Slashdot Mirror

Has anyone considered the legal ramifications of civil liability if the RIAA can be proved to have sued over nothing?

Maybe someone can tell me better, but in my limited knowledge dont they just check filenames and number of offending files? I would think this sets up a huge opportunity for a person to set-up this trade group.

First off I checked http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=search&state =31r9fc.1.1

None of the filenames are trademarked so no one needs worry about being sued for trademark infringement.
The Idea:
Ever gone duck hunting, or seen cartoons with it? One of the common ideas is to lure the ducks in by making them think things are as they appear. Perhaps with fake ducks.
Well I'm suggesting making fake ducks. Seeding a college network, or company network with spoof files. Now correct me if I'm wrong but my limited understanding of these share search engines they (RIAA) use is they look for filenames and filesize. Once they determain there are enough infinging (or so called) files they then notify a pencil pusher who starts the legal suing process.
No real investigation, as has been proved by some of the people that they have sued. (Not cost effective to them)
I'm sure that with all the coders and other people out there somthing like this could be done easily. Make a text document with the filename.mp3 of a new release and tracked theft title. Fill it with a message that states "If you checked this file you would see that it isnt real. Sue me, and expect a countersuit to cover harrassment, and my legal fees" Fill the rest with enough random hash to make up the appropriate filesize.
The first couple of times they start suing people with files like these, they are not only going to get laughed out of court. They may end up being forced by a judge to start utilizing proper evidenciary proceedings. That will just start to kill their search & sue efforts.
My idea, my two bits. Tell me what you think.

Like all property-based systems, though, this tends to mean that property coagulates in the hands of corporations of course, and, from this, Bad Things may ensue if the government doesn't act as a balance. In any good governmental system, the government must act to ensure that the interests of those who own a lot of property (intellectual or otherwise) don't outweigh the interests of those who don't. But if that doesn't happen, it's the fault of poor government, not of copyright as such.

I guess I see "poor government" as a guarantee, so the only way to guarantee that big corporations don't obliterate individual rights is by not giving these intelectual property rights in the first place.
And if you don't think it's already abused note that m$ applied for a patent on the IsNot operator...
I'd like someone to explain to me how this will foster more innovation.

Here's a patent the inventors got for this in 2003:

United States Patent: 6,581,375 - Apparatus and method for the recovery and purification of water from the exhaust gases of internal combustion engines

The inventor of the comb-over patented his work in 1977, and won the igNobel prize last year. I'm sure the comb-over technique operates in an optical frequency range in order to be effective.

I looked it up again. The patent is entitled "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document", and that's the way the claims seem to read, too.

So, invoking external applications that don't embed, or invoking built-in functionality, would seem to be OK. I believe this means invoking a built-in MPEG4 player would be fine, as would be Javascript/SVG animation. Furthermore, both of those do have clear prior art and probably weren't addressed in this lawsuit.

You can read the patent yourself.

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

For those that don't have quicktime installed:
Pic 1, Pic 2, Pic 3, Pic 4,
Pic 5, Pic 6, Pic 7, Pic 8,
Pic 9, Pic 10, Pic 11, Pic 12,

The nintendo d-pad hasn't changed since the Famicom, originally released in Japan in what, '83? Can you provide a link or at least tell what is patented?

US Patent 4,687,200 covers the D-pad, and it just expired last month, which was after Sony and Microsoft finalized the appearance of the PSP, PS3, and Xbox 360 game controllers.

They going to patent XML?
close...

Regarding the notion that Debian might not want to "have a trademark at all," they really don't have any choice, strictly speaking.

Of course Debian has a choice. Our mark is in fact registered with the USPTO, but we could always deliberately choose not to exercise our privileges under registration or common-law trademark. I.e., we can pretend there's no such thing as trademark law for us and let the chips fall where they may. We may reach a consensus that that's not a wise option, but it remains one nonethless. Many small businesses in the U.S. don't fool take effectively this approach, particularly if the name of their firm is mundane (think "Bob Smith's Tax Service").

Of course, R&D costs nothing, fabrication is free, paying employees for design and support is volunteer based, and filing the patents and copyrights by lawyers are all pro bono.

Copyrights are cheap around $30 per application and patents are roughly $650 per patent application (plust a $100-$150 filling fee) with an average $1,000 every 7 years to maintain... That might be exspensive to a small business but $5,000 or so for every patent for 17 years is a steal for a multi-million dollar company.

However, the Patent experts and full time lawyers they hire on cost an arm and a leg and have to be factored in.

Sources:

http://www.copyright.gov/register/sound.html

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/patents.h tm#PatentCost

It's all going to try and assassinate inventors of fuel-efficient vehicles
 
Those who modded this "funny" need to look at what happens to everyone who tries to get a motionless electric generator to market.

You're way off base. You don't seem to understand that this is a list of trademarks that have lapsed because their owners hadn't vigorously defended them. Why would you turn to the dictionary instead of conducting your own trademark search? Unless you're stupid, that is. Additionally, "ZIP code" was a trademark owned by the USPS.

God, you're so fucking stupid. The only thing worse than an arrogant prick is an arrogant prick, Nick, who's always wrong.
--
Sick of pompous windbags? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.

You're SO full of shit.

20050108591 - "A method includes adjusting the clock speed of a central processing unit (CPU) as a function of the output of a performance monitor forming part of an operating system controlling the CPU. The method can be implemented on battery powered devices and on non-battery powered devices."

So, your brilliant idea is to slow down a CPU to save power? Hmmm, I wonder who else might do that.

Your other patent app doesn't even show up in the system. You're either a fraud or you're insane. Either way, shut the fuck up.

By the way, I'm going to make sure that I use Google AND click on the ads as much as possible. Freak.

In the US there appear to be a bunch of trademark applications either related to Linux or using the phrase. The only one for "Linux" (stand-alone) appears to be a 1999 application for laundry detergent from a Swiss company. I'm not a lawyer or patent expert, but I gather other Slashdot readers may know more on the status/history of "Linux" trademarks here in the US, where the patent office often seems to approve applications without particularly thorough investigation or prior usage.

In the US there appear to be a bunch of trademark applications either related to Linux or using the phrase. The only one for "Linux" (stand-alone) appears to be a 1999 application for laundry detergent from a Swiss company. I'm not a lawyer or patent expert, but I gather other Slashdot readers may know more on the status/history of "Linux" trademarks here in the US, where the patent office often seems to approve applications without particularly thorough investigation or prior usage.

Assigning a trademark is not the same thing as registration...

The assignment you reference is Precision Research, Inc. assigning all of their ownership, rights, etc to Google.

What was assigned was the application, which is still in process.

See Google's GMAIL trademark application suspension:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78398233

According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, the "GMAIL" mark has been assigned to Google, who applied for the mark on April 2nd, 2004. The Trustees of the "Smith Trust", Shane Smith and Karen Griffith, applied for the same "GMAIL" trademark on April 3rd, 2004, one day after Google Inc. The "Smith Trust" has not been assigned the trademark by the US PTO, and the latest rejection of their application was June 11th, 2005.

Perhaps someone else can post the equivalent info from the UK?

See Google's GMAIL trademark assignment:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&s no=78395746
and the Smith Trust's application status: (rejected)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78395931

According to the US Patent and Trademark Office, the "GMAIL" mark has been assigned to Google, who applied for the mark on April 2nd, 2004. The Trustees of the "Smith Trust", Shane Smith and Karen Griffith, applied for the same "GMAIL" trademark on April 3rd, 2004, one day after Google Inc. The "Smith Trust" has not been assigned the trademark by the US PTO, and the latest rejection of their application was June 11th, 2005.

Perhaps someone else can post the equivalent info from the UK?

