Let the Armchair Patent Attorney contest begin! Whoever can come up with a conclusion based upon the least amount of evidence and reasoning wins one free week of 24 hours a day reading of patent applications.
Not true. While notice of claim of copyright is not required to prove you have a copyright in a particular work, lack of notice of claim of copyright leaves open the defense of being an innocent infringer.
Also, if you don't register and didn't put a notice on the work, the other person can use the defense that they thought it was public domain, thereby making registration very important.
Which is actually a pretty common practice, and which is why trademark rights vest at the time of first use in commerce and not at the time of registration (in the US at least; I'm assuming similar law elsewhere).
For example, in the U.S. you write an article but don't bother to register the copyright. However, you find out people have started using it without your permission so you go an copyright it at that point. Just because you didn't recognize the potential value of your work until later doesn't mean you don't get those rights. That said, you do you lose some claims against early infringers by registering late; but you don't lose your rights entirely.
But anyway, in the U.S. registration isn't required except maybe prior to filing a lawsuit. But, registration does not establish the time it was first used and therefore who owns it. Whoever used it first, owns it.
Owning and registering a trademark are two different things.
You "own" a trademark as soon as you use it in commerce. You register it to gain certain other rights, including a presumption of validity in a lawsuit. But, the basic test is first to use, not first to register.
You're assuming that the patented method is the best or only way to do things though. A patent monopoly is not a resource monopoly. Owning the patent just means everyone else has to work harder to find a better way. If someone holds all the resources, there's not much you can do. Encouraging inventors to look at the problem from a different angle is one advantage to a patent system. Instead of going "Crap, he got there first," they can say, "That's nice, but I'll find a better way to do it."
Hence, progress in science and the useful arts.
Of course, there are other advantages; but the point I'm raising is one that is often overlooked when discussing the value of patents. Patents exist to promote progress. Most people see it as a financial incentive; but you should also look at it from the point of view I've give you here.
However, it appears as though America is reaching a point where patents interfere with the process so much that productivity is diminished. When an inventor has to search for patents when designing every portion of a capital work, less time is spent on developing the capital itself. Thus the creation of new capital diminishes, and resources are not used as efficiently. That can eventually cause the economy to basically rot.
The inventor could just invent a non-infringing method of doing whatever it is he needs to do. That's the innovation part of it. Patents encourage invention because they grant a monopoly, something that is desirable for the inventor. Then, when the next guy is forced to either shell out cash or invent around it, the public benefits from yet another invention.
By any sane measure (heh, ironic) using the 'begats', the world is only about 15-20 generations older than it was when christ was born, which would make it much YOUNGER than the creationists believe.
I don't understand your statement. We know when Jesus was born through information outside of the Bible, and we know it's been about 2000 years since then. Figuring an average birthing age of around 20, that makes about 100 generations.
Also, there are about 76 generations listed between Adam and Jesus. Luke 3:23-38.
Personally, I think the argument is wasted effort on both sides. To those of faith, it does not matter what is proven, because their faith is what guides them and they don't need to prove it, because that's why it is called faith.
But anyway, Jesus didn't say, "know how old the Earth is and be saved," or, "take the Bible 100% literally and be saved," he said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."
Congress ought to be held to be more than just sheep following their voters commands. They are supposed to be smart enough to realize when the will of the people is not proper and act in their best interest as opposed to what they want.
It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding
Okay, now with this issue there might be an exception here, but there is a reason we don't have a true democracy in the United States: people are stupid. That's why we pick representatives to do the voting for us. It's not because it would be inconvenient to have a popular vote on every issue, it's because the framers were smart enough not to trust the public with such power.
Think of all the things that the majority of people in the U.S. hold as being a "good thing" for the country that would probably end up being disasterous. If slavery and civil rights were held to a popular vote, there's a good chance the laws never would have passed.
So please, before you trash Congress for against "the will of the people," bear in mind that is exactly why Congress exists; so that when the time is appropriate, Congress can go against the majority of the people in order to protect the minority.
I make no claim as to the application of my statements to this particular article. Just a general remark about the issue raised by the article summary.
