The PTO isn't exactly on the ball when it comes to prior art. The anti-patent would help the little guy not get squished by the corporate bastards.
So let's say you invent X. You don't commercialize it heavily, but you're making it here and there, maybe selling it locally. Five years later, someone you've never heard of files a patent on X, finds out you are making X, and sues you for doing so--despite the fact that you'd already invented X, so it is legally "prior art." The burden is now on you to prove it was prior art. In the end, even if you prevail, you are likely to eat your attorneys fees, and have to finance an anti-smear PR campaign to clear your name. At $150+/hour for the attorneys, if X isn't making you rich, trying to retain your right to make it will make you poor...
If you could have filed an anti-patent, there would be a prior record of your invention of X. So if the corporate shmucks try to sue you, you can file a quick motion for summary judgment on the basis that there is an anti-patent on file. That would, at the very least, get you out quickly and cheaply.
Well for starters, you cannot copyright the "II" in Pentium II. It would have to be a trademark issue. You cannot copyright the "II" because it does not constitute a "work" as defined by the copyright code.
Nitpicky? Just the opposite. A copyright is a broad range of rights (including moral rights and rights to copy, destroy, use, prevent others from using, license, make derivative works), whereas a trademark is a much narrowed range of rights (basically limited to excluding others from using the same mark, but only if it would be confusing or devalue your mark--the so-called "dilution" right). Most importantly, copyrights are of limited duration, trademarks are unlimited.
A trademark can last forever, but a copyright expires 50 years after the author does.
I used to work for a state agency (judicial branch), and the entire agency was completely ridiculous about both email and internet access. (No joke, the head of the agency initially did not want us to have email because he thought that meant that people could randomly hack into our Word files and read protected documents.)
Before we were allowed access, we had to sign two or three pages of disclaimers and such stating that we were aware that we "had no reasonable expectation of privacy" in our email or internet usage, and that the agency could peek into it at any time, with or without cause. It also stated that email and internet access were for work only, and had some language stating that minimal or occassional usage for personal reasons was okay.
Yes, the policy sounded insane, and most of us were pissed off. Grudgingly, we signed anyway. (Refusal to sign mean no internet access or email, period.)
To my knowledge there have not been any "issues" involving email or internet usage there (save for a problem with some silly Christmas card program that took up huge amounts of space on the server). The more savvy employees got Yahoo accounts for their personal usage. And for the most part, everyone lived happily ever after.
If a problem did arise, at least the agency feels protected by the lengthy disclaimers. Obnoxious or not, they would hold up in court.
The point is this. If you have an NDA and do not enforce it as to one employee (who made what some consider a major leak) then you create additional problems.
First, other employees may not take the NDA seriously.
Second, if another employee leaks something more important and Apple chooses to go after that employee, they will say "Oh yeah, but you didn't prosecute the other one so you must be going after me because I am a woman/black/gay/whatever else" and end up with a countersuit for selective enforcement and/or discrimination. Which could, theoretically, lead to a declaration that the NDA and/or its enforcement policy, are discriminatory, illegal, etc.
Insane? Perhaps. But that seems to be how things work these days...
For those who do not know, the site on which that article appears, Themestream.com, is one of the "pay per click" sites. Those submitting articles are currently paid ten cents per click. Judging from the general lack of grammar, style, etc. on the site in general, most "authors" don't actually get paid anything. (I posted a few articles to test this theory, as you have to have $20+ in "revenue" before themestream will cut you a check.) Professional writers have, for the most part, avoided themestream like the plague, and there are numerous articles decrying themestream's payment policies on writing websites and the poor newbie freelance-writer-wannabes who are chasing the almighty dime. (A quick google search should get you a dozen, at least.)
Now, as many of you noticed, this particular article was slashdotted. (This makes me curious as to the identity of the "reader" who wrote in about said article.) Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many dimes that equals?
Perhaps after exiting the cathedral, someone decided an alternate form of prostitution would make a better career...
You have quite a radical view of intellectual property. I would be interested to read any source materials, United States Supreme Court cases, peer-reviewed journal articles, or Berne Convention treaty materials that support your opinion that copyright intellectual property rights are not intended to encourage disclosure, but only to encourage creation. Could you point me to some resources online?
I would also be interested in reading any such materials, including statutes, regarding "Copyright Abuse." I find your assertion concerning "It's immoral, and it's NOT legal defendable" interesting, in light of the cases that appear in the standard copyright law casebooks. If you have could point me to some URLs or printed materials explaining "Copyright Abuse," or perhaps a URL with a legal definition, I'd appreciate it.
