Slashdot Mirror

Reverse engineering is generally not illegal especially in this case because no one spills the beans. It seems that a lot of people don't understand or know what trade secret is. In short, it meant as its name -- secret. It is protected under an agreement or contract (NDA). The person/party who spills the beans would likely be responsible for the damages. However, if the secret is discovered by reverse engineering, then it is pretty much a fair game.

Your grandma may have told you: be careful what you wish for.

1. If the claim of Chinese intellectual property violation is not exaggerated and that it will be fixed soon, then that would give American companies more incentives to do more research and development in China, tapping low cost engineers and other college graduates, instead of hiring expensive U.S. engineers.
2. China already files more patents than any other countries. The natural trend would be that there will be more patent trolls suing everyone including American companies, just like those opening up offices in East Texas.
3. once China enforce harder, their hi-tech industry will only become more competitive.

Eventually what happened was that, as China’s domestic copyright industries found themselves competing with cheap knock-offs of foreign goods, they pressed the Chinese government to fortify the IP enforcement process on its own. (To put this in perspective, this is also what happened a century earlier in the US, which until 1890 failed to protect foreign works, and then waited yet another century before joining the major international copyright treaty.)

I have to respectfully disagree. The patent itself is the motivator to invent better and novel ways of doing things. Without the patent, we would likely not have a great many awesome things we have today. The short(er) time-frame of a patent allows the market to change things after the creator has had his day.

Patents are a motivator for invention, but not the biggest one in most industries (Lopez, 2009, p. 21). (This is a meta-analysis. If I remember right, I found this paper to be an amusing read, because it was commissioned by WIPO, and it seemed apparent that the author really wanted to say something good about patents, but struggled to find anything.) Past research suggests that only pharmaceutical and chemical patents have actually provided us with a large number of inventions that we otherwise wouldn't have (Mansfield, 1986). (Sorry, no link for this one--I just found it mentioned in the above.)

It may intuitively seem like patents ought to provide a net social benefit, but (aside from chemical and pharmaceutical patents) do you really have any reason to believe it?

Lopez, Andres (2009) Innovation and appropriability, empirical evidence and research agenda. In WIPO (2009) The Economics of Intellectual Property.

Mansfield, Edwin (1986) Patents and Innovation: An Empirical Study, 32, Mgmt. Science 173.

You just confirmed what I said is true and then tried to set up a strawman to make it sound like I said you specifically don't own the rights.

I did no such thing to confirm your ignorance. You skipped over the part where I challenged you: I employ a lawyer to ensure I meet my legal obligations ... What do you do?, the obvious answer is, nothing.

There is no jurisdiction in the US where the legal situation defaults to "contractor owns the code".

The US is a signatory to the Berne convention. As programmers I think your country has specifically given up some of the rights you had to the MPAA simply because you did not defend your rights. I don't specifically know what your situation is wrt local laws because as I said: I am saying what is legal for me, where I am. You have to take responsibility for yourself.

Seems like you didn't and the truth hurts you so much you're willing to falsify your own reality so you maintain ignorance about what you have lost evidenced by the contempt you are projecting onto me.

Everything you wrote is a ridiculous babble of bullshit representing an attempt to take the focus away from the fact that you made a completely false statement, and gave people shit advice, in fact. Just admit that you spouted off your mouth with inaccurate information, and that you claim to be super smart, but actually aren't,

I don't see where I made a claim to be super smart, only that I've retained a lawyer and reseached enough about copyright law to protect my rights. I write and record music, I had to learn. When I did I found it applied to the software I wrote. Instead of decending into responding to your emotive outburst and abusing you, let's re-visit the comments I made that everyone seems to have a problem with:

If you are a contractor then they don't own your code. Even as an employee you still own the moral right to your code.

Specifically, if you are a contractor then you own the copyright to your code unless you agree to contractual terms to give up those rights. Anyone with sufficient deductive reasoning should be able extrapolate their legal situation to a corporate entity that has exactly the same set of rights that you do. The difference is they are negotiating from a position of strength so that you will relinquish your rights. But let's not let logic get in the way of me demolishing this "argument" with the relevant facts.

First, Article 10 of The TRIPS Agreement contains an interpretive provision stating that computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as "Literary Works" by the Berne Convention. Article 4 of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) includes a clarification in very similar terms.

