Unlike patent and trademark applications, which are examined by someone, copyright applications are simply rubber-stamped by a clerk. Literally. When you want to copyright something, you fill out a one-page form, and attach it to what you want to copyright. You mail that to the copyright office. A clerk copies the one-page form, stamps it, and returns it to you. I could copyright The Phantom Menace if I wanted. (But why would I want to?) Whether that registration will hold up in court is an entirely different question.
I agree with you that it's disturbing that a private entity might be allowed to legally wreck a very expensive machine that you own on a vigilante basis. But I find it more troubling that the government itself may end up using this technology to silence dissent and prevent information critical of the regime from spreading. The implications of State abuse of this technology are widespread and troubling.
This is not just about file-sharing. It's about the ability of the government to remotely wipe out your computer, and creating the mindset that people whose computers are wiped out must be bad and therefore unworthy of notice or protection. In Ashcroft's America, how long before those of us who visit websites critical of the current regime will have our computers fried as a result?
So rather than claiming a business method, European applicants will simply claim software useful in implementing a business method, while never actually using the words "business" or "method." For a skilled practitioner, the new EU guidelines don't seem to put up much in the way of a barrier.
Read the US Code. Novels and songs are not patentable subject matter. With regard to patentable subject matter, the PTO doesn't discriminate against software innovators & say that their inventions are somehow less worthy than the inventions of hardware innovators. On the flip side, software developers have to start worrying about the same concerns that their hardware brethern always have.
Don't worry about your thoughts. You can think whatever you want at any time, and if you're ever concerned you can't, there's always tinfoil.:) But just like you can think about blowing up a building but get in trouble if you do it, you can think about a technology that will violate a patent if you make, use or sell it.
Re:New definition of "throwing in the towel"
on
One-Click Reprise
·
· Score: 2
Now you're surfing on my wave--and you have figured out one of the key concepts of patent law, which is figuring out the scope of your patent. Some are broad. Some are narrow. And what determines whether the scope is broad or narrow is not the abstract or the text, but the claims and only the claims.
I still don't understand what you mean by "if one-click shopping is prior art." The issued and valid Amazon "one-click" patent will be prior art to future patent applications. I thought we were talking about prior art to the Amazon patent itself, though.
Bingo. And to quote O'Reilly: On close examination, I also discovered that the One-Click patent is far narrower than people assume it is. The innovation it claims is based on some very specific software-driven steps in the Web shopping process that were designed to make it simpler and more automatic for consumers to complete e-commerce transactions. The specific steps of the claims were what had to be non-obvious and novel, and O'Reilly points out those claims are narrow indeed.
Um, what? I don't think I understand your point. Are you saying that less instructional hours are a good idea? Or that private schools provide more instructional hours?
Right on. I didn't mean to imply that you should trust HR, just that they might be more clueful. I used to work at a huge industrial company as an engineer prior to my life as a lawyer, and in that instance found the HR folks to be well-versed in the law. Of course, you can't forget that they work for someone other than you.
Your Inventions & IP Rights agreement is a contract, and any competent contract lawyer can give you advice about it. Beforehand, though, I'd ask if he knew about "shop rights", and if he can't answer, find another lawyer. ("Shop rights" are rights your employer has in inventions you make on the employer's dime in the absence of a specific contract to assign those rights, and are unlikely to be involved here, but your employer may assert them anyway.)
Who at the company told you the contract was worthless? Managers often talk tough, particularly if they don't know the law. HR deals with legal issues in more depth, and if you talk to them, they may be more rational with regard to your contract.
With regard to just not saying anything, you may find yourself in a situation where you may be competing with your employer. I don't know if you signed a noncompete agreement, but that may become an issue.
If you are serious about continuing with your work, I would seek out a reputable lawyer (not the one on the corner in the mini-mall) in your area. One key to finding a reputable lawyer: don't go with one who wants to charge you just for finding out what you want him or her to di.
I was thinking that DClick's lawyers may be in a bit of a spot right now, malpractice-wise. That's a common situation for lawyers to be in, actual malpractice or not, when a client spends a lot of money and gets nothing. Imagine when the client spends a lot of money and gets faced by a porn king!
