The entire bill is utter doublespeak constructed solely to evade the constitution through the creation a legal entity with no justification in legal history or philosophy.
It isn't a copyright infringement to copy a published database. No, it's "misappropriation."
Yeah, that's the ticket.
What is the difference between infringing on a copyright by copying and misappropriating by copying, other than this act?
In the case I'm thinking of there was no database in question. The law itself was considered the propriatary work of a private company and the posting of the law on a website, from printed sources, to be a copyright violation.
As for overturning local law it's certainly possible. Although I will point out that my own city a few years ago spent thirteen million dollars of taxpayer money to defend (unsuccessfully) an unconstitutional law.
What really got me was my Triumph GT6, a hard top, and yes, the top leaked.
And yes, when I turned on the windshield wipers the headlights liked to turn off.
Despite all of that I shall light a candle and hold vigil if Ford ever carries through with their threat to put Jaguar badges on a Taurus and make them in Dearborn.
You came in belligerent. You are continuing in the same vein. Any particular reason?
Recognizing that hardly makes you clever.
It does, however, make me recognize my debt to those who were.
The C5 does not use a double overhead cam engine, for example. . .
I don't recall that I, or anyone else for that matter, ever said it did.
You should choose your words more carefully.
Et tu?
. ..and lots of important changes have been made to automotive design since the 1920's.
There has certainly been a lot of evolution of the ideas of the early pioneers. Yes. Materials techologies have made that possible. There has been refinement.
Another would be the rotary engine.
Whose priciples were first posited in the mid 1800s. Materials were lacking to build it, however. Wankel took those principles and built his first prototypes in. . . the 1920s.
Although it didn't see production until 1957, what with the intervention of a world war and all.
And the Corvette's engine was considered tecnically obsolete before WWI.
You may smell as you wish, but it's simple history.
http://www.lightauto.com/ledwinka.html
http://www.corvetteconti.com/C5-Backbone.htm
And of course VW, FIAT and even myself have designed and built backbone chassis well before the modern Corvette adopted it.
If you wish to do more in depth research on this you'll have to rely on these things called "books." Not everything is on the web. I can highly recommend "The Bosch Book of the Motor Car: Its Evolution" to the casual reader.
L.J.K. Setright's book "The Designers" also has a lovely little chapter on Ledwinka and his contributions although this title is now a bit scarce.
By the way, the four valve, double overhead cam engine was invented by Ernest Henry for Peugot in 1912. The "unibody" was pioneered by Lancia in the early 1920s, whose chief designer spent an evening drawing up plans for virually every independant suspension system known to man.
In fact the only really serious technical innovation in automotive technology since WWII has been the microprocessor. The rest of it has basically boiled down to the simple availability of better materials. Lancia didn't have the carbon fiber the modern F1 car is made out of, but the construction of the modern F1 is basically the same Lancia's 1922 Lambda.
Now that, unfortunately, is a fairly deep question not only of legal philosophy, but legal metaphysics.
A trademark is not really intellectual property in the way that a patent or copyright is. It is a mark, a unique indentifier, thus a matter of public perception.
In a sense a trademark is actually the intellectual property of the public, which the public may usurp or reassign; and it's this capability of the public that results in the legal principle of having to defend a trademark.
Such public perception has no relevance to patents which are titles granted by the government just as title is granted to real property.
This is not to say that rights to real property or patents can't be lost through nonprotection. If you allow someone to establish a right of way across your lands for a certain number of years that right of way becomes an easement whether you like it or not. But such is a willful abrogation or your rights. What's more an easement granted to an individual is not a loss of rights to the public the way a loss of trademark rights is.
KFG
Re:Sources for Software Patent research?
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 1
How about going right to the source of American patent law?
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. -Thomas Jefferson
Re:This won't spell the end to software developmen
on
Perens on Patents
·
· Score: 1
And we've had the shoe on the other foot already as well. While the Wrights and Curtis spent their time in the courts, Europe simply ignored the Wrights patents and went on to development.
Hence, although America invented the aeroplane in 1903, by the time we entered WW1 only a decade and a half later we were put in the position of having to not only buy planes from France but license designs of trainers from England. Even engines had to be purchased and licensed from outfits like Bugatti and Hispano-Suiza in Europe.
