You are missing one key thing: "obviousness" is a legal term of art that has literally hundreds of court decisions defining the term and refining the legal tests for obviousness. The problem is that there has to be an objective standard, as opposed to a subjective opinion.
Think about this: The hyperlink had to have been invented by SOMEONE at SOMETIME. The person who did it had the right to a patent for the hyperlink. Part of the problem with US patents is that they are written in English, a notoriously imprecise language. When a patent attorney drafts claims for a patent (the part that legally defines the invention) he or she tries to use descriptive terms that are broad enough to capture a range of concepts in a single word while being precide enough to actually communicate some meaning. Add to that the rule that a patent claim must be one (and only one) sentence. If you ever tried to draft a patent claim, I guarantee you would find it to be one of the most difficult sentences you have ever written.
Now comes the REALLY hard part - the Court in a patent infringement case has the responsibility of interpreting what the terms used in the claims as a matter of law. Now you have entire proceedings to decide what the words of that single sentence mean to a person of "ordinary skill in the art." Try to now re-draft that sentence using broad but descriptive words that you predict a Court will interpret in the way you intended 10 years from now after the patent has issued and been around for a few years.
Did I forget to mention that patent law is constantly evolving in ways that attempt to make up for the fact that English is imprecise?
If you think the term is too long, lobby Congress to change it. Congress has determined that 20 years from filing is not too long. Remember - the inventor can only actually sue someone after the patent issues, and that takes at least 3 years in most cases, so the period of time for enforcement is really only 17 years. It can be much less. Example: The patent M$ had issue (mentioned elsewhere in today's stories) yesterday took 7 years from filing to issuance. That means (unless something funky happened) that this patent only has an effective term of 13 years.
Ok - although I believe I have expressed these themes consistently in various posts, I don't think I have put them this concisely in one place (outside of a seminar I have done for ACM students), so here goes:
20 year patents: The US extended the patent term from 17 years from date of issue to 20 years from date of filing. Given that on average it takes 3 years from date of filing to date of grant, this is largely a wash. It was done to harmonize US patent terms with those of most foreign nations. As for the fact that it "might as well be forever for software" I have 2 responses: (i) Lots of software lasts longer than 20 years. Look at UNIX and lots of custom systems built for large corporations. You are drawing conclusions essentially by stating that because the rate of change is much more rapid in software than in other industries, 20 years is much too long. (ii) 20 years may be too long, but it is a policy decision made by Congress and only Congress can change it. I happen to disagree. I wouldn't want to tell Tim Berners-Lee that his creation will be useless long before 20 years are up.
"Overly broad" patents are the joint responsibility of the applicant's drafter and the USPTO. The drafter has an obligation to get the applicant the broadest claim possible in light of the prior art. In fact, the patent statute grants that right. The USPTO must examine the application and find prior art to reject the claims of at least require the applicant to narrow the claims to avoid the prior art. The USPTO simply does not have the resources to hire and retain the best qualified examiners and do thorough prior art searches. Whose fault is this ultimately? Congress. Congress diverts PTO user fees (application fees, maintenance fees, copy fees, etc.) from the USPTO to other uses (most recently, anti-terrorism - with an associated fee increase, of course.). The USPTO is a cash cow - it brings in MUCH more money than it spends. Politicians won't let the PTO keep its own money so it can improve its processes.
Patents on something you didn't invent: If you didn't invent it, you have no right to the patent. This is fraud, plain and simple. I think however, that you mean to bring up the subject of companies that hold patents on inventions that they do not then manufacture. This is perfectly legal and appropriate. For most patents in this category, if the company doesn't make money from them, then the patent expires in about 4 years because the company will usually decide not to pay the maintenance fee to keep the patent in force. Then ANYONE can use it. You have to keep in mind the purpose of a patent which is to allow inventors to profit from their work. You have to keep the rules as clean as possible. If you have a valid patent, you have the right to exclude others from infringing. If you didn't have that basic right, no one could profit from anything they invented because large companies would copy new valuable inventions and drive others out of the marketplace without any way for inventors to stop them.
I do. Feel free to check my posts. I agree with you - rants about topics you don't understand not only waste time, they are damaging if they contain misinformation that others believe.
The PTO just reprints exactly what the applicant submits. In the vast majority of cases, the typo is the applicant's fault, not the PTO's. There are very strong patent law (and indeed, general governmental regulation) reasons why the PTO must publish exactly what the applicant has written.
