This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser". I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?
And yet you - like every other slashdotter - will base you opinion on/.'s summary and not the claims themselves.
1. A method of displaying to a user a list of carrier networks available for access, comprising:
(a) detecting carrier network signals by an access client transmitted from a plurality of carrier networks;
(b) determining carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network signals;
(c) getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network of the plurality of carrier networks; and
(d) generating a user selectable list of carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network information,
(e) wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list.
(letters added for your reference). Steps c - getting it from an access point database? - and e - where 2 carrier newtork identifiers are aggregated? - don't seem like the normal way of picking a wifi spot. Add in that these are carrier networks, not the hotspots themselves, and it seems a little less obvious and a lot more specific. You can all put down your torches and pitchforks now.
I thought that a EULA could not be legally binding? Last I knew it wasn't a legal agreement, although it does give them ammunition in court...
Can someone please point me to the source of this repeated misinformation?? Every time a EULA is mentioned on slashdot, someone says "I thought EULAs aren't enforceable." Where are you getting this from?? Let me be clear:
Village Idiot sends word of a patent granted to MIT researchers
The patent application published. It was not granted. It hasn't even been examined yet. Patent applications usually haven't by this point - examination happens 2-3 years after application. It is a simple procedure Slashdot; why can't you seem to wrap your head around it? I'll write it very BASICally so you can understand:
10 Patent is applied for.
20 It publishes at 18 months regardless if any examination is performed
30 The patent office examines the patent
35 If determined to be patentable (regardless of what slashdotters think, GOTO 50, else reject it
40 Applicant amends the claims to make it narrower. GOTO 30.
50 Patent is allowed
60 Issue Fee paid
70 Patent is granted.
There, you can easily refer to this when reporting in the future. Slashdot is consistently WRONG on how it reports on whether a patent is granted/published/applied for and I would really expect more from a site that prides itself on being intelligent and for intelligent people. See the recent story on IBM allegedly "getting" a patent on the 40-minute meeting (hint, they didn't. It hasn't been examined yet).
I take it you're implying that because I interned at IBM for a summer 12 years ago, I might be biased. I'm not. If you read one of the posts in the google search you performed you'll see I didn't like my time at IBM. I worked on a dull project converting manuals from docbook to SGML while other interns played with Java (at the time, the new hotness). But I don't feel one way or the other towards them. They're just like any other company.
What I AM biased against is slashbots like yourself with an anti-patent agenda, especially when you make it a crusade to infect others via Wikipedia with your nonsense. I don't like bogus patents any more than you do, but I also recognize there are a number of valid patents out there and IBM probably has a number of them. On slashdot though, any patent is automatically railed against on principle and there is no valid discussion of any of them. Patents are Frankenstein and Slashdot has the torches and pitchforks. Add to it that it's pretty clear you AREN'T neutral to IBM, so rocks, glass houses, you fill in the rest.
And I actually DID correct your wikipedia entry when I saw it. I changed it to patent applications, corrected your grammar, but left in the part that some of their applications may be the drivel because apparently some people clearly think so and felt that fact, and even a link to the Slashdot article, should remain. My edits, however, were then removed. Feel free to check the history of the page for yourself.
Lastly, I didn't convince the mods of anything, nor did I ask anyone to mod you. I just pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about (you clearly aren't a patent attorney) and that you made a bad change to Wikipedia that was based on no research of your own. If the mods then felt you were a troll, that is their decision. But you didn't deserve the +1 informative because objectively your post wasn't informative. It was wrong. If you don't like that and it hurt your feelings, well maybe you should reconsider editing a wikipedia page when you know nothing about the subject matter.
An aside, it's funny how you accuse me of ignoratio elenchi and then try to make your point that IBM has bad patents by linking to articles showing how they buy up rival companies. Again, rocks, glass houses, etc. You really should dress more modestly - your agenda is showing.
Congratulations on proving why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. IBM does not have a patent on a 40 minute meeting, they have a patent application that claims setting up a time template on a scheduling server (claim 1) that allows for using different time intervals (claim 3). If you actually look at the file history on the USPTO site, you'll see the patent office hasn't even picked the case up to examine it yet. But that would assume people on slashdot care about things like facts.
The article quoted says "wants a patent", not "has a patent." The Slashdot editor then implied IBM had a patent. And what you did, seriously, is spread FUD because you took something you read on slashdot (but clearly don't know anything about) and posted it to a place people read and rely on as an accurate source of information. Pat yourself on the back. You spread misinformation today.
