There is no such thing as a "perfect system." Your very existence as a member of the human race is your participation in an imperfect system. If the system were perfect, we would not have the social problems that plague us.
MY participation in the system ALWAYS works to try to make the system better whenever possible.
Yes, so long as all the steps or "elements" of a valid claim of the patent are contained in the implementation. Clean room techniques do not protect against patent infringement - only designing around the claim can do that.
I am a patent lawyer (in the US) who specializes in computer software (Stand down flamers and read on - you might learn something).
A patent provides the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the invention listed in the claims section of the patent. Generally, claims are drafted so that theyy encompass functions - HOW the software works. The goal of claim drafting is to describe the invention broadly enogh to get the most possible coverage, but not so broadly as to describe prior art.
It is possible for the same claim to cover several (or many) different implementations. Take for example an automotive rearview mirror. If my claim says the following:
I claim a mirror for use in an automobile, the mirror being generally rectangular in shape and mounted in a central position at the top of an automobile windshield.
then everyone knows that if they make a generally rectangular mirror and mount it in the position decribed, they infringe. BUT - if someone makes a ROUND mirror and/or mounts it on the car door (side view mirror), they do NOT infringe.
With software, if you describe functionality that no one has done before, you can get the exclusive right to implement that functionality in your patent. You MUST disclose the BEST WAY KNOWN TO YOU AT THE TIME YOU FILE YOUR APPLICATION of achieving that functionality. There is no way to claim the implementation you disclose as a trade secret.
HOWEVER - let's say that after your patent issues, you develop a new implementation that still performs the same function. You have patent protection for the function itself. You ALSO have the right to protect the NEW implementation (not disclosed in the patent) as a trade secret.
I am not going to argue the policy of whether this is a good or bad thing. I am just here to tell you that this is the current state of the law in the United States. Save your flames for the SCO threads please.
You couldn't be more wrong. An employee at ANY level who is faced with signing an agreement like the one described needs a lawyer. ESPECIALLY in this situation when the company is laying the groundwork to claim that a valuable invention developed on the employee's own time, with his own resources, and completely divorced from the company's business lines belongs to the company.
The language described is clearly overreaching by the employer, and I'll bet good money that the employer knows it. However, in my experience, if the employee goes into a meeting suggesting reasonable changes that are grounded by sound reasoning and policy considerations (obtained by the lawyer he hired), the company will probably accept those changes without much discussion. I'd even bet further that the company's managers know which language/modifications the company will accept without having to have those changes submitted to the company's lawyers.
I've been playing guitar longer than I haven't, but haven't delved into using my Mac with my guitar - until today. Yes, I was sucked into Steve Jobs's Reality Distortion Zone when I watched the Macworld keynote address and thought GarageBand looked too cool to not have. I'm glad I paid my $49 for it - GB rocks.
I'm sure it is not sophisticated enough for most musicians who are used to editing/composing with computer assistance, but for me, GB is just right. The interface is clean and understandable and the samples are of very good quality. I'm even impressed with the quality of the software guitar amplifiers.
Just when I thought I couldn't have any more fun with my PowerBook, GB proves me wrong. I like being wrong like this.
No, even THEY don't. As I said in another place, all that Linux developers NEED to know (as quickly as possible, preferably) is what code has to be replaced (if any). Then, that code will be replaced by code of known origin and SCO will have no further claims on Linux.
Except, to date, SCO's actions have been one of trying to *avoid* the primary method of remediation for this type of proceeding (namely, the removal of the infringing code from the Linux kernel source).
Possibly, but in the end, I cannot see how SCO can ultimately avoid this. Ultimately, this could be a good thing for Linux. Think of it as a "trial by fire." If SCO prevails, there WILL be an identification of source code in the Linux kernel that is affected. Then, those portions will be removed and replaced with code of known origin to which SCO cannot possibly lay claim.
...the effective thing to do would have been to quietly contact key people, get it removed due to confidential IP violations accepted by the lead Linux guys, and live happily ever after.
As I understand things, SCO tried that initially through IBM (remember - SCO has an agreement with IBM) and IBM took the position that SCO nothing to complain about. Next step - (no pun intended) - off to Court.
If in the Linux kernel, the code is ALREADY disclosed to the world. Trade secrets in the code have already gone bye bye.
