Slashdot Mirror
Eminent Domain Applied to IP Due To State Secrets
NormalVisual writes "Wired recently ran a story about a group of inventors that found themselves unable to sue Lucent Technologies for infringement of a patent they held on a novel design for a pipe/cable connector. They had been working with Lucent on an underwater application for this connector, but unfortunately for the inventors, Lucent's application was being developed for an as-yet-unnamed branch of the U.S. government. The government is now claiming a state-secret privilege, and is refusing to let the inventors sue Lucent for patent infringement, citing national security concerns. In the meantime, Lucent continues to directly profit from their invention without paying any royalties or other compensation. The patent in question can be found online. It's doubly a shame because, unlike so many other patents that we've seen here, this one is actually creative and non-obvious." We've touched on this topic before.
So we want Chinese peasants to pay to watch "Steamboat Willie", but real, live inventors are SOL. God, what a country!
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
Ah yes our current government, ever the defender of the small business and common man.
Are patents evil, or are they good?
It's hard to let Slashdot tell me what to think when they post stories on _both_ sides of an argument!
One-sided posts are all my feeble mind can handle!
Sounds more like theft than eminent domain. With eminent domain, the government takes your stuff but has to give you market value for it. Here, they're just taking patents away from the inventor. OK, maybe not taking away, but denying the holders of that patent the right to use it in this specific case, which is just as good as taking it away.
considering the previous item.
If its a foregone conclusion that the 'Government Agency' are using this tech as provided by Lucent then I don't see how 'state secret' can be a problem (or excuse).
If the 'Government Agency' is allowed this holier-than-thou stance then the plaintiff should just be able to ask: Are you using our tech as provided by Lucent? The agency can then just say yay or nay.
I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
So can someone tell me which criteria of fascism we haven't had happen yet.
It seems like a good many stories I read on digg show up here sometime later in the day. The best thing? The comments on both sites are usually equally uninformed. At least Digg has a lower volume, but without threading it gets confusing.
Essentially this means that the Federal Government and the contractor working for them can't be sued. All they have to do is invoke the states secret privilege and the suit disappears. Anything can become a secret if the government decides that it is important for the safety and security of the country. Since terrorists and hurricanes can strike anywhere, and at anything or anyone, it is all up for grabs.
Well, it may be creative and non-obvious to you but, anyone that has seen a universal joint, such as those on automobiles and other shaft driven machines, is well familiar with this "invention".
If you ask me, it's another patent that should not have been granted.
By the way, the "Eminent Domain" title is just SO much Slashdot FUD.
Sure, while this may actually be a valid use for patents - its gotten to the point where the entire system is beyond repair. Personally I'd love to see this case as being something that helps to revamp the entire patent law (which we all know is necessary). The whole idea of patent law (and copyright law) was to create a system that helped the 'little guy' - instead what we find now is that it only helps the huge corporations that are able to sue for millions in 'damages'. Sad as it may be that someone actually has a valid patent... if this leads to someone (that can do something) to actually look at the law and reform it, I'm all for it.
1) the company didn't get any cash, like they would in an eminent domain case
2) the company still has patent rights for other uses. Lucent can't license the patent to others for any non-secret projects.
It's more like Lucent is engaging in software or music piracy and thanks to "Kings-X" getting away with it.
Now, if the patent holders refused to license the patent at all, or put onerous restrictions on it, and the government siezed the patent in toto so industry could license it, and paid off the patent owner, that would be eminent domain.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Funny how they rejected this court case stating that going forward would provide more information on this patent to the public, thus causing a "national security" concern due to its secret use. Of course doing so causes it to be national news.. Yep good way to keep it secret.
Why not a secret trial? We have all heard about the military tribunals, why not do that for a corporation?
Not only "land of the free" but "land of the lawyers" who love a good old 1st amendment smackdown. Shihar 153932
We can't have it both ways. A patent is a patent is a patent.
for the article summary to call this an application of eminent domain?
- The government is now claiming a state-secret privilege, and is refusing to let the inventors sue Lucent for patent infringement, citing national security concerns.
So every individual or organisation considering to sue a company-with governement interest is a threat to national security.-- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Hmmmm. IFF the Declaration held the power of law...
Petents don't help innovation, and they especially do not help the little guy. They are also not pro-business (contrary to popular belief)
I think it is in human nature, then when a system doesn't work, that we try to force it and tweek it to work even if it's premise isn't sound. If people would stop thinking about the "theory" of patents, and stop thinking about the "business" of patnets, and start thinking about the nature of patents - that is to coerce, threaten, and nickel and dime others who use shared ideas by imposing on them the full force of government. I think the debate about patnet problems would take on a whole new meaning.
Thy name is Corporate America.
Maybe I should take her to Soviet Russia then. Sue's a hottie.
After all, I am strangely colored.
What better why to get people to know about a top secret invention then to make a big deal out of it. Now we know that the government has some reason to want underwater connectors (why? I don't know, but I am not into conspiracy theorys).
Not only is it an abuse of power to deny someone the rights to their invention, but like I said, it brings attention to this.
They should have simply held trial and no one would think twice about it, how many times does person X sue person Y?
