I wouldn't go so far as to say the Court can't rule on the question here. It's unusual, but the Supreme Court has been known in the past to base a case on an issue other than the one brought to appeal. In the past, this has been done when the Court wants to base its decision on broader grounds than were appealed. If the Court does rule on the question of patentability of software in this case, it would be consistent with occasions in the past when the Court has 'expanded' the question to make a broader policy statement.
It is a generic term now and only a judge that is either mentially retarted or paid by apple to be corrupt would see it any other way.
The term "podcast" is not even close to being generic. The legal test for a trademark to become genericized is very hard to meet. Pick up a trademark law book before saying things that just arn't so.
1) make the fine print bigger, say, newsprint-size.
This is certainly fine.
2) make the fine print easier to understand, say, newspaper-reading-level.
Not so fine. The words in a contract are there because they have precise and known legal meanings. You can't just replace [given phrase here] with [more simple phrase here].
3) go over the fine print with every customer to make sure they understand it.
This is defiantly not ok. Explain what a contract means to a third party? That's the practice of law. Only a lawyer can do that.
Even if the employees were to do this, it doesn't matter. Only what is in the written language of the contract controls, not an oral explanation. It's the parol evidence rule ; oral explanations are usually irrelevant to contract interpretation. Besides, do you really want some high school flunky who is idiotic enough to try to deny service to people over 70 to understand and explain to the customer the finer points of contract language?
First of all, the court does not consider guilt to be proven. Guilt is what a criminal has. This is a civil case. What it means is that the court considers liability proven.
I am going to assume that this was a bifurcated ("two part") trial. There are two phases in a bifurcated trial: liability and damages. A default judgment resolves the issue of liability, the first phase. The issue of damages is the second phase. So yes, it is contestable, as both sides argue how much damages are needed to make the plaintiff whole.
However, if RIAA is entitled to statutory damages (i.e., $ 750 - $150,000 per violation; see 17 USC 504) then that controls the damages phase. Yhere is no need for RIAA to prove anything to get the minimum relief provided for by statute (the number of violations having been decided in the liability phase). If they want to get more then the minimum, they will have to provide some argument as to why more damages are warranted in this case. The damages could also be lowered to $200 per violation if the defendant can prove good faith infringement. However, I do not know enough about the fact in this case to know whether or not the statutory provision applies in this particular case. I (nor probably anyone else) also can not intelligently speculate as to what damages will ultimately be awarded in this particular case.
KernelTrap is running a two part who's who at the 2006 OpenBSD Hackathon. Starting on the 27th and running for a full week, developers get together and concentrate on communication rather than just development. Project leader Theo de Raadt was quoted as saying 'I don't think anybody else does this, developers suspend their lives for a week to focus entirely on just development.'"
You COULD just go look it up. All you had to do was type "17 USC 106" into Google. Seriously.
106 lists the things that the owner of a copyright has the right to do (lists the exclusive rights). 106A additionally adds that if the copyrighted thing is a painting / photgraph (a "work of visual art") then the author can insist that his name be attached to the painting / photograph when copies are made.
107, as I quoted earlier, say that even though you have those exclusive rights, there are exceptions for "fair use." So they arn't all that "exclusive" I guess. Either that, or you can consider it a fraction that the copyright owner doesn't get to have and is reserved to the public from day one.
---
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
17 USC 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
--
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
17 USC 106A - Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-- Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art-- (1) shall have the right-- (A) to claim authorship of that work, and (B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create; (2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and (3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right-- (A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and (B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right. (b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.-- Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work. (c) Exceptions.-- (1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A). (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence. (3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, port
Do you have a case on point? Because I interpret the special mention of it in exactly the opposite manner that you do. I see if as Congress saying, "Hey, it doesn't matter if it published or not; just run through the factors", not saying "Be really careful if it is unpublished and treat it to a higher standard." I do not see it as a modification of factor 2 of the analysis at all.
I have full access to Lexis, so any case will be fine, reported or otherwise.
17 U.S.C. 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
Do I really need to walk Apple through the factors to prove to them that this is fair use? It's pretty damn clear! Ok, fine, I'll do it anyway.
Preamble) Seems to me it qualifies as criticism, comment, and teaching.
1) This isn't commercial. They aren't reselling your manual. This is an "educational purpose." Get over yourselves.
2) It's a technical manual. There are two types of copyrighted works: 1) factual and 2) creative. This is in the first category. That means less protection for you, Apple.
3) It's only one little picture. The amount is minimal.
4) There is no effect. People still have to buy the manual if they want the manual.
Hey, SomethingAwful wins on all four elements! STFU Apple.