Article 6 and Article 7 of the WCT document determine the framework for negotiation. You give up your rights according to WCT 6(2), I maintain my rights according to WCT 6(1) and WCT 7(1,3).

Therfore source and object code are protected as 'Literary Works' under Article 2 of the Berne Convention as original works and nothing in that treaty applies to you submitting your source code to a larger tree negates that right unless you specifically give it up. Specifically Berne Article 2(1,3,5), limited by local legislation which is why I say you need to take personal responsibility for knowing your local laws.

Second, as to Moral Rights, this is the specific position of the OP covered in

You just confirmed what I said is true and then tried to set up a strawman to make it sound like I said you specifically don't own the rights.

I did no such thing to confirm your ignorance. You skipped over the part where I challenged you: I employ a lawyer to ensure I meet my legal obligations ... What do you do?, the obvious answer is, nothing.

There is no jurisdiction in the US where the legal situation defaults to "contractor owns the code".

The US is a signatory to the Berne convention. As programmers I think your country has specifically given up some of the rights you had to the MPAA simply because you did not defend your rights. I don't specifically know what your situation is wrt local laws because as I said: I am saying what is legal for me, where I am. You have to take responsibility for yourself.

Seems like you didn't and the truth hurts you so much you're willing to falsify your own reality so you maintain ignorance about what you have lost evidenced by the contempt you are projecting onto me.

Everything you wrote is a ridiculous babble of bullshit representing an attempt to take the focus away from the fact that you made a completely false statement, and gave people shit advice, in fact. Just admit that you spouted off your mouth with inaccurate information, and that you claim to be super smart, but actually aren't,

I don't see where I made a claim to be super smart, only that I've retained a lawyer and reseached enough about copyright law to protect my rights. I write and record music, I had to learn. When I did I found it applied to the software I wrote. Instead of decending into responding to your emotive outburst and abusing you, let's re-visit the comments I made that everyone seems to have a problem with:

If you are a contractor then they don't own your code. Even as an employee you still own the moral right to your code.

Specifically, if you are a contractor then you own the copyright to your code unless you agree to contractual terms to give up those rights. Anyone with sufficient deductive reasoning should be able extrapolate their legal situation to a corporate entity that has exactly the same set of rights that you do. The difference is they are negotiating from a position of strength so that you will relinquish your rights. But let's not let logic get in the way of me demolishing this "argument" with the relevant facts.

First, Article 10 of The TRIPS Agreement contains an interpretive provision stating that computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as "Literary Works" by the Berne Convention. Article 4 of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) includes a clarification in very similar terms.

Article 6 and Article 7 of the WCT document determine the framework for negotiation. You give up your rights according to WCT 6(2), I maintain my rights according to WCT 6(1) and WCT 7(1,3).

Therfore source and object code are protected as 'Literary Works' under Article 2 of the Berne Convention as original works and nothing in that treaty applies to you submitting your source code to a larger tree negates that right unless you specifically give it up. Specifically Berne Article 2(1,3,5), limited by local legislation which is why I say you need to take personal responsibility for knowing your local laws.

Second, as to Moral Rights, this is the specific position of the OP covered in

You just confirmed what I said is true and then tried to set up a strawman to make it sound like I said you specifically don't own the rights.

I did no such thing to confirm your ignorance. You skipped over the part where I challenged you: I employ a lawyer to ensure I meet my legal obligations ... What do you do?, the obvious answer is, nothing.

There is no jurisdiction in the US where the legal situation defaults to "contractor owns the code".

The US is a signatory to the Berne convention. As programmers I think your country has specifically given up some of the rights you had to the MPAA simply because you did not defend your rights. I don't specifically know what your situation is wrt local laws because as I said: I am saying what is legal for me, where I am. You have to take responsibility for yourself.

Seems like you didn't and the truth hurts you so much you're willing to falsify your own reality so you maintain ignorance about what you have lost evidenced by the contempt you are projecting onto me.

Everything you wrote is a ridiculous babble of bullshit representing an attempt to take the focus away from the fact that you made a completely false statement, and gave people shit advice, in fact. Just admit that you spouted off your mouth with inaccurate information, and that you claim to be super smart, but actually aren't,

I don't see where I made a claim to be super smart, only that I've retained a lawyer and reseached enough about copyright law to protect my rights. I write and record music, I had to learn. When I did I found it applied to the software I wrote. Instead of decending into responding to your emotive outburst and abusing you, let's re-visit the comments I made that everyone seems to have a problem with:

If you are a contractor then they don't own your code. Even as an employee you still own the moral right to your code.

