Copyright law faces a big problem that we cannot legislate around... legitimacy. People regularly circumvent copyright law beacuse they feel that it is not right. The true solution to fixing the illegal-copying problem is to give copyright more legitimacy so that people will respect it. If 99% of the people respect the law and what it stands for, then 99% of the people will abide by the law. Right now Copyright law is a micky-mouse joke law and lacks respect. It's not fair and people will continue to illegally circumvent copyright law untill it is fixed. This will only lead to one thing, more draconian laws. And this cycle will reduce our freedcom and lead to a police state... the exact opposite goal of copyright law.
The reason why Patents are valueable is that if the litigation cost for one company is X, they can license it for Y X. Then, once one company pays, they can go to the next company, etc. Till all of them pay up. Thus, with a market of N potential licensees, the upper bound is N*X, and most likely Y*X will be extracted. Now. If I were going to settle, I would add a simple clause:
This royalty payment must be returned if, within the next 3 years suit is brought up and within 10 years the suit results in the patent being overturned. To facilitate this, as soon as a suit against the patent is filed, the Inventor must put the amount of the royalty payment into escrow account or find a gaurenteer which will back the payment. Further, the licensee does not give up right to join such a patent law suit.
I'm not a lawyer, but this clause could do wonders to stop patent profiteering by allowing the law-suit costs to be spread over all of the licensees. Thus, X NY. A standard clause like this (or written into law) would help things out significantly; since it makes the entire industry the defendant rather than each individual company.
knowledge of an infringement and once that time frame ran out you lost your patent rights
Problem is, it takes a long while to actually get a patent, it takes time to find the violators, it takes alot of effort to figure out exactly how a competitor is violating, and then it takes time to write up the complaint. Further, you don't really want to sue unless you can recover damages; so you would be prudent to only sue companies that you can recover damages from (or patent enforcement becomes a money sink into enforcement suits that don't pay for themselves).
As for abandonment... this only happens if you don't pay the renewal fees every so years.
Why don't these companies come out and sue right away
Beacuse once a patent is issued, the burden is on the public to avoid the patents. As you point out, there are law firms / patent search organizations that help companies stay alert to relevant patents. If you don't want to pay those companies, you can do routine searches of your own on the PTO web site.
There are lots of things broken with the patent process... this isn't one of them.
I'd like to see some discussion on open-source models that give the user freedom to choose their upgrade (libre) and gives programmers the right to fork, all while not requiring software to be free of charge (gratis). For more thoughts, see Distributed Copyright.
I'm curious to hear what others have to say about Parrot? This VM seems to be optimized for Perl, but will probably be able to handle Python/Ruby rather well. I would be interesting to know why Miguel's Mono chose to back Microsoft's C# instead of our core open-source langauge's Python, Perl, Ruby, etc.
I'm sure there are lots of people who are trying to think of ways to capitalize on space. Until the risks are something that someone will invest in, space is best left to a government operation who does exploration for the benefit of all.
I'm tired of hearing this stuff about running NASA like a company. If a company could do the stuff NASA does, it would be. That NASA has been as successful as it has is beacuse it is not run like a company.
This is a great book and should be read by any programmer who attempts to sell their software. From the website: Abstract: How to protect software intellectual property, including copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and more. Includes discussion of issues relating to the Internet and diskette with over 50 ready-to-print legal documents.
Yes. This is the correct approach. Ask them *what* intellectual property. There are four types of legally recognized intellectual property: (a) trademarks, (b) patents, (c) copyright, and (d) trade secrets. Without an NDA there is no way that you have used one of their trade secrets. Unless you stole their name, you are ok on the trademark front. As for patents, if they think that their idea is so hot, tell them to file the patent and then talk to you after the patent is issued. This leaves copyright. Don't directly incorporate their work into your product, wording or otherwise. If you did use some of their copyrighted material; have one person who has seen it summarize it; and then have another person who hasn't seen their copyrighted material reconstruct an equivalent expression.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this non-legal advice may not apply to your particular legal environment/situation.
Ok. Two things: First, it is standard procedure to put in a clause of your click-wrap agreement that says that all suggestions, improvements, etc. are owned by the software developer. See the Microsoft EULA for details.
