How is it fair to take to take property from two people, when one of them has a legal right to it? How is it fair to throw two people in jail, one of whom is innocent? How is any standard that is "just as likely to screw up" with a false positive as a false negative is fair?
There are two potential mistakes being made. The first mistake is a an invalid patent being upheld, and thus an innocent party ends up paying. The second mistake is a valid patent being invalidated, and thus the inventor may have wasted time and money. If I had to say which is a worse mistake, I'd go with the former, so patent holders are getting off lucky with 50/50.
.But we don't have a mere registration system. Here, patents are substantively examined in a back and forth taking years. In order to get a patent, the patent owner has to convince an examiner that the invention is eligible, novel, and nonobvious, and that there's sufficient written description.
Yes, but if there's appears to be a more than 50% chance that it isn't valid, it really doesn't make sense for it to remain valid. New evidence can suggest that the alleged inventor didn't actually invent the invention or that they broke some rule. The patent used against Red Hat by IP Innovation lasted nearly it's entire lifespan before it was invalidated.
With the preponderance standard, at least on paper, a jury is just as likely to screw up on invalidating a valid patent as it is to screw up in upholding an invalid patent, making it a 'fair' standard. Clear and convincing being needed for invalidation means that the bias is in favor of the patent holder. It doesn't make sense to me for courts to uphold patents that appear to be more likely to be invalid than valid, which is all that will be protected by a C&C standard.
EFF isn't taking quite that strong of a position. They aren't explicitly against patents, but they want to make sure that patents, especially business method and software patents, at least have proper checks on them so they aren't as likely to be used in an invalid manner.
Well, if Bob likes anyone who will have him and Alice likes Bob, then it seems alright to me. If nobody likes Bob, than Bob's desperation doesn't really matter.
I think the idea is a bit of innuendo. 'Comic books' sounds better than a shared love of roleplaying Hannah Barbera characters covered with mustard on a waterbed with Orson Welles films playing on a projector. Even within comic books, there may be certain comics that are less socially acceptable than Marvel and DC. However, even if one accepts this as the kind of thing that could possibly get a patent, various conventions and internet forums, where one can escape from the people that know them personally already exist to fill a somewhat similar role, and there's already some systems in place that allow some degree of confidence (Bob clicks a button to say that he likes Alice, but Alice doesn't find out until she clicks a button that Alice likes Bob).
h.264 patent licensing is incompatible with being legally freely distributed. It gets in the way of the FOSS model, and there's a decent argument that FOSS is the only threat to Microsoft on the desktop. If something is a hurdle to your only real competitor, it can be in your interest for that hurdle to be large, even if it's slightly harmful to your business.
'Intellectual property' can't be stolen, and in this case, Google tried very, very hard to get a decent royalty free codec to the market. If they can't, that's a sure sign that MPEG-LA and it's members are practically working as a cartel. It's also worth noting that this isn't the first time the antitrust action against MPEG-LA has been called for.
It's more generic because it's descriptive, and descriptive trademarks aren't supposed to be granted. The App Store is a store that sells applications. Windows is not a window or set of windows.
To me, that suggests you do not believe there is any such thing as intellectual property, since the wrongful taking of property is usually regarded as theft. With how easily you summarily dismiss the notion of intellectual theft, I don't think I will bother to point out the folly in your position.
I acknowledge that patents and copyrights exist, but even if one compares copyright and patents to physical property, what happens is infringement, not theft. It's actually much more like trespassing (use without permission) and even vandalism (harming value) than theft (taking), but a comparison to any of these is a poor choice. Theft is the absolute worst choice for a description.
This ex post facto system, to me, is equally a reward as well as an encouragement.
The point is that the reward is the means to an end, not an end unto itself. We reward inventors because we think that rewarding them will cause them to be more likely to invest in research, and that the social benefits of the reward will outweigh the social costs. If we conclude that what we thought happens doesn't, than patents are malicious, and we should rid ourselves of them.
This is an extremely difficult determination to make. I suggest that if you make it based on those instances where there is litigation around a given patent, and more to the point the media picks up on it, then your judgment might be skewed. The value of the patent system goes far beyond what the media reports.
I'm not basing this just upon media reports, although they often report some disturbing flaws within our system. It can be difficult to determine, but analyzing evidence with a proper methodology can give us some kind of idea. Most of the data I've seen suggests that it's not an effective mechanism, typically resulting in roughly the same or lower levels of productivity. Perhaps especially worrisome is the cultural imperialism we've engaged in, using trade policy to pressure developing nations into adopting laws on par with our own, and the ratchet-like mechanism of 'harmonization' that keeps saving Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain.
