Louis Vuitton is a bad example. Some designer labels, such as Yves Saint Laurent and Balenciaga, use top quality materials, with impressively strong, small, close-set stitching, and impeccably tasteful design that does not compromise rugged construction, resulting in products that can last a surprisingly long time in near-mint condition with good care and periodic maintenance. Some of those bags really are worth the $1300 or more that they cost due to long-lived utility and artistic value (and you can often find them for 50% off or better in the resale market, which is worth trying IF AND ONLY IF you know how to spot a fraud). Small changes in manufacturing can make a big difference in quality of result... and knock offs tend to be significantly inferior to the brand-name item due to lots of changed details, often stemming from cutting corners. Just because a rip off "[came] off the same assembly line as the real ones" doesn't mean it was made the same way.
But Louis Vuitton? Not that great a bag. The LV design house is a miracle of marketing, which is not entirely surprising given the special place they occupy in apparel-related trademark history.
I'm not really a bag connoisseur. I just married one.
It's been some years since tech work (computer or otherwise) has been my priority, but my recollection is that this AC's problem is easily rectified: telnet into a friendly and trusted proxy in a country with rigorous protection of Free Speech (the United States and the countries of Western Europe usually being adequate for this purpose), open a secure shell in the proxy, and do all your work through that secure shell. The hard part being finding an appropriate friendly and trusted proxy. I assume someone here knows where to find a list of proxies friendly to residents of countries with restrictive speech policies (e.g., China and, so it sounds, Venezuela)?
My recollection is that Slashdot used to leap on problems like this with appropriate workarounds. Heck, I'm a lawyer; I shouldn't be the one who has to respond; I don't really have the know-how anymore. Hello?
Get a lawyer. I AM a lawyer, and as such, I can confidently say that only a lawyer is qualified to answer your question. At that, not just any lawyer: either one who has dealt with similar issues before, or one who can and will devote the time to read your employment contract (and other relevant documents) and research the statutes and regulations (and possibly case law) pertinent to your issue.
Since you're a student (and thus, probably poor), your best bets are your local Bar chapter and your local law school copyright professor. Local Bar organizations tend to have a program in which the Bar matches up potential clients with willing attorneys. You might get lucky and find someone (competent - make sure they have a more than passing familiarity with the Copyright Code) who is willing to work for you on the cheap. Alternatively, you might get lucky and find a law professor who finds your question interesting.
If you can't find a lawyer who will spend the time to answer your question, you'll want to read the law, i.e. the Copyright Code, 17 United States Code. Start with sections 101 and 201, definitions and ownership, respectively. But your question also requires an understanding of whether you are an employee, whose employee you are, the law and regulations surrounding your grant, the university's own policies, your "employment" contract, and whatever contractual papers relate to your grant (whether signed by you or the university). We, the Slashdot polity, CAN NOT make an informed decision regarding your question, because we do not have access to several of these sets of documents. Get a lawyer, or be prepared to guess. You are not qualified to read your contract because lawyers use words you know to mean things that you (1) do not expect and (2) would be unlikely to understand without some education in the law.
If you ARE the university's employee, and none of the related contracts, laws, regulations, etc., supercede copyright law on this question, then the university's lawyers are probably right. But please don't take my word for it, or the word of anyone else on this forum. Get a lawyer!
There's a new printing of the Conan stories by Ballantine under the Del Rey mark that seems to have been edited with an eye towards presenting Conan as Howard intended. The appendices to the first collection, "The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian", include an essay analyzing the evolution of Conan and his Hyborian Age and the influence of contemporary writers on Howard's work, as well as a list of Howard's drafts used as sources for reconstruction of the Conan stories.
I have read that L. Sprague de Camp took significant liberties with the Conan stories when he had editorial control. I believe it - particularly considering parent's complaint, which I've heard echoed elsewhere - but I don't get it. I've found de Camp's own work to be of fairly decent quality; I have some respect for him as a writer. Particularly since he wrote a biography of Howard, I would have expected greater respect for and adherence to the text of Howard's work.
Brian Herbert, though... ugh. His father's work ranked with the best of science fiction's golden age; but Brian's product sits foursquare in the middle of mass market trash.
Problem: if patents are non-transferable, then the usual employer/employee agreement at research firms - they pay you money to work, you assign any patents to them - are void. In which case, there's no reason to employ researchers, since they'd be able to keep all of the tech they discover for themselves. Tah-dah, no more R&D spending in the U.S. Nice try, play again. Feel welcome to come up with an alternative to the patent system, but as it stands, the ability to assign is necessary to the usefulness of the patent system as an encouragement to fund R&D.
According to the law governing patentability, 35 U.S.C. section 101, an invention must be "new" and "useful" to be patentable. Slashdot appears to be taking issue with "new". In order to be new, there must be at least one inventive element - one piece of the invention - that has never before been incorporated in the prior art.
I suggest that the discussion is missing the reference to the "link that when selected effects the placing of an order to purchase the item" that is provided to the discussion thread. The rest seems to be covered by any Usenet or IRC product discussion.
So: is the use of the "link" new? Is it (as is required by 35 U.S.C. section 103) nonobvious in the context of this claim?
