Slashdot Mirror
Feed Magazine Commentary on Patent Insanity
roger writes "Feed Magazine has an interesting column on etoy/eToys, Leonardo, etc., and the recent patent law insanity in the United States." Cogent commentary on *why* so many big companies are doing such dumb stuff from Hunter College Professor Clay Shirkey.
How about a disclaimer attached to every tcpip connection status forbiding Lawyers to use or view the contents of the session? OR, and being one to seldom resort to violence, We just line up the lawyers and shoot them. Its the same reason I moved from california, the state used to be a great place to live, where citizens rights were protected by all the liberal activists passing laws to protect themselves. Problems is theres a point when you pass to many laws to protect people it becomes oppresive. The Internet used to run fine. Personally i still rue the day when my friend came to me and said "Have you tried this new program mosaic?", to which i course replied, "Saw it, sounds like a stupid program.", Well i did try it and predicted that it would bring the idiots... opps i mean the masses. and it did and this is what happens as a result, Eventually someone thaws out one of those monolithic fossils they call a lawyer and starts suing everyone they see. For the record, once and for all RTFM is a polite answer to a documented question yet people have been sued over using it. So once again, I urge the citizens of the world to unite in an effort to shoot all the lawyers.
BITCHES!
Or should that be Bizayiyatches!!!!!
While your point is a very good one, I'll note the reason why railroads are hampered the way they are is because of the anti-trust acts that were brought onto the railroads about a century ago.
My father used to work for the railroads, and the amount of regulatory wierdness that surrounds the railroads because of their actions a century ago is just absolutely bizarre. For example, as of a few years ago it was a federal capital crime (read: death penalty) to cause the derailment of a train in a way which caused the death of any passengers on that train. Needless to say many of these laws are not enforced.
Your retort doesn't apply to patents concerning business models, because the method employed is transparent to everyone
Well, if you look at current patent law, it actually has a stipulation against patenting business processes. The problem is that the courts have mangled the interpritation of process patents in general so that with a little careful wording conventional process patent law can be streached to cover business processes. This is really a screwed up situation that needs to be fixed; patents were never intended to cover business processes.
And the USPTO isn't about to stop giving out trivial patents, because every patent issued by the USPTO to an American company/citizen is one fewer international patent that can be handed out to a foreign company/citizen. Nevermind that Americans suffer from this practice just as much as the rest of the world.
Your point is completely spurious because USPTO patents can and are in fact routinely given to to foreign companies and citizens; in fact on the order of 1/2 of US Patents over the past decade were assigned to foreign citizens and companies. There is no restriction on non-US citizens being granted US Patents.
If Sony wants to gain patent covereage on something they sell in the US they have to get a US Patent. If I want to get coverage on something I sell in Japan, I need a Japanese Patent. A US Patent has no standing outside the US except perhaps as prior art. In fact if I file a US Patent on MY INVENTION I have to file a European Patent about the same time to prevent my own US Patent being used against me as prior art.
He had a great name and should have made really big $$ for it, but they just screwed him because they could.
Being that most judges still dont know what email is, let alone how to read it maybe we should make it a point to get the address of the courthouse of the presiding judges in these cases as well as his or her name and come up with some spiffy professionally written letter (in other words i wont write it) explaining to the judge why we think the law suit sucks. I know we had some laws passed a few years back against frivilous lawsuits and if we included that it might start a judge thinking. If we all sign a copy and snail mail it to the judge or even better certified snail mail it to the judge he will be innodated with it and be forced to at least acknowldge it. If we get 1000 people to send the same certified letter to the same judge the post office will make a stink and instant press. Press loves that kinda crap. I think we have to come down to a medium that a judge can understand. Email will just get deleted or ignored. Most of you who are email savy know it will just be viewed like a spam or a DOS attack. Paper is something that sits in front of you, and if its certified, hes gotta sign for every copy that comes in and he doesnt he puts his job at risk.
The party's over boys and girls. Time to bend over and let the rulling class have their way with us, or get thrown in jail for resisting.