That does not mean the PTO is never responsible for mistakes. There are sections of the Patent Act just for correcting mistakes (35 U.S.C. 254 for PTO Mistakes, 35 U.S.C. 255 for Applicant Mistakes). But I can also tell you in this instance, the mistake occured in the Title of the Invention. The title has just about ZERO legal significance. If the typo occurred in the claims, then perhaps there are arguments based on the typo. But in the Title? Forget it.
I have used everything from Cross to Parker 51 to Mont Blanc. My favorites are 2 Tombows. They are exceptionally well-balanced and have sleek, simple designs. They look like a quality pen without being flashy (Note: Maybe it is just me, but I notice the white Mont Blanc symbol at the top of someone's pen right away). One is ballpoint for everyday writing and notetaking, the other is a rollerball I use for signatures on official documents. The rollerball is my good luck pen because I have never committed malpractice with any document I have signed with it.
<wink>
Yes, I sign EVERYTHING with that pen.
</wink>
One tip - At least in some areas refills are hard to find, so when you find some, buy an entire box (I think there are 20/box).
As a practical matter, when the police search your trash like this, they set up a surveillance team to watch you take the trash to the curb and videotape it. They then immediately seize the trash and search it before anyone else has had the opportunity to tamper with the contents. So much for reasonable doubt.
I'm sorry, but your argument is completely nonsensical. That is simply not how the law works.
The law makes it illegal to possess controlled substances like heroin. If you possessed the substance, you can be charged with a crime. The time frame during which you possessed the substance can be in the past so long as it is not so long ago that any charges would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The distinction between public and private property in this context is the need for the police to obtain a search warrant. If the property is "private," the police need a warrant and must have cause to obtain one. If the property to be searched is "public," no warrant is necessary and the police are free to search at will.
That said, if the police search YOUR trash in a jurisdiction where trash is "public" property, the police do not need a warrant and it makes perfect sense to conclude that YOU placed the controlled substance in the trash. That is enough to support probable cause that you possessed the controlled substance recently and enough to make an arrest. If you ever used the defense you outlined in your post in your own court case for possession, I would wish you luck during your incarceration.
If people can get past the invective about "evil" software patents and the "broken" patent system, let me tell you why this is potentially the best thing to happen for competition and innovation in the software industry in a very long time.
Eolas was founded by a man with a score to settle with Microsoft. As I understand it, one of the principals of Eolas has a Computer Science Ph.D. and was directing his work toward using Netscape as the primary GUI for interacting with a computer (Flashback: Anyone here remember when Netscape was being touted as a Windows replacement?).
fast forward to the recent past - Eolas has a solid patent that covers corefunctionality of not just IE but also Windows. That same Ph.D. - founder has said that he intends to use his patent to spur competition and development in the industry. I also recall reading a comment where he stated that he would license the patent to ANYONE BUT MICROSOFT. I have no inside information, but I would not be surprised if developers of other browsers got licenses for VERY reasonable sums, or even free, based upon their particular circumstances.
Now, how does this help competiton? The functionality claimed in the patent is that of launching a process external to the browser when clicking on a hyperlink to handle the linked-to content. For example, when you click on a link to a PDF file, your selected program for reading PDF files will launch and open the file. If IE becomes more difficult to use, all other browsers become more desirable because easier to use. I think you can appropriately extent the analogy to the Windows OS as a whole.
This last part is strictly my opinion, based on my following of the public information about the case, but I'd say that M$ just got its @$$ kicked HARD and has little of any chance of having this overturned on appeal. I congratulate Eolas and its attorneys and hope that they do something truly innovative with the $500 Million they will get from M$.
"Seeing if you can sell it" to me means that you are checking to see if there is demand in the market. The way I understand this effort is that the seller is trying to determine whether he has the legal right to sell the download. He is only offering a single downloaded song to limit his damage exposure (which by 17 U.S.C. sec. 504 could be $150,000) and is keeping the song in the original AAC format so as not to complicate the legal issues (i.e. - derivative works, etc.). The seller's stated intention is to "see if the right of first sale" still exists (although I confess that I have no idea what he is talking about because the right of first sale I am thinking of has no applicability to this scenario). This is akin to seeing if you have the right to rob a bank when you don't know whether the law permits that action by going out, robbing the bank in broad daylight, and waiting outside the bank door to see what happens. I can never advise testing the law by deliberately taking a course of action that a court may later decide was illegal.
In case it wasn't clear from my original post, I think Apple would be the last one to sue him. The RIAA on the other hand....