Second, unless you have a NDA with them where you cannot disclose what they say... you are probably just fine. There are two cases: (a) what they have contributed is patentable, in this case they have one year to file the patent; (b) what they have contributed is copyrightable. In case (a), I wouldn't worry about this as most companies won't go through the expense; and (b) make sure that you have a clean-room implementation of it so that you don't violate the copyright.
In any case.. you need a lawyer. And, in the future, you may want to pay $$$ for beta-testing so that your testing results can be considered a "work-for-hire". I AM NOT A LAWYER, THIS IS JUST MY EXPERIENCE WHICH MAY NOT REFLECT YOUR PARTICULAR LEGAL ENVIRONMENT.
Certainly some rights can't be signed away... however, you open yourself up to a long time in court, possible injunctions against you and lots of economic (time loss) damages to convince the judge that the clauses in question aren't enforceable.
A few years back, I was signing an employment contract and had a question about a few of the terms. The hiring manager said that the clauses were standard but "not enforceable". I smiled gracefully and said: "Oh good, in this case we don't need them... what good is an unenforcable clause". The hiring manager was a bit peeved but let it pass...
Problem with "unenforcable" clauses is that they grant the other party the right to harass you and cause you lots of economic damages as you hire a lawyer to defend yourself (legal fees that are rarely recoverable). I'm speaking from experience here.
When people refer to competition being superior to government owned monopolies they ususually are talking with regard to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. What is important in this dissertation is that competition can only happen if the number of suppliers is great enough for the price to come to equilibriam based on market demand. Unfortunately, with mega-mergers competitive markets are rare indeed. Thus, in the U.S. telco market, we don't have competition which Adam Smith talks about. And therefore, the entire idea that commercial markets are better than government operated markets have no founding in reality. What's nice about a government monoploy, is that competition can occur at a lower level... suppliers, employees, etc. Thus competition doesn't disappear, it just re-emerges in a different form.
It is one thing to be able to observe, quite another to be able to impact the organization. Nothing like being given a job and then not given the appropriate tools to get it done. For example, how will you stay in the "inside-loop" when the upper management will have a vested interest to keey you in the dark? What sort of punitative mechanism needs to be in-place so that your word has some teeth? In short, what sort of authority is needed for this position and how could power sharing be best distributed?
NPR just had coverage of this on all things considered today. There they stated that it would cost Microsoft 1.1 billion. Here is my letter to them...
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:12:38 -0500
From: "Clark C . Evans"
To: atc@npr.org
Subject: Incorrect Statement about Microsoft Settlement
You mentioned the Microsoft settlement on your
program this afternoon. And I'm afraid I heared
two mis-representations:
1. This program will cost Microsoft 1.1 Billion.
FACT: This program will cost Microsoft $300 Million.
The CD-ROMs and paper that the licenses
for their "$800 million" of Microsoft
software won't cost Microsoft more than
a few thousand dollars.
Further, since these schools are too
poor to buy the software, you can't
argue that it is a loss in revenue.
FACT: Having Children learn to use Microsoft
software, instead of open soruce
alternatives (such as open office
and linux) increases the value of their
software; since more people are familar
with it (the value of software is
proportional to the user base). It's
hard to buy new recruits.... costly
actually.
Having thousands of children learn how
to use Microsoft software "for free" is
hugely valueable to Microsoft. This is
worth more than $300 million alone...
2. This money may be used to buy non-Microsoft software.
FACT: The software licenses "retail value
$800 million" are for Microsoft
software.
Perhaps some of the $300 million can
be used to buy non-Microsoft software,
but I doubt it.
I'd like to mention that RedHat has an alternative [1]
if Microsoft *really* wants to spend 1.1 Billion.
1. Microsoft just buys the hardware instead.
2. Open Source software is used (for free).
I'm afraid that Microsoft's play is just a mechanism
to extend their monopoly. It doesn't help anyone
but Microsoft.
I was just listening to NPR, and a comment was casually dropped that the money can be used to buy non-microsoft software. Is this true? Who chooses what software, the schools? The article also said that it would _cost_ Microsoft 1.1B; I hope it's in cash and the schools can spend the cash as they best see fit; no strings.