I was wondering the same thing, actually. What is his source for these numbers? I am suprised (if it is true) that Suse outranks Redhat in Desktop distributions. But if it is true, I would like to know that.
You don't quite seem to understand how real life works. The issue for the courts is not "is this reasonable", the issue for the courts is "how can I clear my backlog of cases". Well, being able to say "this patent is vaild because the USPTO says so" is a very quick and simple way of getting a case off the table.
The leakier is an employee of a law firm, and the memos were in regards to a client.
I don't understand why everyone here is so quick to say this is an unjust prosecution. People go to their lawyers for legal advice. They are told by their lawyers to tell them everything, because then they can provide the best legal advice. These records are kept secret. It's basic attorney-client privilege. Employees of the lawyer are also bound by this privilege under work-product.
Violating that privilege is BAD. We want people to be able to tell their lawyers everything so that the lawyers can do the best professional job, as they were hired to do. Don't you want the ability to go to a lawyer and have what you tell him stay secret? It's the same as priest-parishioner, husband-wife, or doctor-patient. These are secrets people are allowed to keep, and ANYONE who violates that secret should be prosecuted.
I don't understand the rampant apologists' accusations against the prosecutors on this one.
If the distributor is saying "Hi, I'm an employee of Mozilla and Mozilla is selling these CD's...", then there's confusion about the physical source of the CD.
Which is exactly what a reasonable person could argue that the Mozilla logo on the CD is saying. Would a reasonable consumer believe from seeing the logo that "Mozilla is selling these CD's?" I think so!
"IANAL but I don't think you can go around selling Mozilla-branded items without permission from the Mozilla folks."
This seems to be an accurate view of the law.
Mozilla is a registered trademark in the United States. http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=74698316.I will assume it is in the UK as well for the purposes of this problem. This being the case, Mozilla has both a trademark interest and a copyright interest in their works.
Turning to the Lanham Act, section 32(b) (again, USA law, I assume UK law is similar):
"Any person who shall... reproduce... a registered mark and apply such reproduction... to... packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable...."
While there is no likelihood of confusion as to the actual product (the software), there is likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product. A person seeing a CD labeled "Mozilla Firefox" could be confused into believing that the CD itself was produced by Mozilla and that the source of the physical CD itself is from Mozilla.
There may be a fair use defense under the Lanham Act, section 33(b), particularly 33(b)(9), but even still, Mozilla has a trademark interest and we have to work through the analysis.
Of course, there is also a copyright interest in the software on the CD. But I do believe that the GP post was correct that there is both trademark and copyright interests at stake.
I am not a lawyer. None of this is not legal advice.
I feel the same way most of the time. People on slashdot bitch about patents all the time. Fine, let's compare the growth in the length of term between copyright and patents....
Patent
1474: World's first patent system created in Venice, Itally. 10 Years from filing. 1790: First patent system created in United states. 17 years from issue. 2006: 20 years from filing (this is actually shorter most of the time then 17 years from issue)
Not much growth there... in 500 years. Let's check copyright law.
Copyright
1710: Statute of Anne creates first modern copyright system in the UK. Term is 28 years. 1790: 14 years + 14 renewable, if you were still alive (28 total) 2006: Life + 70 years (150 years, on a good day).
I think you are the one who is confused. The GP is correct that there is no such thing as "intellectual property" law. If you disagree please point out where in the law the term "intellectual property" is ever mentioned. Hint: you won't find it, because it is not a legal term, therefore discussing laws about a made up term is meaningless.
Will three examples be enough?
The "Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999".
"The term 'intellectual property' means--
(A) trade secret;
(B) invention, process, design, or plant protected under title 35;
(C) patent application;
(D) plant variety;
(E) work of authorship protected under title 17; or
(F) mask work protected under chapter 9 of title 17." 11 USC 110, Section 35a
"The term "property" means any property (including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and any other form of intellectual property), whether real, personal, or mixed, and any present, future, or contingent right, security, or other interest therein, including any leasehold interest." 17 U.S.C. 101.
One good arguement I've heard is that the Bill of Rights were added on to explicitly provide for rights that were not clearly stated in the Constitution. All Amendments except the second have been argued by everybody as being individual. So, if nine are individual, then why would the second not be? And, the other nine deal with stemming the excesses of Government against the individual--which is the very issue raised here with the wiretap lawsuit. Wouldn't the private ownership of firearms also serve in that capacity?
Your analysis is flawed because of one key assumption: the bill of rights had ten amendments.