Specifically, patents filed before June 8th, 1995 are granted a life of 20 years from earliest U.S. filing to which priority is claimed (excluding provisionals) or 17 years from issue, which ever is longer. After June 8th 1995, patents have a life of 20 years from earliest U.S. filing to which priority is claimed (excluding provisionals).
Well since this is slashdot and people here are all so paranoid about the government and corporations invading your privacy and tracking your every move...
Fine. Please give me a concise list of all the computer programs and data collection that pertain to me. I don't want references - I want you to actually name every system. Tell me everything that tabluates data about me or for me and keeps track of me. EVERYTHING.
It would take you ages to try to compile all the systems that pertain to my behavior. That is the problem.
There are just WAY too many computers. There are computers that track about how many people are in your house (census). There are computers that track how you heat your home (utilities). There are computers that record what you wear in public (any general surveillance system). At any time a US citizen is subject to millions of computers and tracking. Most are well-meaning, but it is impossible to hide with all of them. The only reason we're not all in jail is selective enforcement.
Just saying there are "too many" of something doesn't relieve you of your responsibility to be aware of them. All those people that don't care they are being watched and give up their social security number at the drop of a hat? Their excuse could be the same as yours - there's just too many phish in the sea to keep track of. What's your answer? "Use your common sense." Compliance with the law is the same thing. If it seems like it's a bad idea, it probably is. And it's not like you get thrown in jail (in the US) for having your lawn overgrown.
The law has grown out of the complexity of life. It is a way for us to try and shape acceptable behavior and let us know what we can and cannot do. However, life is very very complex - it kinda explains why the Matrix isn't real - no computer or system is powerful enough to attempt to model the real world and all the human interactions within it. If there's a law banning setting goats on fire, well, it's because someone probably did it once with disastrous consequences. Will it pertain to you? Well, only if you plan on setting a goat on fire - but I don't know what sort of person you are, so maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But use your common sense. If you think it may be outside normal behavior, look it up! If all your neighbors have lawns from 1 - 2 inches deep, don't you think you should ask around about having a waist-high savanna on yours? Again, common sense. I don't expect you to remember every law that pertains to you just liek I wouldn't expect you to remember every single method or parameter in an API. That's what the docs are for - same as law books.
2) As proof, what I am about to tell you is not legal advice, nor is me telling you this creating an attorney/client relationship
3) Hire an attorney.
That all said, a patent is not a freedom to operate document. If you have a patent on ABCD, and someone has a patent they claim covers ABC, nothing stops them from coming after you. They may win, they may not, but your patent does not protect you. It only allows you to prevent others from doing ABCD (it is a 'negative right').
Secondly, if you do want to ensure no one can own it, publish it yesterday. The longer you delay, the worse off everyone is because publications are an absolute bar to someone else patenting your invention only a year or more after the publication. Each day you wait pushes that statutory bar another day. Now, without reading your links, your 'publication' here - or more specifically whenever you put those up - is sufficient. You do not need to make it a peer journal or anything like that. It just needs to be available to the public.
Seriously, don't heed most of the advice here. It is just plain, outright wrong.
Again, get a lawyer, talk to him or her, and I'll bet you they give you the same advice. Not that I'm giving you advice.
You are completely wrong. EULA have been tested in court in the USA. They are binding legal contracts. The case is ProCD v Zeidenberg.
Thanks for being the only person that remembers Pro-CD.
Furthermore, Blizzard was awarded summary judgment in Blizzard v. MDY that loading the game client into RAM - you know, starting the program up - was copyright infringement when using the Glider bot because using Glider went against the EULA and Terms of Service. Running the game normally was a licensed action and therefore copying the game into RAM was ok. However, running the game and using Glider was an unauthorized action and therefore copyright infringement because it was an unauthorized copying of the game into RAM. (An aside, the USER was committing copyright infringement, Glider was just contributing to it. But Blizzard's not going to endure the PR nightmare of suing its customers.)
Anyone that thinks EULAs are generally unenforceable is very very wrong.
it is illegal to break copy protection for any reason.
What a bunch of BS. There are SEVERAL exceptions to the DMCA, e.g., research, education, etc. You don't know what the f you are talking about and comments like this are why slashdot is a cesspool of intellectual discussion compared to what it used to be.
Well, Ray is doing this a disservice mainly because he's doing what every lawyer does - twist the truth to suit his ends (disclaimer, I'm a lawyer). Ray REPEATEDLY says that the RIAA is going after this guy for ripping CDs which is not true. In every instance that the RIAA complains about they say that he was sharing the copies AND that being on his computer and in the shared folder is what made them unauthorized and that the defendants distributed the unauthorized copies.