Not that someone wants to resell the music they downloaded but rather that someone is INVITING a lawsuit. Hey, IP lawsuits are the way I make my living, but I would NEVER suggest to a client that they become the test case unless it is the only way for said client to survive.
Simply put, this is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. I predict that Apple totally ignores this - and any/all other sales like it until a secondary market develops. Even then, I see Apple simply taking the position publicly that once it initially makes the sale, it has no further involvement with the process. I also predict an analogy to used record shops. By the way and for the record - I use Apple products in my home and work, but am not affiliated with it in any way.
Re:Isn't one required to respond to a subpoena?
on
Hacking By Subpoena
·
· Score: 1
Yes you are required to respond. No, you aren't necessarily required to COMPLY with it.
Simply put, you can't ignore a subpoena and hope it goes away. But you can respond with a Motion to Quash, asking the judge in the case to wipe out the subpoena or at least modify what you have to do to comply with it.
By the way, most subpoenas come from lawyers in the case, not directly from judges. Lawyers are given subpoena power to gather evidence to make their cases for their clients, but as officers of the court, that power is regulated and controlled by the Court.
What the legal form of the company was (i.e., corporation, partnership, etc.
How it "went under" (i.e., voluntary dissolution, involuntary dissolution, bankruptcy, receivership, etc.)
What rights the company had in the source code to begin with (i.e., was it created from scratch, derived from licensed code, created under licenses to patents that provided that ownership to "improvements or implementations" belonged to the licensor, "works for hire" under the Copyright Act (U.S.), etc.)
and the list goes on and on....
Here's something NO ONE usually thinks about - if the company just folds (non-bankruptcy) and is a corporation, most states have strict provisions about what happens to assets and how they must be disposed of. However, I'll bet that if there is a corporation, there are stockholders who have rights in that code as a former corporate asset.
No, yours is a STUPID COMMENT. How do you know this is a copyright issue alone? ANYTIME you deal with software IP issues, you have to worry about copyright, trade secrets, and patents, along with confidentiality and other contractual problems. NOWHERE in the original post did it say "copyright" - it said "IP issues." IP issues are much broader than copyright.
And for your continuing education, the AIPLA does break it down further. Become a member and they will gladly send you a copy of the survey. They will also gladly sell you a copy also if you don't want to join. I'd send you a photocopy of my copy, but it is copyrighted. Guess you'll have to get your own.
... you REALLY need to consult with an intellectual property lawyer who can properly advise you. Any advice you get based on the limited information in your post (other than "here's a souce for general information you can access to educate yourself as to some of the issues") is worthless.
IP legal problems, like any legal problem, are highly fact-dependent. Yes, it may cost you some money to get a legal opinion. I guarantee it will cost you MUCH more if you don't and have a disagreement later. According to the latest AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association) survey (2001), an IP dispute with $1-3 Million at stake will cost approximately $500,000 to litigate. On the other hand, you can probably get a decent legal opinion for about $10,000 depending on the complexity of the issues.
Recap: $10K for an opinion that minimizes the risk later vs. $500,000 to litigate plus all the headaches / publicity / business interruptions of litigation. You decide.
If you aren't getting an email account or web space, and there is someone to replace your failed ISP, do you really care if your first provider tanks? Just open a new account with the next provider. All you are paying for is access.
If nobody's buying DRM devices, then it's pretty hard to enforce the DMCA, no?
No. There is a BIG difference between enforcing a law and causing some condition which prevents the law from being violated in the first place.
Along similar lines, a manufacturer might argue that some federal law on the books implicitly gives it the right to sell devices that kill people, invalidating states' product safety laws.
Ummm...no. Trust me on this one. Essentially, however, the right to sell a product does not conflict with product liability laws which are usually premised on some type of negligence theory (negligent design or manufacture). This area gets VERY complicated so I am going to end comment on this topic here.
Final point - yes, they could ARGUE that. And that simple argument would be frivolous.
I don't know the details of VA and DC law because I am not a lawyer in either of those 2 jurisdictions (I'm admitted in MA, OH, and the USPTO). But I suspect that the law makes it illegal to use radar detectors to defeat law enforcement efforts, not merely to possess them.
The US Supreme Court, in a leading commerce clause case (sorry - I don't have the cite handy but trust me - it is required reading in Con Law in law school), stated that Congress could control a farmer growing wheat on his own land to make bread for his own family because of the effects on INTER-state commerce. How can this be? Because the Gov't gave him an allocation as part of efforts to control wheat supply. If he grows wheat in excess of that allocation for his family's use, then he won't buy bread. If he doesn't buy bread, the demand for bread diminishes. If that happens, it affects interstate commerce because the market is reduced and bread suppliers cannot sell as much. I am oversimplifying, but that is the rationale.