Yes, and no. Some code is disclosed to the world. However, you don't automatically lose legal protection of trade secrets because your secret becomes public. You have to have failed in some way to take reasonable steps to keep your secret from becoming known. That is why all the efforts are going on to track code portions back to SCO / Caldera or a third party - to show that anything in the source code isn't a trade secret SCO can protect.
If you want to play the game, you can. Do what Red Hat is doing. Based upon SCO's statements and threats, file a federal lawsuit against it for a declaratory judgment that none of your code infringes on SCO's rights.
As for my comment that you don't need to see the code, it was not meant as "paternalistic" - it was meant merely as an observation that a judge's decision to keep certain information in the lawsuit confidential was not the death knell for a resolution that vindicates the position of the open source community.
Good point, but one that is able to be addressed. IF the Court determines that SCO's claims have merit, part of the final order will be for IBM to cause the removal of the offending code. At that point, everyone will know what code is affected, but you still may not see SCO's code.
This type of thing is a standard occurrence in lawsuits dealing with matters alleged to be confidential or trade secret. Before you go flaming away on me, read to the end of this post, please, and I'll explain why you don't need to know what SCO's code says.
In lawsuits in federal district courts (and most state courts as well), the rules of discovery provide that opposing parties can get the other side to produce any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1). This means that litigants have some leeway. They are not limited to asking for evidence that is admissible in court but rather can get ANY information that would LEAD to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, litigants do not get free, unfettered access to each others' files, but can go on limited "fishing expeditions" so long as they can show that they have some reasonable expectation of finding fish where they are fishing.
That said, assume (as the judge must at this stage of the litigation) that SCO actually does have some trade secret or confidentiality interests to protect in its source code. That secret or confidential status would be forever lost if disclosed to the world. SCO should not lose any valid rights it has simply because it sued to enforce those rights. (Take it easy flamers - we're making assumptions here still - keep reading!).
Obviously there are tensions among the right of a party to get information from an adversary to defend itself, the right of an opposing party to protect its trade secrets or confidential information, and the public's right to have judicial proceedings in the open. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure balance these interests in Rule 26(c) which proivides for protective orders. Such orders are issued to keep confidential information from becoming public. There are several features which ensure that the use of such orders is not too problematic:
The material produced under such an order must still be produced to the other side (and potentially the court if the litigation goes that far. In this case, I think everyone agrees that IBM has a substantial interest in gettin gthe information to defend itself. I also think most Slashdot readers would agree that in this case, IBM's interests are closely aligned with those of the Open Source community.
The information claimed to be confidential must actually be confidential. That means that information which is not truly confidential cannot be made confidential because a party produces the information under the terms of a protective order.
The judge is free to reveal anything he determines is not confidential. A protective order is called an interlocutory order, meaning that it is one of those types of orders issued to keep the suit moving forward and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Basically, it is the way the Court manages litigation. Because these orders do not (usually) determine the rights of parties, the judge is free to modify or revoke those orders at any time.
Now for all those who want desperately to see SCO's source code, I ask this: WHY do you want to see it so badly? If you enjoy reading source so much that you just HAVE to see SCO's code, then I suggest you sign SCO's nondisclosure and get it. If however, you want to do your own comparison to Linux code, then I submit that the community as a whole has no need to see what SCO has. IBM will adequately protect the community becuse its interests are so closely aligned with those of the community. If your burning desire to do a comparison is to prove that SCO's claims have no merit, again, IBM will do this job just fine. Sit back, be patient, and trust that IBM will defend itself (and the community) vigorously.
You're missing the point - this isn't someone trying to educate themselves in the law (I proposition I am ALL FOR - attend one of my FREE talks on Intellectual Property for Computer Scientists if you don't believe me). Thisw is about someone who apparently does not have any legal training making accusations that crimes have been committed.
When people with no legal education give legal opinions, they are spreading FUD. Plain and simple.
Oh by the way - if you are a non-lawyer, you are subject to one restriction that I am NOT -- YOU may be prosecuted for practicing law without a license if you give legal advice to someone. I have my license. I have 3, in fact...
Run Windows on your Mac with SoftWindows (Classic / OS 9 environment) or Virtual PC (OS X). Inelegant, and I HATE having Windows, but I have it because of work requirements. It works.
I'd LOVE to know the legal theory behind this one. Patent? Sorry - exhaustion doctrine. You have no further rights after you sell the patented item. Copyright? First sale / fair use / noncopyrightable material all come to mind. Trade secret? Sorry - you haven't kept anything secret.