Re:There are alternatives... besides proprietary
on
SourceForge Drifting
·
· Score: 1
You didn't read jack on that site did you.
There are alternatives... besides proprietary
on
SourceForge Drifting
·
· Score: 1
Free Code (aka Libre) doesn't necessarly have to be Free of Charge (aka Gratis). Unfortunately, Open Source (as well as GPL) tie Gratis into the equation. This is sad since it really limits the possibilities.
You can have Libre while charging users for use of your code. The cost for this is a not for profit central administrative authority (registry of deeds). I've written about this at Distributed Copyright an in particular; I wrote up a refined version of the idea in a letter to Judge Jackon. If you think central adminstration is bad... this is what the copyright office is. So, it's possible. Just a bit of will power and some start-up funding. The organization could have a very strict charter (so it's scope can't creep) and could be given the right to impose a small surcharge on sales to break even.
Thus, if the SourceForge fellas wanted to move forward to make money, that's great. However, they don't necessarly have to become "proprietary". Too bad it's always seen as a white/black proposal.
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Miguel even stated he regretted having ever made GNOME part of the GNU project.
If he didn't make it part of the GNU project, there is a good chance that it would not be anywhere close to where it is today; licensing matters. GNU carries alot of weight and familarity with programmers.
On Wed, Oct 17 the Diane Rehm show had a wonderful talk on this very subject. If you listen to the show, make sure to pledge as hosting real audio archives cost a good deal of cash. Details about the show...
Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:00 - War on Terrorism and U.S. Energy Policy
A panel talks about how the war against terrorism could affect U.S. imports of oil from OPEC nations - which account for almost half of our imported oil - and how domestic energy policy and the economy might be affected.
Phil Verleger, California-based energy economist
Peter VanDoren, editor of Regulation magazine for the CATO Institute
Charli Coon, Heritage Foundation
Slashdot Mirror
I hope he filed a design patent. This is probably one of those rare cases that deserves one.
Copyright law faces a big problem that we cannot legislate around... legitimacy. People regularly circumvent copyright law beacuse they feel that it is not right. The true solution to fixing the illegal-copying problem is to give copyright more legitimacy so that people will respect it. If 99% of the people respect the law and what it stands for, then 99% of the people will abide by the law. Right now Copyright law is a micky-mouse joke law and lacks respect. It's not fair and people will continue to illegally circumvent copyright law untill it is fixed. This will only lead to one thing, more draconian laws. And this cycle will reduce our freedcom and lead to a police state... the exact opposite goal of copyright law.
The reason why Patents are valueable is that if the litigation cost for one company is X, they can license it for Y X. Then, once one company pays, they can go to the next company, etc. Till all of them pay up. Thus, with a market of N potential licensees, the upper bound is N*X, and most likely Y*X will be extracted. Now. If I were going to settle, I would add a simple clause:
This royalty payment must be returned if, within the next 3 years suit is brought up and within 10 years the suit results in the patent being overturned. To facilitate this, as soon as a suit against the patent is filed, the Inventor must put the amount of the royalty payment into escrow account or find a gaurenteer which will back the payment. Further, the licensee does not give up right to join such a patent law suit.
I'm not a lawyer, but this clause could do wonders to stop patent profiteering by allowing the law-suit costs to be spread over all of the licensees. Thus, X NY. A standard clause like this (or written into law) would help things out significantly; since it makes the entire industry the defendant rather than each individual company.
knowledge of an infringement and once that time frame ran out you lost your patent rights
Problem is, it takes a long while to actually get a patent, it takes time to find the violators, it takes alot of effort to figure out exactly how a competitor is violating, and then it takes time to write up the complaint. Further, you don't really want to sue unless you can recover damages; so you would be prudent to only sue companies that you can recover damages from (or patent enforcement becomes a money sink into enforcement suits that don't pay for themselves).
As for abandonment... this only happens if you don't pay the renewal fees every so years.
Why don't these companies come out and sue right away
Beacuse once a patent is issued, the burden is on the public to avoid the patents. As you point out, there are law firms / patent search organizations that help companies stay alert to relevant patents. If you don't want to pay those companies, you can do routine searches of your own on the PTO web site.
There are lots of things broken with the patent process... this isn't one of them.