Beckerman states in his prior summary "it states the following: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'"
However, the full wording of the text is (I've bolded the parts Beckerman ommitted):
It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant's computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at 4-6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at 13, 17-18.) Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the ".mp3" extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the.mp3 format for his and his wife's use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The.mp3 format is a "compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed.mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Complaint were stored in the.mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant's computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant's computer. (See Jacobson Decl. 6 and Exhibit 1 thereto.) Each of these actual, unauthorized disseminations of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works violates Plaintiffs' exclusive distribution right under the Copyright Act.
Do you see how much Beckerman leaves out?? Becker is completely spreading FUD about this and now other news outlets are picking up his characterization - see, e.g., Dvorak's latest rant. I am not taking a stance on what the RIAA thinks is legal or not, but the simple fact is that Beckerman is completely misconstruing what the brief says to suit his agenda.
He also claims that the judge simple asked "Did they make unauthorized copies?" but that's NOT what the judge asked at all according to the RIAA's brief. The question they state was: "Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an "unlawful copy" of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public?" and that is the question they are answering.
I'd be surprised if they blatantly misstated the Order, but Mr. Beckerman hasn't provided us with a link to the original order (and no, I'm not about to go snooping around on PACER to prove my point) so we can't be sure what was on it.
Sorry, but I have watched Mr.-might-as-well-be-Stallman-with-his-fanaticism Berckerman's story spiral well past the safety of slashdot's borders and it's time to rein Beckerman in.
Defendants seem to think that Twombly is a panacea for their problems. Twombly (called Bell Atlantic by the courts - Twombly seems be be lawyer-speak) for all intents and purposes didn't accomplish anything. As soon as a defendant raises Bell Atlantic, every judge in this land will let the plaintiff their complaint. No judge is going to dismiss a case pre-discovery that may actually have merit. Bell Atlantic is a nice idea, but it will have little long-term effect.
I'm sorry but a person's right to control their creations should not trump my right to use my property as I see fit.
Don't you realize this is exactly why you like the GPL? It is the original copyright owner telling me I have to release my code that I wrote because I derived my code from the original author's. If you truly want freedom, you should be supporting the BSD license where you truly can do whatever you want with your code.
This brings up the rather good point that civil discovery is a startlingly invasive process conducted by people who are hostile
Errr, not really. The party seeking discovery makes the request. The producing party then objects and turns over only what they think is responsive and if the attorneys on both sides are smart they have a protective order in place that safeguards the documents of both parties. Regardless, only what the producing party deems is responsive is turned over. If the requesting party thinks the producing party is hiding something, they file a motion to compel (usually discovery disputes annoy judges so they are avoided if possible) and the judge decides if the producing party should be compelled to produce anything they are holding back.
The way you made it sound, the requesting party comes onto your premises and starts opening file cabinets, which isn't the way it happens.
Traditionally, this has been up to attornies having professional ethics. A dubious proposition in some cases.
Well, dubious or not, an attorney that violates a protective order is sanctionable. If you don't trust an attorney to be ethical (personally I would as I have yet to meet a lawyer I think is unethical) at least trust that they don't want to be sanctioned. It's bad for the lawyer's image and business.
seriously, don't bother. This is slashdot where the slashbot lawyers foam at the mouth without ever reading an actual pleading. They rely on the summary to be fair and balanced (yeah, like fox news fair and balanced) and then let fly with a bunch of ill-informed complaining. I tried for years to help people understand the law (especially patent law) and just gave up. The weight of the anti-lawyer hivemind broke me. It will break you too.
Thank you. Sincerely. I was not aware of this act and though I'm not convinced it allows the library scenario, it does make a case for the making of copies for family members and friends. More from the Wikipedia article I found interesting:
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by 1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage," offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player. [14]
Unresolved Questions
Still, the AHRA was unsuccessful in its attempt to "conclusively . . . resolve this debate" over the legality of home taping. Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with 'analog' devices and media. The primary difficulty lies in the definition of "digital audio recording device." Though there are no reliable figures on the subject, the meager returns to the Copyright Office's DART fund amidst widespread copying and dissemination of digital music suggests that a great deal of copying, noncommercial or otherwise, is accomplished using devices not covered by the AHRA. For these devices, including MP3 players, computer hard drives, and most CD burners and CD-Rs, the section 1008 exemption, which applies only to copies made with a "digital audio recording device" as defined by the act, may not apply.
