one would think that if you dislike him so much you wouldn't continue to spend time talking about it. And I believe complaints about/. should be directed at those who 1) can fix it, and 2) give a shit about your opinion. Note, neither I nor the other posters fit this description, so bitching and whining should be done in email to those who do. I'm breaking my own rule, 'cause it's finally pissed me off, and now *I* get to be the hypocrite.
Shut the fuck up and go away. Katz isn't a 1/10 as annoying as all you bitchers.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT, but your comments about how much it annoys you fuck with the rest of us who still like, at times, to have some intelligent discussion on/.
(sorry for all the idiots, I'd hope you've gotten use to it by now, but stupidity and immaturity can sometimes be difficult to ignore)
Two questions: 1) As a techno-author where do you think we're headed with this whole Internet thing? Give me 20 years down the road, society, commerce, privacy, entertainment, just pick an area and tell me what you think.
2) Given that a number of people here seem to think that they could do your job better than you with no hands, no eyes, and a pen with no ink, what does it take to get where you are? i.e. Where should aspiring writers (in this genre) start, where does the path begin (or where did it for you) and what are the right turns to take?
Thanks, now stop using the phrase "geeks, programmers, and nerds" so much, it gets annoying. I prefer the term "typer" but since I made it up last week not many people are using it...
it's worse than you think. Somehow trolling became the thing to do, and now the new folks think it's the right thing to do. (not that jd's question was a troll, but some of others...you'd just hope these kids had parents to love 'em, 'cause they're not going to get it any place else)
I believe SDMI calls for some of type of bios/flash upgrade to make it so you can't play evil, pirated MP3s...or the ones that you ripped from albums you own. Porty MP3s run some software, I believe.
Thats part of the rub, trying to convice consumers that this is good for them. Most people aren't that stupid.
I don't value my opinion so much that I think it could slow down an industry, but educating your friends and families about the realities of the situation can help to keep media and media companies consumer conscious (vs. the "screw 'em and take their money" attitude that now seems prevalent).
you're on crack if you think the public at large can comprehend more than one type of digital music file. MP3 is here to stay, at least as long as any other dominant format. I listen to tons of MP3s and I've been to MP3.com twice, once right after I heard of it. The RIAA is a bunch of spoiled rich brats, so if they both take a flying leap I couldn't care less and will still be listening to tons on music.
don't count out consumer education. I've already told at least five people that no matter what kind of MP3 player they buy, avoid SDMI ones. We killed DIVX, and the market for most of these players will be people who are already using MP3's and will mostly be aware of what SDMI means. SDMI missed a *huge* deadline by not being on store shelves by Christmas, add to being late to market the fact that they all won't be compliant with each other and you have a dog dead on arrival.
Hopefully consumers will never feel they have to pay more to subsidize initiatives that lower the value of their purchases.
Have you ever played with one of these things? They kick ass. I dunno what happened to the idiot marketing folks (or if there was a lawsuit somewhere) but somehow MD hasn't caught on here. A friend of mine got one for Christmas, totally sweet, blows away my Rio (or any other portable MP3er).
That being said, i think they missed the window in the U.S. That window closes the second someone figures out how to put 128mg+ on a porty MP3 or play straight MP3 cds (6+hours per CD). Too bad, those MD players are sweet.
a few people are prone to "running amok": the drug induces some sort of psychosis causing them to murder anyone they can reach, until subdued.
um, let me see some links. After extensive "field testing", "group research", and just generally knowing a lot of people that smoke, I can guarantee you that the only place you'll see anyone "running amok" on weed/hash or any THC based substance is in the government propaganda film "Reefer Madness" (which you can see here. It is theorized that the stories about people been going crazy on weed have been traced to PCP, which royally fscks with your head and is in another category altogether).
The entire criminalization of reefer is a text book example on using fear tactics/minority demonization as a basis for legislation. ("Who is bringing all this horrible stuff to your clean white kids? The Blacks and Hispanics"). It wouldn't fly today but your grandparents folks sure loved it.
but the impression that I get of the Slashdot party line is "If there is information or computers involved, anybody ought to be able to do anything they damn please."
You look at chaos, see chaos, and are surprised that it doesn't make sense? Remeber 40% of the people here are still in college, and thus posess highly profound points of view that change from day to day. Relax, make your arguments, and don't get frustrated by the hypocritically paradoxical nature of chaos and geeks.