From the description, it sounds like a sale to me - not any kind of licensing transaction. Last time I checked, when you bought something, you owned it. When you own it, you are free to do anything you want - including lend it to friends.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes this clearly illegal . . ..
Ummm, no it doesn't. Should AOL be doing this? HELL NO. If AOL did it to MY system, I can guarantee I would be filing a lawswuit. But it would be a CIVIL suit, not a criminal action.
Why you ask? Because criminal statutes are drafted very carefully and interpreted narrowly. The reason for that is that it is a basic legal principle that people should have adequate notice of what is a crime and what is not.
Now before I get flamed by everyone who has heard the saying, "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse," let me tell you that "notice" of the law is provided by publishing the law so it is publically available.
Without going into gory detail, I can tell you that the statute cited in the post, 18 U.S.C. 1030, is not violated if all AOL is doing is shutting off Windows Messenger. Is it right? No. Is it a crime? No, because all the requirements for it to be a crime ("elements" of the crime) are not met. At least I don't see any evidence that would support it. Specifically, on first glance, I don't see any of the following that would be necessary to sustain a conviction under some subsection of the act:
Obtaining information from the computer that the United States has determined needs to be protected (or some other information that can be broadly categorized as potentially harmful to the interests of the country);
Obtaining financial information or credit reports;
Obtains anything of value...
The list goes on, but you get the point. What you SHOULD be asking is why the FBI is not prosecuting SPAMMERS under this act. There are sections that would cover some types of spamming activities.
One last rant -- if you aren't a lawyer, don't give opinions about what is and is not a crime. You can be sued for defamation (libel, slander) for accusing someone of a crime. You wouldn't get advice on how to code from someone who knows nothing about computers. Don't take legal advice from non-lawyers.
I agree with you, although I am not sure whether the term "spyware" was created to describe Gator. I am fairly confident in my opinion that Gator's software fits the definition of "spyware" as I understand it.
It [the term "spyware"] was coined to describe a product, and now that product wants to be disassociated with it.
A very astute observation (assuming the premise that "spyware" was coined to describe Gator is true).
In an effort to improve its corporate reputation, adware company Gator has launched a legal offensive to divorce its name from the hated term "spyware"--and so far its strategy is paying off.
Ok - the basis for my opinion:
Gator's lawsuit is based on libel law. For a statement to be libelous, generally, it must meet the following requirements:
Contain an statement of fact;
Such statement of fact must be false;
Such false statement of fact must be published (that is, transmitted to a party other than the speaker of the statement or the subject of the statement) in a fixed medium;
Such statement must be intended to cause damage to the subject; and
Such statement must actually cause damage.
Now, defenses to libel include:
Truth; and
Opinion.
Allegedly libelous statements are not actionable if they are mere statements of opinion. Statements that cause damage (no matter how much damage!) are not actionable if the statement is true. Now here's the sleazy part: Gator is taking it upon itself to provide a definition of "spyware," claiming its software does not meet that definition, and suing for libel. Implicit in the the claim is that the statement that Gator software is "spyware" is the claim that the label "spyware" is false because it does not meet the definition of the term that Gator provided.
Did you catch that? Your statement is false because it does not match the definition of the term that Gator likes. Never mind the possibility that the term was coined by others and may have a meaning that matches what the software actually does. Gator does not like the way a negative term is being applied to its software so it will try to change the definition of the term.
This tactic is often used in advertising. Perfect example is when telephone companies claim their rates are lower than rates of a competitor and in the fine print you find out that their definition of a competitor's rate is the rate that competitor charges at the crack of noon on the highest call volume day of the year to a point exactly opposite you on the planet with the CEO of the company personally connecting the call for you. I know my example exaggerates (maybe not that much!) but what the hell, it's an example.
Whether or not the law warrants this type of suit, I personally think it is a sleazy business tactic to try to improve your company's image by using lawsuits to silence critics. There are laws (anti-SLAPP laws - SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) that are designed to let judges throw out libel suits designed to silence critics.
Last time I checked, the commonly accepted definition of "spyware" fit the Gator program perfectly. I understand it to be software that collects information about you (with or without your permission) in the background. If Gator doesn't like the way it's products are labeled or perceived, I think it should advertise or maybe change its business model, but definitely not sue to silence critics expressing their opinions.