Specifically, if you are a contractor then you own the copyright to your code unless you agree to contractual terms to give up those rights. Anyone with sufficient deductive reasoning should be able extrapolate their legal situation to a corporate entity that has exactly the same set of rights that you do. The difference is they are negotiating from a position of strength so that you will relinquish your rights. But let's not let logic get in the way of me demolishing this "argument" with the relevant facts.

First, Article 10 of The TRIPS Agreement contains an interpretive provision stating that computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as "Literary Works" by the Berne Convention. Article 4 of the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) includes a clarification in very similar terms.

Article 6 and Article 7 of the WCT document determine the framework for negotiation. You give up your rights according to WCT 6(2), I maintain my rights according to WCT 6(1) and WCT 7(1,3).

Therfore source and object code are protected as 'Literary Works' under Article 2 of the Berne Convention as original works and nothing in that treaty applies to you submitting your source code to a larger tree negates that right unless you specifically give it up. Specifically Berne Article 2(1,3,5), limited by local legislation which is why I say you need to take personal responsibility for knowing your local laws.

Second, as to Moral Rights, this is the specific position of the OP covered in

If you're licensed by the government to do so. And it isn't really pirating
for Iranians since Iran is not a signatory to the WIPO treaty and not bound by international copyright conventions.

BTW, here is a PDF of Iran's copyright law from the WIPO website http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=197798

Reading it you'll find that it is hardly a quagmire of confusing and conflicting clauses for authors, and that motherboard's representation of Article 8 is disingenuous, " Article 8 gives the government broad powers to reproduce work that is not its own".

Notice Article 8:

Article 8. Public libraries, documentation centers, scientific institutions and educational establishments, which are noncommercial, may reproduce protected works by a photographic or similar process, in the numbers necessary, for the purposes of their activities, according to a decree to be issued by the Board of Minister

Seems like a rather taxpayer friendly policy.

How can you be so sure about the details of Kazakhstan copyright law?

Maybe he knows how to use google. I used "Kazakhstan berne convention" and got back a list of IP laws enacted by their legislature. Maybe you should learn to internet if you're going to post to slashdot.

But doesn't a trademark only cover a business area?

That certainly used to be the case.

With the introduction of TRIPS , however, special protection for "well-known marks" applies, under certain circumstances "to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered." That is where such use could be taken to indicate a connection with the owner of the famous mark AND where "the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use." (Article 16(3)). As to what constitutes 'damage' to the trademark holder's interests, the Joint Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks on which the TRIPS provision is based suggest this may include "the use of that mark is likely to impair or dilute in an unfair manner the distinctive character of the well-known mark." (Article 4(1)(b)(ii) [Note however that unlike the actual TRIPS agreement, the Joint Recommendation envisaged that this should be a sufficient condition rather than requiring conjunction with any suggestion of connection].

This 'reform' left me anxious as to whether the basal principle of equality before the law is being offended against, however subtly, since the holder of a well-known mark would seem, at first gloss anyway, to receive more favourable treatment vis à vis other trademark holders.

As to whether PayPal either qualifies as a 'well-known' brand; whether the Pandora mark creates confusion as to connection and would damage the interests of PayPal, I offer no opinion.

I don't know of any PayPal music service. Maybe I confused it with Pandora...

Well yes, who knows who owns whom these days. ;)

Several activities were carried out this week to celebrate "Intellectual Property day", April 26. I usually complain that it falls just a day before my birthday.
This time, our never-beloved-nor-believed judicial system granted me a very welcome birthday present. Thanks!

> You can photograph anyone or anything in public

Ironically, copyright prohibits sale in a large number of cases. Did you catch a billboard in your photo? Whoops.

Relevant: http://www.wipo.int/export/sit...

> In Russia, we wipe with TPP

I thought most other nations used WIPO*.


* World Imaginary Property Organization

The Berne Convention seems referred to.