This is the registration-based approach to patenting used in, e.g., Singapore. In Singapore, you just file, get a patent automatically, and fight out validity in court. There is no presumption of validity of such patents. This is good for the little guy, because there is no time-consuming examination (so less cost) and quick publication/issue. This also sucks for the little guy, since his/her patent doesn't have any presumption of validity, and M$ will laugh when he/she tries to assert it. This also sucks for the little guy when M$ or whoever files a deluge of apps at once, and asserts them against the little guy in an attempt to coerce a license fee out of him/her.
In court, none that I know of. However, RMS devotes a lot of ink (pixels?) to informal enforcement, as far as I can tell. Presumably, in the event of a major violation, FSF would go further, but that's speculative. My point is just that using a tool (licensing) that you're trying to get rid of is somewhat circular, and unlikely to get you where you want to go.
Fair enough, and thank you for your straightforward answer. But how do you get from point A to point B when you use the tools of point A (i.e., licensing and licensing enforcement) to get to point B?
If gun manufacturers are liable for shootings, tobacco companies are liable for cancer, and manufacturers of all stripes are liable for anything some guy might do with their products, software won't be treated any differently. You can't control people's actions by controlling things--you just make lawyers rich and create a black market. (Maybe I'll go catch Two-a-Day later for some warez.)
Maybe, just maybe, the whole point is that the notion of anyone owning or controlling *any* information is simply wrong. This is a clear exposition of the FSF position, as far as I know. The problem I've always had with this position is that it nullifies the GPL. If IP/licensing are inherently wrong and not to be respected, how can the GPL be respected?
I also find it ironic that so many/.ers are so vehement about their absolute freedom to code/hack (which I think is a good thing; don't get me wrong), yet want crippling restrictions placed on their fellow (bio)techies who are hacking the gene code.
Gnutella and Freenet both suffer from the problem that users are vulnerable at the ISP level. That is, AOLTimeWarner may simply block, and get other ISPs to go along with blocking, users from utilizing Gnutella/Freenet/etc., and just bounce users that do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully they would be tasty. Although I doubt it.
Unlike patent and trademark applications, which are examined by someone, copyright applications are simply rubber-stamped by a clerk. Literally. When you want to copyright something, you fill out a one-page form, and attach it to what you want to copyright. You mail that to the copyright office. A clerk copies the one-page form, stamps it, and returns it to you. I could copyright The Phantom Menace if I wanted. (But why would I want to?) Whether that registration will hold up in court is an entirely different question.
I agree with you that it's disturbing that a private entity might be allowed to legally wreck a very expensive machine that you own on a vigilante basis. But I find it more troubling that the government itself may end up using this technology to silence dissent and prevent information critical of the regime from spreading. The implications of State abuse of this technology are widespread and troubling.
This is not just about file-sharing. It's about the ability of the government to remotely wipe out your computer, and creating the mindset that people whose computers are wiped out must be bad and therefore unworthy of notice or protection. In Ashcroft's America, how long before those of us who visit websites critical of the current regime will have our computers fried as a result?
So rather than claiming a business method, European applicants will simply claim software useful in implementing a business method, while never actually using the words "business" or "method." For a skilled practitioner, the new EU guidelines don't seem to put up much in the way of a barrier.
Don't worry about your thoughts. You can think whatever you want at any time, and if you're ever concerned you can't, there's always tinfoil. :) But just like you can think about blowing up a building but get in trouble if you do it, you can think about a technology that will violate a patent if you make, use or sell it.
Now you're surfing on my wave--and you have figured out one of the key concepts of patent law, which is figuring out the scope of your patent. Some are broad. Some are narrow. And what determines whether the scope is broad or narrow is not the abstract or the text, but the claims and only the claims.
I still don't understand what you mean by "if one-click shopping is prior art." The issued and valid Amazon "one-click" patent will be prior art to future patent applications. I thought we were talking about prior art to the Amazon patent itself, though.