However, language in the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia decision described above suggests a broader reading of the Section 1008 exemptions, providing blanket protection for "all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" and equating the spaceshifting of audio with the fair use protections afforded home video recordings in Sony v. Universal Studios.
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Please post a case or citation or some sort of authority for this position. Though I wish it were the case, I am pretty sure you are dead wrong - especially in the case of the library scenario.
It is not enforced, true, but a copy is a copy and subject to certain exemptions, e.g., education, both examples are a violation of the copyright owner's copyright and they could, in theory, very much sue you for it.
And please don't cite the Sony Betamax case - there the court said time-shifting was legal for the person making the recording. Neither of your examples mirror this.
The OP was right, regardless if it is a bad policy or not.
-p-
There's a 100% chance foochee already used this joke. gg.
I'll reiterate my point. Slashdot is full of armchair lawyers. After spending one year in law school it was evident that a large percentage (vague enough for you?) of the people posting did not know what they were talking about. That was three years ago. Reading the comments attached to this thread,/. hasn't improved.
Show me the employment statistics of slashdot's readership and I'll be happy to say "since ___% of you aren't lawyers..."
But congratulations on missing the actual discussion and focusing instead on my obvious exaggeration to the point you felt you needed to reply. Hope you found it time well-spent.
OK, my point was apparently garbled. The discussion was: these people are bringing lawsuits against "innocent" people and "innocent" people should be protected against search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, or deprivation of property even though the Constitution only protects you from acts performed by the government. The argument was further made that "well, since you are in Court, you are being acted upon by the government and thus should receive the same protections"
My point was if you and I signed an NDA, and I broke it, you'd sue me for breach and I would be subject to the court's power. As a result, I could then say "no, court, I have a free speech right. You can't force me to comply with that NDA because you have to protect my free speech under the 1st amendment," like they would have to protect my 4th amendment protections against search and seizure.
I see why it is confusing because it is not an exact analogy. The point is: Constitutional protection CANNOT apply to civil disputes because then you wouldn't really be "free," e.g., I can't kick you off my land for saying things I don't like since you have a right to speech speech against me.
ok smarty, suggest a percentage. 99% wasn't literal, but I'll bet you $5 at least 75% of the people that read slashdot and post here are not lawyers. The comments on/. showing the common slashdotter's understanding of the legal system (and intellectual property in particular) made me cringe to the point I had to walk away from slashdot for three years (check my posting history).
Sorry, that's not at all what equal protection is about.
I understand your ideal, but it doesn't work. If you sold your house and got a bad deal, you could then run to the court for deprivation of property without just compensation. If you signed an NDA with your company, you could sue the company for violations of freedom of speech. All contracts and business would come to a screeching halt because we commit "constitutional violations" every day. It's our given right to contract away our freedoms and rights in exchange for something we want. If we could then turn around and rescind the deal citing Constitutional violations, it would cripple the economy.
Hate to break it to you, but the 4th Amendment only applies to the government itself trying to search/seize you. Of course that usually happens only in the criminal sense, which is why you don't see it used for civil suits, but i digress.
Double problem: the 4th amendment doesn't really protect you like you think it does. It only prevents evidence impermissibly found on you from being used against you in court. It's not like if the cop is checking out your prostate you can say "this is a violation of the 4th amendment" and he has to stop. It's only if he finds the coke up your ******* and he had no probable cause to pull your pants down that you get the protection, in court, against the coke being used at your coke possession trial. And, if I didn't make this clear, there is no action against the officer for the 4th amendment violation. You have to bring a separate suit against the cop/police force/town, etc for that, but the statute escapes me (1983??).
Wow. So you should die for filing a lawsuit. That sounds fair. Or you should be charged with perjury. riiiiiight.
OK,/.'ers, since 99% of you AREN'T lawyers and don't know the first thing about law suits - while you have to do some due diligence before filing a lawsuit, you usually don't know the real facts until you are already partway into the case in a phase called "discovery," which is usually the most expensive part of the suit.
Under your torch-weilding system, I would have to root through your firewall logs BEFORE I filed a lawsuit, even though I may actually have a legitimate claim against you.
Slashdot Mirror
This patent is beyond the Patent Office's usual idiocy and right up there with "method for playing with a cat with a laser". I mean really, displaying a list of accessible networks using perfectly standard techniques?
And yet you - like every other slashdotter - will base you opinion on /.'s summary and not the claims themselves.
