To become a patent attorney You need to pass USPTO exam. There are different positions for example You can be a patent examiner and there is no need to have law education.
You as an inventor can apply for a patent or a design for yourself at USPTO. Its easy. Of course they suggest You to take an advice of a PA to avoid mistakes.
ABA rules statue that You have to be a legal advisor (lawyer, patent attorney) in the field You are specialised.
For more details check USPTO web page and American Bar Ass. web page.
Hope I help You a little.
Tomasz Rychlicki
www.rychlicki.net

Well
We got The EPC (European Patent Convention to be specific: CONVENTION ON THE GRANT OF EUROPEAN PATENTS [EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION] of 5 October 1973 with later amendments) but it is not European Union law per se. It's intergovernmental treaty. EPO as European Patent Organization and its Administrative Body EPO (European Patent Office) are "responsible" for granting about 30k patents which covers so called software inventions.
This draft of Directive about CII was intended to standarize the law inside EU member states and (imho) going further prepare us for the internal regulation about "software patents".
Have a nice day!
Tom
www.rychlicki.net

Kids!
This article contains FUD. Polish govt. didnt withdraw its opposition! An Author of this "lame" article did not have any official statement from PL Gov. So blame lame magazine for FUD :)
greetz!
Tom
www.rychlicki.net

Hello
First, I'm really sorry I won't cite full names of legal texts but it's not the point of this post. The Berne Convention or the Paris Convention do not cover so called software patents. This is the reason that big companies will start the lobbying for universal patent law treaty (administrated by WIPO imho, well there are some problems with such laws i.e. all countries should ratify this treaty etc.) with regulations about software patents.
The Directive about CII is one step forward for such regulation in EU. One step because it only standardizes internal member states legal systems. The best way is to adopt a regulation about computer/software patents (there are regulations about designs and trademarks in EU - part of industrial property law).
Prior art doctrine in patent law is very good idea. But the problem with patents is that You need a court or patent office to invalidate a "fake patent". And as we all know court actions or oppositions in patent offices may costs too much. SMEs sometimes can not afford such action. Thats one of many problems about so called "patent monopoly".
Have nice day!
Tom
www.rychlicki.net

This info is from yesterday. Slashdot post is very late.
Greetz
Tomasz Rychlicki
http://www.rychlicki.net/en-index.php