People patent all kinds of stuff no one would really ever want. Particularly individual inventors who think the world wants their better dog dish/sex toy/etc. It's always fun to go to Delphion and search on the name of your favorite sex toy, and see if you (or anyone) would really ever want the innovation.
Now how could anyone ever be weary of goatse.cx?
Bingo. And to quote O'Reilly: On close examination, I also discovered that the One-Click patent is far narrower than people assume it is. The innovation it claims is based on some very specific software-driven steps in the Web shopping process that were designed to make it simpler and more automatic for consumers to complete e-commerce transactions. The specific steps of the claims were what had to be non-obvious and novel, and O'Reilly points out those claims are narrow indeed.
I don't understand your comment. In what way is who trying to change the definition of prior art?
Um, what? I don't think I understand your point. Are you saying that less instructional hours are a good idea? Or that private schools provide more instructional hours?
Right on. I didn't mean to imply that you should trust HR, just that they might be more clueful. I used to work at a huge industrial company as an engineer prior to my life as a lawyer, and in that instance found the HR folks to be well-versed in the law. Of course, you can't forget that they work for someone other than you.
Who at the company told you the contract was worthless? Managers often talk tough, particularly if they don't know the law. HR deals with legal issues in more depth, and if you talk to them, they may be more rational with regard to your contract.
With regard to just not saying anything, you may find yourself in a situation where you may be competing with your employer. I don't know if you signed a noncompete agreement, but that may become an issue.
If you are serious about continuing with your work, I would seek out a reputable lawyer (not the one on the corner in the mini-mall) in your area. One key to finding a reputable lawyer: don't go with one who wants to charge you just for finding out what you want him or her to di.
Go to Clambake for a link to a free online version of "Bare-Faced Messiah", as well as lots of other interesting information about the Co$.
I was thinking that DClick's lawyers may be in a bit of a spot right now, malpractice-wise. That's a common situation for lawyers to be in, actual malpractice or not, when a client spends a lot of money and gets nothing. Imagine when the client spends a lot of money and gets faced by a porn king!
This is the registration-based approach to patenting used in, e.g., Singapore. In Singapore, you just file, get a patent automatically, and fight out validity in court. There is no presumption of validity of such patents. This is good for the little guy, because there is no time-consuming examination (so less cost) and quick publication/issue. This also sucks for the little guy, since his/her patent doesn't have any presumption of validity, and M$ will laugh when he/she tries to assert it. This also sucks for the little guy when M$ or whoever files a deluge of apps at once, and asserts them against the little guy in an attempt to coerce a license fee out of him/her.
I wouldn't want to be DoubleClick's lawyers right now...
In court, none that I know of. However, RMS devotes a lot of ink (pixels?) to informal enforcement, as far as I can tell. Presumably, in the event of a major violation, FSF would go further, but that's speculative. My point is just that using a tool (licensing) that you're trying to get rid of is somewhat circular, and unlikely to get you where you want to go.
Fair enough, and thank you for your straightforward answer. But how do you get from point A to point B when you use the tools of point A (i.e., licensing and licensing enforcement) to get to point B?
If gun manufacturers are liable for shootings, tobacco companies are liable for cancer, and manufacturers of all stripes are liable for anything some guy might do with their products, software won't be treated any differently. You can't control people's actions by controlling things--you just make lawyers rich and create a black market. (Maybe I'll go catch Two-a-Day later for some warez.)
Maybe, just maybe, the whole point is that the notion of anyone owning or controlling *any* information is simply wrong. This is a clear exposition of the FSF position, as far as I know. The problem I've always had with this position is that it nullifies the GPL. If IP/licensing are inherently wrong and not to be respected, how can the GPL be respected?
I also find it ironic that so many /.ers are so vehement about their absolute freedom to code/hack (which I think is a good thing; don't get me wrong), yet want crippling restrictions placed on their fellow (bio)techies who are hacking the gene code.
Gnutella and Freenet both suffer from the problem that users are vulnerable at the ISP level. That is, AOLTimeWarner may simply block, and get other ISPs to go along with blocking, users from utilizing Gnutella/Freenet/etc., and just bounce users that do so.