"Fair use" is an interesting aspect of copyright law. Interesting because what exactly is "fair use" is hotly debated by judges, artists, and scholars. (I find the moral right against destruction even more interesting, but that's neither here nor there.) The concept, however, has nothing to do with whether copyright law is intended purely to encourage creation, as you assert, or in part to encourage creation and in larger part to encourage disclosure, as all of the standard works on intellectual property laws (domestic and international) and theory would argue.
If "failure" means the office suite is not going to be adopted by a majority of the computer-using public, then you are probably right.
First, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that most people with computers do not know diddle about how to use them. Most law offices, for example, spend beaucoup bucks on shiny machines, and hire some geeks-r-us type company to come in and install software. Most of the senior partners making the decisions still have their secretaries print out all of their email so they can read it, and use dictation equipment to compose letters. They are slow to change, and don't see why anything should change at all, for the most part. They are certainly not going to bother to learn a new piece of software of any variety, office suite or not, unless it is absolutely necessary. (From a somewhat practical standpoint, hours spent on learning new software are not billable.) To get them to use a linux-based OS and office suite, you are going to have to provide a damn good reason to do so, not to mention some pretty brochures and some exceedingly competent support.
Second, if your entire business runs on an MS Office program, it would be incredibly disruptive to jump into using something that cannot guarantee 100% compatibility. Using the law office example again, it would be tres bad if you suddenly can't access any of your forms or client files.
Third, most businesses use other pieces of software that are compatible with the MS Office suite. Until you get any proposed alternate office suite to mesh with those programs, or get those programs to mesh with the OS, you are pretty much screwed. Again using the law office example, there is billing software, legal research software, cite-checking software, and software that makes neat indices for briefs and motions. It will be difficult to convince an office that uses these programs to give up the ability to use them so that they can switch to another OS.
Finally, people in general are freaked out by change, and are used to the way windows looks and runs. Folks will be reluctant to change no matter what.
If you define "failure" as "failure to be accepted and used by a majority of computer users" then yes, it is probably true that any alternate office suite will fail--Microsoft basically engineered it that way.
I am disappointed that so few people seem to have read anything more than "Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit" and then assume the whole lawsuit is about monopoly power. It is, as you have pointed out, about "anti-competitive things." For example, MS had contracts with hardward manufacturers who used the MS OS stating that MS would be paid based on the number of units shipped from the factory--and NOT the number of units on which an MS OS was actually installed. This effectively blocked any other OS from being installed on machines, as then the manufacturers would have to pay twice (once to MS as per the contract, based on units shipped, and once to the other company).
It is arguable that this particular example probably points out the manufacturers' attorneys, but then again, it is not the manufacturers who had anything to lose. The big losers were the other OS guys and the consumer--neither of which had any leverage to change the situation.
The purpose of copyright, and intellectual property rights in general (save for trade and service marks), is only part to encourage people to create. In theory, those who have a burning desire to create are going to create whether we encourage them or not, and whether or not society rewards them for doing so.
The other purpose of copyright, and other intellectual property rights (save for trade and service marks), is to encourage people to share their work so that society may benefit from the creations. By assuring the creator that s/he will be able to exploit the creation, economically or otherwise, for a limited period of time, theoretically the law encourages creators to share with society. Society then theoretically benefits from the disclosure of that information (can build on it, secure permission to create derivative works, be inspired to create something entirely new, etc.), and the creator is rewarded for sharing. If you do any research into the Statute of Anne, which was the first copyright statute, you'll find that getting creators to share their work was actually the dominant concern.
As an aside, even if you abandon your work, I believe (but could be wrong) that you are still entitled to the so-called "moral rights" under the Berne Convention. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overview .html
I agree that the CD prices are a tad high, even taking into account recording costs and promotion. Has anyone considered that in the U.S. we are still paying less for CDs than people pay in other countries? I thought it was bad here until I was in London and the entire bin--not just those from the U.S., but those from the U.K., Europe, and the rest of the world--was "17.99" Can we say ouch???
If this lawsuit is successful, will there be any ramifications for prices on the other side of the pond?
There is a post somewhere asking "what about users with ADDHD?"
Specific conditions aside, there are plenty of us whose brains do not work on the "oh please do not distract me" model. My most productive days are filled with interruptions, email, phone calls, and distractions of every sort. I thrive on the chaos. Call it the MTV attention span, but the more crazy things pour into my office, the more I find myself coming up with good ideas, innovations, etc.