I hate this type of hting, it makes no sense on any level
For some reason, the more I read about patents, the more I get the distinct impression that, when you clear away the varied legal wranglings of individual cases and look at the trends, the only people who profit from them are those who are already rich and powerful (corporations, mostly, and the rare wealthy individual).
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Yeah we saw much of this before in the InsLaw case
What do you know I wrote a novel
If this is a tenable position, then what's to stop any govt. contractor from violating any existing patents they see fit? Also, should these same contractors be allowed to apply and/or obtain patents for work being performed for the government? Seems like it should be one way or the other...
Wow, you screwed that one up, I'm not sure what to say...where do we send people who can't even get the Soviet Russia joke right?
Funny the US wants a global IP plan, but yet they screw the IP holders in their own domain. Makes one wonder the fun times of the future in a global sense.
No power gives the government the ability to take property from you and give it to someone else without compensation. Yet, in this case, that is the result. Why? It's a loophole, and Lucent has exploited it marvelously.
Consider: The executive priviledge in question (and the court case cited) gives the government the ability to restrict the release of information deemed important to national security. That's all.
How did Lucent exploit this to their advantage? They promised to pay for the technology, signed contracts and everything. Then they simply didn't pay. Now, it's up to the screwed party in this case, the plaintiff, to sue for recompense. The plaintiff brings suit. And, in the course of the trial, the plaintiff requests discovery from Lucent to verify it's claims and help make it's case.
Uh-oh. Here's where Big Brother steps in. The government says "you can't talk about that" to the courts, and to both parties. Now what is the plaintiff supposed to do? What evidence can he use? There's probably a contract that details specific technology that they now can't disclose. If they blot out the parts that are sensitive, Lucent can use that to claim reasonable doubt. They can't investigate Lucent to find out that they actually took and used said technology, because Lucent can't reveal that information to the court. The plaintiff is completely screwed, against all logic and reason.
I especially love the quote from the Lucent representative: "You can't try this case in your publication". They understand the issues well enough to know how to screw people; and they did it intentionally.
This is becoming more and more common. I have high voltage power lines, 100 ft tall, in my back yard. Yet, I never gave permission to the power company to put them there. I rejected their low offer when they called to try to purchase an easement, and they said "fine". They never filed condemnation proceedings to take the land. They simply built the power lines illegally, over my objections. They can do this because, in Oklahoma, the constitution provides that the maximum damages for them doing so are the same as the cost of the easement. The most it will cost them is what a judge decides the easement is worth. But, now, it's up to me to file suit to get those damages, which means I'll probably just end up with their low offer minus attorney fees.
And they do this as a matter of course, to everyone. It's fascism by definition.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I go to look at the Patent, and the want to "embed" the pictures instead of just "img src=..." them.
So how do you get Firefox to show these?
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
This is ridiculous. What information is relevant to the patent, and possible patent litigation, that the inventors do not already have access to?
How much the government is paying Lucent? What the end use of the technology is?
The US Government should either allow the lawsuit to proceed, in a closed setting, with NDAs all around (provided security checks pan out), or pay the inventors.
Is the not the purpose of the patent to allow dissemination of knowledge while protecting revenue sources for the inventor?
If the knowledge is not being disseminated, Lucent should not be protected by a patent.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Then stand back and see what the courts want to do about it.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Almost funny considering the previous article on slashdot today is titled "U.S. Announces Global Intellectual Property Plan".
So basically what they're saying is that what's good for everyone else is not good if the US government is involved? Does the USA government also get to take foreign patents for free even if the laws in those countries forbid the practice?
This rules!
The government can arrest individuals and no one has to be notified and those individuals may have no rights including not disclosing to anyone else why they were arrested. They can then be held without bail for an indefinite amount of time.
Not only that, but now the government can hold IP hostage for an indefinite amount of time too.
Is the Internet going to get shut down now too because the government has "State Secrets" on there too and all the terrorists congregate there?
Of course, doing this would make major patent holders a little more nervous, but it's still a more equitable resultion under the rule of law than "no, you can't sue him, even though you're getting screwed." In the meanwhile, all these guys can do under the current mess is fall back on "peacable petition for redress of grievances"... which is not likely to be effective in this political climate.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
They're *supposed* to give you fair market value, but as the recent cases involving Wal-Mart, etc. have shown, that "fair market value" is often nothing of the sort, and equates to theft just as much as the situation in the article. "Eminent domain" in the headline was intended to be seen in that context, not necessarily in the strictest definition of the term.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
The Constitution forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation. If the Feds want to take the "intellectual property" for "National Security" or whatever reasons, they are required to compensate them - assuming the patent owner files a lawsuit in the right form asking the right questions. Doesn't sound like they've done that yet.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
They're not claiming eminent domain, and the original article doesn't mention it; that's from the summary written by the submitter.
They're claiming instead something called the state secrets privilege, which has nothing to do with property (intellectual or otherwise) but rather with quashing the lawsuit. Eminent domain has to do with real, not intellectual, property, since it is a "taking", and as is incessantly pointed out on Slashdot you can't "take" intellectual property.
What that big state secret is, of course, I can't say, since most of the filings in the case are (duh) secret.
In other words, the government isn't claiming that it has any rights to the patent; it's just claiming that the guy isn't allowed to sue, because that would violate some big state secret.
