Actually, it is no easier to immigrate to Canada from the UK than it is from Germany, Japan, or any other non-Commonwealth country. Our Constitution guarantees freedom from discrimination on the basis of one's country of origin or citizenship. Immigrants from most Western nations enjoy faster processing times, but Commonwealth status has no bearing on the matter any more.
Canada is very welcoming to immigrants - over half the population of the Greater Toronto Area was not born in Canada. Skilled workers and entrepreneurs can find a relatively easy path into the country, but make sure that any professional credentials that you may have will be recognized in the province where you would like to live. We have a huge disconnect there - doctors are welcomed into the country with open arms by the feds, but the provinces won't recognize their credentials. They end up driving taxis.
The fact that all subscribers are throttled is a red herring. This is still anti-competitive behaviour, as it removes a significant point of competitive differentiation between Bell and the independent ISPs. Bell saw it as 'unfair' that the other ISPs could offer unthrottled connections, but they were the ones who decided to throttle their own customers! Bell was beginning to lose customers after they implemented throttling in Fall 2007, so they began throttling everyone over Easter weekend 2008. Without notice, and after they promised the other ISPs they wouldn't.
We can see some of the same tactics going on now with the debate over Usage-Based Billing. Bell currently allows their subscribers 60GB/month, so naturally the tariff should allow everyone to offer only 60GB/month.
This is not to mention the inherent conflict of interest Bell Canada has in this matter. Of course they don't want people to get used to getting their content over the internet - that would eat into their Bell TV (satellite) subscriber base, not to mention their content holdings (CTV). There's only one solution here - structural separation of Bell Canada.
There is a bill already before the Ontario Legislative Assembly to update the regulations to explicitly allow this practice. It is disappointing that the OTB didn't wait until the bill had passed before passing judgement, but at least we can hope the situation won't last long. The same bill would outlaw some common driver distractions, such as television screens and handheld cell phones.
Design patents are very different from utility patents. They don't last as long, and the unique design features don't need to have any particular utility. They also aren't nearly as valuable, and don't prove that anything was actually invented. That's why the Q-Ray bracelet proudly proclaims they have a US Design Patent - no-one else can copy their design, but they don't have to prove that it actually has any of the claimed benefits.
As to your second point, you're correct that you don't need a working model or prototype of your product to obtain a patent. You do, however, have to have the invention 'reduced to practice' - i.e. someone with the right resources could implement your invention given what you've described in the application.
First, you can't patent something that is already public knowledge. Since people have been inventing things for millennia, and patenting for centuries, this is an absurd fear.
Second, just because you run to the patent office with your money in hand doesn't mean you get to patent 'the wheel' or 'automobiles' or 'the page down key'. In typical/. fashion, someone read the title and assumed that was a good summary of the patent. I don't know how many patents I've read with the title 'semiconductor device' - does that mean the inventor claimed a patent on all semiconductors? No, of course not.
The patent application describes one particular novel system that could be used to identify areas with little patenting activity. This has been done for decades in many ways, so to get a patent IBM will have to prove that THIS method is substantially different from ALL OTHER ways that people have disclosed doing it in the past. If successful, IBM gets a patent on this and ONLY this system.
Before we trash the patent system (and it has its flaws), we should have at least a grasp of how the system works first.
The answers to the question are fairly straightforward:
1. The US doesn't have an 'opposition' system, where you can make your claims before a court to oppose the patent. All you can do is (first pay some money) give your evidence to the USPTO, and then go away and hope the applicant can't explain their way around it. Therefore, only European patents can be opposed.
2. A European patent can only be opposed in this fashion within 9 months of it being granted.
3. Other reasons as given above: if I win, it benefits everybody, but if I lose, it costs me greatly. My competition now has a proven good patent, and they know I don't like it. I'll be the first to be sued.
Despite all this, about 1 in 20 EP granted patents are opposed. The US has an opposition system planned as part of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, but it's currently held up before the Senate.
Actually, if you understand his claims properly (and as I outlined in my comments above), VCRs are probably already technically illegal in Canada, or at least no such time-shifting rights have ever been explicitly granted to Canadians. He has been pushing for format- and time-shifting rights to be incorporated into any copyright reform, and he simply notes that it doesn't seem likely they will be included, based on their attitudes thus far.
Also, you can't browse the actual text of the bill, or any other source. It hasn't been introduced yet, so all we have are rumours that it is based on the DMCA. We will have to wait and see what it looks like.