1. A method of displaying to a user a list of carrier networks available for access, comprising:
(a) detecting carrier network signals by an access client transmitted from a plurality of carrier networks;
(b) determining carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network signals;
(c) getting carrier network information from an access point database by the access client using the plurality of carrier network identifiers, wherein the carrier network information includes information indicating whether the access client is authorized to access a carrier network of the plurality of carrier networks; and
(d) generating a user selectable list of carrier network identifiers by the access client using the carrier network information,
(e) wherein two or more carrier network identifiers associated with a common carrier network system are aggregated to generate a carrier network system identifier that is included in the user selectable list.
(letters added for your reference). Steps c - getting it from an access point database? - and e - where 2 carrier newtork identifiers are aggregated? - don't seem like the normal way of picking a wifi spot. Add in that these are carrier networks, not the hotspots themselves, and it seems a little less obvious and a lot more specific. You can all put down your torches and pitchforks now.
I thought that a EULA could not be legally binding? Last I knew it wasn't a legal agreement, although it does give them ammunition in court...
Can someone please point me to the source of this repeated misinformation?? Every time a EULA is mentioned on slashdot, someone says "I thought EULAs aren't enforceable." Where are you getting this from?? Let me be clear:
EULAs ARE ENFORCEABLE.* See the ProCD case and Hill v. Gateway.
And yes, IAAL.
* provisions of a EULA MAY be ruled unconscionable by a court, but you are going into the battle losing.
Village Idiot sends word of a patent granted to MIT researchers
The patent application published. It was not granted. It hasn't even been examined yet. Patent applications usually haven't by this point - examination happens 2-3 years after application. It is a simple procedure Slashdot; why can't you seem to wrap your head around it? I'll write it very BASICally so you can understand:
There, you can easily refer to this when reporting in the future. Slashdot is consistently WRONG on how it reports on whether a patent is granted/published/applied for and I would really expect more from a site that prides itself on being intelligent and for intelligent people. See the recent story on IBM allegedly "getting" a patent on the 40-minute meeting (hint, they didn't. It hasn't been examined yet).
I take it you're implying that because I interned at IBM for a summer 12 years ago, I might be biased. I'm not. If you read one of the posts in the google search you performed you'll see I didn't like my time at IBM. I worked on a dull project converting manuals from docbook to SGML while other interns played with Java (at the time, the new hotness). But I don't feel one way or the other towards them. They're just like any other company.
What I AM biased against is slashbots like yourself with an anti-patent agenda, especially when you make it a crusade to infect others via Wikipedia with your nonsense. I don't like bogus patents any more than you do, but I also recognize there are a number of valid patents out there and IBM probably has a number of them. On slashdot though, any patent is automatically railed against on principle and there is no valid discussion of any of them. Patents are Frankenstein and Slashdot has the torches and pitchforks. Add to it that it's pretty clear you AREN'T neutral to IBM, so rocks, glass houses, you fill in the rest.
And I actually DID correct your wikipedia entry when I saw it. I changed it to patent applications, corrected your grammar, but left in the part that some of their applications may be the drivel because apparently some people clearly think so and felt that fact, and even a link to the Slashdot article, should remain. My edits, however, were then removed. Feel free to check the history of the page for yourself.
Lastly, I didn't convince the mods of anything, nor did I ask anyone to mod you. I just pointed out that you don't know what you're talking about (you clearly aren't a patent attorney) and that you made a bad change to Wikipedia that was based on no research of your own. If the mods then felt you were a troll, that is their decision. But you didn't deserve the +1 informative because objectively your post wasn't informative. It was wrong. If you don't like that and it hurt your feelings, well maybe you should reconsider editing a wikipedia page when you know nothing about the subject matter.
An aside, it's funny how you accuse me of ignoratio elenchi and then try to make your point that IBM has bad patents by linking to articles showing how they buy up rival companies. Again, rocks, glass houses, etc. You really should dress more modestly - your agenda is showing.
Congratulations on proving why Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. IBM does not have a patent on a 40 minute meeting, they have a patent application that claims setting up a time template on a scheduling server (claim 1) that allows for using different time intervals (claim 3). If you actually look at the file history on the USPTO site, you'll see the patent office hasn't even picked the case up to examine it yet. But that would assume people on slashdot care about things like facts.
The article quoted says "wants a patent", not "has a patent." The Slashdot editor then implied IBM had a patent. And what you did, seriously, is spread FUD because you took something you read on slashdot (but clearly don't know anything about) and posted it to a place people read and rely on as an accurate source of information. Pat yourself on the back. You spread misinformation today.
Informative my ass.
Specifically, patents filed before June 8th, 1995 are granted a life of 20 years from earliest U.S. filing to which priority is claimed (excluding provisionals) or 17 years from issue, which ever is longer. After June 8th 1995, patents have a life of 20 years from earliest U.S. filing to which priority is claimed (excluding provisionals).