You can see that amendment one (congressional apportionment) and amendment two (congressional pay) don't deal with rights at all, let alone individual rights. In the context of the entire slate of amendments, as passed by the Congress and proposed to the states, your argument is less compelling.
Of course, amendment one and amendment two didn't get ratified right away, so we were left with the ten you now know. And if amendment two looks familiar, good eye; it's now known as amendment 27. It was ratified... only took 203 years!
Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true?
It seems like the interviewer is the one telling the girl what's true and what isn't. "It wasn't true" doesn't sound like a question to me. Although I'm sure the RIAA has done stuff much worse than this.
You are quoting it out of context. Look to the prior question and answer:
Q. -- Jim and yourself had ripped the music off? A. Yes. Q. And that wasn't true, was it? A. Correct. Q. Correct that it wasn't true? A. It wasn't true, yes. Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true? A. Yes.
You can clearly see from the dialogue that the questioning lawyer is merely repeating the answer the witness gave immediately prior.
This is a common speech error among lawyers. Many people when they speak "fill gaps" with "Uh-huh" or "Um" and the like. Many lawyers also use these space fillers. With lawyers, of course, it is Q&A, so one of the most common space fillers is to repeat the prior answer as part of your next question.
Really poor lawyers do this in EVERY QUESTION. It gets annoying quick. But even good lawyers do it from time to time. It's just the way people talk.
There is nothing dirty about this. You might also note from the record that there was another lawyer there, a Mr. Miller, who objects from time to time. He is working for the other side, and would have objected if this was improper (which didn't happen, because it wasn't).
That means the king may turn an upright cup upside down or vice versa up to k times
Up to K times means K or less. Therefore, K is any number. Therefore, the king can do whatever the hell he wants, and the calice provides no information.
Or let's suppose it has to be EXACTLY k times. Either K or zero. Fine. I declare K to be 1.
In this case, if the challice is upside down, the king chooses to flip it K times. If it is rightside up, then the king chooses to flip it zero times. Either way, I can guarantee that the challice is rightside up everytime.
Therefore the challice provides no information, etc, etc, etc.
Obviously, the most devious thing that the king can do is to always make sure the chalice is rightside up. Therefore, it will always be rightside up. Therefore, the chalice can provide no information. Therefore, it is a red-herring.
With all other avenues of gathering information forbidden, there seems no information left to base an answer on.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't go so far as to say the Court can't rule on the question here. It's unusual, but the Supreme Court has been known in the past to base a case on an issue other than the one brought to appeal. In the past, this has been done when the Court wants to base its decision on broader grounds than were appealed. If the Court does rule on the question of patentability of software in this case, it would be consistent with occasions in the past when the Court has 'expanded' the question to make a broader policy statement.
And anyone claiming otherwise is in effect commiting fraud against others.
It's not fraud to cite the controlling case on the issue that says software is patentable . See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group
It is a generic term now and only a judge that is either mentially retarted or paid by apple to be corrupt would see it any other way.
The term "podcast" is not even close to being generic. The legal test for a trademark to become genericized is very hard to meet. Pick up a trademark law book before saying things that just arn't so.
Are you hiring 3Ls?
If so, I would like a job.
1) make the fine print bigger, say, newsprint-size.
This is certainly fine.
2) make the fine print easier to understand, say, newspaper-reading-level.
Not so fine. The words in a contract are there because they have precise and known legal meanings. You can't just replace [given phrase here] with [more simple phrase here].
3) go over the fine print with every customer to make sure they understand it.
This is defiantly not ok. Explain what a contract means to a third party? That's the practice of law. Only a lawyer can do that.
Even if the employees were to do this, it doesn't matter. Only what is in the written language of the contract controls, not an oral explanation. It's the parol evidence rule ; oral explanations are usually irrelevant to contract interpretation. Besides, do you really want some high school flunky who is idiotic enough to try to deny service to people over 70 to understand and explain to the customer the finer points of contract language?
IANAL - This is not legal advice.
Will a law student do?
First of all, the court does not consider guilt to be proven. Guilt is what a criminal has. This is a civil case. What it means is that the court considers liability proven.
I am going to assume that this was a bifurcated ("two part") trial. There are two phases in a bifurcated trial: liability and damages. A default judgment resolves the issue of liability, the first phase. The issue of damages is the second phase. So yes, it is contestable, as both sides argue how much damages are needed to make the plaintiff whole.
