Then, they sue the aforementioned (and mostly fictitious) 'Pirate Kingpin'. If pirate kingpin's lawyer is not a moron, they will show cause to subpoena tons and tons of records of other 'pirates' that the RIAA have identified, and then ask pointedly why Jane Citizen wasn't sued.
The RIAA would then say "because we didn't feel like it".
And ten seconds later, case dismissed w/ prejudice, and RIAA probably smacked around for selective defense of their copyright.
Are you making this up as you go along? Copyrights and Patents both allow for selective enforcement. You can sue anyone, everyone, or no-one and still keep your rights. A trademark is the only piece of intellectual property where failure to enforce your rights can result in a loss of them. There is no requirement to sue everyone you identify, or even anyone you identify as infringing your copyright.
Sounds like they did accept through performance. Although I can't read the link (since it's dead), the blurb indicates that the GTA modders met his specifications. Once they accept through performance he cannot withdraw the offer.
In response to the other poster, neither is it a promise of a donation. This would be a promise of a donation if he had said "I'm giving $10,000 to charity" with no conditions. He on the other hand said "Make this game, and I'll give this money to charity." That is a bilateral contract -- both sides have duties to perform under the contract. By making the game the modders have accepted his contract and fulfilled their obligations under the contract. They seem entitled to their $10,000.
However, being entitled something to and collecting it are entirely different matters.
There is a federal RICO act ( (R)acketeering (I)nfluenced (C)orrupt (O)rganizations ), as wells as many state acts that cover similar areas of laws. There are a few practical differences. Most signifigantly, it is typically much cheaper to sue in state court as opposed to federal court.
What do you think the chance is Microsoft will make an authorized port of BD-DVD reading software to linux? Will we have a De-CSS scenario all over again, only this time with something more secure than 40 bits of encryption protecting the content?
But isn't tritium the gas that turns a several kiloton nuclear weapon into a several megaton nuclear weapon? (i.e. turning a "conventional" nuclear weapon into an H-bomb)
The truth of the matter is that the $10 one time fee serves to keeps the riff-raff out. People don't first post, flame wars are few and far between, and there's a general attitude of respect for other forum goers.
If you fail to meet the minimum requirements, you get banned and have to pay $10 to register again. It's a rather effective form of regulation.
The truth is there are always people who will shit on something just to get attention. Something Awful makes it cost money to do that, and if you keep doing it, it can cost a lot. Most of the internet chuckleheads will go where the registration is free to get attention, and frankly Something Awful doesn't miss them a bit.
Presuming that it is a derivative work (which I highly doubt, it seems to be simply a representation of the photographers original work in the raw format), It would then be an unauthorized derivative work (since there is no contractual agreement or license between Nikkon and the user).
As an unauthorized derivative work, Nikkon cannot claim a copyright on it. Further, Nikkon could be sued for statutory damages for willful infringment of the the photographer's work to the tune of up to $150,000 per infringement.
But like I said, really unlikely it's a derivative work. A derivative work requires a minimum degree of independent creativity. I doubt a machine could qualify under that standard. (highly advanced AI's with a brain the size of a planet not withstanding)
As for the second part, the question isn't who has the right to grant permission. The question is who has the right to sue?
The cases brought under the DMCA against the DVD hackers were brought by the MPAA, who owned the copyright to a signifigant number of movies. I can't see how Nikkon who has no copyright interest could be allowed to sue on behalf of the actual copyright owners.
I think any possible answer lies in the area of contributory infringement. Those parts make my head hurt, and I can't wrap my mind around a theory that would work for Nikkon. I just can't see anyone but the copyright holder being allowed to bring an action. I can't see a court allowing another party to stand in the copyright holder's shoes and argue against copyright holder's interests in accessing their own works with the tool of their choosing.
The anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA protects from unauthorized access from copyrighted works. If you took the picture, you own the copyright to that picture.
It's not like a dvd, where you're accessing (rightly or wrongly) someone else's copyrighted work. Adobe wouldn't be designing a product to aid in unauthorized access.
The primary purpose would be for the copyright owner to access information in their own copyrighted work. Nikkon should have no interest under the DMCA with which to sue.
You don't think a business a company as big as Apple with a product as big as iTunes can't negotiate special deal with PayPal? Considering that PayPal wants desperately to be seen as a payment method as legitimate as credit cards, I'd bet they're damn near bending over backwards for Apple.
