Nice link there. Unfortunately you won't get much mileage out of claiming it in a patent case. The doctrine of latches is a common law principle. As principles go, it's a good one, but you would really need to find some case law where a judge applied it.
Patent applications can be viewed by anyone. Filing a patent puts the public on notice that a method is protected. Independant invention is not a defense to patent infringement and neither is the doctrine of latches as long as the claim for royalties does not extend too far into the past. If I tried to sue you for 15 years back use on my patent. I would be SOL becuase of this doctrine. But I can sue you for current and very recent use and future use.
2. What is Cryptome doing on Verio anyway? It's a filthy spammer host.
The same thing that any client is doing on Verio -- not getting thrown off.
John hosts a lot of data which is unpopular to lot of people. An ISP which was any less reluctant to dispose of a paying customer would have tossed John some time ago.
Having a criminal intent is an implicit requirement of nearly every criminal statute. Thus a finding that a defendant was incapable of having a criminal intent (legally insane) is an absolute bar to a criminal conviction.
It was entirely appropriate and consistant with criminal law for the judge to instruct the jury to consider criminal intent -- intent to break the law -- prior to finding a conviction.
Note that this is a requirement of criminal law. Civil DMCA suits (Such as Universal et al v. Ramierez) do not require a finding of intent.
Another famous quote from the early 20th C. "This theory is so bad, it isn't even wrong."
Crackpot science dosn't use standard vocabulary so that someone versed in the field can't understand the claims or the mechanism.
I have to say that there is, and should be, a lot of skepticism surrounding a "below ground state" state of hydrogen. Hydrogen at a energy state higher than ground state spontaneously transitions to lower states by emitting an electron. If this lower energy state exists, why hasn't it been seen before in labs aound the world? Until someone can reasonably explain this anomaly, then there will continue to be profound skepticism.
They are that way because that's a standard size. It's standard becuase that's the size that people have been using in construction for about a hundred years. The ceilings in my house are 8 feet tall. If they suddenly replaced 4x8 foot panels with 2x2 meter panels, they'd be too short.
My point is, I still want 4x8 foot panels until such time as I buy a house which is designed to a metric standard.
Can you kindly tell us in which sense it is better 8footx4foot than 1220x2440mm? Inquiring minds want to know.
2 significant digits v. 8 significant digits. When I walk into a lumber yard, I want to order a "4 by 8" sheet (three sylables) not a "twelve twenty by twenty four forty" sheet (8 syllables).
I'll bet you call the glowing box in the corner of your room a television and not a TV.
Angle - there are very good mathematical reasons for using radians
And no practical reasons for doing so. Quickly, what is a 36-60-90 triangle in radians? Did you give your answer in terms of pi? That's a dead giveaway that radians, as an absolute measure, are pretty darn worthless.
I do woodworking and I have a lot of use for 90 and 45 degree angles. I'll be cutting some 22 1/2s this weekend.
Once they become aware of a something like this, the clock starts running. They can't hold the threat of a lawsuit over your head forever. Though, someone else could.
The DMCA only protects TPMs which are applied with the authority of the copyright holder against circumvention. Circumventing a TPM applied to a PD work or one applied *without* the authority of the copyright holder have not been made illegal (though distributing the tools or otherwise "trafficing" in them might be if the TPM were also applied to works *with* the authority of the copyright holder.)
The First Sale doctrine is a well established matter of law. Even prior to its codification in Title 17, the First Sale doctrine was used to overturn attempts to turn sales of copyrighted works into licenses. The case Bobbs-Merril v. Strauss was settled by the Supreme Court almost 100 years ago on similar facts. Bobbs-Merril, a publisher, printed a license in the books that it sold stating that they could not be resold to the public for less than the price specified by the publisher. Strauss, a retailer operating the Macy's department stores, bought lots of unsold books on the secondary market and resold them at a discount. They were sued and the decision stated that once a copyrighted object was sold, the copyright owner had exercised his right to vend and could not control further sales.
What has not been litigated, to my knowledge, is the claim that Copyright preempts many common software licensing terms and that with the purchase of a lawfully made copy, one receives all the rights necessary to install the software and to utilize it. Since one can not condition acceptance of a license on acts which the buyer has the right to perform, these kinds of claims should be preempted.
It's not a property because it's not a tangible thing. It is a right -- more precisely, a bundle of related rights: the right to make and authorize copies, the right to make and authorize the making of derivative works, the right to attribution. It is a right with property-like qualities and thus a property right.
Another example of a property right is mineral rights or logging rights. You can sell these rights without selling the property just as you can sell the right to make copies without selling your authorship.
I think you should learn to read and follow the flow of thought from one sentance to another. There's a reason why we write in sentances and paragraphs and that's to express several related thoughts into a coherent argument.