Right. Thanks for reminding me. Interesting note... when I read this in 1997 I laughed. Loudly. Clearly it was RMS over-the-deep-end, right?
I'd like to see some discussion on open-source models that give the user freedom to choose their upgrade (libre) and gives programmers the right to fork, all while not requiring software to be free of charge (gratis). For more thoughts, see Distributed Copyright.
I'm curious to hear what others have to say about Parrot? This VM seems to be optimized for Perl, but will probably be able to handle Python/Ruby rather well. I would be interesting to know why Miguel's Mono chose to back Microsoft's C# instead of our core open-source langauge's Python, Perl, Ruby, etc.
Does CLR support continuations?
We gotta start making some MONEY up there damnit.
I'm sure there are lots of people who are trying to think of ways to capitalize on space. Until the risks are something that someone will invest in, space is best left to a government operation who does exploration for the benefit of all.
I'm tired of hearing this stuff about running NASA like a company. If a company could do the stuff NASA does, it would be. That NASA has been as successful as it has is beacuse it is not run like a company.
This is a great book and should be read by any programmer who attempts to sell their software. From the website: Abstract: How to protect software intellectual property, including copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and more. Includes discussion of issues relating to the Internet and diskette with over 50 ready-to-print legal documents.
Yes. This is the correct approach. Ask them *what* intellectual property. There are four types of legally recognized intellectual property: (a) trademarks, (b) patents, (c) copyright, and (d) trade secrets. Without an NDA there is no way that you have used one of their trade secrets. Unless you stole their name, you are ok on the trademark front. As for patents, if they think that their idea is so hot, tell them to file the patent and then talk to you after the patent is issued. This leaves copyright. Don't directly incorporate their work into your product, wording or otherwise. If you did use some of their copyrighted material; have one person who has seen it summarize it; and then have another person who hasn't seen their copyrighted material reconstruct an equivalent expression.
Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this non-legal advice may not apply to your particular legal environment/situation.
Ok. Two things: First, it is standard procedure to put in a clause of your click-wrap agreement that says that all suggestions, improvements, etc. are owned by the software developer. See the Microsoft EULA for details.
Second, unless you have a NDA with them where you cannot disclose what they say... you are probably just fine. There are two cases: (a) what they have contributed is patentable, in this case they have one year to file the patent; (b) what they have contributed is copyrightable. In case (a), I wouldn't worry about this as most companies won't go through the expense; and (b) make sure that you have a clean-room implementation of it so that you don't violate the copyright.
In any case.. you need a lawyer. And, in the future, you may want to pay $$$ for beta-testing so that your testing results can be considered a "work-for-hire". I AM NOT A LAWYER, THIS IS JUST MY EXPERIENCE WHICH MAY NOT REFLECT YOUR PARTICULAR LEGAL ENVIRONMENT.
Best,
Clark
Certainly some rights can't be signed away... however, you open yourself up to a long time in court, possible injunctions against you and lots of economic (time loss) damages to convince the judge that the clauses in question aren't enforceable.
A few years back, I was signing an employment contract and had a question about a few of the terms. The hiring manager said that the clauses were standard but "not enforceable". I smiled gracefully and said: "Oh good, in this case we don't need them... what good is an unenforcable clause". The hiring manager was a bit peeved but let it pass...
Problem with "unenforcable" clauses is that they grant the other party the right to harass you and cause you lots of economic damages as you hire a lawyer to defend yourself (legal fees that are rarely recoverable). I'm speaking from experience here.
When people refer to competition being superior to government owned monopolies they ususually are talking with regard to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. What is important in this dissertation is that competition can only happen if the number of suppliers is great enough for the price to come to equilibriam based on market demand. Unfortunately, with mega-mergers competitive markets are rare indeed. Thus, in the U.S. telco market, we don't have competition which Adam Smith talks about. And therefore, the entire idea that commercial markets are better than government operated markets have no founding in reality. What's nice about a government monoploy, is that competition can occur at a lower level... suppliers, employees, etc. Thus competition doesn't disappear, it just re-emerges in a different form.
I'd look for a 5 year program that gives you a B.S. in Business and an MBA. This is probably the best way to 'round out your studies.