The only way to fight back is to join my crusade to become Evil Overlord of the Earth. Follow the link below for details: http://users2.50megs.com/mattwmiller/new_laws.html
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
another problem might include the fact that an owner of a patent monopoly can choose to deny anyone else access to the invention, or set unfair terms..
I would think under normal circumstances the patent holder would set terms that would maximize his gain. It does a patent holder no good to set prohibitive terms on widget licenses - he wants to gain a LOT of income from the sale of his patented widget. His license fees would be thusly constrained to be slightly less than the economic gain of the improved widget.
There is also the issue of a company doing its own manufacturing of a patented item. Again the company is going to set the price so as to maximize it's economic gain. Too high and they lose out.
It is tough for me to see the need for compulsory licensing in such cases.
The problem comes when the patent has value because it is preventing canibillization; that is the patent holder (A) has a vested interest in something that he wants to continue, and the patent is blocking a competitor (B) from manufacturing a better, competing product. It seems like economic efficiency would be served to force licensing here. The problem is that by forced licensing you have the state abrogating property rights. This is unconstitutional in most cases; you have a very high standard to meet if you do this, and you owe compensation besides.. you owe the patent holder the value of his economic loss under eminent domain provisions of the US Constitution. I don't think we want to encourage the mess that would result from this.
There is also a big danger with compulsory licensing. Companies that don't want to license will simply not patent and keep thier invention secret. This is exactly opposite the primary purpose of the patent; to encourage publishing.
Personally I don't really think that there is much likelihood that a good innovation will sit idle. The hunger for innovative products is so great as to be almost unimaginable.
The usual industrial outcome in a case like this is very complicated. Sometimes there is an exchange of assests - B will buy out both the patent and old prodduct from A because the value of both are worth more to him than to A, or A will buy out B for similar reasons. Or a joint venture will result. There is a lot of interesting stuff like this joining on in the chemical industry over mettalocene catalysts - there is a minor industrial revolution going on, and companies are restructuring to allow the best development of the new technologies.
I think we already have an example of what can happen when you try to hoard your technology, and not let others take the ideas and run with them - Apple. They have consistently lagged behind in the PC market, in no small part due to the fact that they refused to let anyone else build clones. MSFT and the closed-source area is another example. MSFT refuses to allow anyone to look at their code and we end up with lousy software. My refrigerator doesn't crash ever, but if it did, I wouldn't have to worry that Sears had patented the model of keeping food cold, I could just go buy a Maytag or something. One other example to consider for a second: electricity. Sounds a little ridiculous that anyone could patent electricity, but why not? Then you'd have exclusive rights to decide who could and couldn't use it, and how. *sigh* "The sincerest form of flattery is imitation..."
There is very little future in being right when your boss is wrong.
Original Post: But by not allowing dissemination and wide spread adoption of these business models it will only serve to retard the overall evolution of our economy.
Post I'm replying: Your retort doesn't apply to patents concerning business models, because the method employed is transparent to everyone -- humanity doesn't need anyone to spell it out on paper, because anyone in the business knows what business model
One question: So what if everybody knows what they are if they cannot use the patented business methods? The problem with patents now is that they are being used as a weapons: thus companies would rather not license patented processes so that their competition is overly handicapped or non-existent. e.g. Priceline vs. Expedia or Amazon vs. BN. This can only harm consumers in the long run because it limits choice and grants a natural monopoly to the patent holder. And we all know monopolies are a bad thing.
((This article was right on the money. Somehow, we've turned into a combative culture where the power of the judiciary is being used as a weapon-- against democracy and free markets.))
... things that used to be acceptable in a 'pg' rated movie are rated 'r' now. Why is that? Swearing, which used to be perfectly fine (although not done very often) is now ILLEGAL. Not morally objectionable or socially unacceptable, but ILLEGAL. Morals don't matter, only laws matter.
Actually, I don't think it's so much a _combative_ culture as a culture of irresponsibility. We don't so much sue for combat, we sue so we don't have to think about what we're doing before we do it.