What I want to know is if Apple is going to have to deal with the craptastic PayPal customer service department.
My cell phone (and most others I suspect) allows me to either 1) turn off GPS or 2) turn off GPS to everyone but 911. Were I a teen, my parents would never know how fast I'm going.
Let's remember this case was puttering along nice and happy until and administration chance, at which point the DoJ suddenly got the settlement bug up it's ass.
Wouldn't normally evidence that suggests that MS is doing naughty things (manipulation of evidence, etc.) invite a DoJ probe or something to see what exactly they're up to?
What about the various people who have previously purchased rights to use the song? If the song's been in the public domain for some 40 years, don't they deserve a refund?
We should note that this is a reversal from your previous complaint: "I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent."
Not at all, it's a corralary. The first example shows what could happen if an inventor were forced to defend every incurson. The second shows how by not haveing to defend every incursion the inventor can restrict his fights to the ones that matter without risk of losing the patent.
Garage inventor submarine patents are just as immoral as major corporation submarine patents.
I think you're missing the realities of business here. Not all people who fail to pursue a patent immediately have bad motivation. Many lack financing, and spend the time afforded by the patent to set up their business with less worry about a large businesss simply noticing their product and beating them to market.
As a final note, I'd like to point out that I've got a bachelors degree an Computer Science, am starting my second year in my law degree, and am somewhat of a garage inventor myself. That being said, I still think 90% of software patents are shit, and somewhere close to 100% of business method patents are shit. Further, I think this particular instance of the Eloas patent is a steaming pile of shit, and the court system seems to be agreeing. Still, I think "defend it or lose it" patents would cause far more problems than it would solve.
Patents, even legitimate ones, are basically just tools for large corporations anyway. Garage inventors can't afford the fees anyway--and what good is the patent if they aren't going to be able to enforce it? Whether he or she lets the corporations get away with it, or loses the patent for lack of enforcement, the patent gets copied anyway. Your argument is self defeating.
I believe you'll find you're wrong on several points. Many patent applicants are "garage" inventors. Small businesses create 13-14 times as many patents per employee as large ones, and those patents are twice as likely to be cited in other patents. http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html
Further, garage inventors can afford the fees. The patent office has special reduced rates for qualifing small businesses. First, you don't need a lawyer -- the patent office does allow an inventor to represent himself. Representing yourself, the cost to patent can be under $2,000 (plus a signifigant outlay of time). Even with a lawyer, an average design patent will run you about $10,000. It's not cheap, but it's hardly the sole domain of large corporations as you suggest http://www.patentlessons.com/what%20patents%20cost.html
As for not being enforced, that's where the current system is very effective. Since the inventor doesn't have to sue everybody who violates his rights to mantain his patent, he can choose to only go after companies with enough money to make a prosecution profitable. The inventor doesn't have to burn money to mantain his patent against a small startup company that will simply declare bankrupcy if they lose the case.
Trademarks are of unlimited duriation. That's why you are required to defend it or lose it, because otherwise they would never expire -- people could buy up trademark rights from 200 years ago and start enforcing them.
Patents on the other hand automatically expire after 20 years. There's no need to have a "defend it or lose it" because they're going to lose it anyway. Be patient.
Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work.
I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent.
With the addition of one word you will magically never have enough space again: kids! Driving to visit nearby relatives for a day or two will make you appreciate every cubic foot of cargo room you have.
That's what trunks are for! If you really like the kids, you might even poke some holes in the lid of the trunk to let them breathe.
Slashdot Mirror
How is a completely electric ride to and from work that half of all Americans can take advantage of useless?
I know about 90% of my driving would be completely electric with a plug-in hybrid like this.
Then, they sue the aforementioned (and mostly fictitious) 'Pirate Kingpin'. If pirate kingpin's lawyer is not a moron, they will show cause to subpoena tons and tons of records of other 'pirates' that the RIAA have identified, and then ask pointedly why Jane Citizen wasn't sued.
The RIAA would then say "because we didn't feel like it".
And ten seconds later, case dismissed w/ prejudice, and RIAA probably smacked around for selective defense of their copyright.
