Slashdot Mirror

Why hasn't "3D" technology advanced in the last 15 years?

First, you had red/blue glasses.

Then there was passive linear polarized glasses.

Then active shutter glasses with linear polarized glasses.

Now, there are passive achromatic circularly polarized glasses.

Its brand new. Some info here: http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/getbykey5?KEY=98 /44746.990304&ELEMENT_SET=DECL

Holograms exist, but they suck in color reproduction and you can't move your head too much.

Most of the western world is a signatory of the Berne Convention (which, by the way, was what made copyright extension in the US what it is today, not Disney), meaning US Copyright does apply to a certain extent.

>No, there is no intellectual property law.
>
>There is trademark law.

No, that's wrong. Trademark, copyright, and patent law are subsets of Intellectual Property (though some consier trademark to be a subset of copyright).

From http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/. "Intellectual property is divided into two categories: Industrial property, which includes inventions (patents), trademarks, industrial designs, and geographic indications of source; and Copyright, which includes literary and artistic works such as novels, poems and plays, films, musical works, artistic works such as drawings, paintings, photographs and sculptures, and architectural designs."

Furthermore, at many law schools, there will often be individual copyright and patent courses, and maybe a trademark course, and then there will be an intellectual propery course that dips into all three.

If you're going to make such an absolute statement, then back it up with references if you want anyone to take you seriously, failing that, it's just another mindless rant.

I believe you too made a fairly bold statement without providing references when you wrote "in most countries copying software is not a crime."

Here's a reference:
The WIPO Copyright Treaty, adopted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1996, provides additional protections for copyright deemed necessary in the modern information era. It ensures that computer programs are protected as literary works.

A list of countries that have signed the document as well as signed and enforcing the treaty can be found here. So, in a sense, both of you are right -- most countries are not party to the treaty, but the missing signatures are primarily from the 3rd world. Of course, also notably lacking is the biggest copyright violator of them all: China.

If we wonder why there are less and less drugs getting approval, we need to look at what researchers and universities are doing with the science the American taxpayer pays for.

Since 1980, universities and individual researchers have had the right to patent IP paid for by public funds. This was obstensibly done to "facilitate the exploitation of government-funded research results by transferring ownership from the government to universities and other contractors who could then license the IP to firms."

However, it is clear how this would have a chilling effect on basic research. Surely cooperation has suffered at the expense of competition. Patents have been a disaster for software, where synthesis of many ideas are important to create products. It is probably similar for the biological sciences.

These researchers are funded by public money. Their results need to be used for the public benefit, and shared publicly.

I don't have access to the exact laws for every country in the world, so I just quoted for the US. The fact is that most countries do have copyright offices where you can register works, and their laws are much more favorable if your work is registered.

Oh come on, even Afghanistan has a national copyright office and an intellectual property office. Here's a list:

http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

Most countries have a registration system.

Of course 'they' can, and probably will.

Mechanisms such as the WIPO and WTO are incredibly influential entities, and have already been able to leverage many governments to implement laws governing media, and other communications [see: DMCA, EUCD].

Most of this work is due to the lobbying from large multi-nationals, as it is their interests that are at stake. In the case of the Internet, it would be logical to assume that affected corporations will lobby the relevant organizations to ensure global enforcement of rules that benefit them.

It is sensible to expect then, that in lieu of any bold moves to stop it happening, a similar fate will befall the internet.

Frequently Asked Questions What rights does copyright provide?

The original creators of works protected by copyright, and their heirs, have certain basic rights. They hold the exclusive right to use or authorize others to use the work on agreed terms. The creator of a work can prohibit or authorize:

* its reproduction in various forms, such as printed publication or sound recording;
* its public performance, as in a play or musical work;
* recordings of it, for example, in the form of compact discs, cassettes or videotapes;
* its broadcasting, by radio, cable or satellite;
* its translation into other languages, or its adaptation, such as a novel into a screenplay.

It appears that copyright gives the copyright holder the authority (within reason) to tell you what you can and cannot do with the copyrighted work.

Interestingly, there is no mention of anyone owning the work, but owning the copyright to the work, as in:-

"...The creator - or the owner of the copyright in a work - can enforce rights administratively and in the courts...".

It seems that failure to bow to this authority is an act of, well, copyright infringement, not theft.

You'd think they'd at least come up with a better name for this 'drink,' instead of concatenating the two ingredients. Anyone who wants to see the patent application, the it's here [pdf]. I think I'll pass on the taste-test.

It doesn't appear that Taiwan honors foreign patents via treaty: http://www.bpmlegal.com/pctco.html http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ , but I may be wrong.