Got pregnant because you forgot to take your pill? No problem, sue the pill makers for not making it strong enough to catch the one day you missed. Can't take being parodied? No problem, SUE THE PARODY! Someone else has a name you want? Don't get a more imaginative name, just sue them - they probably can't afford the defense anyway.
Now, I can see these laws being used correctly. I know someone who is having to go through a lawsuit right now, because someone saw her site (which has been up since 96 or earlier), and decided they wanted to steal her business. They set up a site which had an almost-identical URL (one hyphen difference), and put up similar content. They claimed they had 'bought the site from its previous owners' when emailed by people who had forgotten the hyphen and found them instead of the real site. They stole content word-for-word. They stole the entire idea of the site. And they weakened it (this is a women's forum, specifically anti-idiot but NOT anti-man, and they have set up a reasonably anti-male pro-shopping idiots' site, calling it by a similar name). It is hurting her reputation among the people she aims to be with and sell to. It's upsetting her business. For this, a lawsuit can be a good thing (cease-and-desists did nothing, and they have as much as admitted to doing these things - not to mention the fact that the people doing it are a big site-making company, not just some random person like they want people to think. They have Bucks to waste trying to force my friend out of business). Patent law and intellectual property can protect the little guy too, let's not lose sight of that.
The problem is that, within almost all parts of our lives, we have lost sight of the ideal of independence. This country, our government, was created by people for whom independence was a necessity of life. You have the right to carry a gun, because you have the right to defend yourself from all the crazies out there, or from government gone wild (which is what we were under just before the declaration). You have the right to say whatever you want, about whatever you want. You don't have the right to _incite_action_, but you do have the right to talk about it. Fine line, if you ask me, but it's there.
The problem is not with the laws in the way they were first made. It's in the changes that have been made, the evolution our legal system has gone through over time.
It's possible to have an insanity plea. This is not always good, I think - it means that, if you are nuts and do something because you couldn't stop, you won't just be randomly put to death for it. This can be good - it can save lives of those who can be made 'normal' again. It can also, however, keep people alive who really SHOULD be put to death. Frankly, if there is someone who is so dangerous that he should never again be allowed into society (life in prison, anyone?), he should be PUT TO DEATH. That is the point of trial-by-jury, right? If we can't keep them in society, if they are that dangerous, WHY are we keeping them around? My guess at the answer? Cheap labor. We pay taxes to keep them fed and housed, and the government gets super-cheap labor to make license plates and other governmental necessities. What a joke. Before The insanity plea is highly abused. "It wasn't my fault, I was temporarily insane, but I'm fine now" has become a common cry of the criminal. Ok, so you were abused like hell and you eventually went nuts. That says something about you, as well as about them. Before anyone starts in about 'two wrongs don't make a right', let me add that _releasing_ people who are convicted of murder or heavy abuse almost invariably results in more murders and/or abuse. Reform doesn't happen in the system we have right now. You want to make the death penalty obsolete, find a way to truly change these people without threatening the rest of the populace (brainwashing does NOT count), and FIX the system. Until that happens, we have too many criminals who are STILL BREEDING.
Also, before anyone tries to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about with 'temporary insanity of an abused person', let me state this: I have BEEN in an abusive relationship, and have BEEN raped, by family and others, have BEEN beaten. But you know, I never felt the need to cut off the penis of my abuser, or to kill him. I left him. It was hard, it was painful, it was near-impossible to get out of that cycle and to stop trusting my judgement for a while and just be with NOONE while I healed. It took me 6 or 8 months to break away completely and stop with the calling-back-and-forth, now-together-now-apart crap that follows these things. I didn't take him to court for injuring me forever, though, I took it upon myself to change myself, to not LET him have the power to destroy me. To quote Eleanor Roosevelt, "Noone can make you feel inferior without your consent."
Too bad noone ever thinks about that before they cut/shoot/destroy. (I am in NO WAY saying that being abused is the fault of the abused. However, if you get raped in a neighborhood, staying there - or going back repeatedly - when you know your rapist lives there is a Bad Idea - pure common sense. But people don't think that way anymore).
The same goes for a lot of things. It has become acceptable for people to be totally irresponsible, and to blame others - anyone, as long as it isn't themselves. There was a woman some time ago who sued Dunkin Donuts, or McDonald's, or somesuch. She bought a coffee, got into her car and put the coffee between her legs to hold it while she started the car. She spilled the coffee and got burned badly. What kind of MORON puts BOILING coffee between their legs?!?! And if you're stupid enough to DO something like that, don't go blaming the people who MADE it - they sold it, they didn't teach you how to be stupid.
Remember Columbine? How easy is it to blame video games for what went wrong? Kids who were picked on, kids who had dysfunctional lives, who were abused. But we don't blame the parents, we don't blame the kids, we blame the fucking video games and music?
Things like this happen all the time. The fact that it has spread, that it is infecting the internet, is not at all surprising. The fact that something needs to be done about it is well-known by anyone with brains.
I seriously doubt anything WILL be done about it, though, until people stop being so stupid. I have a sneaking suspicion that there will be a core of intelligent, self-reliant people out there, who will wind up becoming outlaws because they don't want the government to think for them. Everything but the self will be blamed for any problems people have, until we have a dulled-down, pastel view of life and no movies are higher than G rated, and no music even implies bad feelings... etc. Ok, so that's a little extreme, but
This is teaching our children bad things, and children are growing up in a culture where 'it's bad if you get caught and it's illegal', not 'it's bad because it is (rude/mean/disrespectful/horrible/whatever)'.
Bleh. It's Christmas eve, and as usual I'm horribly bitter and annoyed by humanity tonight. If I hadn't learned how WRONG it is (not illegal, but fucking wrong!), I'd probably be out there with a shotgun or worse every christmas, trying to fix the gene pool or something. Stupidity breeds like rabbits. Too bad there are no wolves anymore.
-Elthia
maybe I should start drinking myself into a stupor when I feel like this. I hate drinking though, does weird things to me - not to mention the nauseous, sloshy feeling in my stomach. Bleh. Guess I'll just rant about the idiocy of the human race and hope someone out there hears me.
Way to be constructive, kiddies...This must be a game of "Ooh ooh! Let's see who can be the most shallow and tasteless!!" I mean, really. Enough bashing, I really don't want or need to see this shite on here, and I think that just about anyone (over the age of 12) shares my opinion. Here I am, reading replies to articles and up comes this garbage. Pull down your defenses, seriously. We don't all spellcheck our responses before we submit them. Way to be tedious and idiotic. -Quidam
Not only are you absolutely right but you quote the residents in your sig. Too bad you (probably) don't live in my town I'd buy the beers.
War is necrophilia.
I ask you!!!
Actually the French originated the Lawsuit but over the Leonardo deal in the US courts because they have to many loopholes. The WTO facilitates that even more which is why there were riots about it. People are sick of it. If i could convince my wife to let me move out of the US now I would. I read a quote once by an australian citizen which hit home with me. "Thank god we got the criminals and not the puritans."
we would alll be driving stangs instaed of camaro's and vette's. mmmnph. Not that I would mind. I love my Saleen Mustang.. They charge $3000!!! Just because the beast consumes so much fuel. FUEL TAX... *sigh* Im considering buying a cheapie foreign car.. around 8-10mpg.. thats just idling in the city. Phew. If I dog it out I get like 6 or 7. Nothing like 0-60 in lesss than 5 seconds however.. and a Quartermile quicker than a NSX or Vipers.. :-).. Ugh I got off topic ehh? I love my car.. can you tell..
This is an International Patent
In a pig's eye it is.
THIS IS NOT A PATENT It is an application that was rejected by the European Patent Office.
WO series numbers are APPLICATIONS. If you even took the time to look at it you would see that it saya APPLICATION right along the top.
Go to Gemany, Rent s BMW, and floor it on the audobon.....
read Atlas Shrugged. Prophesy?
