And some of us have kids. When you come up with a format that can survive having peanut butter globbed on it and then being microwaved, I'll be impressed.
It would depend on how closely you track their expression. Code is copyrightable, but I don't get to copyright the algorithm I used, regardless of what SCO wanted to think.
why doesn't the AP have a copyright claim that the AHI's articles are derivative works of the AP's?
Because they don't get exclusive rights in facts. I could copy all the facts from the leading biography of Pres. Obama and publish my own book based on those facts, and nobody would have a claim.
It ends at the point you no longer have a competitive advantage from having the "scoop." If I remember the case right, the court correctly noted that the facts can't be copyrighted, and instead carved out a narrow common law right to "hot news" based on a three-factor test I don't remember. There's really not much of a slippery slope here.
Typing this on a 904HA, which I've had for three or four weeks. The only thing that really throws off my typing is the right shift key. I don't know who made that design choice, but it was stupid. If not for that, it would be pretty much perfect. I paid $350 for the thing, including shipping, and it's perfect for using on the bus or plane when a regular laptop is just too cumbersome.
I wiped the second partition and added FC 10, which worked out of the box, including wireless.
You deserve to be snickered at for being unable to read and understand my comment, which was not complicated. I am snickering and even chuckling at your ineptitude now.
Well, maybe if you slowed down the snickering a little and read my post, you'd get the point (or just keep snickering if it makes you feel big; it's all the same to me).
You're calling for some kind of big push to investigate all this rampant trademark fraud. You conclude that it won't happen because it doesn't serve our "corporate masters." As I already pointed out, our "corporate masters" are not the ones engaging in this "fraud." The guys with money do it right because they recognize that their trademarks are valuable. It's the mom and pop shops who don't understand how trademarks work and who ask the guy who filed their articles of incorporation to go ahead and do a trademark too, thinking it will save them a few bucks, that end up having a problem.
So let me spell it out really clearly. Trademark fraud is not a problem worth investigating. This is not the lucrative kind of fraud. It's the kind that gets your mark canceled. It is its own punishment. No need for Pres. Obama to appoint a "Trademark Fraud Czar" and establish a "Department of Trademark Investigation." Not unless you really, really believe in this stimulus idea. But hey, if I made your day a little brighter by giving you a chance to feel superior, I'm okay with that.
I say "unconstitutional" because it is illegal for congress to order me, in my private home, to keep logs. Their authority ends at the interstate border.
While my first thought was also to bemoan the death of the interstate commerce clause, the truth is, everything you do is considered interstate commerce under our screwed-up constitutional jurisprudence. If you grown wheat on your own farm, make bread with it in your own home on said farm, and use it slop your own pigs on said farm, you have engaged in interstate commerce. So says the Supreme Court to uphold the New Deal (which is what your grandparents called a stimulus package). It was beyond a stretch. It was downright dishonest. But it's the law of the land. If this law gets passed, don't look for it to get overturned on constitutional grounds, not even by the Roberts court. You'd get Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and maybe Roberts, but Kennedy would vote with the liberal bloc.
Whoa, slow down sparky. Fraud in a cancellation proceeding could mean something as simple as the trademark registration lists "sale of ice cream, ice cream novelties, milkshakes, malts, frozen yogurt, frozen yogurt-based drinks, and smoothies," but when you renewed your registration, you no longer had malts on your menu. Sure, you still screwed up, but I don't think you deserve to go to Club Fed.
Also, our "corporate masters" (i.e., companies with lots of money) account for only a fraction of trademark registrants. There are millions of registered marks, and most are owned by little mom & pop shops. And guess which ones are most likely to have "fraud" in their statements of use? Not the big guys. Their armies of lawyers make sure that doesn't happen, because their marks are really, really valuable. They're not going to risk their marks over silly stuff like this.
Actually, you may be right. Netbook may be generic by now for a sub-notebook, in which case nobody gets trademark rights in it.
I haven't read the article, but if this is just a cancellation, Dell isn't trying to trademark Netbook. They're trying to say that Psion can't use it as a trademark. It's entirely possible that "the mark is generic" is one of their contentions (and in the time it took me to write that, I could have checked, but whatever).
However, if they were using the mark, or intending to use the mark in a good faith effort, Dell can lose and open themselves to paying Psion's legal fees as well as a counter suit, cessation of use in commerce, and a healthy share of any profits used under that term. (i.e. i can defend a trademark on a device i'm designing even if i haven't sold a single unit).
Not quite correct. You can apply for the mark if you have a bona fide intent to use, but it won't issue until you use it, and once the mark is registered, you must continue to use it in all of the goods and services listed. If you file a statement of use to renew your registration, and there is even one good or service in the list for which you are not actually using the mark, your statement of use is fraudulent, and the whole mark is subject to being canceled.