It's all about bandwidth. Phone, radio, TV, VCR, etc. all of these are the same and can be reduced to bits, all you need is the badwidth to deliver it, access it, spread it around. Bandwidth is the blood of the Internet.
"CmdrTaco owes me, because he got an IPO off the backs of his readers, wah wah wah"
huh, what?
--
Personally i'm not a big fan of the "if something goes to shit, leave it" philohophy, esp for things you love/enjoy. I like this site because of its freewheeling independence, but look at how many quickies we've gotten since Andover took over. I was originally intrigued by the quality of the posts here, that, too has fallen off, although quantity, time, and moderation seem to help.
/. doesn't owe me anything other than what I give it, my time, attention, and honest opinions.
In short, the reason Slashdot has "changed" is because the authors interests are changing.
Aren't the authors also changing? I saw something posted by ?HeUnique? the other day. As/. expands and gets aquired repeatedly it seems as if new "editors" or whatever you call them keep getting added. Who gets added after VA takes over?
And you just showed one of the problems about ranting, freudian slips..
I case you haven't noticed there have many things posted here that upper mamagement would rather see posted but what can they do about it?
I'm guessing you meant to put a "not" in there somewhere...
The simple fact is that/. has lost its editorial independence, at least in theory. You said it yourself "Times are changing",/. has moved beyond unbiased story posting. CT even mentioned it in the Andover takeover, paraphrased "We wanted to sell out to a non-Linux company." Too bad Andover didn't have the same sense of independence.
Until I see strong evidence (quite a bit more than AC postings) of problems I won't let it bother me and I'll still reload, if only to add my voice to the cacophony of crap that eventually lead to some decent discourse. But you guys aren't media virgins anymore, you've been around, you have stock options on the compaines you report about, they also pay you monthly.
At the very least we in this country should have learned to be suspicious about where we get our news and how much to trust it. Now I just have to add another level of b.s. detection and hope you guys fight the good fight.
mccain's weak point on campaign finance reform is the mass media lobby. he's been financed heavily by them and has stood by them on every issue. of course, you won't hear about this a lot on TV news...
I still like him better'n GWB, although I'm from Texas. Bush scares me and his Rangers never won the World Series. Then again, having a president that was onced pissed on has it's own bad points.
some excerpts from: U.S. Supreme Court MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. , 243 U.S. 502 (1917) 243 U.S. 502
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSAL FILM MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al. No. 715.
Argued January 12 and 15, 1917. Decided April 9, 1917
It is sufficient description of the patent to say that it covers a part of the mechanism used in motion picture exhibiting machines for feeding a film through the machine with a regular, uniform, and accurate movement, and so as not to expose the film to excessive strain or wear.
To paraphrase, a way to access the film media in a useful way.
The defendants, in a joint answer, do not dispute the title [243 U.S. 502, 506] of the plaintiff to the patent, but they deny the validity of it, deny infringement, and claim an implied license to use the patented machine.
i.e. I thought I could use it because I bought it.
The defendants agreed to some type of EULA that stated: This agreement contains a covenant on the part of the grantee that every machine sold by it, except those for export, shall be sold 'under the restriction and condition that such exhibiting or projecting machine shall be used solely for exhibiting or projecting motion pictures containing the inventions of reissued letters patent No. 12,192, leased by a licensee of the licensor while it owns said patents and upon other terms to be fixed by the licensor and complied with by the user while the said machine is in use and while the licensor owns said patents (which other terms shall only be the payment of a royalty or rental to the licensor while in use).'
And you need it to view movies...
It was admitted at the bar that 40,000 of the plaintiff's machines are now in use in this country, and that the mechanism covered by the patent in suit is the only one with which motion picture films can be used successfully.
And the Questions...
This state of facts presents two questions for decision:
First: May a patentee or his assignee license another to manufacture and sell a patented machine, and by a mere notice attached to it limit its use by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee, to films which are no part of the patented machine, and which are not patented?
which I think means "Can you make a machine based on accessing patented tech and distribute it with a notice (license agreement) to use it only for specific media?"
Second. May the assignee of a patent, which has licensed another to make and sell the machine covered by it, by a mere notice attached to such machine, limit the [243 U.S. 502, 509] use of it by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee to terms not stated in the notice, but which are to be fixed, after sale, by such assignee, in its discretion?
i.e. can you do DIVX, SDMI. And control access by later changing agreed upon rules.
some judge's musings (opps, uh "Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: )
This construction gives to the inventor the exclusive use of just what his inventive genius has discovered. (the patent system)
now an interesting bit
If his discovery is an important one, his reward under such a construction of the law will be large, as experience has abundantly proved; and if it be unimportant, he should not be permitted by legal devices to impose an unjust charge upon the public in return for the use of it.
wow, eh? If something is proven to be useless a patent holder shouldn't use the law to try and profit.