I'll explain it again, but this time I'll try to use small words so as not to overtax you. Copyright is property-like because you can do with it all of the things that you can do with tangible property. You can sell it. You can lease it. You can use it for collateral. You can leave it to your heirs.
The Declaration of Independance speaks of "inalienable rights" -- rights which you can not surrender. The Constitution codifies some of these Rights in the Bill of Rights -- the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Amendment 10 specifies that the previous nine are not an exclusive list of rights -- there exist rights retained by the people which are not enumerated there. The Supreme Court relied on the 10th Amendment in Griswold which ruled that there existed a right to privacy as it struck down laws outlawing contraception.
In addition there are Statutory Rights -- rights which you get by virtue of statute. You can go to court to have these rights enforced, though Congress is free to amend the terms of the rights. The right to receive a Social Security pension if you meet the qualifications is a statutory right. If an official tries to deny you your benefits, you can go to court to force them to be paid, though Congress can and does set the amounts payable. Copyright is another statutory right -- it exists by virtue of a statute.
Property rights are rights which behave like tangible property. You can sell, lease, transfer and assign these rights. You can leave them to your heirs. They are alienable (in contrast to the inalienable rights in the beginning of this reply) becuase you can transfer them to another.
Copyright is property-like in this sense -- you can sell your copyright for cash, use it as collateral for a loan and leave it to your heirs (if it hasn't expired). As such, it's appropriate to describe Copyright as a property right.
It happens to also be an affirmative defense codified in statute. The statute actually says that Fair Use is not infringement. If you make Fair Uses, you are not infringing the exclusive rights of the author. It follows that you can quote this as a defense if you are accused of infringement, but it is more than just an affirmative defense.
It is more than a statutory right because Fair Use was originally a judicial ruling that the balancing of the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment required that people be allowed to make uses of Copyrighted materials in their speech otherwise the purpose of promoting progress in the Copyright CLause would not be met. We have Fair Use, not because Congress wrote it into statute but becuase the Constitution requires it.
Slashdot Mirror
And the man who saved Napster.
Nice link there. Unfortunately you won't get much mileage out of claiming it in a patent case. The doctrine of latches is a common law principle. As principles go, it's a good one, but you would really need to find some case law where a judge applied it.
Patent applications can be viewed by anyone. Filing a patent puts the public on notice that a method is protected. Independant invention is not a defense to patent infringement and neither is the doctrine of latches as long as the claim for royalties does not extend too far into the past. If I tried to sue you for 15 years back use on my patent. I would be SOL becuase of this doctrine. But I can sue you for current and very recent use and future use.
IHBT.
I'm holding it up in front of me right now.
2. What is Cryptome doing on Verio anyway? It's a filthy spammer host.
The same thing that any client is doing on Verio -- not getting thrown off.
John hosts a lot of data which is unpopular to lot of people. An ISP which was any less reluctant to dispose of a paying customer would have tossed John some time ago.
I knew you could.
But I might have dreamed it.
There were some yeast spores dating back 25-40 million years which were claimed to have been revived. Google's cached copy of the Time Magazine article from 1995
They used it to brew beer!
Now there's Procress Through Science!
Lessig argued the Eldred case before the Supreme COurt. THe kudos here belong to Joseph Burton and the rest of the defense team.
Having a criminal intent is an implicit requirement of nearly every criminal statute. Thus a finding that a defendant was incapable of having a criminal intent (legally insane) is an absolute bar to a criminal conviction.
It was entirely appropriate and consistant with criminal law for the judge to instruct the jury to consider criminal intent -- intent to break the law -- prior to finding a conviction.
Note that this is a requirement of criminal law. Civil DMCA suits (Such as Universal et al v. Ramierez) do not require a finding of intent.
Another famous quote from the early 20th C. "This theory is so bad, it isn't even wrong."
Crackpot science dosn't use standard vocabulary so that someone versed in the field can't understand the claims or the mechanism.
I have to say that there is, and should be, a lot of skepticism surrounding a "below ground state" state of hydrogen. Hydrogen at a energy state higher than ground state spontaneously transitions to lower states by emitting an electron. If this lower energy state exists, why hasn't it been seen before in labs aound the world? Until someone can reasonably explain this anomaly, then there will continue to be profound skepticism.
/. is getting more and more bizarre by the day.
They are that way because that's a standard size. It's standard becuase that's the size that people have been using in construction for about a hundred years. The ceilings in my house are 8 feet tall. If they suddenly replaced 4x8 foot panels with 2x2 meter panels, they'd be too short.
My point is, I still want 4x8 foot panels until such time as I buy a house which is designed to a metric standard.
A seventh of an inch is a little bit longer than an eigth of an inch. Just about a 64th longer.