This bill has been a long time coming, and the priorities of the current government are well-established. It isn't the first time we've been down this road (Bill C-60). New anti-camcording legislation was adopted at warp speed earlier this year, despite questions about the necessity. Copyright reform was specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne earlier this year. Plus rumours are a-plenty on this from sources all around Ottawa, not just Prof. Geist.
Boing Boing, Excess Copyright, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, Digital Copyright Canada,... - all in agreement that this is the likely direction the government will take, and that the effects will be disastrous for user rights. This will be nothing short of a complete sell-out to American special interest groups (RIAA, Hollywood, MPAA...)
A little background may shed some light on Prof. Geist's comments. Canada has no 'fair use' law - we have 'fair dealing' which is more restrictive to users. While American copyright law describes what rights copyright owners have, and everything else is open to users, Canadian copyright law describes what narrow rights copyright users have, and everything else is restricted.
When Prof. Geist talks about time- and format-shifting, parody, and backup exceptions, these are not exceptions to copyright that are being taken away from Canadians. These are rights that, technically, we've never had. Unlike the US, which had the famous Sony/Betamax case which legalized VCRs, we have never had that debate, and consumers would likely lose if we did. VCRs and PVRs (DVRs) are in a legal grey area at best, if not outright illegal, and yet they are in virtually every home.
This leads to Canada lagging behind with adoption of newer technologies, due to the legally questionable situation manufacturers might find themselves in. TiVo just announced their entry into the Canadian market (officially) this month. How can our government move to reform copyright, and in the process make criminals of virtually everyone? How do we get out of our current contradictory mess of copyright law in Canada, through which downloading of copyrighted material from the internet is legal, and yet VCRs are not?
This bill has not yet been introduced, so we cannot even read it for ourselves to confirm or deny these rumours. That said, I urge every Canadian reading this post to write (snail-mail is best!) their MP post haste and let them know that they don't want to become a criminal every time they transfer songs from their CDs to their iPod, or use their PVR/DVR or VCR. No postage necessary. You can find your MP here:
http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E/
Hon. Josée Verner and Hon. Jim Prentice are the ministers in charge of the copyright file. Write them too!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is no easier to immigrate to Canada from the UK than it is from Germany, Japan, or any other non-Commonwealth country. Our Constitution guarantees freedom from discrimination on the basis of one's country of origin or citizenship. Immigrants from most Western nations enjoy faster processing times, but Commonwealth status has no bearing on the matter any more.
Canada is very welcoming to immigrants - over half the population of the Greater Toronto Area was not born in Canada. Skilled workers and entrepreneurs can find a relatively easy path into the country, but make sure that any professional credentials that you may have will be recognized in the province where you would like to live. We have a huge disconnect there - doctors are welcomed into the country with open arms by the feds, but the provinces won't recognize their credentials. They end up driving taxis.
The fact that all subscribers are throttled is a red herring. This is still anti-competitive behaviour, as it removes a significant point of competitive differentiation between Bell and the independent ISPs. Bell saw it as 'unfair' that the other ISPs could offer unthrottled connections, but they were the ones who decided to throttle their own customers! Bell was beginning to lose customers after they implemented throttling in Fall 2007, so they began throttling everyone over Easter weekend 2008. Without notice, and after they promised the other ISPs they wouldn't. We can see some of the same tactics going on now with the debate over Usage-Based Billing. Bell currently allows their subscribers 60GB/month, so naturally the tariff should allow everyone to offer only 60GB/month. This is not to mention the inherent conflict of interest Bell Canada has in this matter. Of course they don't want people to get used to getting their content over the internet - that would eat into their Bell TV (satellite) subscriber base, not to mention their content holdings (CTV). There's only one solution here - structural separation of Bell Canada.
There is a bill already before the Ontario Legislative Assembly to update the regulations to explicitly allow this practice. It is disappointing that the OTB didn't wait until the bill had passed before passing judgement, but at least we can hope the situation won't last long. The same bill would outlaw some common driver distractions, such as television screens and handheld cell phones.
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2099
Precisely. :)
Design patents are very different from utility patents. They don't last as long, and the unique design features don't need to have any particular utility. They also aren't nearly as valuable, and don't prove that anything was actually invented. That's why the Q-Ray bracelet proudly proclaims they have a US Design Patent - no-one else can copy their design, but they don't have to prove that it actually has any of the claimed benefits.