Taiwan would probably happily sign up on the treaty if only the united states would pull its head out of China's ass and recognize it as a soverign state for real.

It doesn't appear that Taiwan honors foreign patents via treaty: http://www.bpmlegal.com/pctco.html http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/plt/ , but I may be wrong.

The US has done basically the same thing with US patents which have "national security" implications. In the US, the Constitutional authority for patents lies in Congress, so Congress is perfectly free to decide whether patent protection should/is offered for such things. I don't profess to know such specifics about Taiwan.

• your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
• you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
• your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

• circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain...(extortion)
• you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
• you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
• by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

• your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
• you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
• your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

• circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain...(extortion)
• you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
• you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
• by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

nope, it's 1886 (though many conventions followed, I'm not sure which one the automatic copyright came in on... I thought 1886 sounded weird though, I didn't think automatic copyright had been around that long)

Look closely at the certificate on

http://www.compu-technics.com/pages/22/index.htm

Then at the awards for 2000's "East-West Euro Intellect" on

http://www.wipo.int/innovation/en/wipo_awards/win_ 00.htm

And then tell me, with a straight face, that you still believe this guy.

In general copyright is based upon an international convention (Berne Convention. I don't know exactly what Germany uses, I would guess life+50 years.

IANAL, but there is at least one lawsuit case in which a Company Name in an URL wasn't considered a trademark infringement.

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center's decision came to the same conclusion, based on fair use and free speech rights.

Info on the case from an attorney website.

Sound recordings/Lyrics/Scores have copyright which is covered under Intellectual Property (IP) law. IP law differs country by country. That it doesn't make sense to consumers is irrelevant to those who collect dollars based on the IP they control.

You don't actually *want* the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.int/ to set world wide rules, do you?

Moron
http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/member_states.jsp

I admit I know nothing of WTO (expect it means "World Trade Organization"), so I might be skating in thin ice here...

Yes, you are. The WTO does care about trade and subjects like intellectual property. These topics are the entire reason that the WTO was created. To quote from the WTO website:
Copyright

The TRIPS agreement ensures that computer programs will be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention and outlines how databases should be protected.

It also expands international copyright rules to cover rental rights. Authors of computer programs and producers of sound recordings must have the right to prohibit the commercial rental of their works to the public. A similar exclusive right applies to films where commercial rental has led to widespread copying, affecting copyright-owners' potential earnings from their films.

The agreement says performers must also have the right to prevent unauthorized recording, reproduction and broadcast of live performances (bootlegging) for no less than 50 years. Producers of sound recordings must have the right to prevent the unauthorized reproduction of recordings for a period of 50 years. In short, these are international agreements that have already been made. China agreed to follow them and, in fact, has placed these laws in its own books. However, China has done almost nothing in enforcing their own laws regarding IP. As such, the US has a strong case against them if they were to bring it to the WTO.

Except that they signed Berne Convention about copyrights on 5th Sept. 1997(.pdf)

In fact, WIPO's existence is not dependent on rightholders, and rightholders do not "fund" WIPO. WIPO as an international intergovernmental organization is answerable to its Member States and its existence depends on its Members only.

In fact, WIPO's existence is not dependent on rightholders, and rightholders do not "fund" WIPO. WIPO as an international intergovernmental organization is answerable to its Member States and its existence depends on its Members only.

That appears to be the case. Take a look at this page for example. Someone has posted a picture of our good friend GOATSE. However, closer inspection shows it was posted by 193.5.93.35. That IP number points right back to www5.wipo.int.

Two images have been posted on top of this wipo article: http://www.wipo.int/roller/comments/ipisforum/Webl og/theme_three_the_public_domain No Software Patents layered over Goatse.

I guess you haven't seen post number 13 under Theme Three. The author added a DIV tag with an absolute position at the top of the page. A picture of our good friend GOATSE is inside the DIV tag. That will pretty much stop anyone without an agenda from reading any of the commentary.

It will also reflect very badly on those who question WIPO when the topic comes up for discussion (the picture could have been posted by a member of the RIAA, but that doesn't matter).

Well, I guess they couldn't have asked for a more honest feedback...

http://www.wipo.int/roller/comments/ipisforum/Webl og/theme_three_the_public_domain (NSFW goes without saying)

True
http://www.wipo.int/roller/comments/ipisforum/Webl og/theme_three_the_public_domain

No, you're not the only one. Same goes for the public domain page (NOT work safe).