See Google's GMAIL trademark assignment:
http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=tm&s no=78395746
and the Smith Trust's application status: (rejected)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78395931

In US law (no claims about any other country, even though that is indeed at issue here), there are three factors that seem make this a valid claim:

1. The marks themselves are likely to confuse a consumer. Even if marks are quite different, but they may confuse someone because they sound or look similar, then there is a case for infringement. I can't name my carbonated cola Koke, even though two of the four letters in the mark have been altered, because it would clearly be intended to confuse a consumer. Red flag #1.

2. The marks would be used in the same international class--in this case, probably class 42, for scientific and technological services, research, design, computer software development services, etc. So if they're going after the same class of goods, that's another red flag.

3. They are in the same market--in this case, the internet. This is where IP (I know, I know) law gets interesting, because many of these internet-related issues haven't been worked out. While this wouldn't be much of a substantive claim if these were brick-and-mortar services in different cities, many consider the internet to be one market, and therefore a mark can only apply to one internet entity. This is dicey, but I think grounds for a claim of infringement, and a third red flag.

Now, what makes it additionally interesting is that, apparently, neither of these trademarks have been formally registered. They have been applied for, however, so we'll have to see what happens with those applications.

With common-law trademarks (unregistered), they are still protected by law, but only in those markets where they are used and asserted. So if I am in New York City, and I am selling WHAFRO pens, I can't get upset if someone sells WHAFRO pens in Philadelphia unless my mark was registered. If I had also been selling them in Boston and Philadelphia, and someone in Philadelphia started using my mark, I would have a claim. How this shakes out on the internet is, as I said, an unsettled question.
 
    This is actually interesting, but I think Google will actually lose this one if it's pursued.

google's gmail trademark application status

IRR's application status

In US law (no claims about any other country, even though that is indeed at issue here), there are three factors that seem make this a valid claim:

1. The marks themselves are likely to confuse a consumer. Even if marks are quite different, but they may confuse someone because they sound or look similar, then there is a case for infringement. I can't name my carbonated cola Koke, even though two of the four letters in the mark have been altered, because it would clearly be intended to confuse a consumer. Red flag #1.

2. The marks would be used in the same international class--in this case, probably class 42, for scientific and technological services, research, design, computer software development services, etc. So if they're going after the same class of goods, that's another red flag.

3. They are in the same market--in this case, the internet. This is where IP (I know, I know) law gets interesting, because many of these internet-related issues haven't been worked out. While this wouldn't be much of a substantive claim if these were brick-and-mortar services in different cities, many consider the internet to be one market, and therefore a mark can only apply to one internet entity. This is dicey, but I think grounds for a claim of infringement, and a third red flag.

Now, what makes it additionally interesting is that, apparently, neither of these trademarks have been formally registered. They have been applied for, however, so we'll have to see what happens with those applications.

With common-law trademarks (unregistered), they are still protected by law, but only in those markets where they are used and asserted. So if I am in New York City, and I am selling WHAFRO pens, I can't get upset if someone sells WHAFRO pens in Philadelphia unless my mark was registered. If I had also been selling them in Boston and Philadelphia, and someone in Philadelphia started using my mark, I would have a claim. How this shakes out on the internet is, as I said, an unsettled question.
 
    This is actually interesting, but I think Google will actually lose this one if it's pursued.

google's gmail trademark application status

IRR's application status

Actually, it sounds like they have a questionable claim here. I do not claim to be a European trademark attorney, however, if you look at the U.S. record system:

TESS S/N 78395931 for the word mark "gmail" is held by the Trustees of the Smith Trust Shane Smith and Karen Griffith, both citizens of the United Kingdom. The registration application was filed on April 3, 2004 and claims a first use in commerce of 20020528 (May 28, 2005).

TESS S/N 78395746 for the word mark "gmail" is held by Google. The registration application was filed on April 2, 2004 and claims a first use in commerce of 19980120 (Jan 20, 1998).

Interestingly TESS S/N 75629087 for the typed drawing "gmail" used to be held by a man named Milo Cripps. The registration application was filed on January 28, 1999 and claims a first use in commerce of 19980120 (Jan 20, 1998).

Neat coincidence. The records indicate that the mark was abandoned on Feb 18, 2000, but that does not necessarily mean that the applicant abandoned USE of the mark. Without knowing more, I cannot evaluate the claim. However, Google could very well have bought out Mr. Cripps business sometime prior to launching gmail, in which case their trademark priority will relate back to Mr. Cripps usage, which predates IIIR's usage.

Warning: link to TESS search, which may not work if it's dependent on a session variable.

The applications reach as far as your imagination: price comparison shopping in a retail shop

Amazon could have lifted that straight from their web page and placed it in their patent claim. However, it's always a question of "who got there first." Since Amazon filed their patent application in 2003, and neomedia filed theirs in 2004, neomedia might not be in the driver's seat any more. Hmm...neomedia's patent refers to a previous patent of theirs dated June 6, 2003. Amazon's patent wasn't filed until December 31, 2003.

Sounds like a legal quagmire to me. However, if neomedia can successfullly sue Amazon for a violation of a really stupid patent, I believe the karmic balance of the universe can be restored.

Funny I was checking this patent yesterday. Aka ScanZoom. How is this different?

Here is the patent that is being referenced in the webpage: Patent Number 5,841,689 Interestingly enough, the owner of the domain is also the owner of the patent....

I've been expecting this for several years, maybe not in this form, but something along these lines.

I've read the patent, and it looks viable. Here is the link
We'll have to wait for the field tests before we judge.

A big problem with computers has always been moving parts. Moving parts wear out, and hard drives just aren't repairable. They can be recovered for a high price, but if you keep proper backups, there is rarely a need for the expense.

It has always been possible to make a solid-state hard drive, in the form of eprom. The problem with this is that silicon produces a lot of heat, and a chunk of memory the size of a sandwich would probably destroy itself in short order.

If anyone remembers, the first semiconductors were made of germanium, and the transistors just melted at the slightest overheating. So germanium was replaced by silicon, since it didn't self-destruct so readily.

I had always assumed that a new material would have to be found, which didn't produce the high heat that silicon does. I hadn't considered using internal optics before.

If this really works, it should be a happy day for us all. If not, then at least someone is trying.

Michael

In case the lameness filter borks the link, the patent number is 5,841,689. You can look it up at www.uspto.gov.

The patent references a "breakthrough" called the "Gendlin Effect". Needless to say, the only references to this ground-breaking discovery are in the company's web pages, and a single forum post on goldenplanetforum.net.

Looks like a very clever scam to me.

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

Non-volatile record carrier with magnetic quantum-optical reading effect
Thin film composite having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties comprising a layer of Pb-Cd-Fe and a layer of Cr-Zn-(Te or Tl)
Non-volatile memory device having ferromagnetic and piezoelectric properties
Method of manufacturing a non-volatile random accessible memory device
Memory material and method for its manufacture
Memory material and method of its manufacture -2
Memory material and method for its manufacture

2002 blurb

US Patent No. 5,717,235

US Patent No. 5,707,887

US Patent No. 5,602,791

US Patent No. 5,390,142

2002 blurb

US Patent No. 5,717,235

US Patent No. 5,707,887

US Patent No. 5,602,791

US Patent No. 5,390,142

2002 blurb

US Patent No. 5,717,235

US Patent No. 5,707,887

US Patent No. 5,602,791

US Patent No. 5,390,142

2002 blurb

US Patent No. 5,717,235

US Patent No. 5,707,887

US Patent No. 5,602,791

US Patent No. 5,390,142

The more I look into this the creepier this gets
They have a website claiming this since 2002, the guy, creator even has a patent

CES? US Patent? How could he make such a big lie? Why ?
Link to the patent

Hmm, it's interesting that this guy has actually got a patent:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,841,689.WKU.&OS=PN/5,841,689&RS =PN/5,841,689