The ones who are pushing this insanity are the lawyers, in the long run, they are the ones who will be making the most money, reguardless of which side they are representing.
It's a damn shame that the great inovational spirit we had in the 20's 30's and even up through the 80's is getting stifled because people are so afraid of getting sued.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Anyone who has been around online (and especially in usenet) for more than a few years will recognise the above running joke.
Anyways, it was a good article. I hadn't heard about the Transasia case, but it's another nail in the coffin of common sense. How can a company trademark a person's name? How can suits be filed against organisations for using a name _prior_ to the suing company? This is clearly stupid.
The real question is, WHAT CAN WE DO? Make it clear to eToys (by mailing them, phoning them (collect, no doubt), and telling your friends) that they will be boycotted. (and then carry out the boycott, of course)
Unfortunately, while this makes us feel good, boycotts don't seem to be enough. Many people have been boycotting Spamazon for ages before this latest sleazy behaviour. They're still in business, and getting free publicity from Time to boot.
There needs to be a fundamental change in the laws, and it has to be done on a concerted, international scope. As long as countries aren't working together on this, someone can start up a site in the most lawsuit-happy country out there, and then sue everyone else from every other country.
Activism is the key, folks. We're headed for an international anti-establishment clash, far beyond what we say in the '60s. If we don't stand up now and fight it, you can expect to be buried six feet under, in a Sony SurroundCoffin(tm).
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
What is wrong with this article?
Why can't I reply to the main article?
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
"God does not play dice with the universe." -Albert Einstein
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
That's four words.
Some regulation is still needed, however. Your example of transportation in NYC is a great example. If NYC did not require taxi medallions, there would be so many cabs in Manhattan and car services in queens and brooklyn that you would be unable to walk across the street or drive and non-yellow veihicle
My position on business model patents has always been quite simple. You shouldn't be able to get them. At all. It's a process patent (how to get from here to there). It should be considered a trade secret by the company in the sense that they keep their mouths shut and don't have to tell anyone how they do it (except monopolies?). But if someone else figures it out, good for them.
:-). I can serve it for years without others figuring out how to make it and make money on it until someone else smartens up (think KFC's secret recipe) or I can tell everyone ... either way, my right.
...!
Say I figure out how to mix a new drink that everyone loves at Christmas and call it "eggnog"
No legal protection of the process itself
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Diggs
If guns are so evil, how come Sarah Brady can hold one and not turn into a raving lunatic?? Oh yeah, she is one already.
Heh, dude, too slow. Better luck next time.
APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING AN ANTIGRAVITATIONAL FORCE
It's not only the companies, the patent office itself is loony tunes, allowing patents on anything and everything (this is an International Patent). Given the power they are handing out (authority to kick the ass of anybody using their "patented" technology) some checks and balances are in order. Peer review at least.
I certainly agree with the article- we have a big problem.
But maybe there could be some sollutions. Smaller companies could create joint funds for defence in courts. Not every company on internet is being sued, so IMHO quite small payments could acumulate enougth money to defend the company (member of the fund) which gets sued.
Maybe insurance companies could do this too.
I wasn't insulting the Spanish, I just thought that the guy might have invented a new Spanish word, that's all.
I guess you must feel pretty retarded now, you spic gobbler!
Admittedly, some of the earlier ones were crap, but they get better as you go on.
What if Henry Ford had patented the assembly line as his business model and prevented other manufacturers from adopting this process for making their goods? How would that have affected the history of the 20th century? Anyone care to speculate?
It seems to me that this is basically what is happening with the Dell and Amazon patents and all the "business model" patents if they are enforced. I can't help but think that it would ultimately be detrimental to the public good (and to the patent holders themselves). Sure some of these companies will maybe make even more money than they already do in the short run. But by not allowing dissemination and wide spread adoption of these business models it will only serve to retard the overall evolution of our economy.
Sharing knowledge multiplies its power and benefits everyone, including those who create it. Hoarding knowledge impoverishes us all.
What a stupid world we are living in.