I think the competition is already fierce, as many consumers that bought a plan over 2 years ago are now finding themselves free to switch. For example, I recently contacted Sprint PCS to cancel my plan entirely as I now use Vonage for most purposes and only need the phone for emergency purposes. The offered me in succession upon denial of the previous offer: a $15 a month plan, one free month, two free months. I decided there was no harm in taking the 2 free months to decide if I wanted to keep the phone. They just lost $60 worth of revenue on the off chance that they might keep a customer they already had.
To me, that says there is definitely competition brewing, but it's more on the lines of attracting customers that already have a plan elsewhere. This is probably because the number of households without a mobile phone is quickly dropping.
Wiki has the enormous advantage that people can fight back against misinfomation.
Based on my own semi-experimental participation over the past few months, I'd say that in many cases misinformation wins out. Or at least, it will until the misinformed give up and go home.
Contentious articles on Wikipedia get the most attention, but because of that they get filled with the most crap.
Boring articles on Wikipedia don't get any attention, so they're full of errors and desperately in need of help.
There's also probably a million articles in between there, but you get the idea.
threaten the open encyclopedia's mission at least as much as the cranks
What exactly is Wikipedia's mission? It isn't to write down every possible thing there is to be known. It's only supposed to contain information of encyclopedic value. Therefore, an article about yours truly, does not belong there.
So what's wrong with "deletionists"? There's a whole lot of stuff on Wikipedia that probably doesn't belong there at all, but it's easier to add stuff than to delete it.
where they have laws passed where you can get 25 years in jail for copying a dvd
Max $2500 fine (criminal penalty) if you infringe on a copyright for financial gain or copy more than $1,000 worth of works.
Max 5 years for the first DMCA offense (if done for financial gain), 10 years for subsequent offenses (also, only if for financial gain).
Vehicular homicide penalties vary from state to state and based upon the circumstances, but most places you'll find a punishment of 1-5 years. Of course, you'll also get your pants sued off for wrongful death if you have any money.
That all depends on what the density of the materials in a DVD are, and how easily you can eliminate air space around them when smashed to pieces; the 300kg/m^2 is based on an approximate average density of waste in a landfill.
Also, your landfill is going to be almost 1km tall. That's not what most people call a "drop in the ocean."
Landfill space is at a premium throughout the world; and no one wants one in their backyard.
If you read my argument it centered more around her work for the President and not her work for Microsoft. I don't know many details about the MS case, but if it were worth a lot of money (by MS standards), I can assure you it wasn't randomly assigned like you suggest. While a lawyer must represent their client to the best of their ability, they don't have to represent any client. A lawyer is free to refuse to represent any client or work on any case for any reason.
So, if a lawyer gets a case from a gay rights organization, they have all the power in the world to decline to represent them and send them elsewhere if they don't like the organization.
You're also comparing pro bono work to work for hire. The gay rights organization probably was going to take whatever lawyer they could get, and didn't care much about it. A place like Microsoft is more likely to use a little discretion in its hiring of an advocate than the place that can't even afford to pay a lawyer.
Presidents and people with lots of money to lose don't just hire any lawyer to represent them. They have the money and need to hire a lawyer that fully supports them 100%. They don't want someone that fights for their side only because they took an oath to represent their clients with zeal. They want a lawyer that truly believes they are on the right side.
She was chief White House counsel because she was very loyal to Bush and because she probably held very similar ideals to Bush.
People with a lot of money and politicians do not hire lawyers that don't personally support their causes. They hire someone they know is 100% in their column. It's like Roberts' argument that the stuff he wrote as a clerk for Rhenquist or working for the Justice Department wasn't necessarily his point of view because he was just representing what they wanted. Those people don't hire you unless you agree with them. Rhenquist wouldn't hire a liberal law clerk to help him research and write his opinions for him.
Lawyers are employees-at-will for most purposes. They don't have to represent any client, and no client has to retain them against their will.
Slashdot Mirror
I am sure those who had children with the names of hurricanes aren't too happy about it.
The millions of us named Andrew have trouble sleeping every night.
Let the Armchair Patent Attorney contest begin! Whoever can come up with a conclusion based upon the least amount of evidence and reasoning wins one free week of 24 hours a day reading of patent applications.
Not true. While notice of claim of copyright is not required to prove you have a copyright in a particular work, lack of notice of claim of copyright leaves open the defense of being an innocent infringer.
