Good point, except that the standard for getting a trademark registration and avoiding infringement of someone else's trademark is avoiding a "likelihood of confusion". If using different TLDs, each with well-defined permitted uses, does away with that likelihood of confusion, trademark law should allow different entities to have the same or similar "namespace", albeit with different TLDs.
For example, if they were introduce a new TDL,.sux, defined as a complaint venting domain, problems with WIPO experienced by some Web site owners in the past would be non-existent.
Reverse discrimination? That doesn't mean anything. Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter which group is discriminating against which. If an Hispanic man discriminates against blacks as a group, would you call that sideways discrimination?
Never mind the abstract, what's important are the claims. These tell what E-Bay can sue another company for making, using, or selling. Here they are:
1. A method performed by a marketplace computer for facilitating electronic commerce over a network between a plurality of seller and buyer computers, the method comprising the steps of:
presenting a registration web page to a remote first seller computer over the network;
receiving a first registration for a first product from the first seller computer over the network, the first registration including a first product description and a first Universal Resource Locator (URL) indicating a first location of a first image of the first product, the first location referencing the first seller computer or a third computer on the network, and the first image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
presenting a registration web page to a remote second seller computer over the network;
receiving a second registration for a second product from the second seller computer over the network the second registration including a second product description and a second URL indicating a second location of a second image of the second product, the second location referencing the second seller computer or a fourth computer on the network, and the second image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
retrieving the first image based on the received first URL;
manipulating the first image to produce a first thumbnail image of a first predetermined size and format;
retrieving the second image based on the received second URL;
manipulating the second image to produce a second thumbnail image of a second predetermined size and format;
creating a customized web page including the first and second thumbnail images; and
presenting the customized web page to a buyer computer.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second predetermined sizes are the same, and the first and second predetermined formats are the same.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the customized web page further includes the first and second product descriptions.
I'd have to read the specification to correctly interpret this, but it looks like it's used to compare two products from two different sellers so that a buyer can bid on the one he likes better. Hmm, still seems pretty bogus.
If the patent application was filed recently, and E-Bay is also filing a foreign patent application, this patent application may be subject to the new 18-month publication rule at the patent office. This meams the patent application will be published before the patent issues, at which time the public is invited to comment on it, and even attempt to invalidate it with prior art. You may get your wish, and I'd even represent you for free. No shit.
Calling their "gallery" patent pending is just E-Bay PR bullshit. It tells nothing about what the patent application is really about, except that it relates in some way to their gallery. Wait to see what the claims look like before you get all pissed off. If this thing issues, the claims aren't gonna be directed to a thumbnail gallery in general; no matter how stupid the Patent Office may be at times, they would never let that issue. Apparently, E-Bay is doing something different with this gallery, which may be bogus too, but it's not worth getting all bent out of shape until the patent actually issues (if it does at all). If and when that happens, you can pick apart the claims and see what they really have.
Sometimes a company will get a patent with really narrow claims directed to a tiny aspect of their "innovation". This ensures that they get the patent issued. The patent is virtually worthless from the point of view of enforcement, because it's so narrow that it's easy to avoid infringing the claims. However, they get to blab to the world that their "gallery" or whatever is "patented", which gets them advertising points with dumbasses. I suspect this is the case with E-Bay.
The PTO has been making a profit for years, even before it was made a profit center (under Clinton, BTW). The problem has always been that Congress took a large portion of the PTO profit every year and spent it elsewhere. This is really what (in part) led to inefficiencies at PTO. Now, as a profit center, PTO gets to keep more of the money that it makes, and put it back into hiring more, better qualified examiners. That's the official line, anyway. We'll see if it'll pan out.
Throughout the article, Ullman talks about what the jury decided, and how that was wrong, and what level of juror should be able to decide patent issues, etc. However, he is a bit confused about the actual role of the jury in a patent infringement trial. The jury does not determine the meaning of the patent claims, as he supposes. What happens is that the court has a "Markman hearing" to determine the scope of the claims, i.e., to determine what the patented invention really is and what exactly it covers. This is decided by the court, i.e., the judge(s), not by the jury. The jury has not yet entered the picture at this point. Most of a patent dispute usually centers on what the claims actually cover, and as a result, most patent infringement suits are settled after the Markman hearing and never reach a jury in the first place.