See also here
Well since this is slashdot and people here are all so paranoid about the government and corporations invading your privacy and tracking your every move...
Fine. Please give me a concise list of all the computer programs and data collection that pertain to me. I don't want references - I want you to actually name every system. Tell me everything that tabluates data about me or for me and keeps track of me. EVERYTHING.
It would take you ages to try to compile all the systems that pertain to my behavior. That is the problem.
There are just WAY too many computers. There are computers that track about how many people are in your house (census). There are computers that track how you heat your home (utilities). There are computers that record what you wear in public (any general surveillance system). At any time a US citizen is subject to millions of computers and tracking. Most are well-meaning, but it is impossible to hide with all of them. The only reason we're not all in jail is selective enforcement.
Just saying there are "too many" of something doesn't relieve you of your responsibility to be aware of them. All those people that don't care they are being watched and give up their social security number at the drop of a hat? Their excuse could be the same as yours - there's just too many phish in the sea to keep track of. What's your answer? "Use your common sense." Compliance with the law is the same thing. If it seems like it's a bad idea, it probably is. And it's not like you get thrown in jail (in the US) for having your lawn overgrown.
The law has grown out of the complexity of life. It is a way for us to try and shape acceptable behavior and let us know what we can and cannot do. However, life is very very complex - it kinda explains why the Matrix isn't real - no computer or system is powerful enough to attempt to model the real world and all the human interactions within it. If there's a law banning setting goats on fire, well, it's because someone probably did it once with disastrous consequences. Will it pertain to you? Well, only if you plan on setting a goat on fire - but I don't know what sort of person you are, so maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. But use your common sense. If you think it may be outside normal behavior, look it up! If all your neighbors have lawns from 1 - 2 inches deep, don't you think you should ask around about having a waist-high savanna on yours? Again, common sense. I don't expect you to remember every law that pertains to you just liek I wouldn't expect you to remember every single method or parameter in an API. That's what the docs are for - same as law books.
2) As proof, what I am about to tell you is not legal advice, nor is me telling you this creating an attorney/client relationship
3) Hire an attorney.
That all said, a patent is not a freedom to operate document. If you have a patent on ABCD, and someone has a patent they claim covers ABC, nothing stops them from coming after you. They may win, they may not, but your patent does not protect you. It only allows you to prevent others from doing ABCD (it is a 'negative right'). Secondly, if you do want to ensure no one can own it, publish it yesterday. The longer you delay, the worse off everyone is because publications are an absolute bar to someone else patenting your invention only a year or more after the publication. Each day you wait pushes that statutory bar another day. Now, without reading your links, your 'publication' here - or more specifically whenever you put those up - is sufficient. You do not need to make it a peer journal or anything like that. It just needs to be available to the public.
Seriously, don't heed most of the advice here. It is just plain, outright wrong.
Again, get a lawyer, talk to him or her, and I'll bet you they give you the same advice. Not that I'm giving you advice.
You are completely wrong. EULA have been tested in court in the USA. They are binding legal contracts. The case is ProCD v Zeidenberg.
Thanks for being the only person that remembers Pro-CD.
Furthermore, Blizzard was awarded summary judgment in Blizzard v. MDY that loading the game client into RAM - you know, starting the program up - was copyright infringement when using the Glider bot because using Glider went against the EULA and Terms of Service. Running the game normally was a licensed action and therefore copying the game into RAM was ok. However, running the game and using Glider was an unauthorized action and therefore copyright infringement because it was an unauthorized copying of the game into RAM. (An aside, the USER was committing copyright infringement, Glider was just contributing to it. But Blizzard's not going to endure the PR nightmare of suing its customers.)
Anyone that thinks EULAs are generally unenforceable is very very wrong.
What a bunch of BS. There are SEVERAL exceptions to the DMCA, e.g., research, education, etc. You don't know what the f you are talking about and comments like this are why slashdot is a cesspool of intellectual discussion compared to what it used to be.
F you and everyone that modded you informative.
Beckerman states in his prior summary "it states the following: 'It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies... Virtually all of the sound recordings... are in the ".mp3" format for his and his wife's use... Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies...'"
However, the full wording of the text is (I've bolded the parts Beckerman ommitted):
.mp3 format for his and his wife's use. (Howell Dep. 107:24 to 110:2; 114:1 to 116:16). The .mp3 format is a "compressed format [that] allows for rapid transmission of digital audio files from one computer to another by electronic mail or any other file transfer protocol." Napster, 239 F.3d at 1011. Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs' recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs. Moreover, Defendant had no authorization to distribute Plaintiffs' copyrighted recordings from his KaZaA shared folder.