**sigh**
Merry Christmas everyone.
Ideology is for ideots.
I resent you fuckers using the word spic. I will be filing a formal protest. You bunch of goat fuckers!!
I wholeheartedly support boycotts of these organizations, but otherwise feel relatively helpless (one of the small guys) against them. However, one "talent" I have and am respected for (by those who don't have the talent) is my knack for "anything computer".
I am trying to make a living with this talent and get *so* tired of those without the talent making decisions like those made by whoever at amazon and etoys (and the others), and thereby putting my livelyhood at risk. If I find out that organizations that I provide services for do crap like that, I will just withhold services from them (I will try anyway). If all who disagree with these litigous companies would do the same, I think the companies would finally wake up.
For example, I know that VALinux provides services for etoys.com and I would bet that not many people at VA like what etoys has done. So, pull the plug on them. Withhold your services. I know that someone from VA reads slashdot, so what do you say?
If this community is no different than what came before, then bye-bye.
PS. I successfully posted this by replying to a reply and not previewing first. I don't know which made it work, but if you've had trouble posting to this topic, you might try one or both.
Criminalize spam and telemarketing!
I understand what intellectual property law is supposed to accomplish. Stated baldly, it grants a temporary monopoly to the person or company that invents something. It creates an artificial incentive to innovate. The problem with patent law, and this article didn't touch it, is that it is prohibitively expensive and uncertain these days to even try to determine whether your new product or idea would violate somebody's patent.
For a very readable discussion of intellectual property law, I recommend Chapter 11 of David Friedman's upcoming book, Law's Order: An Economic Account, entitled Clouds and Barbed Wire
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
These big companies would do anything to find a way to use what they have -- resources -- to make up for what they lack -- drive -- and they may have found an answer to their prayers in lawsuits.
These two quotes cover just about 90% of current patent problems and about 75% of trademark problems (squatting for greed is a factor in domain trademark wars, even if we don't like to admit it). We should also add in requests by large businesses to regulate the internet (especially things like domains).
More importantly we can see a larger issue at work here: the use of 'good' government to hurt economic competition. Generally, most people see patents, trademarks, and regulation as government working to protect rightful owners and the public. To some degree this is true. Often, however, these same things are encouraged by larger companies to weed out competition.
Some examples outside of computer patents and internet trademarks from the US in recent years include:
That these issues and tactics are now appearing in the Internet world is new. That they exists and endanger inovation and decreasing costs isn't.
Herb
Herb
Again, feel free to sentence me to death if my questions annoy you. I'll come back in 5 minutes anyway. -Sythi
There are so many cases I can think of right now in the US legal system that make me loose faith. I'll outline them!
So where do I sign up as an offical membmer of the backlash?
I want a rock.
This article was right on the money. Somehow, we've turned into a combative culture where the power of the judiciary is being used as a weapon-- against democracy and free markets.
Nowadays, rather than saying "this should be legal" and then getting together with people you agree with and supporting a law to legalize something, it is easier to hire a lawyer and declare that someone's rights somewhere are being violated. Then a court rules in your favor, and no debate or legislation can overturn you. It is because a right trumps everything in this country-- including democracy itself. I'm not saying this is bad-- quite the contrary, it is a wonderful system when it is used in good faith. But right now, it is being shockingly abused.
For one thing, people are suing each other over things they would never have bothered with before. There is a reflex now that you might as well try-- and the jackpots (monetary or ideological) that await people or corporations who do are irrestible. In this country, sometimes not suing is considered tacit permission when your rights are violated, encouraging still more knee-jerk lawsuits.
Another factor is that the judiciary has begun to blur what a right is. There is a difference between "this is a right" and "people should be free to do this, but it isn't a right because it isn't in the constitution yet". But this distinction is disappearing-- now a judge basically gets to make our liberties up as he goes along. Because the specification for what a right is isn't being adhered to, spurious lawsuits can make up rights and hope for a judge that agrees with them.