So...that leaves me to wonder if I would spend my first few days figuring out how to use this idea to my advantage...I could check my email every thirty seconds just by staring at the right thing...this could be very, very useful...
Didn't AOL get paid for this? I think I recall reading that they either consulted on the film, or provided equipment, or something...weren't they at least named in the credits?
Short answer: if they were in on it (the film), they have no cause to bitch.
The information contained in the "What to do when they ask for your Social Security Number" site is not entirely accurate.
For example, the site refers to the IRS having a separate court system. Sure, nearly every federal agency has an administrative court system with administrative law judges (ALJs). The information that is missing is that an ALJ's determination is appealable to a federal district court (and so on up through the regular court system).
Other Professionals Make the Same Trade Off
on
Home Sweet Sweatshop
·
· Score: 1
In criticizing those who choose to put in obnoxious hours, it's easy to forget that other professionals are often in the same spot. Young attorneys, for example, often start out in positions where they have to bill 40 hours per week. You can only "bill" an hour (or a six minute increment, more accurately) if you've spent that time doing work directly attributable to a client (which doesn't include lunch, coffee breaks, required legal education, strategy meetings, and other assorted stuff you have to do for the firm). Sometimes the partners can cut your hours down if they think they are "unreasonable" (as in "it shouldn't have taken you x to do that"). Of course to bill 40, particularly as a new attorney, you're going to have to put in at least 60, maybe more, and with a relatively small firm, you might get paid as little as $30,000. (No kidding, I've seen the offer.) Factoring in law school loans, it's only a few steps above indentured servitude, with the hope of maybe making partner in seven or eight years. And the newbie attorneys, I might add, aren't getting free snacks and sodas. Definitely not for me.
It all depends on your attitudes about work though. Personally, I'd much prefer to have a life. But many of my friends who work insane hours, including some who are in the 12+ hours/day category, say their work is their life, and they like it that way. Isn't it all about what you personally like better? So who am I to judge??
Slashdot Mirror
...if you are referring to the Mickey Mouse issue. Lobbying had very little to do with the ultimate decision, no matter how paranoid a view you take.
The PTO isn't exactly on the ball when it comes to prior art. The anti-patent would help the little guy not get squished by the corporate bastards.
So let's say you invent X. You don't commercialize it heavily, but you're making it here and there, maybe selling it locally. Five years later, someone you've never heard of files a patent on X, finds out you are making X, and sues you for doing so--despite the fact that you'd already invented X, so it is legally "prior art." The burden is now on you to prove it was prior art. In the end, even if you prevail, you are likely to eat your attorneys fees, and have to finance an anti-smear PR campaign to clear your name. At $150+/hour for the attorneys, if X isn't making you rich, trying to retain your right to make it will make you poor...
If you could have filed an anti-patent, there would be a prior record of your invention of X. So if the corporate shmucks try to sue you, you can file a quick motion for summary judgment on the basis that there is an anti-patent on file. That would, at the very least, get you out quickly and cheaply.
Well for starters, you cannot copyright the "II" in Pentium II. It would have to be a trademark issue. You cannot copyright the "II" because it does not constitute a "work" as defined by the copyright code.
Nitpicky? Just the opposite. A copyright is a broad range of rights (including moral rights and rights to copy, destroy, use, prevent others from using, license, make derivative works), whereas a trademark is a much narrowed range of rights (basically limited to excluding others from using the same mark, but only if it would be confusing or devalue your mark--the so-called "dilution" right). Most importantly, copyrights are of limited duration, trademarks are unlimited.
A trademark can last forever, but a copyright expires 50 years after the author does.
I used to work for a state agency (judicial branch), and the entire agency was completely ridiculous about both email and internet access. (No joke, the head of the agency initially did not want us to have email because he thought that meant that people could randomly hack into our Word files and read protected documents.)
Before we were allowed access, we had to sign two or three pages of disclaimers and such stating that we were aware that we "had no reasonable expectation of privacy" in our email or internet usage, and that the agency could peek into it at any time, with or without cause. It also stated that email and internet access were for work only, and had some language stating that minimal or occassional usage for personal reasons was okay.
Yes, the policy sounded insane, and most of us were pissed off. Grudgingly, we signed anyway. (Refusal to sign mean no internet access or email, period.)