Are you making this up as you go along? Copyrights and Patents both allow for selective enforcement. You can sue anyone, everyone, or no-one and still keep your rights. A trademark is the only piece of intellectual property where failure to enforce your rights can result in a loss of them. There is no requirement to sue everyone you identify, or even anyone you identify as infringing your copyright.
Or 17 years from issue, whichever is longer. Thanks for playing.
Only if the patent was filed before June 1995. Not for patents, which like this one, were applied for in 2000. Thanks for playing yourself.
Wrong yourself. The term is 20 years from filing, and has been since 1995.
Sounds like they did accept through performance. Although I can't read the link (since it's dead), the blurb indicates that the GTA modders met his specifications. Once they accept through performance he cannot withdraw the offer.
In response to the other poster, neither is it a promise of a donation. This would be a promise of a donation if he had said "I'm giving $10,000 to charity" with no conditions. He on the other hand said "Make this game, and I'll give this money to charity." That is a bilateral contract -- both sides have duties to perform under the contract. By making the game the modders have accepted his contract and fulfilled their obligations under the contract. They seem entitled to their $10,000.
However, being entitled something to and collecting it are entirely different matters.
Actually, it IS Oregon.
There is a federal RICO act ( (R)acketeering (I)nfluenced (C)orrupt (O)rganizations ), as wells as many state acts that cover similar areas of laws. There are a few practical differences. Most signifigantly, it is typically much cheaper to sue in state court as opposed to federal court.
Oh really?
What do you think the chance is Microsoft will make an authorized port of BD-DVD reading software to linux? Will we have a De-CSS scenario all over again, only this time with something more secure than 40 bits of encryption protecting the content?
It's really not that hard.....
(1) Go to preferences
(2) Select Home Page
(3) Uncheck Zonk in the list of Authors you want to read stories from
(4) Profit
Your math is off.
You've computed the circumference of a 70 square miles power plant. Not 7.
The correct circumference would be somewhere around 9.5 miles.
Radius = approx 1.5 miles.
Circumfruence = 2 * 1.5 * 3.14 = 9.42 miles
Area = 3.14 * 1.5^2 = 7.07 sq miles
But isn't tritium the gas that turns a several kiloton nuclear weapon into a several megaton nuclear weapon? (i.e. turning a "conventional" nuclear weapon into an H-bomb)
Okay, so he makes some money.
The truth of the matter is that the $10 one time fee serves to keeps the riff-raff out. People don't first post, flame wars are few and far between, and there's a general attitude of respect for other forum goers.
If you fail to meet the minimum requirements, you get banned and have to pay $10 to register again. It's a rather effective form of regulation.
The truth is there are always people who will shit on something just to get attention. Something Awful makes it cost money to do that, and if you keep doing it, it can cost a lot. Most of the internet chuckleheads will go where the registration is free to get attention, and frankly Something Awful doesn't miss them a bit.
NOT A LAWYER. NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
Presuming that it is a derivative work (which I highly doubt, it seems to be simply a representation of the photographers original work in the raw format), It would then be an unauthorized derivative work (since there is no contractual agreement or license between Nikkon and the user).
As an unauthorized derivative work, Nikkon cannot claim a copyright on it. Further, Nikkon could be sued for statutory damages for willful infringment of the the photographer's work to the tune of up to $150,000 per infringement.
But like I said, really unlikely it's a derivative work. A derivative work requires a minimum degree of independent creativity. I doubt a machine could qualify under that standard. (highly advanced AI's with a brain the size of a planet not withstanding)
As for the second part, the question isn't who has the right to grant permission. The question is who has the right to sue?
The cases brought under the DMCA against the DVD hackers were brought by the MPAA, who owned the copyright to a signifigant number of movies. I can't see how Nikkon who has no copyright interest could be allowed to sue on behalf of the actual copyright owners.
I think any possible answer lies in the area of contributory infringement. Those parts make my head hurt, and I can't wrap my mind around a theory that would work for Nikkon. I just can't see anyone but the copyright holder being allowed to bring an action. I can't see a court allowing another party to stand in the copyright holder's shoes and argue against copyright holder's interests in accessing their own works with the tool of their choosing.
The anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA protects from unauthorized access from copyrighted works. If you took the picture, you own the copyright to that picture.
It's not like a dvd, where you're accessing (rightly or wrongly) someone else's copyrighted work. Adobe wouldn't be designing a product to aid in unauthorized access.