The "fraud" allegation is actually not that big a deal. It's very common to assert that in a cancellation because that's one of the ways you get the mark canceled. Also, remember that a cancellation is not a federal court proceeding. It's an administrative proceeding in the USPTO. They just cancel the mark. It's not a damages proceeding.
IAAL, but I'm not your lawyer and I don't represent you yadda yadda.
(Shameless plug for my own GPL paper. With good examples! I send it to my clients all the time. Bottom line: the GPL is not simple. And this doesn't even include the v.3 stuff.)
I can call my dog a cat too, but that doesn't make it a feline. The GPL is a copyright license. All the anti-establishment hippie rhetoric and cutesy names in the world can't change that.
The "Description of the Embodiments" section is neither hidden nor a claim (in fact, with a patent, nothing is hidden---by definition). More importantly, it is not necessarily an indication of where Apple is going to take the market. When I write a patent for a client, I fill the description with every variation, combination, and permutation we can think up, just to make sure we have everything covered. And there's a fair probability that a particular embodiment is of my own contrivance. I just throw it in, and the first time the client sees it is when I send him the patent for review. It doesn't commit the client to make it that way or even indicate that he himself thought of it. It just gives the client the option of claiming it that way if he needs to. The patent won't issue for several years. The landscape could change in the meantime, and that "silly" embodiment could be the next big thing. Descriptions should almost always err on the side of verbosity. Having too much stuff in the written description will not hurt your claims. Not having enough stuff can be fatal to the claims. So if you can think of it, throw it in, even if you can't think of any real-life reason you would ever actually do it.
If you want to know what a company is really doing, see if they have a picture claim. This is usually a fairly long, detailed claim with lots of elements. It's hard to infringe unless you do exactly what they are doing, but that also makes it easy to get allowed. Basically, it's an easy way to get protection from people just outright copying your product. Does this patent have a picture claim? In this case, 18 may be a picture claim. But I'm not going to take the time to read it closely and figure it out for real.
Of course, this is NOT legal advice, and I don't represent you.
Hmmm, he was an undersecretary of defense under Clinton, now is a deputy secretary of defense. I wonder how he got the job- could it be that he was qualified?!
He may well be, and that's entirely irrelevant. If Obama wants to just hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of industry ties, then do it. But don't first go on this grandstanding routine about "This is a new era of ethics. We're not going to do all that shady stuff other administrations do like hire lobbyists." If being a lobbyist so utterly taints a candidate that it cannot be ethical to hire him, then make an unbreakable commitment to not hire lobbyists. If, on the other hand, being a lobbyist is irrelevant to whether a person is qualified and/or ethically-sound as a candidate, then don't say those dirty former presidents were evil for hiring them. In other words, pick a side, Prez. Don't tell us former presidents were evil for hiring lobbyists, commit to not hire lobbyists because you're not evil like they were, and then hire lobbyists with a wave of the hand and an excuse that, "well, these lobbyists are qualified."
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Obama hasn't been flat-out lying about his desire for a government that obeys the law
Why would we assume that? This is the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government.
For all you dupes who thought Obama was the Messiah who was going to sweep in and heal the federal government with one touch of his blessed hand, get over it. He's a politican. Politicians lie. They are, in large part, corrupt, morally bankrupt, bought and paid for, and self-serving. And the higher up the ranks you go, the more likely that is the case. In fact, that may be the only way to get to the top spot anymore. I would love to live in a world where that's not the case, but I don't, and neither do you.
The RIAA seem to have spotted a new idea: if you want to be e.g. a bank robber or a burglar, become a lawyer. Then when you get caught, you can try to avoid testifying on the grounds of legal privilege.
Or in the alternative, just be a citizen or other person subject to the laws of the United States, and then you get the benefit of the 5th Amendment.
Bad idea. I'm afraid that giving Red Bull to a two-year-old would create some kind of space-time anomaly from the unbridled and unregulated concentration of energy. Some leading physicists*, pediatricians, and moms believe that herein lies the key to the formation of black holes.
*Those with two year olds. Is it mere coincidence that Hawking started theorizing about singularities in the '60s and '70s, when he had young children?
Still, somebody must be practicing the invention. You can't just pull the classic troll trick of having a thousand questionable patents and filing shotgun suits. It has to be more targeted because you (or somebody related) have to actually be doing it.
Change the law so that they cant go to the ITC and ask for an import ban, they instead need to go to the courts and ask for an injunction. If they have to go to the courts, they presumably have to at least demonstrate something vaguely resembling evidence to back up their patent claims.
The ITC basically follows all the rules of federal evidence. The big differences are (1) it's much faster, (2) there's no jury, and (3) you have to prove that you have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims. If Saxon only has 5 employees, it will be interesting to see what their domestic industry is.