However, if RIAA is entitled to statutory damages (i.e., $ 750 - $150,000 per violation; see 17 USC 504) then that controls the damages phase. Yhere is no need for RIAA to prove anything to get the minimum relief provided for by statute (the number of violations having been decided in the liability phase). If they want to get more then the minimum, they will have to provide some argument as to why more damages are warranted in this case. The damages could also be lowered to $200 per violation if the defendant can prove good faith infringement. However, I do not know enough about the fact in this case to know whether or not the statutory provision applies in this particular case. I (nor probably anyone else) also can not intelligently speculate as to what damages will ultimately be awarded in this particular case.
IANAL - This is not legal advice.
KernelTrap is running a two part who's who at the 2006 OpenBSD Hackathon. Starting on the 27th and running for a full week, developers get together and concentrate on communication rather than just development. Project leader Theo de Raadt was quoted as saying 'I don't think anybody else does this, developers suspend their lives for a week to focus entirely on just development.'"
The PTO is on a hiring binge. They are hiring 1,000 new examiners for the next 5 years. That's a lot of examiners :) .
a cklash_to_usp.html
http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/archives/2006/01/b
You COULD just go look it up. All you had to do was type "17 USC 106" into Google. Seriously.
106 lists the things that the owner of a copyright has the right to do (lists the exclusive rights). 106A additionally adds that if the copyrighted thing is a painting / photgraph (a "work of visual art") then the author can insist that his name be attached to the painting / photograph when copies are made.
107, as I quoted earlier, say that even though you have those exclusive rights, there are exceptions for "fair use." So they arn't all that "exclusive" I guess. Either that, or you can consider it a fraction that the copyright owner doesn't get to have and is reserved to the public from day one.
---
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
17 USC 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
--
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
17 USC 106A - Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-- Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art--
(1) shall have the right--
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right--
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.-- Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, port
Do you have a case on point? Because I interpret the special mention of it in exactly the opposite manner that you do. I see if as Congress saying, "Hey, it doesn't matter if it published or not; just run through the factors", not saying "Be really careful if it is unpublished and treat it to a higher standard." I do not see it as a modification of factor 2 of the analysis at all.
I have full access to Lexis, so any case will be fine, reported or otherwise.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
Do I really need to walk Apple through the factors to prove to them that this is fair use? It's pretty damn clear! Ok, fine, I'll do it anyway.
Preamble) Seems to me it qualifies as criticism, comment, and teaching.
1) This isn't commercial. They aren't reselling your manual. This is an "educational purpose." Get over yourselves.
2) It's a technical manual. There are two types of copyrighted works: 1) factual and 2) creative. This is in the first category. That means less protection for you, Apple.
3) It's only one little picture. The amount is minimal.
4) There is no effect. People still have to buy the manual if they want the manual.
Hey, SomethingAwful wins on all four elements! STFU Apple.
*I am not a lawyer. But I can read a statute.
I was wondering the same thing, actually. What is his source for these numbers? I am suprised (if it is true) that Suse outranks Redhat in Desktop distributions. But if it is true, I would like to know that.
You don't quite seem to understand how real life works. The issue for the courts is not "is this reasonable", the issue for the courts is "how can I clear my backlog of cases". Well, being able to say "this patent is vaild because the USPTO says so" is a very quick and simple way of getting a case off the table.
It's more like "Because 35 USC 282 says so."
"A patent shall be presumed valid."
Geez, how many ways can you read that???
The leakier is an employee of a law firm, and the memos were in regards to a client.
I don't understand why everyone here is so quick to say this is an unjust prosecution. People go to their lawyers for legal advice. They are told by their lawyers to tell them everything, because then they can provide the best legal advice. These records are kept secret. It's basic attorney-client privilege. Employees of the lawyer are also bound by this privilege under work-product.
Violating that privilege is BAD. We want people to be able to tell their lawyers everything so that the lawyers can do the best professional job, as they were hired to do. Don't you want the ability to go to a lawyer and have what you tell him stay secret? It's the same as priest-parishioner, husband-wife, or doctor-patient. These are secrets people are allowed to keep, and ANYONE who violates that secret should be prosecuted.
I don't understand the rampant apologists' accusations against the prosecutors on this one.
I am not a lawyer. None of this is legal advice.
If the distributor is saying "Hi, I'm an employee of Mozilla and Mozilla is selling these CD's...", then there's confusion about the physical source of the CD.
Which is exactly what a reasonable person could argue that the Mozilla logo on the CD is saying. Would a reasonable consumer believe from seeing the logo that "Mozilla is selling these CD's?" I think so!
No, I agree with the GrandParent post.
e ntry=74698316 .I will assume it is in the UK as well for the purposes of this problem. This being the case, Mozilla has both a trademark interest and a copyright interest in their works.
... reproduce ... a registered mark and apply such reproduction ... to ... packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive, shall be liable...."