1) Overt or covert use of national flag, anthem or emblem of People’s Republic of China or military flag, anthem or emblem;
2) Overt or covert use of the name or image of national public institute or staff of national public institute;
3) Use of words such as “national-level”, “the most” and “the best”, among others;
4) Causing detriment to national dignity or interests, or disclosing national secrets;
5) Interfering with social stability, or causing detriment to social and public interests;
6) Harming personal or property safety, or disclosing privacy;
7) Interfering with social public order, or going against good social norm;
8) Containing obscene, pornographic, gambling, superstitious, terrifying, or violent content;
9) Containing discrimination based on nationality, race, religion, or gender;
10) Affecting protection of environment, natural resources or cultural heritage;
11) Other situations prohibited by laws and regulations.

Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party. In China (and increasingly in the US) everyone is guilty of something but only those that the state wants to be prosecuted will be prosecuted.

So looking at the story, we have a new law enacted a month ago and whose head is on the chopping block today? Xiaomi? Well from wikipedia:

Xiaomi Inc. is a privately owned Chinese electronics company headquartered in Beijing, China, that is the world's 4th[4] largest smartphone maker. Xiaomi designs, develops, and sells smartphones, mobile apps, and related consumer electronics.[5]

Aaaaaand there's your problem. Wake me up when a state owned company is prosecuted under these new laws. Xiaomi's true crime was probably doing better than Huawei.

1) Overt or covert use of national flag, anthem or emblem of People’s Republic of China or military flag, anthem or emblem;
2) Overt or covert use of the name or image of national public institute or staff of national public institute;
3) Use of words such as “national-level”, “the most” and “the best”, among others;
4) Causing detriment to national dignity or interests, or disclosing national secrets;
5) Interfering with social stability, or causing detriment to social and public interests;
6) Harming personal or property safety, or disclosing privacy;
7) Interfering with social public order, or going against good social norm;
8) Containing obscene, pornographic, gambling, superstitious, terrifying, or violent content;
9) Containing discrimination based on nationality, race, religion, or gender;
10) Affecting protection of environment, natural resources or cultural heritage;
11) Other situations prohibited by laws and regulations.

Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party. In China (and increasingly in the US) everyone is guilty of something but only those that the state wants to be prosecuted will be prosecuted.

So looking at the story, we have a new law enacted a month ago and whose head is on the chopping block today? Xiaomi? Well from wikipedia:

Xiaomi Inc. is a privately owned Chinese electronics company headquartered in Beijing, China, that is the world's 4th[4] largest smartphone maker. Xiaomi designs, develops, and sells smartphones, mobile apps, and related consumer electronics.[5]

Aaaaaand there's your problem. Wake me up when a state owned company is prosecuted under these new laws. Xiaomi's true crime was probably doing better than Huawei.

So, a trademark is only valid in the area of business in which it is used. It isn't a blanket "nobody can use my catchphrase".

Which means this can pretty much only be used to ... what ... introduce a new watch by a CEO wearing a black turtleneck at the end of a keynote address? It sure as hell can't be used to prevent people from using it in a general sense.

If you look at the registration, it tells exactly what areas it can't be used in (slightly reformatted for readability):

511 International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) - NCL(10-2015)

09
-Apparatus for recording, transmission and reproduction of sound or images;
-electronic payment processing apparatus, apparatus for processing cashless payment transactions;
-magnetic recording media, sound recording disks;
-compact disks, DVDs and other digital recording media;
-apparatus enabling the playing of compressed sound files (MP3);
-calculating machines and data processing equipment, software;
-game software for mobile telephones, for computers and for digital personal stereos;
-electronic game software for mobile telephones, for computers and for digital personal stereos;
-computers, portable computers, handheld computers, mobile computers, personal computers, wrist computers, electronic tablets and computerized and mobile devices, digital personal stereos, mobile telephones and new-generation mobile telephones featuring greater functionality (smartphones);
-telecommunication apparatus and instruments;
-apparatus for recording, transmission, reproduction of sound or images, particularly mobile telephones and new-generation mobile telephones incorporating greater functionality (smartphones);
-hand-held electronic apparatus for accessing the Internet and sending, receiving, recording and storing short messages, electronic messages, telephone calls, faxes, video conferences, images, sound, music, text and other digital data;
-handheld electronic apparatus for wireless receiving, storing and transmitting of data or messages;
-handheld electronic apparatus for monitoring and organizing personal information;
-handheld electronic apparatus for global positioning [GPS] and displaying maps and transport information;
-handheld electronic devices for detecting, monitoring, storing, surveillance and transmitting data relating to the user activity, namely position, itinerary, distance traveled, heart rate;
-covers for computers, portable and mobile telephones;
-optical apparatus and instruments, particularly spectacles, sunglasses, magnifying glasses;
-cases for spectacles, magnifying glasses and sunglasses;
-batteries and cells for computers and electronic and chronometric apparatus.