So they get to use the patent, with no legal right to it, but what kind of right is it that you can't enforce under the law? No right at all. Sound like a totalitarian regime to you? Gold star!
The U.S. court system posthumously awarded patents for the invention of radio to Nikola Tesla in the 40's. It's been posited that the reason this was done was because current patent holder Marconi was suing the US Army for infringement. The US Government sidestepped paying out massive royalties to Marconi by ruling that Tesla, dead and unable to collect, was the rightful holder of the patents.
This is international, not just USA. Patents don't apply to military devices. Someone needs to be clobbered with a clue stick...
Oh well, what the hell...
It's doubly a shame because, unlike so many other patents that we've seen here, this one is actually creative and non-obvious.
It was totally obvious. The inventor says he thought of it from looking at the lines on a tennis ball, but I call shens on that! Anyone who's ever made out with someone in their younger years understands the locking mechanism. He just didn't want to say it.
Direct away from face when opening.
Of course that is absurd as "fair market value" is exactly how much you are willing to sell something for.
And what are they supposed to say?
"I'd like compensation for DELETED, which consists of DELETED, and is worth DELETED on the market, because it's comparable to DELETED which costs DELETED yet is better because of DELETED improvements."
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
That's not misleading — that's completely, thoroughly, stupidly wrong.
I first read that as "I"nternet "P"rotocol. I thought to myself, "Those fucks will never take 127.0.0.1 from me!"
And it just keeps getting better.
Jesus wept.
The difference here is that Lucent is PROFITING from IP they stole from the inventors. There's nothing they can do while Lucent will continue to commit theft in (likely) an ongoing sole-source contract to provide connectors.
Perhaps the inventors should talk to someone from the Global Intellectual Property Rights Academy?
This has absolutely nothing to do with eminent domain. It would be better for the inventor if it was eminent domain, becuase under that doctrine he'd have to be paid a fair market value for his property. Under this, a more favored vendor is allowed to steal is property, and the government is taking away his right to defend his property in the name of national security. It has nothign to do with the government taking the property itself.
This is the state secrecy doctrine. It says to right in the friggen linked article, with a highly informative blurb in the third paraqraph:
I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_Domain for more information on Emininent Domain and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privil
The linked article would have been more informative if they had mentioned "US vs. Reynolds", the 1953 case in which the US Supreme Court which actually established the privilege in the US . In that case, the widows of three crew members of a B-29 sued the US government for information relating to a crash that killed their husbands. The US government claimed that since they were working on a classified project, divulging the accident report would undermine national security.
As it turned out, they lied. There was nothing sensitive at all in the accident report. There was embarassing information about incompetence and negligence in the maintenance of the aircraft. Which goes to show what Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." There is nothing more dangerous to liberty than allowing the government to act without accountability, purely on its say so.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Lucent aka Lucifer Enterprises.
> real, live inventors are SOL. ...
There is no question that this inventor and investors did get screwed, but with the pharmaceutical industry getting a lot of their basic research performed in public institutions with government grants, and then getting to patent the drug, we're the one's getting screwed. Twice!!
Get even! Post the data on the internet, where any mid-east country, like Iraq, can access it. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!
From the TFA it seems that the inventor (and partners) had "expectations" of how Lucent would compensate him but no signed agreement. The moral of the story is get a very clear signed agreement before doing the work.
They could also nail Lucent if Lucent tries to sell this connector on the commerical market.
Brrr..battery down...can't think...
roses red...violets blue...
Siberia...
Soviet Russia...
Siberia...
If I only knew
Whats the deal with all these Soviet Russia jokes recently? Trolls sharing experience for no reason at all. How much time did you guys serve?
A patent will not issue on an invention unless it is non-obvious. Stating that an invention is non-obvious only says that it might be patentable (assuming the application succeeds on all of the other requirements). That statement really doesn't add much to the conversation.
What, randomly switching two words isn't funny? I know. See, that's the art of it. I'm doing my part for the world.
"I'm pretty sure the value of the defence contract for Lucent isn't any kind of secret..."
That's funny.
For one thing, they haven't specified the department. Second, there is tons of gray money in the US budget that just kinda "disappears" in the name of national security.
"...so the courts should award a *fair* share of that ammount to the plaintiff if it is found that Lucent infringed their IP."
Unfortunately, without the full details of the contract (and possibly even with), we have no way of knowing what share of the contract payments are for the IP in question. Figuring out what portion of that portion should belong to the inventors is just as hard.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Our government decides not to enforce evil patent law, and you all still bitch and moan about it. That small company is trying to hurt national security with their intellictual property claims, probably terrorists they are, and our government steps in and saves the day.
Isn't this exactly what you've been screaming for with all these anti-patent stories!?!
Ungrateful.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
To all my US friends (and enemies if I have any) - RTFA!!!
This isn't about patents, so much as it is about how the executive branch of the US government (nope - not just Bush) can and does abuse its powers. Its used to allow kidnappings, extortion, and yes, the rip off of legitimate patent holders.
There is no oversight that conforms to the principles of natural justice - and to think that the US dares to want to train foreign judges on patent/copyright. The US executive branch is unfortunately comprised of a bunch of unaccountable hypocrites, speaking about freedom and democracy publicly, but doing exactly the opposite behind closed doors.