Can we require businesses that patent the ideas to have real, actual products to retain the patent?
Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.
Slashdot Mirror
And some of us have kids. When you come up with a format that can survive having peanut butter globbed on it and then being microwaved, I'll be impressed.
It would depend on how closely you track their expression. Code is copyrightable, but I don't get to copyright the algorithm I used, regardless of what SCO wanted to think.
Because they don't get exclusive rights in facts. I could copy all the facts from the leading biography of Pres. Obama and publish my own book based on those facts, and nobody would have a claim.
It ends at the point you no longer have a competitive advantage from having the "scoop." If I remember the case right, the court correctly noted that the facts can't be copyrighted, and instead carved out a narrow common law right to "hot news" based on a three-factor test I don't remember. There's really not much of a slippery slope here.
I wiped the second partition and added FC 10, which worked out of the box, including wireless.
You deserve to be snickered at for being unable to read and understand my comment, which was not complicated. I am snickering and even chuckling at your ineptitude now.
Well, maybe if you slowed down the snickering a little and read my post, you'd get the point (or just keep snickering if it makes you feel big; it's all the same to me).
You're calling for some kind of big push to investigate all this rampant trademark fraud. You conclude that it won't happen because it doesn't serve our "corporate masters." As I already pointed out, our "corporate masters" are not the ones engaging in this "fraud." The guys with money do it right because they recognize that their trademarks are valuable. It's the mom and pop shops who don't understand how trademarks work and who ask the guy who filed their articles of incorporation to go ahead and do a trademark too, thinking it will save them a few bucks, that end up having a problem.
So let me spell it out really clearly. Trademark fraud is not a problem worth investigating. This is not the lucrative kind of fraud. It's the kind that gets your mark canceled. It is its own punishment. No need for Pres. Obama to appoint a "Trademark Fraud Czar" and establish a "Department of Trademark Investigation." Not unless you really, really believe in this stimulus idea. But hey, if I made your day a little brighter by giving you a chance to feel superior, I'm okay with that.
I say "unconstitutional" because it is illegal for congress to order me, in my private home, to keep logs. Their authority ends at the interstate border.
While my first thought was also to bemoan the death of the interstate commerce clause, the truth is, everything you do is considered interstate commerce under our screwed-up constitutional jurisprudence. If you grown wheat on your own farm, make bread with it in your own home on said farm, and use it slop your own pigs on said farm, you have engaged in interstate commerce. So says the Supreme Court to uphold the New Deal (which is what your grandparents called a stimulus package). It was beyond a stretch. It was downright dishonest. But it's the law of the land. If this law gets passed, don't look for it to get overturned on constitutional grounds, not even by the Roberts court. You'd get Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and maybe Roberts, but Kennedy would vote with the liberal bloc.
Whoa, slow down sparky. Fraud in a cancellation proceeding could mean something as simple as the trademark registration lists "sale of ice cream, ice cream novelties, milkshakes, malts, frozen yogurt, frozen yogurt-based drinks, and smoothies," but when you renewed your registration, you no longer had malts on your menu. Sure, you still screwed up, but I don't think you deserve to go to Club Fed.
Also, our "corporate masters" (i.e., companies with lots of money) account for only a fraction of trademark registrants. There are millions of registered marks, and most are owned by little mom & pop shops. And guess which ones are most likely to have "fraud" in their statements of use? Not the big guys. Their armies of lawyers make sure that doesn't happen, because their marks are really, really valuable. They're not going to risk their marks over silly stuff like this.
Actually, you may be right. Netbook may be generic by now for a sub-notebook, in which case nobody gets trademark rights in it.
I haven't read the article, but if this is just a cancellation, Dell isn't trying to trademark Netbook. They're trying to say that Psion can't use it as a trademark. It's entirely possible that "the mark is generic" is one of their contentions (and in the time it took me to write that, I could have checked, but whatever).
Not quite correct. You can apply for the mark if you have a bona fide intent to use, but it won't issue until you use it, and once the mark is registered, you must continue to use it in all of the goods and services listed. If you file a statement of use to renew your registration, and there is even one good or service in the list for which you are not actually using the mark, your statement of use is fraudulent, and the whole mark is subject to being canceled.
The "fraud" allegation is actually not that big a deal. It's very common to assert that in a cancellation because that's one of the ways you get the mark canceled. Also, remember that a cancellation is not a federal court proceeding. It's an administrative proceeding in the USPTO. They just cancel the mark. It's not a damages proceeding.
IAAL, but I'm not your lawyer and I don't represent you yadda yadda.
Can I get a link to where you are getting that number for the conviction rate in the US?
It's right here.