Nice try with the intrastate commerce argument. It's been tried before and failed. I think just about everyone would be hard-pressed to come up with an activity that is more intrastate in nature than a farmer growning his own food for his own family to eat. If the Commerce Clause allows Congress to reach that activity, the Feds can (and do!) regulate just about everything.
The City of Arcata did not "ban" compliance with the Patriot Act. First, there was a RESOLUTION - a City's equivalent of a private person's opinion. Second, if provisons are "optional" then there is no conflict. The federal law is explicitly saying "we give you permission to do what you want with respect to these defined issues." A city cannot "ban" compliance with federal law.
Your "hypothetical" law does not conflict either and does NOT make federal law "harder to enforce." The Supremacy Clause ENSURES that nothin a state does can make it harder for federal law to be enforced. Federal law trumps state law. That's all there is to it.
What your hypothetical law does is impose some labeling requirements on a product. it does not conflict with the DMCA. Here's one that potentially DOES cause problems:
"No person shall make, use, or sell any device within the state that contains one or more technological measures that effectively control access to a work, as defined in Title 17, United States Code, section 1201." This has two major problems. First is the Commerce Clause - Congress is the only body that gets to regulate interstate commerce. This broad prohibition is an impermissible burden on commerce and would be invalidated.
Second, manufacturers can argue that the DMCA implicitly gives them the right to include access control technology, so the states cannot do anything restricting that right. Pure Supremacy Clause stuff here. Federal law says yes, state law says no, fed law wins.
Seems like North Carolina forgot about a little thing in the Constitution called the Supremacy Clause. When the Fed Gov't has been granted the power to legislate in an area, conflicting or inconsistent state laws are preempted by federal laws and are rendered useless.
Simply put, NC can legislate all it wants, but as long as the DMCA (or other conflicting federal statute) is on the books, any laws they write aren't worth the refilled ink they are printed with. (Pardon the bad pun, but I couldn't resist.)
Re:Benchmark? We don't need no stinkin benchmarks!
on
G5 Benchmark Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Now I'm just waiting for a dual proc G5 XServe to be released...
I'm waiting for a 4-WAY XServe. Check out the section of Apple's site for Panther Server. They seem to be going after (caution - over-used bad business jargon coming) enterprise-wide applications and enterprise users (end jargon) pretty seriously. All I have to say is that if so, it is about time.
Slashdot Mirror
Think about this: The hyperlink had to have been invented by SOMEONE at SOMETIME. The person who did it had the right to a patent for the hyperlink. Part of the problem with US patents is that they are written in English, a notoriously imprecise language. When a patent attorney drafts claims for a patent (the part that legally defines the invention) he or she tries to use descriptive terms that are broad enough to capture a range of concepts in a single word while being precide enough to actually communicate some meaning. Add to that the rule that a patent claim must be one (and only one) sentence. If you ever tried to draft a patent claim, I guarantee you would find it to be one of the most difficult sentences you have ever written.
Now comes the REALLY hard part - the Court in a patent infringement case has the responsibility of interpreting what the terms used in the claims as a matter of law. Now you have entire proceedings to decide what the words of that single sentence mean to a person of "ordinary skill in the art." Try to now re-draft that sentence using broad but descriptive words that you predict a Court will interpret in the way you intended 10 years from now after the patent has issued and been around for a few years.
Did I forget to mention that patent law is constantly evolving in ways that attempt to make up for the fact that English is imprecise?
If you think the term is too long, lobby Congress to change it. Congress has determined that 20 years from filing is not too long. Remember - the inventor can only actually sue someone after the patent issues, and that takes at least 3 years in most cases, so the period of time for enforcement is really only 17 years. It can be much less. Example: The patent M$ had issue (mentioned elsewhere in today's stories) yesterday took 7 years from filing to issuance. That means (unless something funky happened) that this patent only has an effective term of 13 years.
I do. Feel free to check my posts. I agree with you - rants about topics you don't understand not only waste time, they are damaging if they contain misinformation that others believe.
That does not mean the PTO is never responsible for mistakes. There are sections of the Patent Act just for correcting mistakes (35 U.S.C. 254 for PTO Mistakes, 35 U.S.C. 255 for Applicant Mistakes). But I can also tell you in this instance, the mistake occured in the Title of the Invention. The title has just about ZERO legal significance. If the typo occurred in the claims, then perhaps there are arguments based on the typo. But in the Title? Forget it.