It's dangerous because when the backlash comes (and we are still a democracy-- when enough people's real rights are violated a la Amazon or etoy, there will be a backlash), I am afraid that our real rights and the great judical system we have will get thrown out with the bathwater. The judiciary can't be completely arbitrary for long before people lose all faith in it.
They do it because they can. I didn't learn anything new from the article other than that etoy.com was not-for-profit, and they registered their domain before etoys even started. It just states the obvious, which is best summarized by the closing line:
If this spate of foolish lawsuits continues -- and there is every indication that it will -- the next few years will see a web where the law becomes a tool for the slow to retard the fast and the big to stymie the small.
Of course I don't know this for sure, but if I were a lawyer, what I'd be doing all day is looking for potential lawsuits. I'd find two companies with similar names or something and then I'd go to the one with the best case and I'd tell them: "Hey, you can go on doing whatever you do right, but I can make a few bucks extra on the side if you give me a fair advance payment"
Maybe I'd even work on a no cure no pay basis.
This problem is of course biggest in America with it's "sue-culture", but the fact that that "give in to me cause I'm bigger or I'll sue you" thing is now spilling over it's borders is plain wrong. European patent offices are in general way more carefull with dealing out patents, even though they too make mistakes, and european courts also tend to show more signs of sanity. But they are sort of forced to do it the "American way". What I'm getting at here is the fact that the internet is a worldwide thing, it has no borders, yet it's still being governed by any local law that somebody wants. Want to force a site out of existence? Just find a country where material on that site is illegal and go to court there seems to be the way to go. same goes for patents. Get something patented in one country and you can sue anyone using that technology on the internet even if the other party is not from that country.
Internet is a country in and of itself, it should therefore get al the things a country has, and that includes it's own legal system. That way you don't have to know the laws of all the countries in the world when you do business on the internet, just the internet law.
I see a few problems with this idea too, the main problem is: "who is going to make those laws?" But if we could get it to work (and work more efficiently than the UN and the WTO and more democratically it would be a good thing.
Consumer rather than business versions of this sort of thing needs to be developed suitable, and cheap enough, for use by the ordinary domain name registrant or free software contributer in the street. -- Kapusniak, Stefan e
Consumer rather than business versions of this sort of thing needs to be developed suitable, and cheap enough, for use by the ordinary domain name registrant or free software contributer in the street.
So in the long run, once someone gets their innovative net.insurance business plan in gear, its going to be the insurance companies rather than the lawyers that get rich.
Europeans are so cute when they try to act like hurt little bitches while trying to promote their faggy EUROTRASH sites!!
The only problem we have with patents today is that the USPTO is giving them out too easily, trivializing the real value of the patent process.
another problem might include the fact that an owner of a patent monopoly can choose to deny anyone else access to the invention, or set unfair terms.. might compulsory licensing alleviate the problem?
SPAM BITCH.Nobody wants to go to your garbage site. Go back to sucking your own cock you dumb fuck!
since frivolous lawsuits are obviously nothing new, and our society obviously does not reward non-litigious behavior, and it is better to sue than be sued, maybe some smaller companies should start suing other companies for stealing their intellectual property. IRL, personal injury lawsuits happen all the time in which people with little or no money sue someone else. The lawyers who represent them are probably payed afterwards (out of the victor's jackpot). maybe an answer would be to develop a similar system for smaller internet groups. anyone have any thoughts on this?
Your retort doesn't apply to patents concerning business models, because the method employed is transparent to everyone -- humanity doesn't need anyone to spell it out on paper, because anyone in the business knows what business model the patent-holder is using. All these patents do is give the patent-holder an exclusive right to that model. It's rather one-sided.
And the USPTO isn't about to stop giving out trivial patents, because every patent issued by the USPTO to an American company/citizen is one fewer international patent that can be handed out to a foreign company/citizen. Nevermind that Americans suffer from this practice just as much as the rest of the world.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Not to be a dick or anything but I have this vague recollection that Henry Ford copied the idea of the assembly line from the gun industry. One of the few things I learned from shop class, sorry. I'm from the tool and die capital of the world, Meadville. So sue me.