I guess somebody should have checked the HTML comment posting code a bit more thoroughly.

http://www.wipo.int/roller/comments/ipisforum/Webl og/theme_three_the_public_domain no longer safe for work

Am I the only one who saw the goatse picture on the page about "Open Information: At Odds with the IP System?"? No I'm not trolling, if you're curious you can check out that link (but I suggest that you don't).

The World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO: VMS-inspired dir/copy/purge/grep for Windows

If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them.

There are 10 different themes for discussion, including "Public domain and open information: at odds with the IP system or enabled by it?" and "Enforcement of IP rights in the digital environment".

Although it doesn't explcitly say so in the invitation, I assume that Slashdot readers are welcome to take part as well. But keep it clean :-)

If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them.

There are 10 different themes for discussion, including "Public domain and open information: at odds with the IP system or enabled by it?" and "Enforcement of IP rights in the digital environment".

Although it doesn't explcitly say so in the invitation, I assume that Slashdot readers are welcome to take part as well. But keep it clean :-)

If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them.

There are 10 different themes for discussion, including "Public domain and open information: at odds with the IP system or enabled by it?" and "Enforcement of IP rights in the digital environment".

Although it doesn't explcitly say so in the invitation, I assume that Slashdot readers are welcome to take part as well. But keep it clean :-)

If you have any comments about file sharing, copyright enforcement, etc. (and who hasn't?), this may be a good place to post them.

There are 10 different themes for discussion, including "Public domain and open information: at odds with the IP system or enabled by it?" and "Enforcement of IP rights in the digital environment".

Although it doesn't explcitly say so in the invitation, I assume that Slashdot readers are welcome to take part as well. But keep it clean :-)

I think you forget that the software is Microsoft's property. It's up to Microsoft to determine the terms under which it's willing to allow the use of its software in Cuba. Cuba has no right to declare that it can use the software without compensation.

If Cuba isn't a signatory to the international copyright convention, then Cuba has every right to do whatever it wants with Microsoft products.

However, it seems it is a member of the WIPO, so I suspect it is legally bound to recognize Microsoft's copyright.

I think you forget that the software is Microsoft's property. It's up to Microsoft to determine the terms under which it's willing to allow the use of its software in Cuba. Cuba has no right to declare that it can use the software without compensation.

If Cuba isn't a signatory to the international copyright convention, then Cuba has every right to do whatever it wants with Microsoft products.

However, it seems it is a member of the WIPO, so I suspect it is legally bound to recognize Microsoft's copyright.

I think you forget that the software is Microsoft's property. It's up to Microsoft to determine the terms under which it's willing to allow the use of its software in Cuba. Cuba has no right to declare that it can use the software without compensation.

If Cuba isn't a signatory to the international copyright convention, then Cuba has every right to do whatever it wants with Microsoft products.

However, it seems it is a member of the WIPO, so I suspect it is legally bound to recognize Microsoft's copyright.

I ran the site for maybe a year before I received my first C&D letter from Hormel. I replied back telling them I was not attempting to compete and was not dilluting their mark. Basically a nice, "Go to hell, Hormel!"

There were one or two more letters back and forth between Hormel and myself. When I registered the domain you still didn't have to pay for a registration. When Hormel decided they wanted it back you had to pay $100 for two years to InterNIC. I wanted Hormel to at least buy me a new domain since they were starting to threaten litigation if I didn't hand over spam.net (I was 20 at the time, litigation by a LARGE corporation didn't sound like a walk in the park).

Some months later I received a letter from WIPO ...something witty should go here...

I ran the site for maybe a year before I received my first C&D letter from Hormel. I replied back telling them I was not attempting to compete and was not dilluting their mark. Basically a nice, "Go to hell, Hormel!"

There were one or two more letters back and forth between Hormel and myself. When I registered the domain you still didn't have to pay for a registration. When Hormel decided they wanted it back you had to pay $100 for two years to InterNIC. I wanted Hormel to at least buy me a new domain since they were starting to threaten litigation if I didn't hand over spam.net (I was 20 at the time, litigation by a LARGE corporation didn't sound like a walk in the park).

Some months later I received a letter from WIPO telling me that Hormel had filed a petition against me and they decided the case was vague enough that they wouldn't give Hormel the name, but I couldn't use it either. InterNIC put the domain name on hold until Hormel and I could sort it out amongst ourselves.

Hormel contacted me once against asking for the name and I told them if I couldn't have it, they couldn't either. I was happy to leave it on hold so NEITHER of us could use it (scorched earth mentality baby!).

They just went away.