It would serve no good purpose to amplify by argument or illustration this plain meaning of the statute. It is so plain that to argue it would obscure it.
and a really long sentence
The statutory authority to grant the exclusive right to 'use' a patented machine is not greater, indeed, it is precisely the same, as the authority to grant the exclusive right to 'vend,' and, looking to that authority, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we are convinced that the exclusive right granted in every patent must be limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that it is not competent for the owner of a patent, by notice attached to its machine, to, in effect, extend the scope of its patent monopoly by restricting the use of it to materials necessary in its operation, but which are no part of the patented invention, or to send its machines forth into the channels of trade of the country subject to conditions as to use or royalty to be paid, to be imposed thereafter at the discretion of such patent owner.
You can't extend patent protection. i.e. "You need this peice to go with that piece and we control both. Pay up."
The patent law furnishes no warrant for such a practice, and the cost, inconvenience, and annoyance to the public which the opposite conclusion would occasion forbid it.
Man, if I we use "inconvenience, and annoyance to the public."...
I think this next part is called "damning as hell" (hehe) It is argued as a merit of this system of sale under a [243 U.S. 502, 517] license notice that the public is benefited by the sale of the machine at what is practically its cost, and by the fact that the owner of the patent makes its entire profit from the sale of the supplies with which it is operated. This fact, if it be a fact, instead of commending, is the clearest possible condemnation of, the practice adopted, for it proves that, under color of its patent, the owner intends to and does derive its profit, not from the invention on which the law gives it a monopoly, but from the unpatented supplies with which it is used, and which are wholly without the scope of the patent monopoly, thus in effect extending the power to the owner of the patent to fix the price to the public of the unpatented supplies as effectively as he may fix the price on the patented machine.
Use control over the hardware to leverage a higher price for the content, which you also control.
And in conclusion
This notice first provides that the machine, which was sold to and paid for by the Amusement Company, may be used only with moving picture films containing the invention of reissued patent No. 12,192, so long as the plaintiff continues to own this reissued patent.
Such a restriction is invalid because such a film is obviously not any part of the invention of the patent in suit; because it is an attempt, without statutory warrant, to continue the patent monopoly in this particular character of film after it has expired, and because to enforce it would be to create a monopoly in the manufacture and use of moving picture films, wholly outside of the patent in suit and of the patent law as we have interpreted it.
and in black and white
A restriction which would give to the plaintiff such a potential power for evil over an industry which must be recognized as an important element in the amusement life of the nation, under the conclusions we have stated in this opinion, is plainly void, because wholly without the scope and purpose of our patent laws, and because, if sustained, it would be gravely injurious to that public interest, which we have seen is more a favorite of the law than is the promotion of private fortunes.
Both questions as stated must be answered in the negative, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Mr. Justice McReynolds concurs in the result.
There you have it. If we can somehow make this a case of a useless technology (the Decoder/player card) being forced on customers/licensees (useless because it can easily be replaced with simple software) then perhaps there is an arguement. This all seems to be patent law and that's a big proglem (I would assume, since, IANAL, and now I know why, that's some mindbending grammar)
Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting:
I suppose that a patentee has no less property in his patented machine than any other owner, and that, in addition to keeping the machine to himself, the patent gives him the further right to forbid the rest of the world from making others like it. In short, for whatever motive, he may keep his device wholly out of use.
i.e. He thinks it's o.k. to say "It's my ball so you follow my rules (even though I can't play alone) or you can't play. And they're my rules, so don't be thinking you can start your own game either."
Slashdot Mirror
one would think that if you dislike him so much you wouldn't continue to spend time talking about it. And I believe complaints about /. should be directed at those who 1) can fix it, and 2) give a shit about your opinion. Note, neither I nor the other posters fit this description, so bitching and whining should be done in email to those who do. I'm breaking my own rule, 'cause it's finally pissed me off, and now *I* get to be the hypocrite.
Shut the fuck up and go away. Katz isn't a 1/10 as annoying as all you bitchers.
/.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT, but your comments about how much it annoys you fuck with the rest of us who still like, at times, to have some intelligent discussion on
I don't agree if you hadn't noticed.
yep. nice dot.