One tip - At least in some areas refills are hard to find, so when you find some, buy an entire box (I think there are 20/box).
As a practical matter, when the police search your trash like this, they set up a surveillance team to watch you take the trash to the curb and videotape it. They then immediately seize the trash and search it before anyone else has had the opportunity to tamper with the contents. So much for reasonable doubt.
No problem. My apologies if the level of sarcasm in my previous post was too high. My sarcasm filter was turned completely off at the time.
The law makes it illegal to possess controlled substances like heroin. If you possessed the substance, you can be charged with a crime. The time frame during which you possessed the substance can be in the past so long as it is not so long ago that any charges would be barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The distinction between public and private property in this context is the need for the police to obtain a search warrant. If the property is "private," the police need a warrant and must have cause to obtain one. If the property to be searched is "public," no warrant is necessary and the police are free to search at will.
That said, if the police search YOUR trash in a jurisdiction where trash is "public" property, the police do not need a warrant and it makes perfect sense to conclude that YOU placed the controlled substance in the trash. That is enough to support probable cause that you possessed the controlled substance recently and enough to make an arrest. If you ever used the defense you outlined in your post in your own court case for possession, I would wish you luck during your incarceration.
Eolas was founded by a man with a score to settle with Microsoft. As I understand it, one of the principals of Eolas has a Computer Science Ph.D. and was directing his work toward using Netscape as the primary GUI for interacting with a computer (Flashback: Anyone here remember when Netscape was being touted as a Windows replacement?).
fast forward to the recent past - Eolas has a solid patent that covers corefunctionality of not just IE but also Windows. That same Ph.D. - founder has said that he intends to use his patent to spur competition and development in the industry. I also recall reading a comment where he stated that he would license the patent to ANYONE BUT MICROSOFT. I have no inside information, but I would not be surprised if developers of other browsers got licenses for VERY reasonable sums, or even free, based upon their particular circumstances.
Now, how does this help competiton? The functionality claimed in the patent is that of launching a process external to the browser when clicking on a hyperlink to handle the linked-to content. For example, when you click on a link to a PDF file, your selected program for reading PDF files will launch and open the file. If IE becomes more difficult to use, all other browsers become more desirable because easier to use. I think you can appropriately extent the analogy to the Windows OS as a whole.
This last part is strictly my opinion, based on my following of the public information about the case, but I'd say that M$ just got its @$$ kicked HARD and has little of any chance of having this overturned on appeal. I congratulate Eolas and its attorneys and hope that they do something truly innovative with the $500 Million they will get from M$.
It's 1 faster! (for when you're in the middle of compiling and need that extra oomph! to get you over the top).
And you're an Anonymous Coward. That still places me above you in the social rankings.
In case it wasn't clear from my original post, I think Apple would be the last one to sue him. The RIAA on the other hand ....
If you don't like that check my profile. I write software patents and I'm proud of that fact.
It doesn't matter who he thinks will go after him - the stupid thing is inviting a lawsuit.
Simply put, this is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. I predict that Apple totally ignores this - and any/all other sales like it until a secondary market develops. Even then, I see Apple simply taking the position publicly that once it initially makes the sale, it has no further involvement with the process. I also predict an analogy to used record shops. By the way and for the record - I use Apple products in my home and work, but am not affiliated with it in any way.
Simply put, you can't ignore a subpoena and hope it goes away. But you can respond with a Motion to Quash, asking the judge in the case to wipe out the subpoena or at least modify what you have to do to comply with it.
By the way, most subpoenas come from lawyers in the case, not directly from judges. Lawyers are given subpoena power to gather evidence to make their cases for their clients, but as officers of the court, that power is regulated and controlled by the Court.
Now, what does it depend on? Well....
- What the legal form of the company was (i.e., corporation, partnership, etc.
- How it "went under" (i.e., voluntary dissolution, involuntary dissolution, bankruptcy, receivership, etc.)
- What rights the company had in the source code to begin with (i.e., was it created from scratch, derived from licensed code, created under licenses to patents that provided that ownership to "improvements or implementations" belonged to the licensor, "works for hire" under the Copyright Act (U.S.), etc.)
and the list goes on and on....Here's something NO ONE usually thinks about - if the company just folds (non-bankruptcy) and is a corporation, most states have strict provisions about what happens to assets and how they must be disposed of. However, I'll bet that if there is a corporation, there are stockholders who have rights in that code as a former corporate asset.