Patents were intended to strike a balance between granting rights to the inventor while still allowing technological development, not to allow a single individual/company to hold the universe for ransom or remain technically moribund.
The system is broken. Everyone seems to know it except the USPTO.
Well, that and a couple pounds of graphite and a few scraps of balsawood, but then the same is true of every F1 car these days.
American cars make great boat anchors, if even the sea will take them.
Well, we haven't done so well lately. I've actually owned two Fords, but then they were both German. I'd take a Cord L-29 in a heartbeat though if someone would be so kind as to bestow one upon me.
As for leaking oil I've always found that the British are the masters of getting cars to do that. As well as leaking tops.
For a long time I couldn't understand why my cars from sunny Italy all had tops that never leaked a drop that you could operate with one hand at a stoplight and had heaters that could give you heatstroke in the middle of a Canadian winter; but all my British cars had tops that took three men an hour to erect that then leaked like sieves and heat that only worked in July.
And then I had a revelation. The Italians are used to being warm and dry and take that state seriously, whereas being warm and dry is simply a concept that has never even occured to the British.
Slashdot Mirror
I prefer vi myself. Yes, even in Windows.
KFG
Ah, but what if he's getting payed to be the former governor of Vermont?
KFG
Notepad is for wussies. ed(lin) is the standard editor.
KFG
Thank you.
KFG
Exactly!
The entire bill is utter doublespeak constructed solely to evade the constitution through the creation a legal entity with no justification in legal history or philosophy.
It isn't a copyright infringement to copy a published database. No, it's "misappropriation."
Yeah, that's the ticket.
What is the difference between infringing on a copyright by copying and misappropriating by copying, other than this act?
KFG
In the case I'm thinking of there was no database in question. The law itself was considered the propriatary work of a private company and the posting of the law on a website, from printed sources, to be a copyright violation.
As for overturning local law it's certainly possible. Although I will point out that my own city a few years ago spent thirteen million dollars of taxpayer money to defend (unsuccessfully) an unconstitutional law.
You have to be willing to go up against that.
KFG
Are you proposing that copyright law should apply to labor?
And if I write a physics textbook, am I supposed to assemble a table of physical constants through the oral tradition?
KFG
You're proposing solving a problem that doesn't yet exist by creating the problem itself.
I thought we called that "Good Government."
Or anti-dandruff shampoo. I always get those two mixed up.
KFG
This has already happened at the local level.
In fact I believe Slashdot covered the story some years ago when a man got in trouble for copyright violation; for his website about local laws.
KFG
What really got me was my Triumph GT6, a hard top, and yes, the top leaked.
And yes, when I turned on the windshield wipers the headlights liked to turn off.
Despite all of that I shall light a candle and hold vigil if Ford ever carries through with their threat to put Jaguar badges on a Taurus and make them in Dearborn.
KFG
You came in belligerent. You are continuing in the same vein. Any particular reason?
.and lots of important changes have been made to automotive design since the 1920's.
Recognizing that hardly makes you clever.
It does, however, make me recognize my debt to those who were.
The C5 does not use a double overhead cam engine, for example. . .
I don't recall that I, or anyone else for that matter, ever said it did.
You should choose your words more carefully.
Et tu?
. .
There has certainly been a lot of evolution of the ideas of the early pioneers. Yes. Materials techologies have made that possible. There has been refinement.
Another would be the rotary engine.
Whose priciples were first posited in the mid 1800s. Materials were lacking to build it, however. Wankel took those principles and built his first prototypes in. . . the 1920s.
Although it didn't see production until 1957, what with the intervention of a world war and all.
And the Corvette's engine was considered tecnically obsolete before WWI.
KFG
If they chose to come here, doesn't that say something about America? Hmm?
Certainly.
KFG
Because shellymonster and michael share an inferiority complex?
I'm still trying to figure out why it even exists.
KFG
Can anyone explain why it is so popular?
No.
KFG
Well, "United" Linux was pretty much a dead duck from the get go.
I hate to play the pessimist, but I tend to think many of the same forces that birthed United Linux stillborn will play against UserLinux.
That said I certainly think that what you're doing has worth, whereas United Linux never really did that I could see. So more power to you.
KFG
Ah, but America has absorbed Linus, just as it absorbed Albert Einstein, Louis Chevrolet, Werner von Braun and Janos von Neumann.
Linux is American, don'cha know?