It is one thing to be able to observe, quite another to be able to impact the organization. Nothing like being given a job and then not given the appropriate tools to get it done. For example, how will you stay in the "inside-loop" when the upper management will have a vested interest to keey you in the dark? What sort of punitative mechanism needs to be in-place so that your word has some teeth? In short, what sort of authority is needed for this position and how could power sharing be best distributed?
Just wondering. Anyway, I bet he'll go back to work for Microsoft after the exploit.
NPR just had coverage of this on all things considered today. There they stated that it would cost Microsoft 1.1 billion. Here is my letter to them...
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 18:12:38 -0500
From: "Clark C . Evans"
To: atc@npr.org
Subject: Incorrect Statement about Microsoft Settlement
You mentioned the Microsoft settlement on your
program this afternoon. And I'm afraid I heared
two mis-representations:
1. This program will cost Microsoft 1.1 Billion.
FACT: This program will cost Microsoft $300 Million.
The CD-ROMs and paper that the licenses
for their "$800 million" of Microsoft
software won't cost Microsoft more than
a few thousand dollars.
Further, since these schools are too
poor to buy the software, you can't
argue that it is a loss in revenue.
FACT: Having Children learn to use Microsoft
software, instead of open soruce
alternatives (such as open office
and linux) increases the value of their
software; since more people are familar
with it (the value of software is
proportional to the user base). It's
hard to buy new recruits.... costly
actually.
Having thousands of children learn how
to use Microsoft software "for free" is
hugely valueable to Microsoft. This is
worth more than $300 million alone...
2. This money may be used to buy non-Microsoft software.
FACT: The software licenses "retail value
$800 million" are for Microsoft
software.
Perhaps some of the $300 million can
be used to buy non-Microsoft software,
but I doubt it.
I'd like to mention that RedHat has an alternative [1]
if Microsoft *really* wants to spend 1.1 Billion.
1. Microsoft just buys the hardware instead.
2. Open Source software is used (for free).
I'm afraid that Microsoft's play is just a mechanism
to extend their monopoly. It doesn't help anyone
but Microsoft.
Could you please air a correction?
Best,
Clark Evans
[1] http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html
I was just listening to NPR, and a comment was casually dropped that the money can be used to buy non-microsoft software. Is this true? Who chooses what software, the schools? The article also said that it would _cost_ Microsoft 1.1B; I hope it's in cash and the schools can spend the cash as they best see fit; no strings.
You didn't read jack on that site did you.
Free Code (aka Libre) doesn't necessarly have to be Free of Charge (aka Gratis). Unfortunately, Open Source (as well as GPL) tie Gratis into the equation. This is sad since it really limits the possibilities.
You can have Libre while charging users for use of your code. The cost for this is a not for profit central administrative authority (registry of deeds). I've written about this at Distributed Copyright an in particular; I wrote up a refined version of the idea in a letter to Judge Jackon. If you think central adminstration is bad... this is what the copyright office is. So, it's possible. Just a bit of will power and some start-up funding. The organization could have a very strict charter (so it's scope can't creep) and could be given the right to impose a small surcharge on sales to break even.
Thus, if the SourceForge fellas wanted to move forward to make money, that's great. However, they don't necessarly have to become "proprietary". Too bad it's always seen as a white/black proposal.
Clark
U.S. Constitution: Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Miguel even stated he regretted having ever made GNOME part of the GNU project.
If he didn't make it part of the GNU project, there is a good chance that it would not be anywhere close to where it is today; licensing matters. GNU carries alot of weight and familarity with programmers.
On Wed, Oct 17 the Diane Rehm show had a wonderful talk on this very subject. If you listen to the show, make sure to pledge as hosting real audio archives cost a good deal of cash. Details about the show...
Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:00 - War on Terrorism and U.S. Energy Policy
A panel talks about how the war against terrorism could affect U.S. imports of oil from OPEC nations - which account for almost half of our imported oil - and how domestic energy policy and the economy might be affected.
Phil Verleger, California-based energy economist
Peter VanDoren, editor of Regulation magazine for the CATO Institute
Charli Coon, Heritage Foundation
For more information about ANWR, check out the U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS-0040-98: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum Assessment, 1998