Intellectual theft does not exist, so we can ignore that part, and the point of the patent system is not to reward innovation, but to encourage it. If the patent system is getting in the way of innovation more than it is encouraging it, then the social value of the patents is negative.
That something was useful and desirable doesn't mean it's non-obvious. Some obvious ideas are useful. Inherently, somebody is going to be the first party to do something, whether it is obvious or non-obvious.
What Google is doing is pretty standard practice. When you get sued for patent infringement, you do your best to invalidate the patents in question because if you can, then the lawsuit becomes meaningless. Google is about the only big player that hasn't started any high profile lawsuits, so I don't really see it as hypocritical. I would love for Google to vocally stand against software patents, though.
My understanding was that unless you are already aware of a warrant when you destroy the evidence, it's not obstruction of justice. Even then, obstructions of justice might be better than what you could get otherwise.
Yes, copyright infringement can be a criminal matter, but even most commercial, large scale willful copyright infringement is not pursued criminally. With p2p, the mathematical average is going to be 1:1 ratio, so they sent one copy and received one copy, which is hardly the scale that our courts would ever care about. Furthermore, the standard of proof for criminal acts is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
As for what is reasonable, I doubt that you'll be able to get reasonable fees for any personal infringement would justify the court fees. And that's really not such a bad thing. Copyright was made in an environment when printing presses were not that widespread, while now, the average person has the capability of cheaply and quickly reproducing anything that exists in a digital form.
Where are you getting that the average defendant has settled out of court? I'm not sure if the average defendant has even been named yet, let alone giving into fear tactics. More importantly, it doesn't seem like any judges are buying it and are throwing out cases, so even if almost everyone up to this point has been identified and settled, the money train won't last long. This is particularly true of those who keep up with these things, and can be informed that it will never make it to court.
Copyright infringement is not theft, and this is a civil manner, not a criminal one. Even in criminal theft, it's not particularly wise to throw someone in jail for a year for shoplifting a pack of gum.
So, you should obey a law you see as unjust because there's a minor chance that you might get sued over it? Most signs point to the mass lawsuits not holding up, and on an individual level it's completely unprofitable.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two potential mistakes being made. The first mistake is a an invalid patent being upheld, and thus an innocent party ends up paying. The second mistake is a valid patent being invalidated, and thus the inventor may have wasted time and money. If I had to say which is a worse mistake, I'd go with the former, so patent holders are getting off lucky with 50/50.
Yes, but if there's appears to be a more than 50% chance that it isn't valid, it really doesn't make sense for it to remain valid. New evidence can suggest that the alleged inventor didn't actually invent the invention or that they broke some rule. The patent used against Red Hat by IP Innovation lasted nearly it's entire lifespan before it was invalidated.
With the preponderance standard, at least on paper, a jury is just as likely to screw up on invalidating a valid patent as it is to screw up in upholding an invalid patent, making it a 'fair' standard. Clear and convincing being needed for invalidation means that the bias is in favor of the patent holder. It doesn't make sense to me for courts to uphold patents that appear to be more likely to be invalid than valid, which is all that will be protected by a C&C standard.
EFF isn't taking quite that strong of a position. They aren't explicitly against patents, but they want to make sure that patents, especially business method and software patents, at least have proper checks on them so they aren't as likely to be used in an invalid manner.
Well, if Bob likes anyone who will have him and Alice likes Bob, then it seems alright to me. If nobody likes Bob, than Bob's desperation doesn't really matter.
Chair throwing aside, I've heard that MS is actually a fairly good place to work.
I think the idea is a bit of innuendo. 'Comic books' sounds better than a shared love of roleplaying Hannah Barbera characters covered with mustard on a waterbed with Orson Welles films playing on a projector. Even within comic books, there may be certain comics that are less socially acceptable than Marvel and DC. However, even if one accepts this as the kind of thing that could possibly get a patent, various conventions and internet forums, where one can escape from the people that know them personally already exist to fill a somewhat similar role, and there's already some systems in place that allow some degree of confidence (Bob clicks a button to say that he likes Alice, but Alice doesn't find out until she clicks a button that Alice likes Bob).
h.264 patent licensing is incompatible with being legally freely distributed. It gets in the way of the FOSS model, and there's a decent argument that FOSS is the only threat to Microsoft on the desktop. If something is a hurdle to your only real competitor, it can be in your interest for that hurdle to be large, even if it's slightly harmful to your business.
