Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Their tax returns are a matter of public record and can be requested by anyone by contacting the IRS. There are watch dog organizations out there who request these records for certain non-profit orgs, so they may be tracking Mozilla Foundation already.
The benefits to 501(c)(3) organizations come at a cost of having to share a lot of information with the government/public that for-profit organizations don't have to. This way, we can see how much they're making, what they're spending it on, and the like.
I can't believe this post has been up for a day and not a single person has actually checked in with the following info:
Law firms and companies with patent lawyers routinely hire non-lawyer technical experts to help them with patent work. In law firms, these people are typically called "technology specialists" or something similar. Often these people simultaneously go to law school, with the idea being that they will eventually turn into lawyers.
Additionally, there are many people out there who are called "patent clerks." What this means is that they have studied for and passed the US Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examination. Once you have passed this exam, you are qualified to help people obtain patents, regardless of whether you have a law degree. Now, you obviously can't practice law, so you're quite limited if your only a patent clerk and not a patent lawyer, but you can still be quite helpful to someone who just wants to obtain a patent or two.
Bottom line: law firms and legal departments routinely hire tech/science people to help them with their patent work. I honestly can't believe this made it into a story. Next week there will be a post about Microsoft hiring SECRETARIES. I mean, they're a software company!! They're supposed to be writing software and they're out hiring secretaries!?!?
Creative Commons isn't the only site where every song is licensed under a CC license. A number of great music sites are providing a great collection of amateur songs, all under one version or another of the CC licenses.
This article is pretty much devoid of any proper legal analysis. Usually they hunt up a practicing lawyer to offer some consultation on the issues involved, but this article didn't seem to have that. They did have a PTO person say some basic things, but the story does not end there, as any seasoned TM lawyer can tell you.
Yes, trademark REGISTRATION in the U.S. is first come, first served, but trademark rights are ultimately only gained by using the mark in interstate commerce. Getting a trademark registration will get you a PRESUMPTION that you were using on the date of your application filing, but if you go to court, you must ultimately show that you were using the mark in question in interstate commerce.
Further, even the registration process accounts for this requirement. Here's how. Company A files an application for GMAIL on Jan. 31. Google, who had been using their GMAIL mark since Jan. 1, only gets around to filing an application on Feb. 1. Now, when the USPTO gets Google's application, they'll do a search, find Company A's application, and likely suspend Google's application until Company A's application is either registered or rejected (an application can be rejected for any number of reasons).
Now, let's say Company A gets to the point where the USPTO is ready approve their application for registration. Before registration can happen, the mark must go through a process called "publication," where the mark is advertised by the USPTO and third parties have a certain time period to contest registration of the mark. One of the grounds for opposing is earlier use. Google could certainly lodge an opposition and, if they could show that they were using the GMAIL mark earlier than Company A, they would likely prevail.
Even if Google is asleep at the switch, and Company A's mark registers, they can do the equivalent of opposing it after registration through a process called cancellation. Same basic rules, same basic result. If Google was using first, then they will likely prevail.
Yes, you are on crack. If you create a story based on Lord of the Rings, then assuming you were actually close enough to the story so that a reader knew you were basing your story on LOTR (roughly speaking), then yes, you have created a derivative work.
Of course, as in source code, the issue of when a work becomes a legally derivative work is not at all clear and the legal tests for determining such are not very helpful.
I own the Geektivism.com website that VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM points to. Oddly, this site is dedicated to increasing activism in technology-related issues where the little man is getting squashed.
What's incredibly disturbing about this opinion is that there was a perfectly legitimate, NON-COMMERCIAL gripe site up at VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM, which aired the opinions of both myself and David Sallen, the owner of the domain. Rather than recognizing this, and David Sallen's and my free speach rights, the UDRP panel took it upon itself to decide that our critical free speech just wasn't good enough in it's opinion. This is absolute garbage, plain and simple.
In any event, if anyone wants to take a look at David's response to the complaint in this matter, I've posted it at Geektivism. Feel free to drop by and leave comments about this case. I will be updating my site regularly to reflect ongoing news in this atrocity of a UDRP decision.
All the posts requesting to know why this person wants to "avoid macs" are perfectly valid.