On one level it doesn't matter why they are pushing the standard - the crucial thing is that whatever the reason for pushing it, that reason was viewed by the Gov't as sufficient to justify putting its weight behind the effort. Now the DMCA is now a potential further impediment to achieving the goal of having HDTV in place.
Yes, unintended. The Gov't has been pushing HARD for nearly a decade now to have HDTV be the standard and ubiquitous in the US. They would not have intentionally done anything to undermine that effort.
YAUCOTDMCA == Yet Another Unintended Consequence Of The Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
In light of precedent from the US Supreme Court in the VCR/Home Taping cases, this action would seem to trample upon the fair use rights of viewers to time shift recordings. However, that lovely piece of legislation affectionately known as the DMCA now provides an argument that Congress has legislately overruled SCOTUS precedent on fair use when it comes to digital content. Although I haven't checked the legislative history, I'm sure that Congress never dreamed the DMCA would hinder something like the adoption of HDTV.
You gotta just LOVE when Congress passes laws without sufficient debate or input from all potential affected parties.
Slashdot Mirror
MY participation in the system ALWAYS works to try to make the system better whenever possible.
A patent provides the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the invention listed in the claims section of the patent. Generally, claims are drafted so that theyy encompass functions - HOW the software works. The goal of claim drafting is to describe the invention broadly enogh to get the most possible coverage, but not so broadly as to describe prior art.
It is possible for the same claim to cover several (or many) different implementations. Take for example an automotive rearview mirror. If my claim says the following:
I claim a mirror for use in an automobile, the mirror being generally rectangular in shape and mounted in a central position at the top of an automobile windshield.
then everyone knows that if they make a generally rectangular mirror and mount it in the position decribed, they infringe. BUT - if someone makes a ROUND mirror and/or mounts it on the car door (side view mirror), they do NOT infringe.
With software, if you describe functionality that no one has done before, you can get the exclusive right to implement that functionality in your patent. You MUST disclose the BEST WAY KNOWN TO YOU AT THE TIME YOU FILE YOUR APPLICATION of achieving that functionality. There is no way to claim the implementation you disclose as a trade secret.
HOWEVER - let's say that after your patent issues, you develop a new implementation that still performs the same function. You have patent protection for the function itself. You ALSO have the right to protect the NEW implementation (not disclosed in the patent) as a trade secret.
I am not going to argue the policy of whether this is a good or bad thing. I am just here to tell you that this is the current state of the law in the United States. Save your flames for the SCO threads please.
The language described is clearly overreaching by the employer, and I'll bet good money that the employer knows it. However, in my experience, if the employee goes into a meeting suggesting reasonable changes that are grounded by sound reasoning and policy considerations (obtained by the lawyer he hired), the company will probably accept those changes without much discussion. I'd even bet further that the company's managers know which language/modifications the company will accept without having to have those changes submitted to the company's lawyers.
I'm sure it is not sophisticated enough for most musicians who are used to editing/composing with computer assistance, but for me, GB is just right. The interface is clean and understandable and the samples are of very good quality. I'm even impressed with the quality of the software guitar amplifiers.
Just when I thought I couldn't have any more fun with my PowerBook, GB proves me wrong. I like being wrong like this.
No, even THEY don't. As I said in another place, all that Linux developers NEED to know (as quickly as possible, preferably) is what code has to be replaced (if any). Then, that code will be replaced by code of known origin and SCO will have no further claims on Linux.
Possibly, but in the end, I cannot see how SCO can ultimately avoid this. Ultimately, this could be a good thing for Linux. Think of it as a "trial by fire." If SCO prevails, there WILL be an identification of source code in the Linux kernel that is affected. Then, those portions will be removed and replaced with code of known origin to which SCO cannot possibly lay claim.
True, the IBM case is not a copyright case, but it involves the same kinds of factual inquiries necessary to evaluate copyright claims as well.
As I understand things, SCO tried that initially through IBM (remember - SCO has an agreement with IBM) and IBM took the position that SCO nothing to complain about. Next step - (no pun intended) - off to Court.
If in the Linux kernel, the code is ALREADY disclosed to the world. Trade secrets in the code have already gone bye bye.
Yes, and no. Some code is disclosed to the world. However, you don't automatically lose legal protection of trade secrets because your secret becomes public. You have to have failed in some way to take reasonable steps to keep your secret from becoming known. That is why all the efforts are going on to track code portions back to SCO / Caldera or a third party - to show that anything in the source code isn't a trade secret SCO can protect.
