There's a decent chance, given the nature of the Bitcoin system, that this guy and his wife *do* "own, control, or create" some Bitcoins. My computer has been manufacturing Bitcoins all day, as have the computers of other Bitcoin miners. We then sell them to people on Bitcoin exchanges. So this guy wants to be the only vendor of "Bitcoin" brand Bitcoins (and would then presumably try to get everyone else to pay him for the privilege of talking about the thing they have?).
Thing is, there is no "they". Bitcoin is the name of a p2p network, accessed (primarily) though "the Bitcoin Client" (an open source program). The network is used to exchange "Bitcoins" (virtual money).
If this works for this lawyer, I am trademarking "Euro".
The ability for juries to second-guess the USPTO is the theoretical reason they're allowed to issue so many bad patents. The idea is that they grant patents after a cursory check, and if some interested party finds prior art they can take it up in court. If we get rid of that, we might as well replace the patent system with a free-money-for-patent-lawyers system.
There's a difference between "acting" and "threatening to murder people". One of them helps to influence the political process, while the other gets you thrown in jail.
I'll let you decide which is which.
So from now on no content may be played, because that would circumvent DRM.
Any DVD player is a "circumvention device", because it breaks CSS and allows the video to be watched.
This is all coming from the subtle difference between "extract from DRM to pirate" and "extract from DRM to make use of." Being able to see a picture or hear a sound doesn't mean I'm doing anything illegal.
If this suit gets through, and these idiots win, it will open the door to people having to follow any flag-based DRM system. The broadcast flag thing was bad enough, but it would be impossible to make every piece of software support every possible flag scheme.
So they can sue anyone who doesn't buy their copy protection software, because not using it is, in essence, circumventing it? I can make a copy protection scheme that makes a device refuse to copy anything named *.dontcopy.mp3. Can I sue people who don't use that?
DRM isn't DRM unless it has some semblance of functionality.
Because we all know that specifically enumerating to me what I can do with my content makes it easier for me to use it in cool ways, and that, if DRM wasn't there to prevent me from doing things with high-definition video, I'd never think to put it on my iPod.
This is the third _______ sues YouTube story I've seen on Slashdot in the last couple weeks. I think Thailand is just looking for an excuse to join the club and maybe get some money out of it.
Or send the company to jail. Which is difficult.
Shouldn't they be filing suit against the people who *posted* the videos? They're easier to jail, at least.
Ma Bell is back. A while ago they split up this company, and now it's bought up all the little bits again and is going to make trouble for anything that might want to compete with it (like VoIP).
I'm waiting for them to go back to suing people for connecting unauthorized devices to the phone system.
Slashdot Mirror
I make a point of listening exclusively to inherently illegal music.
There's a decent chance, given the nature of the Bitcoin system, that this guy and his wife *do* "own, control, or create" some Bitcoins. My computer has been manufacturing Bitcoins all day, as have the computers of other Bitcoin miners. We then sell them to people on Bitcoin exchanges. So this guy wants to be the only vendor of "Bitcoin" brand Bitcoins (and would then presumably try to get everyone else to pay him for the privilege of talking about the thing they have?).
Thing is, there is no "they". Bitcoin is the name of a p2p network, accessed (primarily) though "the Bitcoin Client" (an open source program). The network is used to exchange "Bitcoins" (virtual money). If this works for this lawyer, I am trademarking "Euro".
AFAIK, "SEAL Team 6" is already in use. It's the name of one of the character models you can be in Counter-Strike: Source.
The ability for juries to second-guess the USPTO is the theoretical reason they're allowed to issue so many bad patents. The idea is that they grant patents after a cursory check, and if some interested party finds prior art they can take it up in court. If we get rid of that, we might as well replace the patent system with a free-money-for-patent-lawyers system.
How is using Roundup on Roundup-resistant crops non-obvious?
Some native-born American citizens speak Spanish as a first language.
There's a difference between "acting" and "threatening to murder people". One of them helps to influence the political process, while the other gets you thrown in jail. I'll let you decide which is which.
I'm not buying their service. I'm opting for one that doesn't do traffic shaping. Nothing that comes out of AOL/Time Warner is ever much good, anyway.
So when's the WINE-for-drivers coming out. Sounds like what we need.
Piracy != Murder
Bush doesn't have the authority to do what congress doesn't have the authority to prohibit him doing. If that makes sense. So it all works out.
I stopped reading at "outlawing illegal". Maybe they should outlaw illegal filesharing next? Or illegal murder?
These guys can have fun suing VLC. And mplayer. And every other open-source audio program.
So from now on no content may be played, because that would circumvent DRM. Any DVD player is a "circumvention device", because it breaks CSS and allows the video to be watched. This is all coming from the subtle difference between "extract from DRM to pirate" and "extract from DRM to make use of." Being able to see a picture or hear a sound doesn't mean I'm doing anything illegal.
Yes. Now do something about it.
If this suit gets through, and these idiots win, it will open the door to people having to follow any flag-based DRM system. The broadcast flag thing was bad enough, but it would be impossible to make every piece of software support every possible flag scheme.
So they can sue anyone who doesn't buy their copy protection software, because not using it is, in essence, circumventing it? I can make a copy protection scheme that makes a device refuse to copy anything named *.dontcopy.mp3. Can I sue people who don't use that? DRM isn't DRM unless it has some semblance of functionality.
Because we all know that specifically enumerating to me what I can do with my content makes it easier for me to use it in cool ways, and that, if DRM wasn't there to prevent me from doing things with high-definition video, I'd never think to put it on my iPod.
Big banks would also like this because it would screw over little banks who don't have 50 grand to blow on a domain name.
Exactly. And when did this school develop the technology to read the alcohol content of a photographed cup?
Sounds like a good idea. There's no way a person could have done $750 worth of damage by downloading a song licensed over iTunes for 99 cents.
This is the third _______ sues YouTube story I've seen on Slashdot in the last couple weeks. I think Thailand is just looking for an excuse to join the club and maybe get some money out of it. Or send the company to jail. Which is difficult. Shouldn't they be filing suit against the people who *posted* the videos? They're easier to jail, at least.
Ma Bell is back. A while ago they split up this company, and now it's bought up all the little bits again and is going to make trouble for anything that might want to compete with it (like VoIP). I'm waiting for them to go back to suing people for connecting unauthorized devices to the phone system.
I'm waiting for them to get sued back to the stone age. Is there anyone in the patent office? Or is it just a big rubber-stamp machine?