14
-Precious metals and their alloys and goods made of these materials or coated therewith included in this class, namely figurines, trophies;
-jewelry, namely rings, earrings, cufflinks, bracelets, charms, brooches, chains, necklaces, tie pins, tie clips, jewelry caskets, jewelry cases;
-precious stones, semi-precious stones;
-timepieces and chronometric instruments, namely chronometers, chronographs, clocks, watches, wristwatches, wall clocks, alarm clocks as well as parts and accessories for the aforesaid goods, namely hands, anchors, pendulums, barrels, watch cases, watch straps, watch dials, clockworks, watch chains, movements for timepieces, watch springs, watch glasses, presentation cases for timepieces, cases for timepieces.

Anything not listed, or in a generic sense would be fair game (unless covered by someone else's trademark that is).

Thanks for the WIPO/DMCA info!

For those /.ers who not only like to read TFA but also the source material, the WIPO article mandating member countries adopt anti-circumvention laws is here.

And just to clarify the term length provision, WIPO is an add on to Berne 1971, and Berne requires a term of at least life plus 50. The current longest term is apparently Mexico, with life plus 100.

Thanks for the WIPO/DMCA info!

For those /.ers who not only like to read TFA but also the source material, the WIPO article mandating member countries adopt anti-circumvention laws is here.

And just to clarify the term length provision, WIPO is an add on to Berne 1971, and Berne requires a term of at least life plus 50. The current longest term is apparently Mexico, with life plus 100.

the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory

well...

> You're importing copyrighted content from someone without the legal authority to distribute said content in Canada.

I thought both the US and Canada were signatories of the Berne Convention. So you're good to go paying for and importing individual works for personal consumption.

It's not only not illegal. It's protected by treaty.

Using the same logic Wernher von Braun should have been arrested, charged and sentences for espionage when he learn rocket making secrets, financed by one type of government, and soon was contributing to the manufacturing of rocket devices in USA.

You know, rocket devices have huge economic potential, as well as potential military applications.

You can bet that Germany can present enough evidence and collect serious royalties for USA, including late fees, for all the benefits and gains attributable to von Braun's inventions.

Unless the international term limit on patents is twenty years. Which it is. For both countries.

At least that's how it works today when you're a member of WIPO. Prior to its creation in 1967 it was the wild west of cotton gin stealing and silk worm selling on the international market.

Sure, there will always be some leeches who will try to get rich with MAFIAA methods, but if you fall for their cons, don't blame patent law for it.

You mean other than the fact they are obligated by treaties they entered into ? And their withdrawl would hurt their own citizens with patents ?

http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en...

"Intellectual property is neither"

Property is whatever bundle of rights, interests and privileges you hold that the state* defines as property and will defend by force if necessary.

Intangible property is still property.

The geek can live out his entire life defined by endless streams of ones and zeroes stored and processed god knows where and still not see them as property until their loss, theft or abuse affects him personally.

Careless thinking or intellectually dishonest? Your choice.

Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce.

What is Intellectual Property?

This is BTW almost word-for-word how IP is defined by the Wikipedia.

In a lifetime of reading I have owned about 6,000 books, fiction and non-fiction. No two of these writers ever spoke in the same voice, and almost all were paid by the word, writing for a popular --- democratic --- audience.

The number of creative talents active in any generation is small, and that is a problem the Pirate Bay cannot solve.

http://patentscope.wipo.int/se...

the patent seems to talk in terms of surfaces for heat transfer, and does not mention anything about turbulence. When he first mentioned to me that he was working on it, I conjectured that it was vanes or ribs of some kind, and he told me that it was more complicated than that and had to do with the interaction with turbulence (I forget whether to increase it or decrease it). However, nothing like that seems to be reflected in the patent. I'll ask him to respond here on Slashdot if he can.

A woman actually tried to do that with a site I put up. It didn't work. I didn't even bother hiring a lawyer for the dispute her case was so weak.

While common carrier status does insulate them from this, not having it doesn't mean they are not still insulated.

The piracy or copyright violation protections are included in the DMCA which was born out the the WIPO WPPT and WTC treaties.