The simple answer is probably that the "friend" mentioned here is chief engineer of the self-assembled PC in his basement and can't afford to buy anything that would cost money. Though there's nothing wrong with this plight, I don't understand why we must lie about things to get the information we want.
Anyone not on crack who's a chief engineer at a recording studio would not "avoid macs." They are the absolute standard in virtually all audio and most video production. There are numerous software and hardware solutions at the professional level and if you want to create quality recordings for your artists, then there is but one choice.
Why in God's earth anyone calling themselves a professional audio engineer would try and duct tape together a platform of pre-beta, open source (read: no paid-for, reliable support -- and I'm talking about the applications here, not the operating system)software in an OS that obviously nobody is using for audio production is beyond me. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion above that there is no real "friend" looking for advice here.
I really would love to see open source, professional quality audio developed for Linux. Unfortunately, anyone who's spent more than a week on Slashdot knows for a fact that this sort of stuff isn't around. Yes, there are a few things for doing amateur digital audio work, but nothing that could drive the hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment any real studio would have.
If you are organizing something or have news on an issue that requires action, drop by my website and let me know. I'm trying to create a central place where one can learn about the many issues that require some speaking up and acting out.
What nobody has noticed yet, and what I'm guessing Gracenote is really hoping a judge won't notice either is that there is some real foul play going on here.
For those who don't know, a classic legal maneuver is to wait until a big player (also known as Deep Pockets (TM)) comes into the picture. Then, if there's someone who's pissing you off, you try and get the big pockets rather than the real source of the problem.
I.e., Gracenote has wanted to off FreeDB for some time, but they know a law suit would just cost them a good chunk of money and they would have no hope of getting any of it back (just an injunction that says stop doing that). Now, in comes Roxio, nice big corporation with a fair amount of money. PLUS, Roxio is in a situation where they really need to look good to public/stockholders/etc. (read: recent IPO/public-trading). SO, this is perfect, says Gracenote. We can sue Roxio (who really just happened to waltz in at the wrong time with some sort of activity that pisses Gracenote off...namely, using a competitor, AFAIK), jack up our damage request for the patent infringement junk, and then just have them settle out of court to get us out of their hair! Woo hoo!!
Unfortunately, the tie between Roxio and whatever pretend infringement of Gracenote's IP that FreeDB is committing, is vanishingly weak. Moreover, there's there all these other GLARING problems with Gracenote's suit (they don't own most of the content in their database, their code was GPL'd long ago, their patent is invalid in any case, etc).
All in all, this is pretty crafty lawyering...and pretty scummy.
As a future IP lawyer, I have spent a good deal of my time researching the validity of various claims made by trademark owners on the Internet. Irrespective of this particular situation, the bottom line is that there are many, many instances of questionable legal practices by those representing trademark interests. Interestingly, this sort of abuse is not very new. Cease and desist letters, in all sorts of contexts, have been used as an effective tool to both (a) get what a party legally deserves and should demand, and (b) harrass other parties who don't really have effective means to combat an issue in litigation.
I think my conclusion after several years of study on these sorts of issues is that the best tools of "small folks" might be education and cooperation. Because many potential defendants have no clue as to the real status of trademark or other intellectual propertly laws, they are destined to fail without legal counsel. On the other hand, if they had at least some legitimate estimation of the legal status of their situation, they would be able to more aptly judge whether they should hold or fold. Thus far in this thread I have seen a lot of evidence of misunderstanding of trademark law. Secondly, I would like to see some grassroots efforts to defend those who have good cases against trademark/IP/rights holders. If there were even a modest organization willing to offer pro bono or low cost legal services to those who've been subject to harassment, the "reverse chilling effect" on corporations would be substantial. No doubt, many lawyers who author cease and desist letters know precisely that their claims wouldn't hold the morning dew on a blade of grass. Unfortunately, the odds that anyone will say so or be empowered to legal fight such claims, are so minimal as to not be worthy of concern.
As for changing the law, I think that would probably be the least effective way to bring about real change. True, trademark holders are somewhate incentivized by the law to protect their marks, but I think this is a necessary part of the law, given the power which is given to those who have trademark rights. Instead of trying to re-balance things by tinkering with the scale, we should consider the weights on each side of the scale and ask whether there are ways to bring them into equilibrium.