When you talk about doing things in a completely different way, you are back on the topic of novelty. An invention is considered obvious if it would have occured to someone of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of published references at the time, to do it the same way. Usually, this is applied when no reference is found that discloses the claimed invention in its entirety (i.e., it's novel), but two or more references are found that each disclose part of the claimed invention, and together disclose everything. The Patent Office (or court) then says that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine those teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Also, some "motivation" has to be present in the references to motivate the person of ordinay skill to combine the references, or it should be found to be obvious.
Re:It's Napster's responsibility, but...
on
Nazis on Napster
·
· Score: 2
It's not Napster's responsibility to regulate music based on content. Who are you gonna allow to tell you what's OK to listen to and what's not OK to listen to? Are you gonna make the decision as to what someone else should not be able to get via Napster? Do you propose setting up a hotline to report lyrics that offend you personally? Besides the freedom issues posed by these questions, any of these scenarios will act to turn Napster into Blandster (more than it is already), and an "illegal" alternative (like the original) will materialize to serve people who prefer to be individuals. I'd rather be offended on a regular basis than have all the edges cut off.
First, you've got to separate the worlds of patent and copyright. The standard for holding a valid copyright is originality, not novelty. Infringement of a copyright requires copying, and can't be found from independent development. Therefore, two companies from different countries can both have valid copyrights to the same work, in their respective countries or even the same country. And each can exploit the copyrighted work without liability to the other, as long as they don't copy.
For example, if two people, working independently and without knowledge of the other's work, develop identical works, claim copyrights on them, and have the copyrights registered, they will each hold a valid copyright to the same work, because each work is original, that is, wasn't copied. If Person A notices that Person B is marketing the copyrighted work and sues, Person A has to prove that Person B copied the work to get him for infringement. If Person B shows that his work was developed independently, he is not infringing.
In your scenario, if one company had copied the work from the other company, the copier's copyright is invalid, and that's how the dispute would be handled. If neither side copied, both copyrights are valid, and neither company is infringing. They'll just have to compete with each other.
Patents are another ball of wax...
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, it's not a matter of matching singular/plural. It's the tense, namely subjunctive.
Good point, except that the standard for getting a trademark registration and avoiding infringement of someone else's trademark is avoiding a "likelihood of confusion". If using different TLDs, each with well-defined permitted uses, does away with that likelihood of confusion, trademark law should allow different entities to have the same or similar "namespace", albeit with different TLDs. For example, if they were introduce a new TDL, .sux, defined as a complaint venting domain, problems with WIPO experienced by some Web site owners in the past would be non-existent.
Reverse discrimination? That doesn't mean anything. Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter which group is discriminating against which. If an Hispanic man discriminates against blacks as a group, would you call that sideways discrimination?
I'm in!
Never mind the abstract, what's important are the claims. These tell what E-Bay can sue another company for making, using, or selling. Here they are:
1. A method performed by a marketplace computer for facilitating electronic commerce over a network between a plurality of seller and buyer computers, the method comprising the steps of:
presenting a registration web page to a remote first seller computer over the network;
receiving a first registration for a first product from the first seller computer over the network, the first registration including a first product description and a first Universal Resource Locator (URL) indicating a first location of a first image of the first product, the first location referencing the first seller computer or a third computer on the network, and the first image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
presenting a registration web page to a remote second seller computer over the network;
receiving a second registration for a second product from the second seller computer over the network the second registration including a second product description and a second URL indicating a second location of a second image of the second product, the second location referencing the second seller computer or a fourth computer on the network, and the second image being in one of a plurality of predetermined source image formats;
retrieving the first image based on the received first URL;
manipulating the first image to produce a first thumbnail image of a first predetermined size and format;
retrieving the second image based on the received second URL;
manipulating the second image to produce a second thumbnail image of a second predetermined size and format;
creating a customized web page including the first and second thumbnail images; and
presenting the customized web page to a buyer computer.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first and second predetermined sizes are the same, and the first and second predetermined formats are the same.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the customized web page further includes the first and second product descriptions.
I'd have to read the specification to correctly interpret this, but it looks like it's used to compare two products from two different sellers so that a buyer can bid on the one he likes better. Hmm, still seems pretty bogus.
