IAAL. When SCOTUS takes a patent case, they're like a bull in a china shop. They're not engineers or patent lawyers, so they undo a lot of stuff that has been carefully worked out by the Patent Office and special patent courts. That said, the area of non-device patents has grown enormously over the last few years, and there was a great need to set some ground-rules to cut back on overreaching claims while giving people with new ideas a chance to make a profit from their innovations. In my view, Bilski is a monster (and necessary) bitch slap for methodology patents, which had gotten out of bounds. (IMO, the next one will come on copyright overreaching.) The Supremes deliberately left the opinion vague to let the experts work out the details.
The U-2 can reach 70,000 feet, compared with the 474's 40,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2
There should be U-2s available now that they've been retired. Assuming it has enough payload capacity to carry the SOFIA, more resolution would be available.
When you have a captive audience, the temptation is nearly irresistible to force-feed them something they wouldn't willingly listen to. Put yourself in their place. Don't say anything that you would resent being forced to sit through. Keep it short and jargon-free, and lighten up if possible.
Turn it around and become a consultant. Ask "What gets in the way of doing your work more than anything else?" "What drives you crazy?" "What do you need help with the most?" Then show how you're the ideal one to fix things.
IAAL.
IMHO, the TurnItIn case won't have much effect on other fair use cases. This was a made up, test case, in which a couple of high school kids and their parents claimed that any attempt to detect their plagiarism by comparing their papers with others violated their copyrights in their own [plagiarized] work. Their chutzpah got the result it deserved.
Any lawyer smart enough to be a judge can write a convincing, or at least consistent, opinion on either side of a case. Don't expect the TurnItIn case to make much difference where the copyright owner has a plausible claim.
Slashdot Mirror
IAAL. When SCOTUS takes a patent case, they're like a bull in a china shop. They're not engineers or patent lawyers, so they undo a lot of stuff that has been carefully worked out by the Patent Office and special patent courts. That said, the area of non-device patents has grown enormously over the last few years, and there was a great need to set some ground-rules to cut back on overreaching claims while giving people with new ideas a chance to make a profit from their innovations. In my view, Bilski is a monster (and necessary) bitch slap for methodology patents, which had gotten out of bounds. (IMO, the next one will come on copyright overreaching.) The Supremes deliberately left the opinion vague to let the experts work out the details.
The U-2 can reach 70,000 feet, compared with the 474's 40,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 There should be U-2s available now that they've been retired. Assuming it has enough payload capacity to carry the SOFIA, more resolution would be available.
When you have a captive audience, the temptation is nearly irresistible to force-feed them something they wouldn't willingly listen to. Put yourself in their place. Don't say anything that you would resent being forced to sit through. Keep it short and jargon-free, and lighten up if possible.
Turn it around and become a consultant. Ask "What gets in the way of doing your work more than anything else?" "What drives you crazy?" "What do you need help with the most?" Then show how you're the ideal one to fix things.
IAAL. IMHO, the TurnItIn case won't have much effect on other fair use cases. This was a made up, test case, in which a couple of high school kids and their parents claimed that any attempt to detect their plagiarism by comparing their papers with others violated their copyrights in their own [plagiarized] work. Their chutzpah got the result it deserved. Any lawyer smart enough to be a judge can write a convincing, or at least consistent, opinion on either side of a case. Don't expect the TurnItIn case to make much difference where the copyright owner has a plausible claim.