(Shameless plug for my own GPL paper. With good examples! I send it to my clients all the time. Bottom line: the GPL is not simple. And this doesn't even include the v.3 stuff.)
I can call my dog a cat too, but that doesn't make it a feline. The GPL is a copyright license. All the anti-establishment hippie rhetoric and cutesy names in the world can't change that.
This is how I suggested we name our kids, but for some reason my wife objected. Don't know why. It worked fine for SPECTOR.
The "Description of the Embodiments" section is neither hidden nor a claim (in fact, with a patent, nothing is hidden---by definition). More importantly, it is not necessarily an indication of where Apple is going to take the market. When I write a patent for a client, I fill the description with every variation, combination, and permutation we can think up, just to make sure we have everything covered. And there's a fair probability that a particular embodiment is of my own contrivance. I just throw it in, and the first time the client sees it is when I send him the patent for review. It doesn't commit the client to make it that way or even indicate that he himself thought of it. It just gives the client the option of claiming it that way if he needs to. The patent won't issue for several years. The landscape could change in the meantime, and that "silly" embodiment could be the next big thing. Descriptions should almost always err on the side of verbosity. Having too much stuff in the written description will not hurt your claims. Not having enough stuff can be fatal to the claims. So if you can think of it, throw it in, even if you can't think of any real-life reason you would ever actually do it.
If you want to know what a company is really doing, see if they have a picture claim. This is usually a fairly long, detailed claim with lots of elements. It's hard to infringe unless you do exactly what they are doing, but that also makes it easy to get allowed. Basically, it's an easy way to get protection from people just outright copying your product. Does this patent have a picture claim? In this case, 18 may be a picture claim. But I'm not going to take the time to read it closely and figure it out for real.
Of course, this is NOT legal advice, and I don't represent you.
7h3y \/\/1ll B 1337 r33d3rz b4 7h0z3 BuX l4/\/\3rz!!!
ur so ossum! lol! bff! ;-) txt me 2C wassup!
He may well be, and that's entirely irrelevant. If Obama wants to just hire the most qualified person for the job, regardless of industry ties, then do it. But don't first go on this grandstanding routine about "This is a new era of ethics. We're not going to do all that shady stuff other administrations do like hire lobbyists." If being a lobbyist so utterly taints a candidate that it cannot be ethical to hire him, then make an unbreakable commitment to not hire lobbyists. If, on the other hand, being a lobbyist is irrelevant to whether a person is qualified and/or ethically-sound as a candidate, then don't say those dirty former presidents were evil for hiring them. In other words, pick a side, Prez. Don't tell us former presidents were evil for hiring lobbyists, commit to not hire lobbyists because you're not evil like they were, and then hire lobbyists with a wave of the hand and an excuse that, "well, these lobbyists are qualified."
Why would we assume that? This is the guy who just nominated two lobbyists for cabinet positions immediately after announcing that there would be no lobbyists in the Obama government.
For all you dupes who thought Obama was the Messiah who was going to sweep in and heal the federal government with one touch of his blessed hand, get over it. He's a politican. Politicians lie. They are, in large part, corrupt, morally bankrupt, bought and paid for, and self-serving. And the higher up the ranks you go, the more likely that is the case. In fact, that may be the only way to get to the top spot anymore. I would love to live in a world where that's not the case, but I don't, and neither do you.
I'm pretty sure that God had the spider market cornered for more than 20 years, even without a patent.
The RIAA seem to have spotted a new idea: if you want to be e.g. a bank robber or a burglar, become a lawyer. Then when you get caught, you can try to avoid testifying on the grounds of legal privilege.
Or in the alternative, just be a citizen or other person subject to the laws of the United States, and then you get the benefit of the 5th Amendment.
Bad idea. I'm afraid that giving Red Bull to a two-year-old would create some kind of space-time anomaly from the unbridled and unregulated concentration of energy. Some leading physicists*, pediatricians, and moms believe that herein lies the key to the formation of black holes.
*Those with two year olds. Is it mere coincidence that Hawking started theorizing about singularities in the '60s and '70s, when he had young children?
[I]t's best just to physically destroy the drive after use. I suggest a two-year old child just after its nap
Armed with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich!
Still, somebody must be practicing the invention. You can't just pull the classic troll trick of having a thousand questionable patents and filing shotgun suits. It has to be more targeted because you (or somebody related) have to actually be doing it.
The ITC basically follows all the rules of federal evidence. The big differences are (1) it's much faster, (2) there's no jury, and (3) you have to prove that you have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims. If Saxon only has 5 employees, it will be interesting to see what their domestic industry is.
Well, since one of the things the complainant has to prove in the ITC is that they have a domestic industry practicing the asserted claims, yes, we can.