Each of you, if you truly believe in freedom and justice, should be writing to your members of the Senate and Congress. If you want a fair and just government - the type of government you thought the founding fathers had set out in the consitution, you should be reading the article, sitting down and making your thoughts known to those who can change this.
1. State secret.
2. Publicly posted patent.
I suspect this is not a legal/governmental snafu at all, but rather a behavioral experiment to see how stupid an excuse the government can manage to get away with foisting off on people while essentially conducting crimes that they'd never let the people get away with.
Maybe that's a little far fetched. OK, so it's really just people in government offices fucking with people and laughing about it. There, that makes more sense.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
s to do business with
One day, Slashdot will have a longer subject line.
What company would want to partner with Lucent given this story? For the sake of a couple of hundred grand even, this might cost Lucent a couple of contracts in the future if WE, and everyone we tell, or who hears about this story, ensures that our bosses who may be considering such things hear about how bad it is to do business with them.
If you need to "borrow" a patented business process, just get a contract with an unnamed government agency.
We are the 198 proof..
according to other posters, it's some other deal where the gov'ment gets to quash the patent case because it would reveal state secrets or something. So this is the ultimate slap in the face for patent holders and IP in general, maybe?
1. Patents count, regardless of their actual merit, *except* if the government doesn't *want* them to count
2. "intellectual property" counts as property *except* when the government doesn't *want* it to count
<engage soap-box mode till EOF>
huh. Seems like I see a pattern forming here... I'm not sure I like it.
I think the only reason the gov'ment can get away with crap like this is because there's still too many people that have no idea what's going on. That's how the DMCA got passed in the first place. That's why it took two-four days before the relief effort got going in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast.
The way to prevent the gov'ment from doing dumb things like this is (voting, writing to Congress critters yes, but much more than that) get the media interested in running the frakkin' stories. The more mainstream media you can get reporting on these hijinks, the better chance you have of forcing gov'ment to get is act together.
Just my $0.02.
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Really this statement in the news post is nothing more than inflammatory. How do you know for a fact that this isn't a wrongly issued patent? Are you an expert in this field, or even one of ordinary skill in the art? I have to play devil's advocate here because it seems to be the HIP thing to do on /. is bash the PTO. However, the patent's novelty, which is not in question, is not 100% known to the news poster. This sort of ignorant posting and rambling in news posts is the sort of thing that keeps /. from ever being taken seriously.
Now for the matter at hand, for a change this isn't a problem at the PTO, but the government at large and it would seem the courts. I think it is definitely underhanded, the scheme that Lucent pulled; however, it also calls into question the company that worked with them on this project. Obviously if they had some sort of contract or the like setup in the first place, they would be getting paid for their work, instead they apparently didn't do this and now are getting screwed. It is a shame, but hey a bit of blame can go both ways here...
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
Some background on this issue is available here:
e ge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privil
Particularly nasty uses of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sibel_Edmonds
The privilege was invoked twice against Sibel Edmonds. The first invocation was to prevent her from testifying that the Federal Government had foreknowledge that Al-Qaeda intended to use airliners to attack the United States in 2001; the case was a $100 trillion action filed in 2002 by six hundred 9/11 victims' families against officials of the Saudi government and prominent Saudi citizens. The second invocation was in an attempt to derail her personal lawsuit regarding her dismissal from the FBI, where she had worked as a post-9/11 translator and had been a whistleblower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar
The privilege was invoked against a case where Maher Arar, a wrongfully-accused and tortured victim sought to sue Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in deporting Arar to Syria to face torture and extract false confessions. It was formally invoked by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey in legal papers filed in the Eastern District of New York. The invokation read "Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information", which it later stated included disclosure of the basis for detaining him in the first place, the basis for refusing to deport him to Canada as he had requested, and the basis for sending him to Syria.
Hiram Maxim kept his patented machine gun design safe and lucrative (via licensed production) for years...
Interestingly John Browning's design which worked around the Maxim patents, was just as effective, but better suited to mass production and arguably better suited to battlefield conditions.
It would seem that arms technology patents are respected diligently during peacetime, but completely ignored when the proverbial hits the proverbial.
From TFA:
"You can't try this case in your publication, it's only to be tried in a court of law," John Skalko [Lucent Spokesman] adds -- a prospect that seems increasingly unlikely.
That about sums it up. Gov prevents it from going to trial, and Lucient doesn't care about a loose cannon trade rag.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
They should simply place the patents in the public domain, effectively flipping the US Gov't a huge bird. But not before they emmigrate to Scotland.
I'm sure its got something to do with IP and 'piracy'.
Lets hear it for more governmental bloat to reduce our rights. And before you mod me down, since when has a government supported individual rights ( not counting the first few days after the founding of the USA, which didnt last long )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
US patent law is so fscked that patenting in Canada and Europe first is the only way to halfway protect yourself from Uncle Sam.
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is facing a great battle." - Philo of Alexandria -
It was rejected.
Does this still make me a crank?
Probably.
Welcome to the "United Soviet Socialist of America," Comrade.