As for criminal actions, a lot of that liability has been traded off with allowing law enforcement access. I don't remember the exact laws but I think CALEA or something like that did away with some. Another problem is that a lot of the crimes commited on the internet require a mens rea component. In short, this means that you have to know whatever is happening is illegal in order to be subject to consequences of it.

While common carrier status does insulate them from this, not having it doesn't mean they are not still insulated.

The piracy or copyright violation protections are included in the DMCA which was born out the the WIPO WPPT and WTC treaties.

As for criminal actions, a lot of that liability has been traded off with allowing law enforcement access. I don't remember the exact laws but I think CALEA or something like that did away with some. Another problem is that a lot of the crimes commited on the internet require a mens rea component. In short, this means that you have to know whatever is happening is illegal in order to be subject to consequences of it.

"That's a result of the Paris Convention treaty, decades ago."

Is that this one: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/e... ?

If I find a way to grow orange corn, and add a buttery salt to it, and sell it as "BringsApples Corn (TM)", then no other person can sell corn and call it "BringsApples Corn (TM)", but they can grow orange corn, butter it with salty stuff and call it "Similar_Name Corn (TM)". Since I'd have my own recipe, your corn may not be as good as mine, or it may be better. Look at the similarities on the ingredients of Coke and Pepsi.

You are confusing patent & copyright with trademark - http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/ - when you want to trademark (TM) on the name you want to use for your product and others cannot, and trade secret - http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/trade_secrets.htm - your process/ingredient of your product that is not supposed to be disclosed to anyone but your own! Of course, they all are intellectual properties, but they are not the same.

Then you may need to elaborate about patenting "orange corn" because there are multiple ways of doing so -- patent how to grow/process to get the "orange" feature, genetic (which is controversial), etc.

Also the GP talked about "copyright is forever" is somewhat true in the sense but not exactly. You may look at http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html for more information.

From what the summary says, these people saw someone using the name for a US service and claimed the trademark in Europe before the US company could. This seems to me to be an exceptional example of abuse of the system.

This seems to be a perfectly ordinary example of how the system works. Especially in countries other than the United States (excepting select other Anglo/common law countries).

In most countries, trademark rights are protected through registration and awarded to the first to file to use the mark in that country. Trademark 'squatting' is as unexceptional as the sun rising in the east. Take China, for example.

The solution has been in existence for more than a century. The Madrid System allows someone who files for a trademark in their home country to also file an international application that creates, at a minimum, priority rights to the mark in each contracting country. The international application can serve as a common application for each designated member state, or can be transformed into individual trademark filings in each member state.

The Paris Convention also allows someone to file for the same trademark in almost any other country in the world within 6 months of when they first applied for the trademark elsewhere. If they do, that application will be treated as if filed on the first filing date. The downside is that you have to file individual trademark applications rather than a single international application.

Pinterest took neither route. Not only that, Pinterest didn't file an application to register its trademark anywhere before these people did. See here:.

The company Premium Interest filed the trademark PINTEREST in the European Union, 2 months before Pinterest filed its US trademark.

Whether out of desperation or sheer gall, Pinterest essentially argued that its business in the US somehow gave it prior trademark rights in Europe. See the same article:

Since the OHIM systematically rejected all the evidence as the evidence concerned the use of the mark in the US and not in the UK, Pinterest lost the opposition.

Summary for the TL;DR crowd: Disruptive internet startup presumed that it could claim worldwide trademark rights by registering a domain name and sorting out compliance with the law later. Startup was very wrong.

From what the summary says, these people saw someone using the name for a US service and claimed the trademark in Europe before the US company could. This seems to me to be an exceptional example of abuse of the system.

This seems to be a perfectly ordinary example of how the system works. Especially in countries other than the United States (excepting select other Anglo/common law countries).

In most countries, trademark rights are protected through registration and awarded to the first to file to use the mark in that country. Trademark 'squatting' is as unexceptional as the sun rising in the east. Take China, for example.

The solution has been in existence for more than a century. The Madrid System allows someone who files for a trademark in their home country to also file an international application that creates, at a minimum, priority rights to the mark in each contracting country. The international application can serve as a common application for each designated member state, or can be transformed into individual trademark filings in each member state.

