Slashdot Mirror
Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens's Impact On IP Law
Pickens writes "Corporate Counsel recounts the profound legacy of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, author of the majority opinion in what some consider the most important copyright ruling of all time — the 1984 Betamax decision (Sony v. Universal City Studios) that established that consumers have a personal 'fair use' right to make copies of copyrighted material for non-commercial use. Justice Stevens's contribution to the ultimate decision in Betamax extended well beyond writing the opinion. The justices' initial debates in the case make it clear that Stevens was the only one of the nine (PDF) who believed that the 'fair use' doctrine gave consumers a right to make personal copies of copyrighted content for home use. It was his negotiating skill that pulled together the five-vote majority allowing home video recorders to be sold and used without interference from copyright holders. An IP litigator is quoted: 'The ruling that making a single copy for yourself of a broadcast movie was fair use ... that was truly huge, and was a point on which the court was deeply divided.' So the next time you're TiVo-ing an episode of your favorite show, remember to give a quick thanks to Justice Stevens; and let's hope that whoever President Obama appoints to replace him will follow in Stevens's footsteps and defend Fair Use, not corporate copyright interests." The review also touches on Stevens's "patent skepticism," which may be on display when the court delivers its eagerly awaited Bilski ruling.
It's probably a very good thing that Bilski is being written while Stevens is still there. He was involved in all the previous subject matter cases, and the Supreme Court never said software was patentable in those. They also said a bunch of useful things like that math isn't patentable, and that putting instructions such as software onto a computer was a "mere clerical" act.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Last time I checked, the USA is supposed to be some kind of a democracy. Therefore, instead of hoping for a Wise Person getting appointed, why not use the democracy-ishness and get your stuff fixed?
Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
... to make a "fair use" copy of Justice Stevens (non-betamax, of course) ;-)
I'd love to hear his take on DRM, ACTA and this crap.
Oh, I didn't miss the joke. I'm still a little fuzzy on the humor.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Golden Boy" Obama has surrounded himself with ex-lawyers from the RIAA / MPAA. Good luck on getting a good appointee.
http://www.osnews.com/story/23002/Obama_Sides_with_RIAA_MPAA_Backs_ACTA
Sadly, I don't doubt this at all. The entertainment industry has invested heavily in the Democratic Party hoping for support for their draconian wishlist. We're moving in the wrong direction here especially when it comes to the concept of fair-use and copyrights. The notion of the public domain is becoming extinct in practice as perpetual copyrights are put into place for corporations that hoard them.
I'm sure this will be said far better by others, but an unbiased, non-Corporatist appointment by Obama is a pipe dream!
Obama is a ardent Corporatist which you can see by his "Health Care" Bill, the bailouts and his undying advocacy for all RIAA, MPAA and Big Media causes (ACTA for one).
This Court is already a Corporatist court (Corporate Money = Free Speech ruling) and the next appointment will merely cement that.
The people need the 21st Century Supreme Court to properly decide the correct balance between property rights and all kinds of other rights, like speech and other expression. And to decide correctly what is actual property and what is just a temporary government monopoly. To recognize that progress in science and the useful arts is promoted when our rights other than a synthetic "copyright" govern the market.
Or we can keep the 20th Century property privilege that the surviving old members of the Court find every excuse to protect.
We will see just how much change Obama truly brings. Or whether he's just a corporatist, who protects the only "right" a corporate person could possibly have: maximizing property and the power that comes with it.
--
make install -not war
Sotomayor is definitely pro IP, but she is NOT pro corporation. The two are not mutually inclusive.
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2009/06/05/whats-sotomayors-stance-on-intellectual-property
She is not pro-corporation as stated above. One of her first comments while being questioned made that very clear. She believes corporations should NOT be granted any rights of a 'person'.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/09/17/is-sotomayors-corporations-arent-people-comment-a-harbinger/tab/article/
Aenesidemus' patent on patent skepticism has been expired even longer than Seth Boyden's patent on patent leather. Continuing to call it patented could get you in trouble for false marking.
I see posts that are advocating legislation from the bench. This is not the purpose of the court. The court is only there to decide the constitutionality of an issue. They are not there to do anything more.
If you don't like the law, you need to petition congress... UNLESS the law is unconstitutional, then you can take it to the courts.
That website is bullshit. Close gitmo in progress? Gitmo is not closed, or probably even closing. He issued an executive order saying it should be closed, but it can be reversed by the next president, just as Bush did after Clinton apparently began the process of closing the facility. Obama has actually done nothing to prevent Gitmo from continuing to operate. And there's no mention of how Obama has already flopped on his promises WRT withdrawal of troops, certainly not in the top 25 where it belongs, given that it was one of the major campaign promises. I can come up with websites which paint him as an asshole, but they'd prove only as much as your "citation". Obama's appointments tell the story that must be attended to. Processes he "starts" can be finished by someone else — in a variety of ways. But some of the appointments will outlast him and affect our lives long after he's no longer a figure in American politics.
Obama is the new boss, same as the old boss, and he's not even the boss. He's beholden to his constituents, the real ones; not the American people, but the American corporations. Until we take the rights of people away from corporations, we will be serving our corporate masters with our every act.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The majority of the Senate voted to block funds necessary to transfer detainees. The Republicans then made a huge deal about it and turned into a political nightmare. Obama has pressed forward with preparing facilities in the US and on trials, regardless.
Also, do I need to post sources or are we just ignoring those now? Here's the senate block, here's Obama pressing forward with a memorandum.
Given how quickly almost all of the Senate blocked the transfer of prisoners, I think he's doing quite well. Unfortunately, the President can scoff at Congress' decisions only to a certain degree, and it takes a lot of legal wrangling to get around Congress denying funding for transferring inmates.
Stevens was also one of only two judges in Eldred v Ashcroft to reject the Copyright Term Extension Act as unconstitutional.
"The majority of the Senate voted to block funds necessary to transfer detainees. The Republicans then made a huge deal about it and turned into a political nightmare. Obama has pressed forward with preparing facilities in the US and on trials, regardless."
Barack Obama could effectively close Gitmo right now if he wanted to, with the stroke of a pen. He could sign an executive order and move those terrorists anywhere he wanted today. That doesn't require an act of Congress. What he wants is credit for doing it only if Congress gives him cover. In other words, he wants to do it if it's safe politically.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
There's something funny about lamenting the resignation of an 89 year old judge because he's the only one that gets modern technology... :-)
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Checks and balances can be a bitch sometimes. In this case, the Senate refused to write the check.
I didn't say it wouldn't cost money somewhere else. But if he wanted to, he could pick up a phone and tell the Joint Chiefs "Look, I want them all on a C-17 headed somewhere else in 6 hours. Make it happen". And it would.
Are you seriously... seriously going to argue that this hasn't happened because of cost?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel