Slashdot Mirror
Biggest IP cases of 2002
scubacuda writes "Law.com's article, The Biggest IP Cases of 2002, has a nice summary of some of the intellectual property cases that have caught our attention this last year. Of particular interest to slashdotters: Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. (regarding Arriba's visual search engine), Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc. (regarding
a gene patent being invalid because it did not meet the written description requirement), an Illinois federal court injunction against Aimster, United States v. Elcom Ltd a/k/a Elcomsoft Co. Ltd. , and Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Welles (regarding Playmate of the Year, Terri Welles, using Playboy's marks and metatags on her website)."
The law is an ass. (which by implication must mean it's best not to feed it or it will shit on you.)
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
just have one porn site sue another, and get links to both on the /. frontpage.
I mean it. Lawsuits are a sign of freedom. They're a sign that the government has decided to leave as much as possible to the free market and the law of contract and tort, and not to come in with a big wet fucking nanny agency.
HA HA HA HA HA! You know, most of the people on here claiming they are lawyers are actually just losers who probably don't have any degree, let alone one in law. But YOU sir, I can state with nearly 100% certainty that you definitely ARE a lawyer! Because only a lawyer would say "lawsuits are freedom".
No, lawsuits are not freedom. They are a waste of time and money for both sides, and in the untested waters of the internet, can have random or nonsensical outcomes.
Too many lawsuits are a sign that the laws are not aligned with the wishes of the people, and with the design of a free market. Adam Smith said that "free markets are self-organizing" so if you need constant litigation to keep it going, something is wrong.
Now, I'm not talking about all lawsuits. When someone violates a contract then the law should step in to uphold the free market.
I'm talking specifically about 1) "unsigned" shrink-wrap contracts in software and other forms of information; 2) "intellectual property" laws like the DMCA that make tools illegal, and REMOVE the legal system from the equation when it comes to ISP take-downs; and 3) stupid patents that the government issues.
A little mom-and-pop web site getting sued for patent infringement because they took the "Sears catalog" model of "putting pictures next to prices" is not freedom, in any sense of the word. That stuff is a MISTAKE, a pox on the free market system, a form of government regulation that should not be allowed. Patents should cover *tangible* and *novel* inventions.
Sklyrov should never have been sued or even blinked at. Software that removes "protections" has been used since the 80's, and it didn't hurt the market back then, and it won't hurt it now.
I really wouldn't feel "free" if I get a cease & desist because I wrote a program to copy DVDs. That's not a free society, that's a corporate-run society, probably not any better than the European-style socialism if it continues.
Lawsuits are freedom!! Ha! Sounds like something Pres. Bush would say.
Eldred is a very interesting case. I'm optimistic the retroactive portion of the law stands a 50:50 chance of being struck down, despite the Court's conservatism and traditional deference to Congress in similar matters. As for prospective copyright terms, I really doubt the court will intervene, because the life+70/95 terms are not obviously unreasonable, esp. when compared to law in other countries -- even if they do seem a tad long as a matter of judgment.
EFF has done a nice job collecting legal materials as its website, useful as a reference even if one disagrees with their position.
What to make some money while testing your legal and psychic prowess? Try this contest.
(1) The best argument doesn't always win. Sometimes the lawyer who wins is the one who gets the ideologically sympathetic judge.
... or makes the most persuasive case that the judge's life hangs in the balance. Maybe these things don't happen (much) in America, but they do happen around the world (e.g. Colombia vs. Medellin cartel) and throughout history (e.g. late Roman republic).
... but Big Money? To my thinking, it's teachers and garbage collectors who deserve the Big Money -- try running a civilzation without those professions, see how ugly things get real quick.
Worse: in some systems, the lawyer who wins is the one who makes the biggest payoff to the judge
(2) What makes lawyers so deserving of Big Money? A living wage, sure
Of course, some lawyers work pro bono for the causes in which they believe. That's not good capitalism, but it's truly heroic.
That said, I agree with your point: better a free market legal system than a bloated bureaucracy.
-kgj
Perhaps I am asking the impossible here, but I believe it is up to folks like those who read /. to work towards the repeal of absurd laws like the DMCA, and others that result in these absurd law suits.
Believe it or not, your congressmen, senators, and governors WILL LISTEN if they get enough feedback. What does that entail? It entails writing a coherent, calm (avoid flames), SNAIL MAIL letter and sending it to every government representative in your area. Here are some URLs that might help:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
Explain your opposition to laws like the DMCA, UCITA (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ucita.html), and similarly outrageous and disgusting laws.
-Michael
Threshold RPG
Yep. There are two arguments in the quoted passage: First, that Congress has abused the meaning of "limited time"; second, that retroactive extensions of "existing terms" are prohibited. I'm sympathetic to the second, and think the first is for Congress not the courts.
I do sort of wish the Court would intervene to say the term has gotten too long, but don't want a precedent like that for the Court to do so in other cases. Historical experience has been that although unchecked power of Congress is bad, the unreviewable power of the Court can be worse, as when it was busy invalidating the New Deal. Given precedent, I don't think th Court will, and I'd prefer we petition Congress, as has happened with the DMCA.
But who cares what I think -- here is the transcript of the Oct. 9 oral argument, which discussion well describes the essentially simple dipute.