Can you kindly tell us in which sense it is better 8footx4foot than 1220x2440mm? Inquiring minds want to know.
2 significant digits v. 8 significant digits. When I walk into a lumber yard, I want to order a "4 by 8" sheet (three sylables) not a "twelve twenty by twenty four forty" sheet (8 syllables).
I'll bet you call the glowing box in the corner of your room a television and not a TV.
lotta as in 10^27?
Angle - there are very good mathematical reasons for using radians
And no practical reasons for doing so. Quickly, what is a 36-60-90 triangle in radians? Did you give your answer in terms of pi? That's a dead giveaway that radians, as an absolute measure, are pretty darn worthless.
I do woodworking and I have a lot of use for 90 and 45 degree angles. I'll be cutting some 22 1/2s this weekend.
Once they become aware of a something like this, the clock starts running. They can't hold the threat of a lawsuit over your head forever. Though, someone else could.
Does anyoneknow what the statute of limitations is on DMCA complaints?
The DMCA only protects TPMs which are applied with the authority of the copyright holder against circumvention. Circumventing a TPM applied to a PD work or one applied *without* the authority of the copyright holder have not been made illegal (though distributing the tools or otherwise "trafficing" in them might be if the TPM were also applied to works *with* the authority of the copyright holder.)
It's a Catch 21 law.
Those fiends!
The First Sale doctrine is a well established matter of law. Even prior to its codification in Title 17, the First Sale doctrine was used to overturn attempts to turn sales of copyrighted works into licenses. The case Bobbs-Merril v. Strauss was settled by the Supreme Court almost 100 years ago on similar facts. Bobbs-Merril, a publisher, printed a license in the books that it sold stating that they could not be resold to the public for less than the price specified by the publisher. Strauss, a retailer operating the Macy's department stores, bought lots of unsold books on the secondary market and resold them at a discount. They were sued and the decision stated that once a copyrighted object was sold, the copyright owner had exercised his right to vend and could not control further sales.
What has not been litigated, to my knowledge, is the claim that Copyright preempts many common software licensing terms and that with the purchase of a lawfully made copy, one receives all the rights necessary to install the software and to utilize it. Since one can not condition acceptance of a license on acts which the buyer has the right to perform, these kinds of claims should be preempted.
It's not a property because it's not a tangible thing. It is a right -- more precisely, a bundle of related rights: the right to make and authorize copies, the right to make and authorize the making of derivative works, the right to attribution. It is a right with property-like qualities and thus a property right.
Another example of a property right is mineral rights or logging rights. You can sell these rights without selling the property just as you can sell the right to make copies without selling your authorship.
I think you should learn to read and follow the flow of thought from one sentance to another. There's a reason why we write in sentances and paragraphs and that's to express several related thoughts into a coherent argument.
I'll explain it again, but this time I'll try to use small words so as not to overtax you. Copyright is property-like because you can do with it all of the things that you can do with tangible property. You can sell it. You can lease it. You can use it for collateral. You can leave it to your heirs.
Oh, and get an account while you're at it.
The Declaration of Independance speaks of "inalienable rights" -- rights which you can not surrender. The Constitution codifies some of these Rights in the Bill of Rights -- the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. Amendment 10 specifies that the previous nine are not an exclusive list of rights -- there exist rights retained by the people which are not enumerated there. The Supreme Court relied on the 10th Amendment in Griswold which ruled that there existed a right to privacy as it struck down laws outlawing contraception.
In addition there are Statutory Rights -- rights which you get by virtue of statute. You can go to court to have these rights enforced, though Congress is free to amend the terms of the rights. The right to receive a Social Security pension if you meet the qualifications is a statutory right. If an official tries to deny you your benefits, you can go to court to force them to be paid, though Congress can and does set the amounts payable. Copyright is another statutory right -- it exists by virtue of a statute.
Property rights are rights which behave like tangible property. You can sell, lease, transfer and assign these rights. You can leave them to your heirs. They are alienable (in contrast to the inalienable rights in the beginning of this reply) becuase you can transfer them to another.
Copyright is property-like in this sense -- you can sell your copyright for cash, use it as collateral for a loan and leave it to your heirs (if it hasn't expired). As such, it's appropriate to describe Copyright as a property right.
It happens to also be an affirmative defense codified in statute. The statute actually says that Fair Use is not infringement. If you make Fair Uses, you are not infringing the exclusive rights of the author. It follows that you can quote this as a defense if you are accused of infringement, but it is more than just an affirmative defense.
It is more than a statutory right because Fair Use was originally a judicial ruling that the balancing of the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment required that people be allowed to make uses of Copyrighted materials in their speech otherwise the purpose of promoting progress in the Copyright CLause would not be met. We have Fair Use, not because Congress wrote it into statute but becuase the Constitution requires it.