Am I the only one who thought the headline meant that the government had used eminent domain to take some poor slob's IP address? I thought, how the heck could they use an IP address 'for the public good'?? :)
Nothing to see here
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Crater is suing Lucent and needs access to some of 22,000 documents which Lucent has. The US Government declares that these documents can't be used because of "state secrets privilege".
In any other case Lucent had simply destroyed the documents or otherwise refused to make them available, the court would automatically presume/infer that whatever was in those missing documents were unfavourable to Lucent's case.
Shouldn't that be the same standard applied to cases where defendants hide behind the state secrets privilege? They get to use that privilege to prevent releasing documents, but the court can make some assumptions about what's in those documents. Sure it drives up the cost of being a contractor for the US Government, but that cost is passed on to the government and is a reflection of the value taken away from the rest of society by the "state secret privilege".
If they're not allowed to sue, they'll just have to sue very quietly.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
This looks to me like it would be useful for attaching two cables using an ROV. The inventor in the article mentions that the other solution was like a thermos bottle and was inferior. If you look at the way the pieces mate, regardless of the initial orientation, they will slide into each other properly. The "thermos bottle" solution might be two cylinders, one of which slides into the other making a tight fit. Suppose you have an ROV which has to mate two cables. The grapple may have an error in mating in rotation, translation, and angle. If you push these connectors together with reasonable errors in any of these parameters, the connectors will properly mate and make a seal. Robots have a hard time doing things like putting keys in locks, but this doesn't have that problem. Also, a human doing the mating might have trouble with other connectors because of the suit he would have to wear in very high pressure has limited maneuverability.
This could be useful for tapping cables if they used the widely known technique the NSA used of storing data in a recorder and coming back periodically to retrieve it. You have to connect a cable to the recorder when you come back to read out the data. It would make sense to have an ROV do this. Also, ROV capability has been emphasized in the public information about the Jimmy Carter. Another possibility is that the submarine would hold a shortish length of cable from the tap site due to limited capacity (although the Carter has quite a bit), pay that out, and have a cable laying ship drop an ROV to connect to a longer cable which would go to shore. If you had a connector that you could connect with an ROV, you could do the long cable lay with the surface ship after the sub was done to make it harder to figure out what cable was being tapped.
The patent infringment part of the suit was dropped, not due to state secrets, but because there is a Federal law that states use by the government is not an actionable infringement.
They have most of their evidence eexcluded for the remainder of their case (trade secret and breach of contract) because it is claimed it endangers national security. It may be false, in which case it is an injustice, or true, in which case disclosure would harm national security - many people can be dead - if we can't intercept when and where Al Qaeda plans to nuke us (look up "Americam Hiroshima"), it could be millions. Since this possibly deals indirectly with tapping undersea fiber cables, that isn't far fetched. I live in Las Vegas, one of the cities Al Qaeda has its eyes on - I believe in freedom - but we need to protect Americans. Again, the gov't can be lying, or telling the truth, I, and you all, don't know which.
A public trial, even with the evidence already made public, could help the enemy piece things together in a coherent whole. Much of intelligence isn't just the pieces of the puzzle, but how they fit. A trial may provide that and make the puzzle "come together" and be much more useful to the enemy.
I'm afraid that even this Slashdot story might help those we don't want helped.
As for the inventors, they have not had the trade secret and breach of contract dismissed. Judges might allow them to recover if they have other evidence and they might be willing to give them leeway because they had evidence they can't use.
As far as I can tell, they are free to license the patent to others and sue them if they infringe. The application must have other uses and it appears they still have full rights in that area. Eminent domain is wrong, they still have their patent - they just have a compulsory license (which most of us like when it comes to music, etc and the public) to the government and their trade secret and breach of contract suits are impeded. Not good, and Lucent should honor contracts (if they are or they aren't I don't know) in any event.
If you wrote software, and one client got to use it without paying you and you had no recourse it would be bad, but if you have full rights in regards to other clients you'd likely be OK.
Why did the inventors only deal with Lucent?
The patented invention wasn't made secret, the patent is still available on the gov't own site!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The headline on this story is grossly misleading. State-secret privilege is certainly objectionable, but it has nothing to do with eminent domain.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Can't someone please come up with simple absolute rules for everything so we don't have to think?
1 - Microsoft, SCO, MPAA, RIAA, & all corporations unless noted in rule 2 = Bad
2 - Linux, Google, Apple, AMD = Good
3 - DRM, outsourcing = Bad
4 - Open source, P2P = Good
5 - Patents, Copyright = Bad, unless being used against a big corp
6 - Goverment = Bad unless they are installing WiFi in your town
7 - NASA = Good, unless they say they will not keep Hubble in space
8 - USA = Arrogant
9 - Religion = only post flames, any intelligent conversation for or against religion will be ignored
10 - In Soviet Russia, Does it run Linux, Beowulf Cluster, I for one welcome, etc = overused, but still must be modded +5 funny
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
I mean, it might go like this:
1. Develop technology patented by someone else
2. Sell pirated technology to government for classified project
3. ???
4. Profit!
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
More and more people being able to use your credit score to decide any/every thing of their business with you.
That's not government or even the credit bureaus.
Individual lenders make the decision using the information provided.
Equifax, Trans Union, and Experian are the the information providing business - they don't offer or deny credit. And they aren't any secret conspiracy and you can (and SHOULD) check your credit scores and reports (http://www.myfico.com/ is a good place to go).