If the patent application was filed recently, and E-Bay is also filing a foreign patent application, this patent application may be subject to the new 18-month publication rule at the patent office. This meams the patent application will be published before the patent issues, at which time the public is invited to comment on it, and even attempt to invalidate it with prior art. You may get your wish, and I'd even represent you for free. No shit.
Calling their "gallery" patent pending is just E-Bay PR bullshit. It tells nothing about what the patent application is really about, except that it relates in some way to their gallery. Wait to see what the claims look like before you get all pissed off. If this thing issues, the claims aren't gonna be directed to a thumbnail gallery in general; no matter how stupid the Patent Office may be at times, they would never let that issue. Apparently, E-Bay is doing something different with this gallery, which may be bogus too, but it's not worth getting all bent out of shape until the patent actually issues (if it does at all). If and when that happens, you can pick apart the claims and see what they really have. Sometimes a company will get a patent with really narrow claims directed to a tiny aspect of their "innovation". This ensures that they get the patent issued. The patent is virtually worthless from the point of view of enforcement, because it's so narrow that it's easy to avoid infringing the claims. However, they get to blab to the world that their "gallery" or whatever is "patented", which gets them advertising points with dumbasses. I suspect this is the case with E-Bay.
The PTO has been making a profit for years, even before it was made a profit center (under Clinton, BTW). The problem has always been that Congress took a large portion of the PTO profit every year and spent it elsewhere. This is really what (in part) led to inefficiencies at PTO. Now, as a profit center, PTO gets to keep more of the money that it makes, and put it back into hiring more, better qualified examiners. That's the official line, anyway. We'll see if it'll pan out.
Throughout the article, Ullman talks about what the jury decided, and how that was wrong, and what level of juror should be able to decide patent issues, etc. However, he is a bit confused about the actual role of the jury in a patent infringement trial. The jury does not determine the meaning of the patent claims, as he supposes. What happens is that the court has a "Markman hearing" to determine the scope of the claims, i.e., to determine what the patented invention really is and what exactly it covers. This is decided by the court, i.e., the judge(s), not by the jury. The jury has not yet entered the picture at this point. Most of a patent dispute usually centers on what the claims actually cover, and as a result, most patent infringement suits are settled after the Markman hearing and never reach a jury in the first place.
When you talk about doing things in a completely different way, you are back on the topic of novelty. An invention is considered obvious if it would have occured to someone of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of published references at the time, to do it the same way. Usually, this is applied when no reference is found that discloses the claimed invention in its entirety (i.e., it's novel), but two or more references are found that each disclose part of the claimed invention, and together disclose everything. The Patent Office (or court) then says that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine those teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Also, some "motivation" has to be present in the references to motivate the person of ordinay skill to combine the references, or it should be found to be obvious.
It's not Napster's responsibility to regulate music based on content. Who are you gonna allow to tell you what's OK to listen to and what's not OK to listen to? Are you gonna make the decision as to what someone else should not be able to get via Napster? Do you propose setting up a hotline to report lyrics that offend you personally? Besides the freedom issues posed by these questions, any of these scenarios will act to turn Napster into Blandster (more than it is already), and an "illegal" alternative (like the original) will materialize to serve people who prefer to be individuals. I'd rather be offended on a regular basis than have all the edges cut off.
Price up to $12,000. Too rich for my blood.
Whoa, gimme a minute while I recover from that one.
Maybe we need to send Jimmy Carter down to Florida to oversee this recount. You never know how ugly this could get.
First, you've got to separate the worlds of patent and copyright. The standard for holding a valid copyright is originality, not novelty. Infringement of a copyright requires copying, and can't be found from independent development. Therefore, two companies from different countries can both have valid copyrights to the same work, in their respective countries or even the same country. And each can exploit the copyrighted work without liability to the other, as long as they don't copy. For example, if two people, working independently and without knowledge of the other's work, develop identical works, claim copyrights on them, and have the copyrights registered, they will each hold a valid copyright to the same work, because each work is original, that is, wasn't copied. If Person A notices that Person B is marketing the copyrighted work and sues, Person A has to prove that Person B copied the work to get him for infringement. If Person B shows that his work was developed independently, he is not infringing. In your scenario, if one company had copied the work from the other company, the copier's copyright is invalid, and that's how the dispute would be handled. If neither side copied, both copyrights are valid, and neither company is infringing. They'll just have to compete with each other. Patents are another ball of wax...