'Intellectual property' can't be stolen, and in this case, Google tried very, very hard to get a decent royalty free codec to the market. If they can't, that's a sure sign that MPEG-LA and it's members are practically working as a cartel. It's also worth noting that this isn't the first time the antitrust action against MPEG-LA has been called for.
It's more generic because it's descriptive, and descriptive trademarks aren't supposed to be granted. The App Store is a store that sells applications. Windows is not a window or set of windows.
Is there even really a point to DST anymore? I just end up having my circadian rhythm thrown off for a while.
MOVIE STUDIO used DRM!
It doesn't affect PIRATE!
MOVIE STUDIO was hit with recoil!
To be a little bit more accurate, I would say it's treating a gangrenous leg by putting a band-aid on the other leg.
I acknowledge that patents and copyrights exist, but even if one compares copyright and patents to physical property, what happens is infringement, not theft. It's actually much more like trespassing (use without permission) and even vandalism (harming value) than theft (taking), but a comparison to any of these is a poor choice. Theft is the absolute worst choice for a description.
The point is that the reward is the means to an end, not an end unto itself. We reward inventors because we think that rewarding them will cause them to be more likely to invest in research, and that the social benefits of the reward will outweigh the social costs. If we conclude that what we thought happens doesn't, than patents are malicious, and we should rid ourselves of them.
I'm not basing this just upon media reports, although they often report some disturbing flaws within our system. It can be difficult to determine, but analyzing evidence with a proper methodology can give us some kind of idea. Most of the data I've seen suggests that it's not an effective mechanism, typically resulting in roughly the same or lower levels of productivity. Perhaps especially worrisome is the cultural imperialism we've engaged in, using trade policy to pressure developing nations into adopting laws on par with our own, and the ratchet-like mechanism of 'harmonization' that keeps saving Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain.
Intellectual theft does not exist, so we can ignore that part, and the point of the patent system is not to reward innovation, but to encourage it. If the patent system is getting in the way of innovation more than it is encouraging it, then the social value of the patents is negative.
That something was useful and desirable doesn't mean it's non-obvious. Some obvious ideas are useful. Inherently, somebody is going to be the first party to do something, whether it is obvious or non-obvious.
What Google is doing is pretty standard practice. When you get sued for patent infringement, you do your best to invalidate the patents in question because if you can, then the lawsuit becomes meaningless. Google is about the only big player that hasn't started any high profile lawsuits, so I don't really see it as hypocritical. I would love for Google to vocally stand against software patents, though.
patents do get invalidated fairly often.
*obligatory skynet reference*
My understanding was that unless you are already aware of a warrant when you destroy the evidence, it's not obstruction of justice. Even then, obstructions of justice might be better than what you could get otherwise.
Yes, copyright infringement can be a criminal matter, but even most commercial, large scale willful copyright infringement is not pursued criminally. With p2p, the mathematical average is going to be 1:1 ratio, so they sent one copy and received one copy, which is hardly the scale that our courts would ever care about. Furthermore, the standard of proof for criminal acts is 'beyond a reasonable doubt', and defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
As for what is reasonable, I doubt that you'll be able to get reasonable fees for any personal infringement would justify the court fees. And that's really not such a bad thing. Copyright was made in an environment when printing presses were not that widespread, while now, the average person has the capability of cheaply and quickly reproducing anything that exists in a digital form.
Where are you getting that the average defendant has settled out of court? I'm not sure if the average defendant has even been named yet, let alone giving into fear tactics. More importantly, it doesn't seem like any judges are buying it and are throwing out cases, so even if almost everyone up to this point has been identified and settled, the money train won't last long. This is particularly true of those who keep up with these things, and can be informed that it will never make it to court.
Copyright infringement is not theft, and this is a civil manner, not a criminal one. Even in criminal theft, it's not particularly wise to throw someone in jail for a year for shoplifting a pack of gum.
So, you should obey a law you see as unjust because there's a minor chance that you might get sued over it? Most signs point to the mass lawsuits not holding up, and on an individual level it's completely unprofitable.
But in the US, you can't sue for statutory damages unless it's a registered copyright, and works for/of the US government are not copyrightable.
Nobody is stealing here, and the penalty should be reasonably close to the amount of harm done.