I would check on the name from time to time to see if it was still on hold. About 2 months before the payment was due (InterNIC required payment for on hold domains, damn their then-monopoly) I checked on the domain name. I was registered to Hormel, lock stock and barrel!

My plan had been to pay the registration feel just to keep the name tied up, but somehow - and without anyone notifying me - they managed to get the name transfered to them and taken off hold.

At no point had I ever agreed to transfer the name or provided anything in writing that said anything remotely close to it. But there it was, big as day, off hold and in the hands of Hormel.

I've been a little bitter about it ever since.

Aren't trademarks only there to protect a certain brand from being used by others in similar types of industry?

Under normal circumstances, marks in different classes are allowed to co-exists even if they are identical. For marks that are not entirely identical but merely very similar, like "Spam" vs. "SpamArrest", even more so.

For really well known marks, like Coca-Cola or IBM, there is an exception to this rule, which is called "Kodak protection" after the landmark case that is considered to have established the principle.

But in this case, where the original "Spam" trademark is so strongly tied to just one very specific product, I'd be very surprised if a court would find the "Spam" should enjoy Kodak protection. It's also quite debatable if "Spam" was ever that famous.

And even if there was a time when it could perhaps be argued that "Spam" was more frequently used to denote the "food" product, nowadays the meaning "junk email" is so widely established that I can't see how the owners of the origial "Spam" trademark could hope to be successful in their claims.

But perhaps they have some reasons for trying to pursue what to me looks like a very weak case indeed.

IANATML, but I've worked in the trademarks business for 25 years developing phonetic trademark search systems.

Cuba became party of Berne Convention on 20th February 1997(.pdf)

I think you forget that the software is Microsoft's property. It's up to Microsoft to determine the terms under which it's willing to allow the use of its software in Cuba. Cuba has no right to declare that it can use the software without compensation.

If Cuba isn't a signatory to the international copyright convention, then Cuba has every right to do whatever it wants with Microsoft products.

However, it seems it is a member of the WIPO, so I suspect it is legally bound to recognize Microsoft's copyright.

The Newscientist article fails to report an important change with the new plans to rank credibility of news sources. On their "About Google News" page, Google claims a main feature of their News service is that is "compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention". However the patent states "a human opinion of the news source" and "amount of important coverage that the news source produces" will be used along with a number of other factors mentioned in the Newscientist to determine the credibility of the source. Maybe Newscientist should actually read the patents themselves. http://www.wipo.int/cgi-pct/guest/ifetch5?ENG+PCT- ALL.vdb+14+1135032-SCORE+256+4+-1+DECL-ENG+31+52+2 6+25+SEP-0/HITNUM,B,,SCORE+google

Well, IANALYet, but both Germany and Austria are bound by international treaties to implement copyright:

a. there's the WIPO Copyright Treaty, to which Germany is a party
b. there's the Berne Convention, to which both Austria and Germany are party
c. there's the European Copyright Directive, for which the deadline of 2002-12-02 has passed, and thus should be implemented in Germany. As for the last one: European Law was determined in the "Van Gend en Loos Case" to have preference over local laws. So where there's a conflict of European copyright law and German copyright law, the German law is considered lower law.

Well, IANALYet, but both Germany and Austria are bound by international treaties to implement copyright:

a. there's the WIPO Copyright Treaty, to which Germany is a party
b. there's the Berne Convention, to which both Austria and Germany are party
c. there's the European Copyright Directive, for which the deadline of 2002-12-02 has passed, and thus should be implemented in Germany. As for the last one: European Law was determined in the "Van Gend en Loos Case" to have preference over local laws. So where there's a conflict of European copyright law and German copyright law, the German law is considered lower law.

Most licences prohibit "reverse engineering" too - it's just not enforcable since the local laws explicitly allow reverse engineering. Of course IANAL so I can't tell you if the lagal "reverse engineering for interoperability purposes" also include disassembly. I would think it did.

Spot on. The Norwegian law, on this, paragraph 39i, is a translation of European law 91/250/EEC, article 6.

Both allow reverse-engineering for interoperability purposes, both specifically mention decompilation.

The Norwegian law has also added the following line to the end of the paragraph: Bestemmelsene i denne paragraf kan ikke fravikes ved avtale., which means The regulations of this paragraph cannot be waived through agreement.
That is, any EULA or contract clause forbidding reverse engineering for interoperability is void.

Although, if some Slashdotters read their EULAs more carefully, they'd probably have noticed that most of them already take this into account and forbid "reverse engineering except as allowed under law" or something to that extent.

This has been addressed by WIPO in their FAQ. They have specific examples of when a trademark owner can take a domain over.