The Paris Convention also allows someone to file for the same trademark in almost any other country in the world within 6 months of when they first applied for the trademark elsewhere. If they do, that application will be treated as if filed on the first filing date. The downside is that you have to file individual trademark applications rather than a single international application.

Pinterest took neither route. Not only that, Pinterest didn't file an application to register its trademark anywhere before these people did. See here:.

The company Premium Interest filed the trademark PINTEREST in the European Union, 2 months before Pinterest filed its US trademark.

Whether out of desperation or sheer gall, Pinterest essentially argued that its business in the US somehow gave it prior trademark rights in Europe. See the same article:

Since the OHIM systematically rejected all the evidence as the evidence concerned the use of the mark in the US and not in the UK, Pinterest lost the opposition.

Summary for the TL;DR crowd: Disruptive internet startup presumed that it could claim worldwide trademark rights by registering a domain name and sorting out compliance with the law later. Startup was very wrong.

Recent compared to what?

Most civil laws (Ius Civile) were codified by the romans more than a thousand years ago and they did not have copyright or patents in the books.

The University of Bologna was founded almost a thousand years ago (1088).

The first hospital was founded about 1,300 years ago in Damascus.

Now, world agreement on copyrights date back to 1996. Wow!

300 years? Get off my lawn!

Intellectual Property is something that doesn't actually exist. The copyright to the source code can be considered IP but the source code is not. You can read up on it here: http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/index.html and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property

Well, those darned Swedes were in a clear violation of U.S. Code Title 17, 102 and 106.

Or, perhaps, Article 8 of the Berne Convention, to which Sweden is a signatory, and Article 2 of the Swedish Copyright Legislation, which implements the treaty obligation and states that "...copyright shall include the excludive right to exploit the work by making copies of it and by making it available to the public, be it in the original or an altered manner, in translation or adaptation, in another literary or artistic form, or in another technical manner."

Setting your snark aside, extraterritorial use of U.S. law was required, and I would expect Swedes to be a ble to locate and read their own copyright law.

Did the owner of the domain with your name buy it only because your name gave it value? If not, your case and this one are completely different. Fame doesn't have anything to do with it beyond that famous names are likely to be worth pulling this scam. Look at the rules here. This case sure looks like this one to me:

Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the domain name registrant's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.

I can't believe how many people here have suddenly taken the side of someone I consider a domain squatter. Registering the name of a famous purpose for the primary purpose of holding it hostage is a douchebag move. In this case the ronpaul.com site did just enough work that it doesn't fall into the "primarily for the purpose" category here. I can't blame Paul for accusing them of violating the rules though. They certainly did not follow the spirit of the domain registration rules, even though a strict reading leaves them clean.

is it a crime in china to paraphrase someone else's book? this certainly wouldn't violate copyright here. see weird al for example.

I don't know about Chinese copyright law, but in general, preparing an unauthorized adaptation violates whatever national statute implements Berne Convention article 12. For another, even if parody falls under fair use, "Weird Al" Yankovic routinely seeks permission.

to the extent that a written book is the implementation of an idea, what can you do if somebody paraphrases your ideas?

The selection and arrangement of ideas is part of implementation, and what constitutes an idea tends to be broader in fiction than in nonfiction.

Firstly, ideas should not be patentable. If you had actual implementations in mind, then your implementation should not be patentable if little upstart can read about it and implement it, because it is obvious to the one skilled in domain.
If I recall correctly, the idea with the patent system was to get people to share their advanced solutions with the world in exchange for monopoly, because these solutions were kept secret. I bet you, if someone would describe most of these "million dollar" patents and kept their implementations secret, there would still be thousands of developers who could implement them without investing millions of dollars into research.

"A patent is a document, issued, upon application, by a government office (or a regional
office acting for several countries), which describes an invention and creates a legal situation in
which the patented invention can normally only be exploited (manufactured, used, sold, imported)
with the authorization of the owner of the patent. “Invention” means a solution to a specific
problem in the field of technology. An invention may relate to a product or a process. The
protection conferred by the patent is limited in time (generally 20 years). "

From WIPO handbook

I love the assumption that the whole world has a DMCA just because you do...

The DMCA was just the U.S. enactment of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which was also enacted in Australia in 2007. So, yes, the world DOES, in fact, have a DMCA (or at least a good portion of the world).