As for my comment that you don't need to see the code, it was not meant as "paternalistic" - it was meant merely as an observation that a judge's decision to keep certain information in the lawsuit confidential was not the death knell for a resolution that vindicates the position of the open source community.
Good point, but one that is able to be addressed. IF the Court determines that SCO's claims have merit, part of the final order will be for IBM to cause the removal of the offending code. At that point, everyone will know what code is affected, but you still may not see SCO's code.
In lawsuits in federal district courts (and most state courts as well), the rules of discovery provide that opposing parties can get the other side to produce any information that is "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible evidence." Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1). This means that litigants have some leeway. They are not limited to asking for evidence that is admissible in court but rather can get ANY information that would LEAD to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, litigants do not get free, unfettered access to each others' files, but can go on limited "fishing expeditions" so long as they can show that they have some reasonable expectation of finding fish where they are fishing.
That said, assume (as the judge must at this stage of the litigation) that SCO actually does have some trade secret or confidentiality interests to protect in its source code. That secret or confidential status would be forever lost if disclosed to the world. SCO should not lose any valid rights it has simply because it sued to enforce those rights. (Take it easy flamers - we're making assumptions here still - keep reading!).
Obviously there are tensions among the right of a party to get information from an adversary to defend itself, the right of an opposing party to protect its trade secrets or confidential information, and the public's right to have judicial proceedings in the open. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure balance these interests in Rule 26(c) which proivides for protective orders. Such orders are issued to keep confidential information from becoming public. There are several features which ensure that the use of such orders is not too problematic:
-
The material produced under such an order must still be produced to the other side (and potentially the court if the litigation goes that far. In this case, I think everyone agrees that IBM has a substantial interest in gettin gthe information to defend itself. I also think most Slashdot readers would agree that in this case, IBM's interests are closely aligned with those of the Open Source community.
- The information claimed to be confidential must actually be confidential. That means that information which is not truly confidential cannot be made confidential because a party produces the information under the terms of a protective order.
-
The judge is free to reveal anything he determines is not confidential. A protective order is called an interlocutory order, meaning that it is one of those types of orders issued to keep the suit moving forward and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Basically, it is the way the Court manages litigation. Because these orders do not (usually) determine the rights of parties, the judge is free to modify or revoke those orders at any time.
Now for all those who want desperately to see SCO's source code, I ask this: WHY do you want to see it so badly? If you enjoy reading source so much that you just HAVE to see SCO's code, then I suggest you sign SCO's nondisclosure and get it. If however, you want to do your own comparison to Linux code, then I submit that the community as a whole has no need to see what SCO has. IBM will adequately protect the community becuse its interests are so closely aligned with those of the community. If your burning desire to do a comparison is to prove that SCO's claims have no merit, again, IBM will do this job just fine. Sit back, be patient, and trust that IBM will defend itself (and the community) vigorously.I have no idea if it is still available, or how because the site seems to be somewhat abandoned lately.
When people with no legal education give legal opinions, they are spreading FUD. Plain and simple.
Oh by the way - if you are a non-lawyer, you are subject to one restriction that I am NOT -- YOU may be prosecuted for practicing law without a license if you give legal advice to someone. I have my license. I have 3, in fact...
Run Windows on your Mac with SoftWindows (Classic / OS 9 environment) or Virtual PC (OS X). Inelegant, and I HATE having Windows, but I have it because of work requirements. It works.
I'd LOVE to know the legal theory behind this one. Patent? Sorry - exhaustion doctrine. You have no further rights after you sell the patented item. Copyright? First sale / fair use / noncopyrightable material all come to mind. Trade secret? Sorry - you haven't kept anything secret.
From the description, it sounds like a sale to me - not any kind of licensing transaction. Last time I checked, when you bought something, you owned it. When you own it, you are free to do anything you want - including lend it to friends.
Ummm, no it doesn't. Should AOL be doing this? HELL NO. If AOL did it to MY system, I can guarantee I would be filing a lawswuit. But it would be a CIVIL suit, not a criminal action.
Why you ask? Because criminal statutes are drafted very carefully and interpreted narrowly. The reason for that is that it is a basic legal principle that people should have adequate notice of what is a crime and what is not.
Now before I get flamed by everyone who has heard the saying, "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse," let me tell you that "notice" of the law is provided by publishing the law so it is publically available.