No, yours is a STUPID COMMENT. How do you know this is a copyright issue alone? ANYTIME you deal with software IP issues, you have to worry about copyright, trade secrets, and patents, along with confidentiality and other contractual problems. NOWHERE in the original post did it say "copyright" - it said "IP issues." IP issues are much broader than copyright.
And for your continuing education, the AIPLA does break it down further. Become a member and they will gladly send you a copy of the survey. They will also gladly sell you a copy also if you don't want to join. I'd send you a photocopy of my copy, but it is copyrighted. Guess you'll have to get your own.
IP legal problems, like any legal problem, are highly fact-dependent. Yes, it may cost you some money to get a legal opinion. I guarantee it will cost you MUCH more if you don't and have a disagreement later. According to the latest AIPLA (American Intellectual Property Law Association) survey (2001), an IP dispute with $1-3 Million at stake will cost approximately $500,000 to litigate. On the other hand, you can probably get a decent legal opinion for about $10,000 depending on the complexity of the issues.
Recap: $10K for an opinion that minimizes the risk later vs. $500,000 to litigate plus all the headaches / publicity / business interruptions of litigation. You decide.
If you aren't getting an email account or web space, and there is someone to replace your failed ISP, do you really care if your first provider tanks? Just open a new account with the next provider. All you are paying for is access.
No. There is a BIG difference between enforcing a law and causing some condition which prevents the law from being violated in the first place.
Along similar lines, a manufacturer might argue that some federal law on the books implicitly gives it the right to sell devices that kill people, invalidating states' product safety laws.
Ummm...no. Trust me on this one. Essentially, however, the right to sell a product does not conflict with product liability laws which are usually premised on some type of negligence theory (negligent design or manufacture). This area gets VERY complicated so I am going to end comment on this topic here.
Final point - yes, they could ARGUE that. And that simple argument would be frivolous.
The US Supreme Court, in a leading commerce clause case (sorry - I don't have the cite handy but trust me - it is required reading in Con Law in law school), stated that Congress could control a farmer growing wheat on his own land to make bread for his own family because of the effects on INTER-state commerce. How can this be? Because the Gov't gave him an allocation as part of efforts to control wheat supply. If he grows wheat in excess of that allocation for his family's use, then he won't buy bread. If he doesn't buy bread, the demand for bread diminishes. If that happens, it affects interstate commerce because the market is reduced and bread suppliers cannot sell as much. I am oversimplifying, but that is the rationale.
Nice try with the intrastate commerce argument. It's been tried before and failed. I think just about everyone would be hard-pressed to come up with an activity that is more intrastate in nature than a farmer growning his own food for his own family to eat. If the Commerce Clause allows Congress to reach that activity, the Feds can (and do!) regulate just about everything.
The City of Arcata did not "ban" compliance with the Patriot Act. First, there was a RESOLUTION - a City's equivalent of a private person's opinion. Second, if provisons are "optional" then there is no conflict. The federal law is explicitly saying "we give you permission to do what you want with respect to these defined issues." A city cannot "ban" compliance with federal law.
Your "hypothetical" law does not conflict either and does NOT make federal law "harder to enforce." The Supremacy Clause ENSURES that nothin a state does can make it harder for federal law to be enforced. Federal law trumps state law. That's all there is to it.
What your hypothetical law does is impose some labeling requirements on a product. it does not conflict with the DMCA. Here's one that potentially DOES cause problems:
"No person shall make, use, or sell any device within the state that contains one or more technological measures that effectively control access to a work, as defined in Title 17, United States Code, section 1201." This has two major problems. First is the Commerce Clause - Congress is the only body that gets to regulate interstate commerce. This broad prohibition is an impermissible burden on commerce and would be invalidated.
Second, manufacturers can argue that the DMCA implicitly gives them the right to include access control technology, so the states cannot do anything restricting that right. Pure Supremacy Clause stuff here. Federal law says yes, state law says no, fed law wins.
Simply put, NC can legislate all it wants, but as long as the DMCA (or other conflicting federal statute) is on the books, any laws they write aren't worth the refilled ink they are printed with. (Pardon the bad pun, but I couldn't resist.)
I'm waiting for a 4-WAY XServe. Check out the section of Apple's site for Panther Server. They seem to be going after (caution - over-used bad business jargon coming) enterprise-wide applications and enterprise users (end jargon) pretty seriously. All I have to say is that if so, it is about time.