To my knowledge there have not been any "issues" involving email or internet usage there (save for a problem with some silly Christmas card program that took up huge amounts of space on the server). The more savvy employees got Yahoo accounts for their personal usage. And for the most part, everyone lived happily ever after.
If a problem did arise, at least the agency feels protected by the lengthy disclaimers. Obnoxious or not, they would hold up in court.
The point is this. If you have an NDA and do not enforce it as to one employee (who made what some consider a major leak) then you create additional problems.
First, other employees may not take the NDA seriously.
Second, if another employee leaks something more important and Apple chooses to go after that employee, they will say "Oh yeah, but you didn't prosecute the other one so you must be going after me because I am a woman/black/gay/whatever else" and end up with a countersuit for selective enforcement and/or discrimination. Which could, theoretically, lead to a declaration that the NDA and/or its enforcement policy, are discriminatory, illegal, etc.
Insane? Perhaps. But that seems to be how things work these days...
For those who do not know, the site on which that article appears, Themestream.com, is one of the "pay per click" sites. Those submitting articles are currently paid ten cents per click. Judging from the general lack of grammar, style, etc. on the site in general, most "authors" don't actually get paid anything. (I posted a few articles to test this theory, as you have to have $20+ in "revenue" before themestream will cut you a check.) Professional writers have, for the most part, avoided themestream like the plague, and there are numerous articles decrying themestream's payment policies on writing websites and the poor newbie freelance-writer-wannabes who are chasing the almighty dime. (A quick google search should get you a dozen, at least.)
Now, as many of you noticed, this particular article was slashdotted. (This makes me curious as to the identity of the "reader" who wrote in about said article.) Anyone care to hazard a guess as to how many dimes that equals?
Perhaps after exiting the cathedral, someone decided an alternate form of prostitution would make a better career...
Hoc ei propinabo!!
("I'll drink to that!!" for those non-Latin-speaking folks.)
I'm sure it would beat the pants off of plowing through Wheelock's. (Agricola, agricolae...)
You have quite a radical view of intellectual property. I would be interested to read any source materials, United States Supreme Court cases, peer-reviewed journal articles, or Berne Convention treaty materials that support your opinion that copyright intellectual property rights are not intended to encourage disclosure, but only to encourage creation. Could you point me to some resources online?
I would also be interested in reading any such materials, including statutes, regarding "Copyright Abuse." I find your assertion concerning "It's immoral, and it's NOT legal defendable" interesting, in light of the cases that appear in the standard copyright law casebooks. If you have could point me to some URLs or printed materials explaining "Copyright Abuse," or perhaps a URL with a legal definition, I'd appreciate it.
"Fair use" is an interesting aspect of copyright law. Interesting because what exactly is "fair use" is hotly debated by judges, artists, and scholars. (I find the moral right against destruction even more interesting, but that's neither here nor there.) The concept, however, has nothing to do with whether copyright law is intended purely to encourage creation, as you assert, or in part to encourage creation and in larger part to encourage disclosure, as all of the standard works on intellectual property laws (domestic and international) and theory would argue.
If "failure" means the office suite is not going to be adopted by a majority of the computer-using public, then you are probably right.
First, it is easy to lose sight of the fact that most people with computers do not know diddle about how to use them. Most law offices, for example, spend beaucoup bucks on shiny machines, and hire some geeks-r-us type company to come in and install software. Most of the senior partners making the decisions still have their secretaries print out all of their email so they can read it, and use dictation equipment to compose letters. They are slow to change, and don't see why anything should change at all, for the most part. They are certainly not going to bother to learn a new piece of software of any variety, office suite or not, unless it is absolutely necessary. (From a somewhat practical standpoint, hours spent on learning new software are not billable.) To get them to use a linux-based OS and office suite, you are going to have to provide a damn good reason to do so, not to mention some pretty brochures and some exceedingly competent support.
Second, if your entire business runs on an MS Office program, it would be incredibly disruptive to jump into using something that cannot guarantee 100% compatibility. Using the law office example again, it would be tres bad if you suddenly can't access any of your forms or client files.
Third, most businesses use other pieces of software that are compatible with the MS Office suite. Until you get any proposed alternate office suite to mesh with those programs, or get those programs to mesh with the OS, you are pretty much screwed. Again using the law office example, there is billing software, legal research software, cite-checking software, and software that makes neat indices for briefs and motions. It will be difficult to convince an office that uses these programs to give up the ability to use them so that they can switch to another OS.
Finally, people in general are freaked out by change, and are used to the way windows looks and runs. Folks will be reluctant to change no matter what.