Without going into gory detail, I can tell you that the statute cited in the post, 18 U.S.C. 1030, is not violated if all AOL is doing is shutting off Windows Messenger. Is it right? No. Is it a crime? No, because all the requirements for it to be a crime ("elements" of the crime) are not met. At least I don't see any evidence that would support it. Specifically, on first glance, I don't see any of the following that would be necessary to sustain a conviction under some subsection of the act:
- Obtaining information from the computer that the United States has determined needs to be protected (or some other information that can be broadly categorized as potentially harmful to the interests of the country);
- Obtaining financial information or credit reports;
- Obtains anything of value...
The list goes on, but you get the point. What you SHOULD be asking is why the FBI is not prosecuting SPAMMERS under this act. There are sections that would cover some types of spamming activities.One last rant -- if you aren't a lawyer, don't give opinions about what is and is not a crime. You can be sued for defamation (libel, slander) for accusing someone of a crime. You wouldn't get advice on how to code from someone who knows nothing about computers. Don't take legal advice from non-lawyers.
It [the term "spyware"] was coined to describe a product, and now that product wants to be disassociated with it.
A very astute observation (assuming the premise that "spyware" was coined to describe Gator is true).
I agree. Care to provide me with your address so I can send a bill? (Just kidding, of course. This one is a freebie.)
In an effort to improve its corporate reputation, adware company Gator has launched a legal offensive to divorce its name from the hated term "spyware"--and so far its strategy is paying off.
Ok - the basis for my opinion:
Gator's lawsuit is based on libel law. For a statement to be libelous, generally, it must meet the following requirements:
Now, defenses to libel include:
- Truth; and
- Opinion.
Allegedly libelous statements are not actionable if they are mere statements of opinion. Statements that cause damage (no matter how much damage!) are not actionable if the statement is true. Now here's the sleazy part: Gator is taking it upon itself to provide a definition of "spyware," claiming its software does not meet that definition, and suing for libel. Implicit in the the claim is that the statement that Gator software is "spyware" is the claim that the label "spyware" is false because it does not meet the definition of the term that Gator provided.Did you catch that? Your statement is false because it does not match the definition of the term that Gator likes. Never mind the possibility that the term was coined by others and may have a meaning that matches what the software actually does. Gator does not like the way a negative term is being applied to its software so it will try to change the definition of the term.
This tactic is often used in advertising. Perfect example is when telephone companies claim their rates are lower than rates of a competitor and in the fine print you find out that their definition of a competitor's rate is the rate that competitor charges at the crack of noon on the highest call volume day of the year to a point exactly opposite you on the planet with the CEO of the company personally connecting the call for you. I know my example exaggerates (maybe not that much!) but what the hell, it's an example.
Whether or not the law warrants this type of suit, I personally think it is a sleazy business tactic to try to improve your company's image by using lawsuits to silence critics. There are laws (anti-SLAPP laws - SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) that are designed to let judges throw out libel suits designed to silence critics.
Last time I checked, the commonly accepted definition of "spyware" fit the Gator program perfectly. I understand it to be software that collects information about you (with or without your permission) in the background. If Gator doesn't like the way it's products are labeled or perceived, I think it should advertise or maybe change its business model, but definitely not sue to silence critics expressing their opinions.
On one level it doesn't matter why they are pushing the standard - the crucial thing is that whatever the reason for pushing it, that reason was viewed by the Gov't as sufficient to justify putting its weight behind the effort. Now the DMCA is now a potential further impediment to achieving the goal of having HDTV in place.
You know, you make some decent points. Why do you post AC?
You forget that Congress can simply REQUIRE all broadcasts to be in HDTV format. It doesn't need the consent of the broadcasters.
Yes, unintended. The Gov't has been pushing HARD for nearly a decade now to have HDTV be the standard and ubiquitous in the US. They would not have intentionally done anything to undermine that effort.
In light of precedent from the US Supreme Court in the VCR/Home Taping cases, this action would seem to trample upon the fair use rights of viewers to time shift recordings. However, that lovely piece of legislation affectionately known as the DMCA now provides an argument that Congress has legislately overruled SCOTUS precedent on fair use when it comes to digital content. Although I haven't checked the legislative history, I'm sure that Congress never dreamed the DMCA would hinder something like the adoption of HDTV.
You gotta just LOVE when Congress passes laws without sufficient debate or input from all potential affected parties.