Usually people making copies for criminal investigations have immunity from that sort of copyright claim.
In US law it's worded like this:
Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. â" This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term âoeinformation securityâ means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
The problem with your example is that the patents covered by the provision you are talking about are in fact utter rubbish. These are patents held by patent trolls on simple business processes (one example is the process of scanning checks!) that should have never been granted in the first place. The business model of these companies entails suing other companies for infringing on what should have never have been granted. It is patent trolling that the banks are getting relief from.
As such the earmark that they got into law is actually a service to humanity in general, which I would gladly have voted for.
If you had an example that covered a legitimate patent you would have a stronger case.
The process that got this provision into law is pretty dubious, and the law itself may actually be unconstitutional because it lets the patent office review cases already decided in court, but the actual situation the law covers is one that is wholly one that needs correction.
These marestail plants infesting a crop of wheat in Tennessee are resistant to glyphosate herbicide Roundup.
Weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate, a report from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released in April has found. The driving force, according to the report, is farmers' dependence on the weed killer accompanied by the widespread adoption of genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant crops. Seed makers are hoping to forestall the problem by developing GM crops with 'stacked' traits that tolerate multiple herbicides. But weed scientists warn that if farmers manage these new crops in the same way as they managed their glyphosate-tolerant predecessors, weeds will simply become resistant to the new technologies.
>I've understood a company can still decide which research results to publish, so if they make 20 studies on an issue they can pick the 10 that best suit their agenda.
You think Monsanto is the only organization doing research on GMO crops?
> And then they lawyers come with their army, and drag you to court. How many small farmers can afford to fight.
This is complete bullshit. Monsanto has never sued a farmer whose crops were accidentally contaminated. There is even a legal precedent in the US that this is not an infringement.
I can't believe people are still posting this baloney and modding it up.
Monsanto suits have been of the following types:
1. Collecting seed and reusing in violation of contract. 2. Collecting seed and reselling in violation of contract. 3. Collecting seed from artificial selection and reusing (ie. like Percy Schmeiser), infringing on patent.
"I answer not to falsehood or abuse, but proceed to the defects of the English Government. I begin with charters and corporations.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect- that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. If charters were constructed so as to express in direct terms, "that every inhabitant, who is not a member of a corporation, shall not exercise the right of voting," such charters would, in the face, be charters not of rights, but of exclusion. The effect is the same under the form they now stand; and the only persons on whom they operate are the persons whom they exclude. Those whose rights are guaranteed, by not being taken away, exercise no other rights than as members of the community they are entitled to without a charter; and, therefore, all charters have no other than an indirect negative operation. They do not give rights to A, but they make a difference in favour of A by taking away the right of B, and consequently are instruments of injustice."
Times of war? HAH. Times of peace too. My wife used to get mail from her family in South America that had obviously been opened and taped shut. Utter outrage.
It was her country's government that was doing it. How could you tell? If the CIA did it they would at least make a half-hearted attempt to seal the envelope back up using something similar to the original glue!
If the US brings a copyright claim in Sweden the US Supreme Court has nothing to do with deciding what happens.
When the Ellsburg case was brought up in the US there was no attempt to use copyright, nor would it be likely to apply because the US Government cannot copyright it's works.
The NYT was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers despite their classification because of the overriding interest of the First Amendment.
Judge Hugo Lafayette Black wrote one of the most famous opinions in US History in this decision. People forget that it was a 6-3 decision, something a lot of people were surprised and concerned about at the time.
That didn't prevent Ellsburg from being brought up on espionage charges, however his case was tossed due to prosecutorial bungling, illegal wiretaps and so forth. If the prosecution had been more intelligent he might have suffered a long jail term.
The problem is extradition for espionage is rather difficult because it's considered a political crime, while copyright is more broadly protected internationally.
Your logic is faulty, as is your understanding of what a patent is. Patents don't prevent you from thinking about anything. Using your example you can think all you want about patented methods to go to the second floor, and you won't get into hot water because fundamentally patents DON'T cover ideas, they cover IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas.
It's only the construction and use of the patented implementation that infringes the patent. Also there is no problem with improving on an idea - you can get a patent on an improvement.
The problem with open source and patents is simple - companies making a profit off an invention that they put time and money into development thereof generally have a problem with an open source project giving that same technology away, which reduces their chance of recovering the investment they made.
Slashdot Mirror
Need superhydrophobic keyboards.
Kim Dotcom has been found guilty of insider trading and embezzlement in the past.
So no, he is not an innocent angel.
Usually people making copies for criminal investigations have immunity from that sort of copyright claim.
In US law it's worded like this:
Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Other Government Activities. â" This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, information security, or intelligence activity of an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or a person acting pursuant to a contract with the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State. For purposes of this subsection, the term âoeinformation securityâ means activities carried out in order to identify and address the vulnerabilities of a government computer, computer system, or computer network.
So you are saying if Mr X living outside the US hires someone to commit a crime in the US, he shouldn't be extraditable to the US?
APIs have already been ruled uncopyrightable in the EU.
The problem with your example is that the patents covered by the provision you are talking about are in fact utter rubbish. These are patents held by patent trolls on simple business processes (one example is the process of scanning checks!) that should have never been granted in the first place. The business model of these companies entails suing other companies for infringing on what should have never have been granted. It is patent trolling that the banks are getting relief from.
As such the earmark that they got into law is actually a service to humanity in general, which I would gladly have voted for.
If you had an example that covered a legitimate patent you would have a stronger case.
The process that got this provision into law is pretty dubious, and the law itself may actually be unconstitutional because it lets the patent office review cases already decided in court, but the actual situation the law covers is one that is wholly one that needs correction.
And that's 1 dollar more than the actual damages.