Stay tuned for exciting news on these fronts from the good folks at the Berkman Center (tm) at the Harvard Law School (tm). Hehe.
Slashdot Mirror
Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Their tax returns are a matter of public record and can be requested by anyone by contacting the IRS. There are watch dog organizations out there who request these records for certain non-profit orgs, so they may be tracking Mozilla Foundation already.
The benefits to 501(c)(3) organizations come at a cost of having to share a lot of information with the government/public that for-profit organizations don't have to. This way, we can see how much they're making, what they're spending it on, and the like.
I can't believe this post has been up for a day and not a single person has actually checked in with the following info:
Law firms and companies with patent lawyers routinely hire non-lawyer technical experts to help them with patent work. In law firms, these people are typically called "technology specialists" or something similar. Often these people simultaneously go to law school, with the idea being that they will eventually turn into lawyers.
Additionally, there are many people out there who are called "patent clerks." What this means is that they have studied for and passed the US Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examination. Once you have passed this exam, you are qualified to help people obtain patents, regardless of whether you have a law degree. Now, you obviously can't practice law, so you're quite limited if your only a patent clerk and not a patent lawyer, but you can still be quite helpful to someone who just wants to obtain a patent or two.
Bottom line: law firms and legal departments routinely hire tech/science people to help them with their patent work. I honestly can't believe this made it into a story. Next week there will be a post about Microsoft hiring SECRETARIES. I mean, they're a software company!! They're supposed to be writing software and they're out hiring secretaries!?!?
E.g., MacJams.com
This article is pretty much devoid of any proper legal analysis. Usually they hunt up a practicing lawyer to offer some consultation on the issues involved, but this article didn't seem to have that. They did have a PTO person say some basic things, but the story does not end there, as any seasoned TM lawyer can tell you.
Yes, trademark REGISTRATION in the U.S. is first come, first served, but trademark rights are ultimately only gained by using the mark in interstate commerce. Getting a trademark registration will get you a PRESUMPTION that you were using on the date of your application filing, but if you go to court, you must ultimately show that you were using the mark in question in interstate commerce.
Further, even the registration process accounts for this requirement. Here's how. Company A files an application for GMAIL on Jan. 31. Google, who had been using their GMAIL mark since Jan. 1, only gets around to filing an application on Feb. 1. Now, when the USPTO gets Google's application, they'll do a search, find Company A's application, and likely suspend Google's application until Company A's application is either registered or rejected (an application can be rejected for any number of reasons).
Now, let's say Company A gets to the point where the USPTO is ready approve their application for registration. Before registration can happen, the mark must go through a process called "publication," where the mark is advertised by the USPTO and third parties have a certain time period to contest registration of the mark. One of the grounds for opposing is earlier use. Google could certainly lodge an opposition and, if they could show that they were using the GMAIL mark earlier than Company A, they would likely prevail.
Even if Google is asleep at the switch, and Company A's mark registers, they can do the equivalent of opposing it after registration through a process called cancellation. Same basic rules, same basic result. If Google was using first, then they will likely prevail.
"Is it time to figure out what to do when your Napster WMA files go unsupported after Napster 2 dies?"
Yes, it is. Here's what you do: buy an iPod, use iTunes, and try to keep remembering that you should have just done that in the first place.
Yes, you are on crack. If you create a story based on Lord of the Rings, then assuming you were actually close enough to the story so that a reader knew you were basing your story on LOTR (roughly speaking), then yes, you have created a derivative work.
Of course, as in source code, the issue of when a work becomes a legally derivative work is not at all clear and the legal tests for determining such are not very helpful.
That man just rambles on and on. How did he send his answers? Morse code?
Damn, that Greplaw is good stuff.
How many nodes can you stuff on a single broadband account, and how many favors can you think for your neighbors to do for you, anyway?
What's incredibly disturbing about this opinion is that there was a perfectly legitimate, NON-COMMERCIAL gripe site up at VIVENDIUNIVERSALSUCKS.COM, which aired the opinions of both myself and David Sallen, the owner of the domain. Rather than recognizing this, and David Sallen's and my free speach rights, the UDRP panel took it upon itself to decide that our critical free speech just wasn't good enough in it's opinion. This is absolute garbage, plain and simple.