It is undisputed that Defendant possessed unauthorized copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings on his computer. Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Complaint is a series of screen shots showing the sound recording and other files found in the KaZaA shared folder on Defendant's computer on January 30, 2006. (SOF, Doc. No. 31, at 4-6); Exhibit 12 to SOF at 13, 17-18.) Virtually all of the sound recordings on Exhibit B are in the ".mp3" format. (Exhibit 10 to SOF, showing virtually all audio files with the ".mp3" extension.) Defendant admitted that he converted these sound recordings from their original format to the
Each of the 11 sound recordings on Exhibit A to Plaintiffs' Complaint were stored in the .mp3 format in the shared folder on Defendant's computer hard drive, and each of these eleven files were actually disseminated from Defendant's computer. (See Jacobson Decl. 6 and Exhibit 1 thereto.) Each of these actual, unauthorized disseminations of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works violates Plaintiffs' exclusive distribution right under the Copyright Act.
Do you see how much Beckerman leaves out?? Becker is completely spreading FUD about this and now other news outlets are picking up his characterization - see, e.g., Dvorak's latest rant. I am not taking a stance on what the RIAA thinks is legal or not, but the simple fact is that Beckerman is completely misconstruing what the brief says to suit his agenda.
He also claims that the judge simple asked "Did they make unauthorized copies?" but that's NOT what the judge asked at all according to the RIAA's brief. The question they state was: "Does the record in this case show that Defendant Howell possessed an "unlawful copy" of the Plaintiff's copyrighted material, and that he actually disseminated that copy to the public?" and that is the question they are answering.
I'd be surprised if they blatantly misstated the Order, but Mr. Beckerman hasn't provided us with a link to the original order (and no, I'm not about to go snooping around on PACER to prove my point) so we can't be sure what was on it.
Sorry, but I have watched Mr.-might-as-well-be-Stallman-with-his-fanaticism Berckerman's story spiral well past the safety of slashdot's borders and it's time to rein Beckerman in.
-p-
Defendants seem to think that Twombly is a panacea for their problems. Twombly (called Bell Atlantic by the courts - Twombly seems be be lawyer-speak) for all intents and purposes didn't accomplish anything. As soon as a defendant raises Bell Atlantic, every judge in this land will let the plaintiff their complaint. No judge is going to dismiss a case pre-discovery that may actually have merit. Bell Atlantic is a nice idea, but it will have little long-term effect.
-p-
Don't you realize this is exactly why you like the GPL? It is the original copyright owner telling me I have to release my code that I wrote because I derived my code from the original author's. If you truly want freedom, you should be supporting the BSD license where you truly can do whatever you want with your code.
Please, l2p.
Errr, not really. The party seeking discovery makes the request. The producing party then objects and turns over only what they think is responsive and if the attorneys on both sides are smart they have a protective order in place that safeguards the documents of both parties. Regardless, only what the producing party deems is responsive is turned over. If the requesting party thinks the producing party is hiding something, they file a motion to compel (usually discovery disputes annoy judges so they are avoided if possible) and the judge decides if the producing party should be compelled to produce anything they are holding back.
The way you made it sound, the requesting party comes onto your premises and starts opening file cabinets, which isn't the way it happens.
Traditionally, this has been up to attornies having professional ethics. A dubious proposition in some cases.
Well, dubious or not, an attorney that violates a protective order is sanctionable. If you don't trust an attorney to be ethical (personally I would as I have yet to meet a lawyer I think is unethical) at least trust that they don't want to be sanctioned. It's bad for the lawyer's image and business.
seriously, don't bother. This is slashdot where the slashbot lawyers foam at the mouth without ever reading an actual pleading. They rely on the summary to be fair and balanced (yeah, like fox news fair and balanced) and then let fly with a bunch of ill-informed complaining. I tried for years to help people understand the law (especially patent law) and just gave up. The weight of the anti-lawyer hivemind broke me. It will break you too.