Slashdot Mirror
Louis Vuitton is a bad example. Some designer labels, such as Yves Saint Laurent and Balenciaga, use top quality materials, with impressively strong, small, close-set stitching, and impeccably tasteful design that does not compromise rugged construction, resulting in products that can last a surprisingly long time in near-mint condition with good care and periodic maintenance. Some of those bags really are worth the $1300 or more that they cost due to long-lived utility and artistic value (and you can often find them for 50% off or better in the resale market, which is worth trying IF AND ONLY IF you know how to spot a fraud). Small changes in manufacturing can make a big difference in quality of result... and knock offs tend to be significantly inferior to the brand-name item due to lots of changed details, often stemming from cutting corners. Just because a rip off "[came] off the same assembly line as the real ones" doesn't mean it was made the same way.
But Louis Vuitton? Not that great a bag. The LV design house is a miracle of marketing, which is not entirely surprising given the special place they occupy in apparel-related trademark history.
I'm not really a bag connoisseur. I just married one.
The New Testament is 2000 year old prior art. Jesus's powers are not patentable under (at least) 35 USC 102.
This is not the USPTO's first trip to the crazypants rodeo.
It's been some years since tech work (computer or otherwise) has been my priority, but my recollection is that this AC's problem is easily rectified: telnet into a friendly and trusted proxy in a country with rigorous protection of Free Speech (the United States and the countries of Western Europe usually being adequate for this purpose), open a secure shell in the proxy, and do all your work through that secure shell. The hard part being finding an appropriate friendly and trusted proxy. I assume someone here knows where to find a list of proxies friendly to residents of countries with restrictive speech policies (e.g., China and, so it sounds, Venezuela)?
My recollection is that Slashdot used to leap on problems like this with appropriate workarounds. Heck, I'm a lawyer; I shouldn't be the one who has to respond; I don't really have the know-how anymore. Hello?
Get a lawyer. I AM a lawyer, and as such, I can confidently say that only a lawyer is qualified to answer your question. At that, not just any lawyer: either one who has dealt with similar issues before, or one who can and will devote the time to read your employment contract (and other relevant documents) and research the statutes and regulations (and possibly case law) pertinent to your issue.
Since you're a student (and thus, probably poor), your best bets are your local Bar chapter and your local law school copyright professor. Local Bar organizations tend to have a program in which the Bar matches up potential clients with willing attorneys. You might get lucky and find someone (competent - make sure they have a more than passing familiarity with the Copyright Code) who is willing to work for you on the cheap. Alternatively, you might get lucky and find a law professor who finds your question interesting.
If you can't find a lawyer who will spend the time to answer your question, you'll want to read the law, i.e. the Copyright Code, 17 United States Code. Start with sections 101 and 201, definitions and ownership, respectively. But your question also requires an understanding of whether you are an employee, whose employee you are, the law and regulations surrounding your grant, the university's own policies, your "employment" contract, and whatever contractual papers relate to your grant (whether signed by you or the university). We, the Slashdot polity, CAN NOT make an informed decision regarding your question, because we do not have access to several of these sets of documents. Get a lawyer, or be prepared to guess. You are not qualified to read your contract because lawyers use words you know to mean things that you (1) do not expect and (2) would be unlikely to understand without some education in the law.
If you ARE the university's employee, and none of the related contracts, laws, regulations, etc., supercede copyright law on this question, then the university's lawyers are probably right. But please don't take my word for it, or the word of anyone else on this forum. Get a lawyer!
There's a new printing of the Conan stories by Ballantine under the Del Rey mark that seems to have been edited with an eye towards presenting Conan as Howard intended. The appendices to the first collection, "The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian", include an essay analyzing the evolution of Conan and his Hyborian Age and the influence of contemporary writers on Howard's work, as well as a list of Howard's drafts used as sources for reconstruction of the Conan stories.
I have read that L. Sprague de Camp took significant liberties with the Conan stories when he had editorial control. I believe it - particularly considering parent's complaint, which I've heard echoed elsewhere - but I don't get it. I've found de Camp's own work to be of fairly decent quality; I have some respect for him as a writer. Particularly since he wrote a biography of Howard, I would have expected greater respect for and adherence to the text of Howard's work.
Brian Herbert, though... ugh. His father's work ranked with the best of science fiction's golden age; but Brian's product sits foursquare in the middle of mass market trash.
Problem: if patents are non-transferable, then the usual employer/employee agreement at research firms - they pay you money to work, you assign any patents to them - are void. In which case, there's no reason to employ researchers, since they'd be able to keep all of the tech they discover for themselves. Tah-dah, no more R&D spending in the U.S. Nice try, play again. Feel welcome to come up with an alternative to the patent system, but as it stands, the ability to assign is necessary to the usefulness of the patent system as an encouragement to fund R&D.
According to the law governing patentability, 35 U.S.C. section 101, an invention must be "new" and "useful" to be patentable. Slashdot appears to be taking issue with "new". In order to be new, there must be at least one inventive element - one piece of the invention - that has never before been incorporated in the prior art.
I suggest that the discussion is missing the reference to the "link that when selected effects the placing of an order to purchase the item" that is provided to the discussion thread. The rest seems to be covered by any Usenet or IRC product discussion.
So: is the use of the "link" new? Is it (as is required by 35 U.S.C. section 103) nonobvious in the context of this claim?
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.