All the "3) profit???" stops here.
KFG
Novell pulled SUSE out of it already. Was that due to SCO or did they just not want to be part of it anymore?
Yes.
KFG
You may smell as you wish, but it's simple history.
http://www.lightauto.com/ledwinka.html
http://www.corvetteconti.com/C5-Backbone.htm
And of course VW, FIAT and even myself have designed and built backbone chassis well before the modern Corvette adopted it.
If you wish to do more in depth research on this you'll have to rely on these things called "books." Not everything is on the web. I can highly recommend "The Bosch Book of the Motor Car: Its Evolution" to the casual reader.
L.J.K. Setright's book "The Designers" also has a lovely little chapter on Ledwinka and his contributions although this title is now a bit scarce.
By the way, the four valve, double overhead cam engine was invented by Ernest Henry for Peugot in 1912. The "unibody" was pioneered by Lancia in the early 1920s, whose chief designer spent an evening drawing up plans for virually every independant suspension system known to man.
In fact the only really serious technical innovation in automotive technology since WWII has been the microprocessor. The rest of it has basically boiled down to the simple availability of better materials. Lancia didn't have the carbon fiber the modern F1 car is made out of, but the construction of the modern F1 is basically the same Lancia's 1922 Lambda.
KFG
Now that, unfortunately, is a fairly deep question not only of legal philosophy, but legal metaphysics.
A trademark is not really intellectual property in the way that a patent or copyright is. It is a mark, a unique indentifier, thus a matter of public perception.
In a sense a trademark is actually the intellectual property of the public, which the public may usurp or reassign; and it's this capability of the public that results in the legal principle of having to defend a trademark.
Such public perception has no relevance to patents which are titles granted by the government just as title is granted to real property.
This is not to say that rights to real property or patents can't be lost through nonprotection. If you allow someone to establish a right of way across your lands for a certain number of years that right of way becomes an easement whether you like it or not. But such is a willful abrogation or your rights. What's more an easement granted to an individual is not a loss of rights to the public the way a loss of trademark rights is.
KFG
How about going right to the source of American patent law?
Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. -Thomas Jefferson
No Patents on Ideas
KFG
And we've had the shoe on the other foot already as well. While the Wrights and Curtis spent their time in the courts, Europe simply ignored the Wrights patents and went on to development.
Hence, although America invented the aeroplane in 1903, by the time we entered WW1 only a decade and a half later we were put in the position of having to not only buy planes from France but license designs of trainers from England. Even engines had to be purchased and licensed from outfits like Bugatti and Hispano-Suiza in Europe.
Patents were intended to strike a balance between granting rights to the inventor while still allowing technological development, not to allow a single individual/company to hold the universe for ransom or remain technically moribund.
The system is broken. Everyone seems to know it except the USPTO.
KFG
Patents are supposed to be about the enforcement of patent protections. . .
The fact that I own property does not require me to throw razor wire around its perimeter.
Property, real or intellectual, is supposed to be about the rights of the owner to do with it as he wishes.
KFG
. . . it has no industry that we don't do ourselves in some fashion, and for the last 50 years we've been exporting our culture, not importing theirs.
Yeah, our Honda Civic (98% American made, and proud of it) is considered one of the finest small cars in the world.
KFG
I've got a great 486 pc with a 200 mb hard drive I no longer need. Interested?
Shit yeah. Hand it over. I've got a Renault Dauphine that needs an upgrade.
KFG
Airspace; it's all plastic.
Well, that and a couple pounds of graphite and a few scraps of balsawood, but then the same is true of every F1 car these days.
American cars make great boat anchors, if even the sea will take them.
Well, we haven't done so well lately. I've actually owned two Fords, but then they were both German. I'd take a Cord L-29 in a heartbeat though if someone would be so kind as to bestow one upon me.
As for leaking oil I've always found that the British are the masters of getting cars to do that. As well as leaking tops.
For a long time I couldn't understand why my cars from sunny Italy all had tops that never leaked a drop that you could operate with one hand at a stoplight and had heaters that could give you heatstroke in the middle of a Canadian winter; but all my British cars had tops that took three men an hour to erect that then leaked like sieves and heat that only worked in July.
And then I had a revelation. The Italians are used to being warm and dry and take that state seriously, whereas being warm and dry is simply a concept that has never even occured to the British.
KFG