"IANAL but I don't think you can go around selling Mozilla-branded items without permission from the Mozilla folks."
This seems to be an accurate view of the law.
Mozilla is a registered trademark in the United States. http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
Turning to the Lanham Act, section 32(b) (again, USA law, I assume UK law is similar):
"Any person who shall
While there is no likelihood of confusion as to the actual product (the software), there is likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product. A person seeing a CD labeled "Mozilla Firefox" could be confused into believing that the CD itself was produced by Mozilla and that the source of the physical CD itself is from Mozilla.
There may be a fair use defense under the Lanham Act, section 33(b), particularly 33(b)(9), but even still, Mozilla has a trademark interest and we have to work through the analysis.
Of course, there is also a copyright interest in the software on the CD. But I do believe that the GP post was correct that there is both trademark and copyright interests at stake.
I am not a lawyer. None of this is not legal advice.
I feel the same way most of the time. People on slashdot bitch about patents all the time. Fine, let's compare the growth in the length of term between copyright and patents....
Patent
1474: World's first patent system created in Venice, Itally. 10 Years from filing.
1790: First patent system created in United states. 17 years from issue.
2006: 20 years from filing (this is actually shorter most of the time then 17 years from issue)
Not much growth there
Copyright
1710: Statute of Anne creates first modern copyright system in the UK. Term is 28 years.
1790: 14 years + 14 renewable, if you were still alive (28 total)
2006: Life + 70 years (150 years, on a good day).
Yeah....which one is out of wack again?
Will three examples be enough?
The "Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999".
"The term 'intellectual property' means--
(A) trade secret;
(B) invention, process, design, or plant protected under title 35;
(C) patent application;
(D) plant variety;
(E) work of authorship protected under title 17; or
(F) mask work protected under chapter 9 of title 17." 11 USC 110, Section 35a
"The term "property" means any property (including patents, copyrights, trademarks, and any other form of intellectual property), whether real, personal, or mixed, and any present, future, or contingent right, security, or other interest therein, including any leasehold interest." 17 U.S.C. 101.
Your analysis is flawed because of one key assumption: the bill of rights had ten amendments.
Um, not so much, it had twelve.
http://earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/bill
You can see that amendment one (congressional apportionment) and amendment two (congressional pay) don't deal with rights at all, let alone individual rights. In the context of the entire slate of amendments, as passed by the Congress and proposed to the states, your argument is less compelling.
Of course, amendment one and amendment two didn't get ratified right away, so we were left with the ten you now know. And if amendment two looks familiar, good eye; it's now known as amendment 27. It was ratified
It seems like the interviewer is the one telling the girl what's true and what isn't. "It wasn't true" doesn't sound like a question to me. Although I'm sure the RIAA has done stuff much worse than this.
You are quoting it out of context. Look to the prior question and answer:
You can clearly see from the dialogue that the questioning lawyer is merely repeating the answer the witness gave immediately prior.
This is a common speech error among lawyers. Many people when they speak "fill gaps" with "Uh-huh" or "Um" and the like. Many lawyers also use these space fillers. With lawyers, of course, it is Q&A, so one of the most common space fillers is to repeat the prior answer as part of your next question.
Really poor lawyers do this in EVERY QUESTION. It gets annoying quick. But even good lawyers do it from time to time. It's just the way people talk.
There is nothing dirty about this. You might also note from the record that there was another lawyer there, a Mr. Miller, who objects from time to time. He is working for the other side, and would have objected if this was improper (which didn't happen, because it wasn't).
There is no appeal from a conviction of the Senate. It's final. It's a classic political question for which there is no judicial review.
Please see Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993).
No, he can't.
Sure he can. Read your own damn problem.
That means the king may turn an upright cup upside down or vice versa up to k times
Up to K times means K or less. Therefore, K is any number. Therefore, the king can do whatever the hell he wants, and the calice provides no information.
Or let's suppose it has to be EXACTLY k times. Either K or zero. Fine. I declare K to be 1.
In this case, if the challice is upside down, the king chooses to flip it K times. If it is rightside up, then the king chooses to flip it zero times. Either way, I can guarantee that the challice is rightside up everytime.
Therefore the challice provides no information, etc, etc, etc.
It seems that the Chalice is a red-herring.
Obviously, the most devious thing that the king can do is to always make sure the chalice is rightside up. Therefore, it will always be rightside up. Therefore, the chalice can provide no information. Therefore, it is a red-herring.
With all other avenues of gathering information forbidden, there seems no information left to base an answer on.
In that case, can you type up a solution and link it?