The primary purpose would be for the copyright owner to access information in their own copyrighted work. Nikkon should have no interest under the DMCA with which to sue.
Let's not forget that the basic design of the shuttle is Nixon era technology, it's design approved almost 35 years ago.
You don't think a business a company as big as Apple with a product as big as iTunes can't negotiate special deal with PayPal? Considering that PayPal wants desperately to be seen as a payment method as legitimate as credit cards, I'd bet they're damn near bending over backwards for Apple.
What I want to know is if Apple is going to have to deal with the craptastic PayPal customer service department.
My cell phone (and most others I suspect) allows me to either 1) turn off GPS or 2) turn off GPS to everyone but 911. Were I a teen, my parents would never know how fast I'm going.
Let's remember this case was puttering along nice and happy until and administration chance, at which point the DoJ suddenly got the settlement bug up it's ass.
Wouldn't normally evidence that suggests that MS is doing naughty things (manipulation of evidence, etc.) invite a DoJ probe or something to see what exactly they're up to?
Not under this administration.
You know, if they were running exchange server I can actually understand the loss of a signifigant number of e-mails.
Who would have thought that the shitty nature of their software might actually end up being Microsoft's saving grace?
I must agree. I barely saw any SPAM last week. However, I think that may have to do with my losing power for 128 straight hours.
What about the various people who have previously purchased rights to use the song? If the song's been in the public domain for some 40 years, don't they deserve a refund?
We should note that this is a reversal from your previous complaint: "I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent."
Not at all, it's a corralary. The first example shows what could happen if an inventor were forced to defend every incurson. The second shows how by not haveing to defend every incursion the inventor can restrict his fights to the ones that matter without risk of losing the patent.
Garage inventor submarine patents are just as immoral as major corporation submarine patents.
I think you're missing the realities of business here. Not all people who fail to pursue a patent immediately have bad motivation. Many lack financing, and spend the time afforded by the patent to set up their business with less worry about a large businesss simply noticing their product and beating them to market.
As a final note, I'd like to point out that I've got a bachelors degree an Computer Science, am starting my second year in my law degree, and am somewhat of a garage inventor myself. That being said, I still think 90% of software patents are shit, and somewhere close to 100% of business method patents are shit. Further, I think this particular instance of the Eloas patent is a steaming pile of shit, and the court system seems to be agreeing. Still, I think "defend it or lose it" patents would cause far more problems than it would solve.
Patents, even legitimate ones, are basically just tools for large corporations anyway. Garage inventors can't afford the fees anyway--and what good is the patent if they aren't going to be able to enforce it? Whether he or she lets the corporations get away with it, or loses the patent for lack of enforcement, the patent gets copied anyway. Your argument is self defeating.
t .html
I believe you'll find you're wrong on several points. Many patent applicants are "garage" inventors. Small businesses create 13-14 times as many patents per employee as large ones, and those patents are twice as likely to be cited in other patents. http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html
Further, garage inventors can afford the fees. The patent office has special reduced rates for qualifing small businesses. First, you don't need a lawyer -- the patent office does allow an inventor to represent himself. Representing yourself, the cost to patent can be under $2,000 (plus a signifigant outlay of time). Even with a lawyer, an average design patent will run you about $10,000. It's not cheap, but it's hardly the sole domain of large corporations as you suggest http://www.patentlessons.com/what%20patents%20cos
As for not being enforced, that's where the current system is very effective. Since the inventor doesn't have to sue everybody who violates his rights to mantain his patent, he can choose to only go after companies with enough money to make a prosecution profitable. The inventor doesn't have to burn money to mantain his patent against a small startup company that will simply declare bankrupcy if they lose the case.
No, no, no.
Incredibly bad idea.
Trademarks are of unlimited duriation. That's why you are required to defend it or lose it, because otherwise they would never expire -- people could buy up trademark rights from 200 years ago and start enforcing them.
Patents on the other hand automatically expire after 20 years. There's no need to have a "defend it or lose it" because they're going to lose it anyway. Be patient.
Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work.
I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent.
With the addition of one word you will magically never have enough space again: kids! Driving to visit nearby relatives for a day or two will make you appreciate every cubic foot of cargo room you have.
That's what trunks are for! If you really like the kids, you might even poke some holes in the lid of the trunk to let them breathe.