A lender is free to give a loan to someone with a 300 (horrible, horrible, horrible beyond belief) FICO score. It's legal, but they likely won't get any money back. Why? The scores measure risk. Without scores it would be harder to determine risk, so there would be more defaults and thus higher interest rates and it would be harder for people to get loans in general. Less companies would feel safe offering credit at all. It would take longer to get approvals, no 30 second approvals for credit. Furthermore, there would be more opportunities for discrimination. Back in the day it was almost universal that African-Americans had an extremely hard time getting credit and the rates were outragous. Things are FAR from perfect and much of that is still true, but things are somewhat better, much due to civil rights activism and laws, some due to public perceptions changing and changes in people's wealth and equality, but credit scores are a part of the improvement. If an African-American with a 725 (quite good - will almost certainly pay back) FICO scores gets denied for a $250K house, and a white person with a 550 (pretty lousy - good luck getting paid!) gets it, then it is MUCH easier to make a case that it was discrimination. Without scores, the courts would have to compare lending records, and the lender could just cherry pick items from both reports to justify their decision (e.g. the black guy's credit history was only 65 months and the white guy's was 123 months) and the case would not be as cut and dried).
Also credit scores let you objectively know where you stand.
Credit scoring protects the consumer, informs consumers, levels the playing field, helps to allievate discrimination, makes more credit available, allows credit to be offered at lower rates, and expedites credit approval processes from days to seconds.
Yes, the financial system is often unfair, yes there is rampant racial discrimination especially against African-Americans, yes, the people getting denied checking accounts from a ChexSystems record is often unfair (kicks people when they are down, etc - but it is the banks doing the denying), yes there is wage disparity and yes these things NEED to be fixed.
But FICO scores aren't evil, they aren't the mark of the beast, Fair and Issac aren't part of the Illuminati and scores and the credit bureaus which provide the information that goes into them and the company which calculates and provides them aren't an evil fascist conspiracy.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Yeah, most of you will probably tell me I need to get a tinfoil hat. Now what DID happen to Elvis?
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
But 127.0.0.2 has been converted to an airbase and 127.22.91.7 is on active service in Iraq.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Lucent's application was being developed for an as-yet-unnamed branch of the U.S. government." As a government insider, I know that this so-called pipe is actually a staff weapon being developed by Star Gate Command. These new energy based weapons will allow us to counter the Wraith.
The patent holder still has his patent and can still enforce it against others.
Are the record companies hurt so very much because of the P2P infringers?
No, they still make much money with the people who DO buy.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
The article for some reason links to an unrelated decision in the wrong court. It's an interesting decision that appears to be related to the PATRIOT act, but it has nothing to do with Crater v. Lucent. The correct link is here.
The conclusions of the Wired article may be a bit far reaching, at least based on a quick reading of the decision. Crater's patent infringement claim wasn't dismissed because of the secrecy of the documents requested. Their claim was dismissed because when the United States hires a contractor to make something and the contractor infringes in the processing of fulfilling the contract, the inventor has to sue the United States, not the contractor. See 14 USC Sec. 1498(a).
Crater continued to sue Lucent on a misappropriation of trade secrets claim and a breach of contract claim, which fall under State law, not Federal law. The lower court originally dismissed the claims because the evidence to support the claims was being protected as secret information. The Federal Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the lower court has to first determine what the trade secret or breach of contract claims are precisely (evidently, at the time of the lower court's ruling, evidence had not even been introduced that there ever was a contract). Only then should the lower court analyze the requested documents to determine how they affect the claims.
Of course, if the party being sued manages to keep all the evidence secret, it could be difficult to establish a case. Of course, if they had orginally agreed to settle disputes through arbitration, they wouldn't be able to go through discovery in the first place and Crater would have had to establish a case using only information found through their own investigative efforts. At least in this case, they can force the United States to search for and redact relevant documents through FOIA requests.
I'm very interested in this new branch of the government. After 225 years of only three, I think it is about time to add some competition to the judical, legislative, and executive branches!
Posted from the wireless couch.
The U.S. Navy has a long history of tapping underwater communications cables on behalf of the NSA (and others). With the emergence of fiber optic cables this method of spying was put into jeopardy.
Apparently it isn't a problem any longer.
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-529826.html
Pakistan might be one of the first examples of this technique.
Assuming that the NSA splice is going to have all or part of the cable down for a period of time, it would make sense to damage the cable far from where you intend to splice the cable, and then use that opportunity to make your splice.
http://www.dawn.com/2005/07/07/top6.htm
So now that we all know what this device is intended for, can we move along with the lawsuit?
Actually, there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the fact that they're profiting from this. They may not be at all. The U.S. government may be defending the company for lawsuit because they're using the company to put up these pipe/cable connectors. If Lucent technologies were not doing this for the government, I'd bet the ruling on the lawsuit would be different.
Sometimes I comment just to hear myself typing.
If he can't make his money from Lucent, why not sell it to China or someplace?
Obviously he'd have to leave the United|Excited States of America, but, hey, who needs 'em?
My 2 cents worth...