Take a look at 17 USC 405(b).
Also, if you don't register and didn't put a notice on the work, the other person can use the defense that they thought it was public domain, thereby making registration very important.
Which is actually a pretty common practice, and which is why trademark rights vest at the time of first use in commerce and not at the time of registration (in the US at least; I'm assuming similar law elsewhere).
For example, in the U.S. you write an article but don't bother to register the copyright. However, you find out people have started using it without your permission so you go an copyright it at that point. Just because you didn't recognize the potential value of your work until later doesn't mean you don't get those rights. That said, you do you lose some claims against early infringers by registering late; but you don't lose your rights entirely.
But anyway, in the U.S. registration isn't required except maybe prior to filing a lawsuit. But, registration does not establish the time it was first used and therefore who owns it. Whoever used it first, owns it.
Owning and registering a trademark are two different things.
You "own" a trademark as soon as you use it in commerce. You register it to gain certain other rights, including a presumption of validity in a lawsuit. But, the basic test is first to use, not first to register.
offer a service that is a market primed to explode.
You mean, paying for something that I can receive for free with a TV and an antenna?
Give me something I can't already get for free; then you might be offering something worthwhile.
You're assuming that the patented method is the best or only way to do things though. A patent monopoly is not a resource monopoly. Owning the patent just means everyone else has to work harder to find a better way. If someone holds all the resources, there's not much you can do. Encouraging inventors to look at the problem from a different angle is one advantage to a patent system. Instead of going "Crap, he got there first," they can say, "That's nice, but I'll find a better way to do it."
Hence, progress in science and the useful arts.
Of course, there are other advantages; but the point I'm raising is one that is often overlooked when discussing the value of patents. Patents exist to promote progress. Most people see it as a financial incentive; but you should also look at it from the point of view I've give you here.
However, it appears as though America is reaching a point where patents interfere with the process so much that productivity is diminished. When an inventor has to search for patents when designing every portion of a capital work, less time is spent on developing the capital itself. Thus the creation of new capital diminishes, and resources are not used as efficiently. That can eventually cause the economy to basically rot.
The inventor could just invent a non-infringing method of doing whatever it is he needs to do. That's the innovation part of it. Patents encourage invention because they grant a monopoly, something that is desirable for the inventor. Then, when the next guy is forced to either shell out cash or invent around it, the public benefits from yet another invention.
By any sane measure (heh, ironic) using the 'begats', the world is only about 15-20 generations older than it was when christ was born, which would make it much YOUNGER than the creationists believe.
I don't understand your statement. We know when Jesus was born through information outside of the Bible, and we know it's been about 2000 years since then. Figuring an average birthing age of around 20, that makes about 100 generations.
Also, there are about 76 generations listed between Adam and Jesus. Luke 3:23-38.
Personally, I think the argument is wasted effort on both sides. To those of faith, it does not matter what is proven, because their faith is what guides them and they don't need to prove it, because that's why it is called faith.
But anyway, Jesus didn't say, "know how old the Earth is and be saved," or, "take the Bible 100% literally and be saved," he said, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved."
Congress ought to be held to be more than just sheep following their voters commands. They are supposed to be smart enough to realize when the will of the people is not proper and act in their best interest as opposed to what they want.
It's bad enough they want to break our televisions, but the way that they are subverting democracy is just astounding
Okay, now with this issue there might be an exception here, but there is a reason we don't have a true democracy in the United States: people are stupid. That's why we pick representatives to do the voting for us. It's not because it would be inconvenient to have a popular vote on every issue, it's because the framers were smart enough not to trust the public with such power.
Think of all the things that the majority of people in the U.S. hold as being a "good thing" for the country that would probably end up being disasterous. If slavery and civil rights were held to a popular vote, there's a good chance the laws never would have passed.
So please, before you trash Congress for against "the will of the people," bear in mind that is exactly why Congress exists; so that when the time is appropriate, Congress can go against the majority of the people in order to protect the minority.
I make no claim as to the application of my statements to this particular article. Just a general remark about the issue raised by the article summary.