In any event, if anyone wants to take a look at David's response to the complaint in this matter, I've posted it at Geektivism. Feel free to drop by and leave comments about this case. I will be updating my site regularly to reflect ongoing news in this atrocity of a UDRP decision.
MD
All the posts requesting to know why this person wants to "avoid macs" are perfectly valid.
The simple answer is probably that the "friend" mentioned here is chief engineer of the self-assembled PC in his basement and can't afford to buy anything that would cost money. Though there's nothing wrong with this plight, I don't understand why we must lie about things to get the information we want.
Anyone not on crack who's a chief engineer at a recording studio would not "avoid macs." They are the absolute standard in virtually all audio and most video production. There are numerous software and hardware solutions at the professional level and if you want to create quality recordings for your artists, then there is but one choice.
Why in God's earth anyone calling themselves a professional audio engineer would try and duct tape together a platform of pre-beta, open source (read: no paid-for, reliable support -- and I'm talking about the applications here, not the operating system)software in an OS that obviously nobody is using for audio production is beyond me. Therefore, I can only come to the conclusion above that there is no real "friend" looking for advice here.
I really would love to see open source, professional quality audio developed for Linux. Unfortunately, anyone who's spent more than a week on Slashdot knows for a fact that this sort of stuff isn't around. Yes, there are a few things for doing amateur digital audio work, but nothing that could drive the hundreds of thousands of dollars of equipment any real studio would have.
www.geektivism.com
What nobody has noticed yet, and what I'm guessing Gracenote is really hoping a judge won't notice either is that there is some real foul play going on here.
For those who don't know, a classic legal maneuver is to wait until a big player (also known as Deep Pockets (TM)) comes into the picture. Then, if there's someone who's pissing you off, you try and get the big pockets rather than the real source of the problem.
I.e., Gracenote has wanted to off FreeDB for some time, but they know a law suit would just cost them a good chunk of money and they would have no hope of getting any of it back (just an injunction that says stop doing that). Now, in comes Roxio, nice big corporation with a fair amount of money. PLUS, Roxio is in a situation where they really need to look good to public/stockholders/etc. (read: recent IPO/public-trading). SO, this is perfect, says Gracenote. We can sue Roxio (who really just happened to waltz in at the wrong time with some sort of activity that pisses Gracenote off...namely, using a competitor, AFAIK), jack up our damage request for the patent infringement junk, and then just have them settle out of court to get us out of their hair! Woo hoo!!
Unfortunately, the tie between Roxio and whatever pretend infringement of Gracenote's IP that FreeDB is committing, is vanishingly weak. Moreover, there's there all these other GLARING problems with Gracenote's suit (they don't own most of the content in their database, their code was GPL'd long ago, their patent is invalid in any case, etc).
All in all, this is pretty crafty lawyering...and pretty scummy.
I think my conclusion after several years of study on these sorts of issues is that the best tools of "small folks" might be education and cooperation. Because many potential defendants have no clue as to the real status of trademark or other intellectual propertly laws, they are destined to fail without legal counsel. On the other hand, if they had at least some legitimate estimation of the legal status of their situation, they would be able to more aptly judge whether they should hold or fold. Thus far in this thread I have seen a lot of evidence of misunderstanding of trademark law. Secondly, I would like to see some grassroots efforts to defend those who have good cases against trademark/IP/rights holders. If there were even a modest organization willing to offer pro bono or low cost legal services to those who've been subject to harassment, the "reverse chilling effect" on corporations would be substantial. No doubt, many lawyers who author cease and desist letters know precisely that their claims wouldn't hold the morning dew on a blade of grass. Unfortunately, the odds that anyone will say so or be empowered to legal fight such claims, are so minimal as to not be worthy of concern.
As for changing the law, I think that would probably be the least effective way to bring about real change. True, trademark holders are somewhate incentivized by the law to protect their marks, but I think this is a necessary part of the law, given the power which is given to those who have trademark rights. Instead of trying to re-balance things by tinkering with the scale, we should consider the weights on each side of the scale and ask whether there are ways to bring them into equilibrium.
Stay tuned for exciting news on these fronts from the good folks at the Berkman Center (tm) at the Harvard Law School (tm). Hehe.