(sorry for all the idiots, I'd hope you've gotten use to it by now, but stupidity and immaturity can sometimes be difficult to ignore)
Two questions:
1) As a techno-author where do you think we're headed with this whole Internet thing? Give me 20 years down the road, society, commerce, privacy, entertainment, just pick an area and tell me what you think.
2) Given that a number of people here seem to think that they could do your job better than you with no hands, no eyes, and a pen with no ink, what does it take to get where you are? i.e. Where should aspiring writers (in this genre) start, where does the path begin (or where did it for you) and what are the right turns to take?
Thanks, now stop using the phrase "geeks, programmers, and nerds" so much, it gets annoying. I prefer the term "typer" but since I made it up last week not many people are using it...
it's worse than you think. Somehow trolling became the thing to do, and now the new folks think it's the right thing to do. (not that jd's question was a troll, but some of others...you'd just hope these kids had parents to love 'em, 'cause they're not going to get it any place else)
RIAA Attorney: "Do you know what Linux is?"
;-)
Prospective Juror: "Well, it all started in '91..."
RIAA Attorney: "Strike juror #42, and see if you can get that DeCSS shirt for evidence."
(BTW, yes I know Linux has nothing to do with this lawsuit, yet
I believe SDMI calls for some of type of bios/flash upgrade to make it so you can't play evil, pirated MP3s...or the ones that you ripped from albums you own. Porty MP3s run some software, I believe.
Thats part of the rub, trying to convice consumers that this is good for them. Most people aren't that stupid.
I don't value my opinion so much that I think it could slow down an industry, but educating your friends and families about the realities of the situation can help to keep media and media companies consumer conscious (vs. the "screw 'em and take their money" attitude that now seems prevalent).
you're on crack if you think the public at large can comprehend more than one type of digital music file. MP3 is here to stay, at least as long as any other dominant format. I listen to tons of MP3s and I've been to MP3.com twice, once right after I heard of it. The RIAA is a bunch of spoiled rich brats, so if they both take a flying leap I couldn't care less and will still be listening to tons on music.
don't count out consumer education. I've already told at least five people that no matter what kind of MP3 player they buy, avoid SDMI ones. We killed DIVX, and the market for most of these players will be people who are already using MP3's and will mostly be aware of what SDMI means. SDMI missed a *huge* deadline by not being on store shelves by Christmas, add to being late to market the fact that they all won't be compliant with each other and you have a dog dead on arrival.
Hopefully consumers will never feel they have to pay more to subsidize initiatives that lower the value of their purchases.
.
..the band-shes, eh?
are you guys at band camp?
MD is dead, dead, dead.
Have you ever played with one of these things? They kick ass. I dunno what happened to the idiot marketing folks (or if there was a lawsuit somewhere) but somehow MD hasn't caught on here. A friend of mine got one for Christmas, totally sweet, blows away my Rio (or any other portable MP3er).
That being said, i think they missed the window in the U.S. That window closes the second someone figures out how to put 128mg+ on a porty MP3 or play straight MP3 cds (6+hours per CD). Too bad, those MD players are sweet.
this is the second time I've seen *really* shitty biased copy from that guy. Who the hell is he anyway.
a few people are prone to "running amok": the drug induces some sort of psychosis causing them to murder anyone they can reach, until subdued.
um, let me see some links. After extensive "field testing", "group research", and just generally knowing a lot of people that smoke, I can guarantee you that the only place you'll see anyone "running amok" on weed/hash or any THC based substance is in the government propaganda film "Reefer Madness" (which you can see here. It is theorized that the stories about people been going crazy on weed have been traced to PCP, which royally fscks with your head and is in another category altogether).
The entire criminalization of reefer is a text book example on using fear tactics/minority demonization as a basis for legislation. ("Who is bringing all this horrible stuff to your clean white kids? The Blacks and Hispanics"). It wouldn't fly today but your grandparents folks sure loved it.
but the impression that I get of the Slashdot party line is "If there is information or computers involved, anybody ought to be able to do anything they damn please."
You look at chaos, see chaos, and are surprised that it doesn't make sense? Remeber 40% of the people here are still in college, and thus posess highly profound points of view that change from day to day. Relax, make your arguments, and don't get frustrated by the hypocritically paradoxical nature of chaos and geeks.
wow, trolls DO have a lot of time on their hands.
Mix this with that Suckdot piece from a while back and we'd have a new sport...SuckGrits!