If you define "failure" as "failure to be accepted and used by a majority of computer users" then yes, it is probably true that any alternate office suite will fail--Microsoft basically engineered it that way.
I am disappointed that so few people seem to have read anything more than "Microsoft Antitrust Lawsuit" and then assume the whole lawsuit is about monopoly power. It is, as you have pointed out, about "anti-competitive things." For example, MS had contracts with hardward manufacturers who used the MS OS stating that MS would be paid based on the number of units shipped from the factory--and NOT the number of units on which an MS OS was actually installed. This effectively blocked any other OS from being installed on machines, as then the manufacturers would have to pay twice (once to MS as per the contract, based on units shipped, and once to the other company).
It is arguable that this particular example probably points out the manufacturers' attorneys, but then again, it is not the manufacturers who had anything to lose. The big losers were the other OS guys and the consumer--neither of which had any leverage to change the situation.
The purpose of copyright, and intellectual property rights in general (save for trade and service marks), is only part to encourage people to create. In theory, those who have a burning desire to create are going to create whether we encourage them or not, and whether or not society rewards them for doing so.
w .html
The other purpose of copyright, and other intellectual property rights (save for trade and service marks), is to encourage people to share their work so that society may benefit from the creations. By assuring the creator that s/he will be able to exploit the creation, economically or otherwise, for a limited period of time, theoretically the law encourages creators to share with society. Society then theoretically benefits from the disclosure of that information (can build on it, secure permission to create derivative works, be inspired to create something entirely new, etc.), and the creator is rewarded for sharing. If you do any research into the Statute of Anne, which was the first copyright statute, you'll find that getting creators to share their work was actually the dominant concern.
As an aside, even if you abandon your work, I believe (but could be wrong) that you are still entitled to the so-called "moral rights" under the Berne Convention. http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/overvie
I agree that the CD prices are a tad high, even taking into account recording costs and promotion. Has anyone considered that in the U.S. we are still paying less for CDs than people pay in other countries? I thought it was bad here until I was in London and the entire bin--not just those from the U.S., but those from the U.K., Europe, and the rest of the world--was "17.99" Can we say ouch???
If this lawsuit is successful, will there be any ramifications for prices on the other side of the pond?
There is a post somewhere asking "what about users with ADDHD?"
Specific conditions aside, there are plenty of us whose brains do not work on the "oh please do not distract me" model. My most productive days are filled with interruptions, email, phone calls, and distractions of every sort. I thrive on the chaos. Call it the MTV attention span, but the more crazy things pour into my office, the more I find myself coming up with good ideas, innovations, etc.
So...that leaves me to wonder if I would spend my first few days figuring out how to use this idea to my advantage...I could check my email every thirty seconds just by staring at the right thing...this could be very, very useful...
Didn't AOL get paid for this? I think I recall reading that they either consulted on the film, or provided equipment, or something...weren't they at least named in the credits?
Short answer: if they were in on it (the film), they have no cause to bitch.
They might also take offense at the chick book.
The information contained in the "What to do when they ask for your Social Security Number" site is not entirely accurate.
For example, the site refers to the IRS having a separate court system. Sure, nearly every federal agency has an administrative court system with administrative law judges (ALJs). The information that is missing is that an ALJ's determination is appealable to a federal district court (and so on up through the regular court system).
In criticizing those who choose to put in obnoxious hours, it's easy to forget that other professionals are often in the same spot. Young attorneys, for example, often start out in positions where they have to bill 40 hours per week. You can only "bill" an hour (or a six minute increment, more accurately) if you've spent that time doing work directly attributable to a client (which doesn't include lunch, coffee breaks, required legal education, strategy meetings, and other assorted stuff you have to do for the firm). Sometimes the partners can cut your hours down if they think they are "unreasonable" (as in "it shouldn't have taken you x to do that"). Of course to bill 40, particularly as a new attorney, you're going to have to put in at least 60, maybe more, and with a relatively small firm, you might get paid as little as $30,000. (No kidding, I've seen the offer.) Factoring in law school loans, it's only a few steps above indentured servitude, with the hope of maybe making partner in seven or eight years. And the newbie attorneys, I might add, aren't getting free snacks and sodas. Definitely not for me.
It all depends on your attitudes about work though. Personally, I'd much prefer to have a life. But many of my friends who work insane hours, including some who are in the 12+ hours/day category, say their work is their life, and they like it that way. Isn't it all about what you personally like better? So who am I to judge??