1. Find people dumb enough to buy an IPO opening day.
2. Pump up useless social media company
3. Issue stock
4. PROFIT!!!!!!
Evidently PT Barnum underestimated the sucker birth rate.
It doesn't say anything about theoretical impossibility in the article.
Which by the way is long on hand wringing and very short on actual science.
This one (unfortunately you need to be a Nature subscriber to read it to completion) is far better:
Note that it clearly identifies mismanagement on the part of farmers as the culprit. Not GMO, biotech in general or Monsanto.
Glyphosate resistance threatens Roundup hegemony
Emily Waltz
Nature Biotechnology
28,
537â"538
(2010)
doi:10.1038/nbt0610-537
These marestail plants infesting a crop of wheat in Tennessee are resistant to glyphosate herbicide Roundup.
Weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to glyphosate, a report from the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released in April has found. The driving force, according to the report, is farmers' dependence on the weed killer accompanied by the widespread adoption of genetically modified (GM) herbicide-tolerant crops. Seed makers are hoping to forestall the problem by developing GM crops with 'stacked' traits that tolerate multiple herbicides. But weed scientists warn that if farmers manage these new crops in the same way as they managed their glyphosate-tolerant predecessors, weeds will simply become resistant to the new technologies.
>I've understood a company can still decide which research results to publish, so if they make 20 studies on an issue they can pick the 10 that best suit their agenda.
You think Monsanto is the only organization doing research on GMO crops?
Betcha they aren't.
> And then they lawyers come with their army, and drag you to court. How many small farmers can afford to fight.
This is complete bullshit. Monsanto has never sued a farmer whose crops were accidentally contaminated. There is even a legal precedent in the US that this is not an infringement.
I can't believe people are still posting this baloney and modding it up.
Monsanto suits have been of the following types:
1. Collecting seed and reusing in violation of contract.
2. Collecting seed and reselling in violation of contract.
3. Collecting seed from artificial selection and reusing (ie. like Percy Schmeiser), infringing on patent.
Thunderbird works fine with LDAP, and you can use the GMail IMAP facility so you never really need to use GMail webmail.
The problem with solutions other the MS Office is that you will have issues with interacting with people outside your company.
Just do the partner thing and go with a barebones MS Office (PP, Word, Excel).
The other stuff can be handled using GMail or an internal IMAP server etc.
A little research would give you the answer.
From the Rights of Man by Thomas Paine:
"I answer not to falsehood or abuse, but proceed to the defects of the English Government. I begin with charters and corporations.
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect- that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few. If charters were constructed so as to express in direct terms, "that every inhabitant, who is not a member of a corporation, shall not exercise the right of voting," such charters would, in the face, be charters not of rights, but of exclusion. The effect is the same under the form they now stand; and the only persons on whom they operate are the persons whom they exclude. Those whose rights are guaranteed, by not being taken away, exercise no other rights than as members of the community they are entitled to without a charter; and, therefore, all charters have no other than an indirect negative operation. They do not give rights to A, but they make a difference in favour of A by taking away the right of B, and consequently are instruments of injustice."
Bad? I think not.
What we need is for Thomas Paine to come back and do some writing on the internet.
What do you think CISPA is about? It even gives the telocs legal immunity for doing it.
WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN. It is unacceptable.
Times of war? HAH. Times of peace too. My wife used to get mail from her family in South America that had obviously been opened and taped shut. Utter outrage.
It was her country's government that was doing it. How could you tell? If the CIA did it they would at least make a half-hearted attempt to seal the envelope back up using something similar to the original glue!
Exactly.
Imagine the reaction if this was surveillance of your old fashioned communications media.
This is exactly the same as having your email and telephone calls censored and monitored.
It boggles the mind that the man on the street isn't screaming bloody murder over this. It is completely unacceptable.
I would think that one of the primary objectives of the judges would be to determine who did the work.
Isn't really pretty stupid to think that a prestigious international competition like this would omit this issue from the judging process?
There are about 20 high schools in the US that have SEMs.
Unusual but not unheard of.
http://www.gazette.net/article/20111207/NEWS/712079346/1225/news&source=RSS&template=gazette
In addition lots of universities run outreach programs that give local students experience with SEMs.
If the US brings a copyright claim in Sweden the US Supreme Court has nothing to do with deciding what happens.
When the Ellsburg case was brought up in the US there was no attempt to use copyright, nor would it be likely to apply because the US Government cannot copyright it's works.
The NYT was allowed to publish the Pentagon Papers despite their classification because of the overriding interest of the First Amendment.
Judge Hugo Lafayette Black wrote one of the most famous opinions in US History in this decision. People forget that it was a 6-3 decision, something a lot of people were surprised and concerned about at the time.
That didn't prevent Ellsburg from being brought up on espionage charges, however his case was tossed due to prosecutorial bungling, illegal wiretaps and so forth. If the prosecution had been more intelligent he might have suffered a long jail term.
This article is speculative; the US has not actually brought a copyright suit.
If it were to be brought it would happen in Sweden where copyright suits are difficult (as the article points out).
The problem is extradition for espionage is rather difficult because it's considered a political crime, while copyright is more broadly protected internationally.
Your logic is faulty, as is your understanding of what a patent is. Patents don't prevent you from thinking about anything. Using your example you can think all you want about patented methods to go to the second floor, and you won't get into hot water because fundamentally patents DON'T cover ideas, they cover IMPLEMENTATIONS of ideas.
It's only the construction and use of the patented implementation that infringes the patent. Also there is no problem with improving on an idea - you can get a patent on an improvement.
The problem with open source and patents is simple - companies making a profit off an invention that they put time and money into development thereof generally have a problem with an open source project giving that same technology away, which reduces their chance of recovering the investment they made.