If the government prevents the suit under this basis, then it can be proposed in some sort of legislation this alone is proof sufficient to prove the case and damages.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
According to the article, Lucent wanted to use the basic design of the Crater Coupler to develop something that did not yet exist--a watertight version that could be used with undersea fiber optic cables. Developing an enhanced or improved version of an existing invention is not infringement, it's innovation. It happens all the time, to the benefit of all of us.
The inventors had the "expectation" that Lucent would license their patent, but it doesn't say that they had an agreement to that effect, or that Lucent was bound in any way by existing IP law to do so. If Lucent was not required by law to do so, then it would be careless, if not irresponsible, to pay unnecessarily to license a patent.
The article is also vague about the contractural relationship between Lucent and the inventors. If you develop a product under contract, then that contract has to spell out very specifically who owns what rights to the product. It sounds as though the inventors left too many gray areas in their agreement, although that could just be the lack of detail in the article.
These guys sound like good inventors, but bad businessmen. And they had their lunch eaten by good businessmen. That's how it goes.
Remember, there's no "I" in "TEAM" -- but there *is* an "EAT ME" if you're willing to use the "E" twice. (Lewis Shiner)
In a situation like this where the courts are REFUSING to provide justice, people should be able to go out and get it themselves.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Lets just have the government declare everything secret so they dont have to pay for anything! They could use the Unreal 3 engine in Americas Army for free, just by declaring the game secret.
Talking points: 1) an offensive abuse of national security laws; 2) may stifle future offerings to the Federal Government; 3) the opsec angle. Frankly, I'd be shocked if the government program manager didn't bitch slap his/her counterparts at Lucent for pulling this stunt. Lucent may have underbid the orginal contract, or already run through their contract funding solving technical issues before discovering the "crater coupling". Regardless, by in essence pushing their costs down the vendor chain by cheating a small sub, they've brought undesirable attention to whatever the project is. If the UK/France/FRG/Russia/China et al weren't targeting it for more research before, they are now.
At the moment, Missouri counts as a "red" state in D.C., so if the plantiffs do a good job of selling their case politically on these points, they might get some traction.
From a lessons learned angle, this should warn other pontential Federal contractors and subs that business law is big on the Beltway for a reason. They can either sweat the contract details now, or sweat the litigation later.
Luke, help me take this mask off
The Roman fasces (root of the word fascist) consists of an axe within a bundle of rods, bound by a red strap. As a symbol of state power, the rods were for beating prisoners, the axe for decapitating them.
This emblem on Mussolini's flag of office, the symbol of his Partito Nazionale Fascista, and the the present Guardia Civil (Franco's jackbooted thugs) can also be found on the the 1916-1945 US dimes, the Lincoln memorial chair; all over the US Capitol, including multiple copies on the Speaker's rostrum, the National Guard insignia, etc, etc,
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
What are you doing on Slashdot?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
like that is sell the invention with FULL, DETAILED instructions for manufacture to China, VietNam, Cuba, and any other two-bit second-world nation.
I fucking hate it when politicians use our Constitution as toilet paper. America is going down the tubes, and we have only ourselves to thank for reelecting the same assholes time and again. Fuck.
Sorry about the obscenities, I've just become ashamed to be an American as of late, when I watch what Congress and the courts are doing.
I suggest reading all the articles on this page, but particularly "Guidelines for when to patent"
http://www.tinaja.com/patnt01.asp
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
That the Navy and the NSA are using some branch of this technology to do a microbend tap of other nations undersea fiber links.
I've got no problem with that. It sucks though, that the government is opposed to helping the little guys who's technology helps them.
Lucent's just kind of hanging around waiting to die, but these little inventors will always be there.
Why let them be abused whem for (relatively) little money they could be on your side?
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Life is good. Isn't that right, commrad?
Of course, because it's a secret, we'll never know if this was a real security issue or if Lucent paid off their friendly Congressman to lean on one of his country club buddies who happened to work in that branch of government.
And while this is going on, the Justice Department is fearlessly pursuing p0rn. Brilliant.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The real problem is not whether the inventer profits from his IP but who the hell is leaking the information that Lucent is suppling the government with these items?
I remember some 50 years ago, a guy in my home town was suing the government. It went to the Supreme Court, and he won. Harold Pitcairn brought the first rotorcraft to the US in the '20's and later developed cyclic and collective pitch control, and other concepts that made the helicopter possible. Since the government wanted helicopters for WWII, they bypassed the Pitcairn patents. I don't think the secrecy card was played, it was just the national security plea. So he ended up getting a fairly good settlement from the government and the helicopter manufacturers.
Just compensation? Excuse me... did the government just put a price on IP? by not giving them a decent amount of cash doesnt that amount to them saying "well, the patent is wortheless".
:/
No, this has nothing to do with compensation. They (The Government/Big Business Corp. in this case Lucent) took it, they aren't giving it back any time soon. Quite the formidable tag team eh? Not much the small group of inventors can do when all the players with power are against you here. If you ask me, i'd say they have a man on the inside of the USPTO (maybe more than one!!!)
Short of gathering the masses and revolting there doesn't seem to be too much that can be done. In this case... i'd have to say... they (small group of inventors) are pretty much screwed. The system is working the way its supposed to... i.e. there are times when the government should be able to temporarily gain access to patents free of royalties and the govt. should have the power to do so, HOWEVER, this isnt even CLOSE to one of those times, this is an abuse of power and there is no system of government that can protect us from that (dont present me with your utopian nonsense ideals).