As to your second point, you're correct that you don't need a working model or prototype of your product to obtain a patent. You do, however, have to have the invention 'reduced to practice' - i.e. someone with the right resources could implement your invention given what you've described in the application.
First, you can't patent something that is already public knowledge. Since people have been inventing things for millennia, and patenting for centuries, this is an absurd fear.
/. fashion, someone read the title and assumed that was a good summary of the patent. I don't know how many patents I've read with the title 'semiconductor device' - does that mean the inventor claimed a patent on all semiconductors? No, of course not.
Second, just because you run to the patent office with your money in hand doesn't mean you get to patent 'the wheel' or 'automobiles' or 'the page down key'. In typical
The patent application describes one particular novel system that could be used to identify areas with little patenting activity. This has been done for decades in many ways, so to get a patent IBM will have to prove that THIS method is substantially different from ALL OTHER ways that people have disclosed doing it in the past. If successful, IBM gets a patent on this and ONLY this system.
Before we trash the patent system (and it has its flaws), we should have at least a grasp of how the system works first.
The answers to the question are fairly straightforward:
1. The US doesn't have an 'opposition' system, where you can make your claims before a court to oppose the patent. All you can do is (first pay some money) give your evidence to the USPTO, and then go away and hope the applicant can't explain their way around it. Therefore, only European patents can be opposed.
2. A European patent can only be opposed in this fashion within 9 months of it being granted.
3. Other reasons as given above: if I win, it benefits everybody, but if I lose, it costs me greatly. My competition now has a proven good patent, and they know I don't like it. I'll be the first to be sued.
Despite all this, about 1 in 20 EP granted patents are opposed. The US has an opposition system planned as part of the Patent Reform Act of 2007, but it's currently held up before the Senate.
Actually, if you understand his claims properly (and as I outlined in my comments above), VCRs are probably already technically illegal in Canada, or at least no such time-shifting rights have ever been explicitly granted to Canadians. He has been pushing for format- and time-shifting rights to be incorporated into any copyright reform, and he simply notes that it doesn't seem likely they will be included, based on their attitudes thus far.
Also, you can't browse the actual text of the bill, or any other source. It hasn't been introduced yet, so all we have are rumours that it is based on the DMCA. We will have to wait and see what it looks like.
This bill has been a long time coming, and the priorities of the current government are well-established. It isn't the first time we've been down this road (Bill C-60). New anti-camcording legislation was adopted at warp speed earlier this year, despite questions about the necessity. Copyright reform was specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne earlier this year. Plus rumours are a-plenty on this from sources all around Ottawa, not just Prof. Geist.
... - all in agreement that this is the likely direction the government will take, and that the effects will be disastrous for user rights. This will be nothing short of a complete sell-out to American special interest groups (RIAA, Hollywood, MPAA...)
Boing Boing, Excess Copyright, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, Digital Copyright Canada,
A little background may shed some light on Prof. Geist's comments. Canada has no 'fair use' law - we have 'fair dealing' which is more restrictive to users. While American copyright law describes what rights copyright owners have, and everything else is open to users, Canadian copyright law describes what narrow rights copyright users have, and everything else is restricted.
When Prof. Geist talks about time- and format-shifting, parody, and backup exceptions, these are not exceptions to copyright that are being taken away from Canadians. These are rights that, technically, we've never had. Unlike the US, which had the famous Sony/Betamax case which legalized VCRs, we have never had that debate, and consumers would likely lose if we did. VCRs and PVRs (DVRs) are in a legal grey area at best, if not outright illegal, and yet they are in virtually every home.
This leads to Canada lagging behind with adoption of newer technologies, due to the legally questionable situation manufacturers might find themselves in. TiVo just announced their entry into the Canadian market (officially) this month. How can our government move to reform copyright, and in the process make criminals of virtually everyone? How do we get out of our current contradictory mess of copyright law in Canada, through which downloading of copyrighted material from the internet is legal, and yet VCRs are not?
This bill has not yet been introduced, so we cannot even read it for ourselves to confirm or deny these rumours. That said, I urge every Canadian reading this post to write (snail-mail is best!) their MP post haste and let them know that they don't want to become a criminal every time they transfer songs from their CDs to their iPod, or use their PVR/DVR or VCR. No postage necessary. You can find your MP here: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E/
Hon. Josée Verner and Hon. Jim Prentice are the ministers in charge of the copyright file. Write them too!