The Original Celebrated Curiously Strong GHOST (mentha lemures)
Legislative action: the corporation has the money to bribe better politicians.
Executive-agency action: police are perpetually more interested in helping corporate monied interests than in helping the little guy.
Gladiator contest: the corporation has the money to hire better gladiators than does the artist.
Ordeals: the corporation has the money to get the priests on its side and rig the ordeals in favor of the corp. And that's not assuming the corporation is given an ordeal like "swallow this glass of wine without choking" while the artist is given an ordeal like "carry this hot coal from here to there without burning yourself".
Arbitration: maybe the artist will come away with something, but again because of money, it will be less than what ought to be.
Our legal system has (more or less) successfully given the state a monopoly on violence. But, it has a long way to go before it can achieve any manner of institutional justice.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Honestly, in cases of Etoy/s and Leonardo, I think that the best solution is not to sue each other. Suing people just ties up courts and wasts money and throws weight around where it shouldn't be thrown.
My solution is very simple. It is to hire goons to go to the offices of the plaintiffs in these cases, bring a baseball bat, and hit them in the head a couple times, being sure to stress that the reason that they've got this present is because they're too stupid to live.
Seriously.
"Music is music, but anarchy is stupid." -- Eli Armen-Van Horn
Do a /. search for "lawsuit" -- you get quite a number of matches. I've not sat around to check how many of them were related, but it's fairly disconcerting to see how much law has already been put to work out here.
And, no, it doesn't look like it's going to stop anytime soon. *grumble*
Not to say that they won't succeed in the marketplace, given the amount of guppies running around today. To top that off, they're getting advertisement through the entire etoy issue. So, they get a bunch of new customers simply for being pains.
Actually, it's only because we hear about them faster in the US that we know about these things. But I do remember several silly things going on in Europe, including the UK court system upholding (!!!) the patent on the alpha channel, dispite expert testimony from several experts in computer graphics who said that the technique was actually invented almost a decade before the application was made.
There is the process in the courts that allows them to throw cases out, why not use it, maybe get Judge Judy in on the case?
And merry scrote-mas to you all!
The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake those, you've got it made. (Marx)
Second point: Where has he been for the last two decades if he's only now noticing a lot of foolish lawsuits being filed? Forget just being filed, look at all the foolish lawsuits in the past twenty years in which the plaintiffs actually won. Hot coffee on your crotch, anyone?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
Why is it that these idiotic lawsuits originate in the U.S.? My understadning is that the U.S. has more lawyers per capita than any other country. Is this true? If so, then it stands to reason that there must be some mechanism in place to keep these lawyers working. I appreciate the fact most Americans would probably agree that there must be an end to this stupidity. But is there anyone doing anything about it? Another problem I see is that since etoy.com (or Leonardo, I can't remember which) has had their URL stripped because of a U.S. instigated lawsuit, it would appear that the U.S. legal system has influence in other jurisdictions. How is this possible? If these U.S. companies can screw over foreign companies, how long until they screw over their domestic competition? The term "Only in America" is decidedly taking on negative connotations lately. I'm just glad I live in Canada where this nonsense just gets laughed out of court (assuming it even gets to court). I just hope that there is some authority in the U.S. that has the power to restore sanity to your patent system.
Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity!
These big companies would do anything to find a way to use what they have -- resources -- to make up for what they lack -- drive -- and they may have found an answer to their prayers in lawsuits.
An age-old method of preventing small organizations and individuals from operating.
As for the Scum Known as eToys (SKeT). The scenario, as I've read it, indicates that SKeT, decided in their initial planning stages, to use capital to claim surrounding domain space, rather than actually performing the research, or doing the legwork required, to find a "safe" domain name. This implies that SKeT is a company based on a domain name(eToys), instead of a concept(retailing).
I.E., SKeT seems to be a gimmick, with little potential other than to cause trouble and separate fools from their money. Not to say that they won't succeed in the marketplace, given the amount of guppies running around today.