-p-
Thank you. Sincerely. I was not aware of this act and though I'm not convinced it allows the library scenario, it does make a case for the making of copies for family members and friends. More from the Wikipedia article I found interesting:
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by 1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage," offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player. [14]
Unresolved Questions
Still, the AHRA was unsuccessful in its attempt to "conclusively . . . resolve this debate" over the legality of home taping. Section 1008 explicitly allows private, noncommercial home copying with 'analog' devices and media. The primary difficulty lies in the definition of "digital audio recording device." Though there are no reliable figures on the subject, the meager returns to the Copyright Office's DART fund amidst widespread copying and dissemination of digital music suggests that a great deal of copying, noncommercial or otherwise, is accomplished using devices not covered by the AHRA. For these devices, including MP3 players, computer hard drives, and most CD burners and CD-Rs, the section 1008 exemption, which applies only to copies made with a "digital audio recording device" as defined by the act, may not apply.
However, language in the RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia decision described above suggests a broader reading of the Section 1008 exemptions, providing blanket protection for "all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings" and equating the spaceshifting of audio with the fair use protections afforded home video recordings in Sony v. Universal Studios.
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.
Please post a case or citation or some sort of authority for this position. Though I wish it were the case, I am pretty sure you are dead wrong - especially in the case of the library scenario. It is not enforced, true, but a copy is a copy and subject to certain exemptions, e.g., education, both examples are a violation of the copyright owner's copyright and they could, in theory, very much sue you for it. And please don't cite the Sony Betamax case - there the court said time-shifting was legal for the person making the recording. Neither of your examples mirror this. The OP was right, regardless if it is a bad policy or not. -p-
Go back to school or start paying attention - the corporate veil almost NEVER gets pierced. -p-
-p-
There's a 100% chance foochee already used this joke. gg.
/. hasn't improved.
I'll reiterate my point. Slashdot is full of armchair lawyers. After spending one year in law school it was evident that a large percentage (vague enough for you?) of the people posting did not know what they were talking about. That was three years ago. Reading the comments attached to this thread,
Show me the employment statistics of slashdot's readership and I'll be happy to say "since ___% of you aren't lawyers..."
But congratulations on missing the actual discussion and focusing instead on my obvious exaggeration to the point you felt you needed to reply. Hope you found it time well-spent.
-p-
OK, my point was apparently garbled. The discussion was: these people are bringing lawsuits against "innocent" people and "innocent" people should be protected against search and seizure under the 4th Amendment, or deprivation of property even though the Constitution only protects you from acts performed by the government. The argument was further made that "well, since you are in Court, you are being acted upon by the government and thus should receive the same protections"
My point was if you and I signed an NDA, and I broke it, you'd sue me for breach and I would be subject to the court's power. As a result, I could then say "no, court, I have a free speech right. You can't force me to comply with that NDA because you have to protect my free speech under the 1st amendment," like they would have to protect my 4th amendment protections against search and seizure.
I see why it is confusing because it is not an exact analogy. The point is: Constitutional protection CANNOT apply to civil disputes because then you wouldn't really be "free," e.g., I can't kick you off my land for saying things I don't like since you have a right to speech speech against me.
ok smarty, suggest a percentage. 99% wasn't literal, but I'll bet you $5 at least 75% of the people that read slashdot and post here are not lawyers. The comments on /. showing the common slashdotter's understanding of the legal system (and intellectual property in particular) made me cringe to the point I had to walk away from slashdot for three years (check my posting history).
It hasn't gotten much better.
-p-
I understand your ideal, but it doesn't work. If you sold your house and got a bad deal, you could then run to the court for deprivation of property without just compensation. If you signed an NDA with your company, you could sue the company for violations of freedom of speech. All contracts and business would come to a screeching halt because we commit "constitutional violations" every day. It's our given right to contract away our freedoms and rights in exchange for something we want. If we could then turn around and rescind the deal citing Constitutional violations, it would cripple the economy.
-p-
Double problem: the 4th amendment doesn't really protect you like you think it does. It only prevents evidence impermissibly found on you from being used against you in court. It's not like if the cop is checking out your prostate you can say "this is a violation of the 4th amendment" and he has to stop. It's only if he finds the coke up your ******* and he had no probable cause to pull your pants down that you get the protection, in court, against the coke being used at your coke possession trial. And, if I didn't make this clear, there is no action against the officer for the 4th amendment violation. You have to bring a separate suit against the cop/police force/town, etc for that, but the statute escapes me (1983??).
-p-
OK, /.'ers, since 99% of you AREN'T lawyers and don't know the first thing about law suits - while you have to do some due diligence before filing a lawsuit, you usually don't know the real facts until you are already partway into the case in a phase called "discovery," which is usually the most expensive part of the suit.
Under your torch-weilding system, I would have to root through your firewall logs BEFORE I filed a lawsuit, even though I may actually have a legitimate claim against you.
Yeah, that makes sense. /sarcasm.
-p-