This is kind of depressing news actually
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
you want an example of american fascism in action? well here you go.
/ 7546 -articlel -video
This is a page and video showing how the governent has eroded our right to peacefully gather, even when an event is fully legal.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/22/13030
http://homepage.mac.com/apexgrin/FileSharing2.htm
ah the home of the free in-fucking-deed.
Everyone should know by now when it comes to the U.S. Government and your rights your screwed. It use to be goverments where created to serve the people but now the people are here to serve senators making 6 figure salaries not even showing up to work because they are "lobbying" aka eating a 300 dollar steak dinner that you are paying for. U.S. new motto: Like it or shut the f*** up!
The Universe will end with the last words "Hey, it worked!
Perhaps accidentally you are hiding behind biased language; why not start out by saying:
In some cases telling a woman what she can do to someone else is abridgment of her freedom.
The statement " Telling a woman what she can do to herself is abridgment of freedom" is true, but minimizes the fact that the abortion is done to someone else, not herself.
I'mn trying not to read your opinion into this, I just don't want to disguise what the issue is really about: I would rather kill this baby than carry it. Let the world discuss it, but let the world also admit the question for what it is; the freedom of what to do with someone elses body as well as her own.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Sure they can. They can move to Europe and conduct all future business here. Sure, it won't stop their invention from being ripped off in the US, but they can enforce their patents anywhere else in the world, since once out of US they can completely ignore US's state secrets and make all the facts of this case public. It would be a nice revenge too...
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Actually, there doesn't seem to be any evidence supporting the fact that they're profiting from this. They may not be at all.
You can't seriously believe that Lucent does anything without a profit incentive. Please tell me you don't believe that. Are you saying that the government can force Lucent to work for nothing, or at least for no profit? I'd like to see that law.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This really is the heart of the conservative argument. The conservatives believe that if they can restrict access to birth control and abortion, that this will prevent people from engaging in sex.
It never cross their mind that humans will have sex regardless, and that our access to birth control allows for people to engage in sex responsibly.
The woman's responsibily does start at the same time. If the man walks out on her, she's stuck raising the kid.
The child support claims has to do with the man paying their fair share of that effort.
It's interesting that your principle of responsibility only applies one way. That men should not be held responsible for engaging in a sexual act, but women should be.
True as your comment may be, I'd just like to note that this is about "eminent domain" being applied to patents. Steamboat Willie is restricted via copyright.
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
Ok, what the hell, I'll bite
"* exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme."
WHICH party? As I see this country, there is a very serious divide. Id it good enough for your definition that less than half of the population even support one party over the other?
"* stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture."
Yeah, this is just wrong. Especially the single culture part. Because, you know, there are only white radio and TV stations, white papers, white internet sites, and white lobbying groups. Or replace white with your culture of choice. You'd still be wrong, as the increasing diversity of the workplace, schools, and government show. And that diversity is the result of the very same government you accuse of promoting "submission to a single culture". As wrong as wrong gets there.
Listen the government makes things bad for itself, but calling them fascist is just propagandist hyperbole.
It's interesting that your principle of responsibility only applies one way. That men should not be held responsible for engaging in a sexual act, but women should be.
No, you're the one advocating unequal responsibility. She can "walk out" by getting an abortion, but he has no similar right. Sheldon is correct in that you want to immunize her from burden, but have no qualms with forcing them on him.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's textbook hypocrisy there.
If the track of my Lucent stock over the past 6 or 8 years is to be believed, they do a lot without a profit incentive.
(and I think people don't realize the power of this, as should be clearly demonstrated by this post)
"I'll probably get modded down for this, but..." *insert comment that's not even that controversial and which 90% of /. agrees with anyway*
Fiar market value has differing meanings from time to time.
A while ago, i totaled a car a few days after i purchased it. I decided to get a different version of the same car but cheaper for the replacment. The insurance company wouln't swap it out and did a payout making me lose over $2000 in the process. Under state law they had to give me a fair market value for the vehicle and all they had to do was find a vehicly matching mine within 50 miles and match that price.
So why did i come out in the hole on a car i just placed a decent downpayment on and recieved a loan for three days earlier? because dealerships gave discounts to insurance companies that we as consumers couldn't get unless we were refered by the insurance companie. This isn't realy a fair market value when you need to know someone on the inside to get that price but it was enough to make the test of the law.
Fair market value isn't as much what your willing to sell somethign for or what someone is willing to pay as it is if someone can find someone selling somethign simular. Large companies with huge buying power can decrease that value even more if they tried. In some situations, fair market value doesn't even need to be the same market your playing in.
After much frustration and throwning fits, I decided to forgo the new car and buy a used beater that I could pay cash for. I ended up negotiating the difference in value down to about $500 less then i owed to the bank. Even though three days before I wrecked the car, I shoped around and got the lowest price i could find, I ended up losing out on about $2300 between what the insurance wouldn't pay and the downpayment. That figure doesn't include the tax and title fees i payed out of pocket when i bought the car.
Fair market value doesn't neccesarily have to be "fair" at all.