When your company can't survive the competitive Windows market..
Shouldn't that be "monopolized" Windows market?
It's all about bandwidth. Phone, radio, TV, VCR, etc. all of these are the same and can be reduced to bits, all you need is the badwidth to deliver it, access it, spread it around. Bandwidth is the blood of the Internet.
"CmdrTaco owes me, because he got an IPO off the backs of his readers, wah wah wah"
huh, what?
--
Personally i'm not a big fan of the "if something goes to shit, leave it" philohophy, esp for things you love/enjoy. I like this site because of its freewheeling independence, but look at how many quickies we've gotten since Andover took over. I was originally intrigued by the quality of the posts here, that, too has fallen off, although quantity, time, and moderation seem to help.
/. doesn't owe me anything other than what I give it, my time, attention, and honest opinions.
MySQL may not handle large databases as well,
define "large" for me.
In short, the reason Slashdot has "changed" is because the authors interests are changing.
/. expands and gets aquired repeatedly it seems as if new "editors" or whatever you call them keep getting added. Who gets added after VA takes over?
/. has lost its editorial independence, at least in theory. You said it yourself "Times are changing", /. has moved beyond unbiased story posting. CT even mentioned it in the Andover takeover, paraphrased "We wanted to sell out to a non-Linux company." Too bad Andover didn't have the same sense of independence.
Aren't the authors also changing? I saw something posted by ?HeUnique? the other day. As
And you just showed one of the problems about ranting, freudian slips..
I case you haven't noticed there have many things posted here that upper mamagement would rather see posted but what can they do about it?
I'm guessing you meant to put a "not" in there somewhere...
The simple fact is that
Until I see strong evidence (quite a bit more than AC postings) of problems I won't let it bother me and I'll still reload, if only to add my voice to the cacophony of crap that eventually lead to some decent discourse. But you guys aren't media virgins anymore, you've been around, you have stock options on the compaines you report about, they also pay you monthly.
At the very least we in this country should have learned to be suspicious about where we get our news and how much to trust it. Now I just have to add another level of b.s. detection and hope you guys fight the good fight.
mccain's weak point on campaign finance reform is the mass media lobby. he's been financed heavily by them and has stood by them on every issue. of course, you won't hear about this a lot on TV news...
I still like him better'n GWB, although I'm from Texas. Bush scares me and his Rangers never won the World Series. Then again, having a president that was onced pissed on has it's own bad points.
some excerpts from:
U.S. Supreme Court
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS CO. v. UNIVERSAL FILM MFG. CO. , 243 U.S. 502 (1917)
243 U.S. 502
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
UNIVERSAL FILM MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al.
No. 715.
Argued January 12 and 15, 1917.
Decided April 9, 1917
It is sufficient description of the patent to say that it covers a part of the mechanism used in motion picture exhibiting machines for feeding a film through the machine with a regular, uniform, and accurate movement, and so as not to expose the film to excessive strain or wear.
To paraphrase, a way to access the film media in a useful way.
The defendants, in a joint answer, do not dispute the title [243 U.S. 502, 506] of the plaintiff to the patent, but they deny the validity of it, deny infringement, and claim an implied license to use the patented machine.
i.e. I thought I could use it because I bought it.
The defendants agreed to some type of EULA that stated:
This agreement contains a covenant on the part of the grantee that every machine sold by it, except those for export, shall be sold 'under the restriction and condition that such exhibiting or projecting machine shall be used solely for exhibiting or projecting motion pictures containing the inventions of reissued letters patent No. 12,192, leased by a licensee of the licensor while it owns said patents and upon other terms to be fixed by the licensor and complied with by the user while the said machine is in use and while the licensor owns said patents (which other terms shall only be the payment of a royalty or rental to the licensor while in use).'
And you need it to view movies...
It was admitted at the bar that 40,000 of the plaintiff's machines are now in use in this country, and that the mechanism covered by the patent in suit is the only one with which motion picture films can be used successfully.
And the Questions...
This state of facts presents two questions for decision:
First: May a patentee or his assignee license another to manufacture and sell a patented machine, and by a mere notice attached to it limit its use by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee, to films which are no part of the patented machine, and which are not patented?
which I think means "Can you make a machine based on accessing patented tech and distribute it with a notice (license agreement) to use it only for specific media?"