Interesting things are discussed quite often. Most the threads are about such. In them, they don't dispute the patents. You know this, but despite there being over 500 patent applications per day, for some reason having a couple per month trashed here makes you angry. "Free country" as the saying goes...but sounds like you could learn a little perspective...it might help you from flying off the handle so much. You're going to give yourself an aneurysm.

I think it is not UN directly, it is WIPO, the international patent&trademark body. They are the common arbiter for domain disputes. Here is an 'entertainment' filtered search result of their past decisions including "madonna.com", "sting.com", "jethrotull.com", "jimihendrix.com", "scorpions.com" and many many others. Ron Paul has a pretty good chance to win the dispute there.

Actually, he is going through WIPO for their Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy which was added to the UN in 1974. The reason he is using WIPO is because it deals with what is called intellectual property and has been used in several high profile cases.

There might be other avenues. But this is the logical one.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/index.html

For whoever is interested, North Korea signed Berne convention in 2003. Foreign author copyright has therefore a meaning for them.

The Caribbean island is taking the unprecedented step because the United States refuses to lift a trade "blockade" preventing the island from offering Internet gambling services, despite several WTO decisions in Antigua's favor. The country now hopes to recoup some of the lost income through a WTO approved 'warez' site.

I'm pretty sure Antigua and Barbuda attended and signed the Berne Convention and have joined WIPO. Furthermore I believe the WTO is fully on board with all that considering their TRIPS agreement. So how in the hell is there such a thing as "a WTO approved 'warez' site" and how on Earth does Antigua think the WIPO is going to view this?

Note: I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong or right, I'm just asking how they are doing it given their history. I mean, sure, this stuff happens all over China but the government pays all the copyright holders lip service about how they're cracking down on it. If the Chinese government profits from it, they don't do so flagrantly like this appears to.

Figure out how to break Berne, and this might actually happen. Article 5(2): "The enjoyment and the exercise of these rights shall not be subject to any formality" Formalities include registration. (Tho' there is no requirement that it be a felony in Berne.) http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html

The details are somewhat complicated, but in most cases the Berne convention is better than current US law. For example, under the Berne convention, copyrights for movies only last 50 years (Article 7 (2)), but under US law is 95 years. Copyrights for a new book last 70 years after the author's death under US law, but only 50 years after the author's death under the Berne convention (Article 7 (1)). For photographs, the term is 25 years under Berne (Article 7 (4)), and 70 years after the photographer's death in US law.

http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/berne/trtdocs_wo001.html

For some cases it the current term under US law is longer than the Berne convention, for example, a work written in 1923 will expire in 2018 (Publication + 95 years), but if the author died in 1975, it would still be under copyright until 2025 (author death + 50 years).

The Berne convention allows countries to keep shorter terms, but I don't think that it allows countries to go back to there shorter terms than the Berne convention allows after they extend them. See Article 7 (7).

I think it would be very useful to pass a law in the US that the copyright term should be the minimum of current law or the Berne convention.

You would be mistaken. It is in fact illegal. Almost every country in the world does in fact have copyright laws. And almost every country in the world has signed global copyright treaties. Azerbaijan is no exception. However, they aren't enforced.

Not enforcing the law doesn't magically make something legal. The fact that the government of Azerbaijan isn't actually protecting US interests doesn't make it legal.

Your ignorance doesn't entitle you to question my education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Azerbaijan
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=AZ

By using the domain name, the domain name registrant intentionally attempted to attract for financial gain, Internet users to the registrant's website 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 the registrant's website or location or of a product or service on the registrant's website or location.

That is grounds for losing the domain name and having it turned over to the complainant regardless of how Google came to acquire it. The only thing that's really questionable is whether "duck.com" is sufficiently similar to DuckDuckGo to cause confusion.

If you have some domain whose name is similar to a commercial trademark, you're in the clear as long as you steer clear of their business. But the moment you try to compete with them using that name, you're liable to lose the domain. e.g. If I owned apple.com and used it to sell apples (the red and green edible kind), there is nothing Apple Computer could do about it. But if I started using it to sell computers, they could complain and I could lose the domain.

The company claims it does it differently, with base stations using the ISM band to discuss directly with the devices on the field, and advanced signal processing in the base station to detect those signals.

They have a pending patent on it, and they call it Forced Statistical FDMA

No, the BBC didn't have to. ICANN has created trademark protection mechanisms where any trademark owner, like the BBC or Audi, can object to the registration of any gTLD or domain that conflicts with their mark.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/lro/