I think the competition is already fierce, as many consumers that bought a plan over 2 years ago are now finding themselves free to switch. For example, I recently contacted Sprint PCS to cancel my plan entirely as I now use Vonage for most purposes and only need the phone for emergency purposes. The offered me in succession upon denial of the previous offer: a $15 a month plan, one free month, two free months. I decided there was no harm in taking the 2 free months to decide if I wanted to keep the phone. They just lost $60 worth of revenue on the off chance that they might keep a customer they already had.
To me, that says there is definitely competition brewing, but it's more on the lines of attracting customers that already have a plan elsewhere. This is probably because the number of households without a mobile phone is quickly dropping.
Glad to hear I am not the only one really annoyed by this. Looks like crap on my widescreen laptop.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/arco.asp
Sounds a little bit similar there.
Your story is pretty fishy to begin with anyway.
Wiki has the enormous advantage that people can fight back against misinfomation.
Based on my own semi-experimental participation over the past few months, I'd say that in many cases misinformation wins out. Or at least, it will until the misinformed give up and go home.
Contentious articles on Wikipedia get the most attention, but because of that they get filled with the most crap.
Boring articles on Wikipedia don't get any attention, so they're full of errors and desperately in need of help.
There's also probably a million articles in between there, but you get the idea.
threaten the open encyclopedia's mission at least as much as the cranks
What exactly is Wikipedia's mission? It isn't to write down every possible thing there is to be known. It's only supposed to contain information of encyclopedic value. Therefore, an article about yours truly, does not belong there.
So what's wrong with "deletionists"? There's a whole lot of stuff on Wikipedia that probably doesn't belong there at all, but it's easier to add stuff than to delete it.
Kids are drama queens, 99% of the time they forgot about the injury before you get to them.
where they have laws passed where you can get 25 years in jail for copying a dvd
Max $2500 fine (criminal penalty) if you infringe on a copyright for financial gain or copy more than $1,000 worth of works.
Max 5 years for the first DMCA offense (if done for financial gain), 10 years for subsequent offenses (also, only if for financial gain).
Vehicular homicide penalties vary from state to state and based upon the circumstances, but most places you'll find a punishment of 1-5 years. Of course, you'll also get your pants sued off for wrongful death if you have any money.
Does the DRM deactivate the pause button or something?
That all depends on what the density of the materials in a DVD are, and how easily you can eliminate air space around them when smashed to pieces; the 300kg/m^2 is based on an approximate average density of waste in a landfill.
Also, your landfill is going to be almost 1km tall. That's not what most people call a "drop in the ocean."
Landfill space is at a premium throughout the world; and no one wants one in their backyard.
If you read my argument it centered more around her work for the President and not her work for Microsoft. I don't know many details about the MS case, but if it were worth a lot of money (by MS standards), I can assure you it wasn't randomly assigned like you suggest. While a lawyer must represent their client to the best of their ability, they don't have to represent any client. A lawyer is free to refuse to represent any client or work on any case for any reason.
So, if a lawyer gets a case from a gay rights organization, they have all the power in the world to decline to represent them and send them elsewhere if they don't like the organization.
You're also comparing pro bono work to work for hire. The gay rights organization probably was going to take whatever lawyer they could get, and didn't care much about it. A place like Microsoft is more likely to use a little discretion in its hiring of an advocate than the place that can't even afford to pay a lawyer.
Presidents and people with lots of money to lose don't just hire any lawyer to represent them. They have the money and need to hire a lawyer that fully supports them 100%. They don't want someone that fights for their side only because they took an oath to represent their clients with zeal. They want a lawyer that truly believes they are on the right side.
She was chief White House counsel because she was very loyal to Bush and because she probably held very similar ideals to Bush.
No, Clinton appointed James Lee Witt. The FEMA director doesn't keep his job between presidents unless they want to keep him.
People with a lot of money and politicians do not hire lawyers that don't personally support their causes. They hire someone they know is 100% in their column. It's like Roberts' argument that the stuff he wrote as a clerk for Rhenquist or working for the Justice Department wasn't necessarily his point of view because he was just representing what they wanted. Those people don't hire you unless you agree with them. Rhenquist wouldn't hire a liberal law clerk to help him research and write his opinions for him.
Lawyers are employees-at-will for most purposes. They don't have to represent any client, and no client has to retain them against their will.