Second. May the assignee of a patent, which has licensed another to make and sell the machine covered by it, by a mere notice attached to such machine, limit the [243 U.S. 502, 509] use of it by the purchaser or by the purchaser's lessee to terms not stated in the notice, but which are to be fixed, after sale, by such assignee, in its discretion?
i.e. can you do DIVX, SDMI. And control access by later changing agreed upon rules.
some judge's musings (opps, uh "Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the opinion of the court: )
This construction gives to the inventor the exclusive use of just what his inventive genius has discovered. (the patent system)
now an interesting bit
If his discovery is an important one, his reward under such a construction of the law will be large, as experience has abundantly proved; and if it be unimportant, he should not be permitted by legal devices to impose an unjust charge upon the public in return for the use of it.
wow, eh? If something is proven to be useless a patent holder shouldn't use the law to try and profit.
It would serve no good purpose to amplify by argument or illustration this plain meaning of the statute. It is so plain that to argue it would obscure it.
and a really long sentence
The statutory authority to grant the exclusive right to 'use' a patented machine is not greater, indeed, it is precisely the same, as the authority to grant the exclusive right to 'vend,' and, looking to that authority, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we are convinced that the exclusive right granted in every patent must be limited to the invention described in the claims of the patent, and that it is not competent for the owner of a patent, by notice attached to its machine, to, in effect, extend the scope of its patent monopoly by restricting the use of it to materials necessary in its operation, but which are no part of the patented invention, or to send its machines forth into the channels of trade of the country subject to conditions as to use or royalty to be paid, to be imposed thereafter at the discretion of such patent owner.
You can't extend patent protection. i.e. "You need this peice to go with that piece and we control both. Pay up."
The patent law furnishes no warrant for such a practice, and the cost, inconvenience, and annoyance to the public which the opposite conclusion would occasion forbid it.
Man, if I we use "inconvenience, and annoyance to the public."...
I think this next part is called "damning as hell" (hehe)
It is argued as a merit of this system of sale under a [243 U.S. 502, 517] license notice that the public is benefited by the sale of the machine at what is practically its cost, and by the fact that the owner of the patent makes its entire profit from the sale of the supplies with which it is operated. This fact, if it be a fact, instead of commending, is the clearest possible condemnation of, the practice adopted, for it proves that, under color of its patent, the owner intends to and does derive its profit, not from the invention on which the law gives it a monopoly, but from the unpatented supplies with which it is used, and which are wholly without the scope of the patent monopoly, thus in effect extending the power to the owner of the patent to fix the price to the public of the unpatented supplies as effectively as he may fix the price on the patented machine.
Use control over the hardware to leverage a higher price for the content, which you also control.
And in conclusion
This notice first provides that the machine, which was sold to and paid for by the Amusement Company, may be used only with moving picture films containing the invention of reissued patent No. 12,192, so long as the plaintiff continues to own this reissued patent.
Such a restriction is invalid because such a film is obviously not any part of the invention of the patent in suit; because it is an attempt, without statutory warrant, to continue the patent monopoly in this particular character of film after it has expired, and because to enforce it would be to create a monopoly in the manufacture and use of moving picture films, wholly outside of the patent in suit and of the patent law as we have interpreted it.
and in black and white
A restriction which would give to the plaintiff such a potential power for evil over an industry which must be recognized as an important element in the amusement life of the nation, under the conclusions we have stated in this opinion, is plainly void, because wholly without the scope and purpose of our patent laws, and because, if sustained, it would be gravely injurious to that public interest, which we have seen is more a favorite of the law than is the promotion of private fortunes.
Both questions as stated must be answered in the negative, and the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Mr. Justice McReynolds concurs in the result.
There you have it. If we can somehow make this a case of a useless technology (the Decoder/player card) being forced on customers/licensees (useless because it can easily be replaced with simple software) then perhaps there is an arguement. This all seems to be patent law and that's a big proglem (I would assume, since, IANAL, and now I know why, that's some mindbending grammar)
Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting:
I suppose that a patentee has no less property in his patented machine than any other owner, and that, in addition to keeping the machine to himself, the patent gives him the further right to forbid the rest of the world from making others like it. In short, for whatever motive, he may keep his device wholly out of use.
i.e. He thinks it's o.k. to say "It's my ball so you follow my rules (even though I can't play alone) or you can't play. And they're my rules, so don't be thinking you can start your own game either."
Read it yourself for your own interpretation.
Yea, people forget how powerful a drug caffiene is, not to mention nicotine and alchohol. Hypocrisy means never having to say you're sorry.