There's nothing mysterious about that "mentality" at all. In fact, there's nothing more all-American than a healthy disrespect for authority.
I don't really share too many opinions with the author, his comrades, or the protestors in April in DC for that matter, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with asserting your Constitutional rights no matter how obnoxiously you choose to do it.
I don't think the author "sought" arrest. I think he made a realistic assessment of what he was in for if he dared speak out against the status quo in the Land of Rizzo. (Don't get me started about the Philadelphia Police.) I also think the ultra-high bails for some of the protestors are complete bullshit. And while we're at it, some of the stunts pulled by the DC police in April were nothing short of fascist.
Those obnoxious and misguided punks and hippies are fine Americans. God bless America. --
Even the most pro-IP lawyer will tell you that Intellectual Property is a balancing act. So in order to provide some balance to this anti-IP screed, allow me to rebut three of the points:
The neem tree is used in India in the areas of medicine, toiletries, contraception, timber, fuel and agriculture. Its uses have been developed over many centuries but never patented. Since the mid 1980s, US and Japanese corporations have taken out over a dozen patents on neem-based materials. In this way, collective local knowledge developed by Indian researchers and villagers has been expropriated by outsiders who have added very little to the process.
A very emotional appeal, to be sure. But before we even begin to discuss how the provisions of 35 USC 102 prevent such prior art from being patented, please explain to me how a U.S. patent -- which can only be enforced in the U.S. -- is any skin off of their ass.
Charles M. Gentile is a US photographer who for a decade had made and sold artistic posters of scenes in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1995 he made a poster of the I. M. Pei building, which housed the new Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.
Who designed the building? (I.M. Pei) Whose image is inextricably linked with the building? (The Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame) Are you allowed to take your own picture of the building? (Yes) Do you really think this photographer is not trying to make money off of the R'n'RHoF's image and I.M. Pei's design?
"If I design a toy that provides therapeutic exercise for handicapped children, then I think it is unjust to delay the release of the design by a year and a half, going through a patent application."
Hogwash. There is no requirement whatsoever that you keep your patent application secret. If he's so concerned, he can publish his patent application the day he files it. As anyone the least bit familiar with patent law understands, the process is designed to encourage and facilitate disclosure. --
I just wanted to throw in a quick testimonial for The Proxomitron. It's my favorite proxy filter. It protects me from all sorts of wacky hi-jinks that web sites try to pull. --
It is highly unlikely the UK would intervene with military force, as they are a primarily law-abiding country with a strong tradition of respecting the law, due process, etc.
The concept of an ASP world frightens me, especially in light of the trend to turn everything into spyware. I don't want to run an installer for the win98 driver for my new printer, let alone the RealNetworks installer. And I sure don't want to rely on some mission-critical application when I can't even read the binary.
From this day forward, I will run no program that I didn't compile myself from source code. Okay, that's currently unrealistic, but it's something to shoot for. So join me, won't you? Spread the word! No source, no cycles! --
ERP software strikes me as suit-centric enough that the quality of customer hand-holding is the key selection criterion, so I don't see this as a successful open source project. --
My theory is that people are buying it to see how bad it is - with that much hype, people are going to be curious.
At the Electronics Boutique last weekend, I gawked at the box like I was rubbernecking at a road accident. I couldn't help myself: I really wanted to buy the damn thing just to wallow in its awfulness.
I didn't buy it, though. It'll hit the bargain bins soon enough.
Would I have to hire a professional smeller if I were dragged before court?
More or less. You'd have to come up with testimony to convince a jury that the smell used by an accused trademark infringer is likely to cause consumer confusion. Probably, though, the most practical thing to do is give 'em a whiff and let 'em judge for themselves.
Likelihood of Consumer Confusion is the standard by which all trademark disputes are settled. The "fourty some fields of enterprise," called "Classes," are merely for bureaucratic convenience. The namespace itself is, in fact, global.
BUT! Two businesses can coexist using the same trademark if there's no Likelihood of Consumer Confusion. e.g. Delta airlines and Delta faucets.
Both "Pilots" involve writing; both are, roughly speaking, office supplies. Who's to say that a consumer wouldn't think the famous pen manufacturer branched out into the then-new field of personal digital assistants?
Oh forget it, I'm just playing devil's avacado here. The Pilot pen people shouldn't have gotten their panties into such a bunch.
Good point, but trademarks have to be "distinctive," not "merely descriptive," or heaven help you, "generic."
In this case, the smell of mesquite on a cooked cow would not be distinctive, as it would not serve to identify a particular brand of cooked cow. Hence, their application for a trademark would be refused.
The system's not perfect, but it does actually make sense. Consider this fact pattern:
(1) SmellyBallCo. introduces the GrassBall, which is the only ball on the market with the smell of freshly cut grass.
(2) The GrassBall is a smashing success on the market.
(3) AnotherBallCo. introduces the LawnBall, which also happens to smell like freshly cut grass.
Why did AnotherBallCo. make the LawnBall smell like grass? Sure, we can all contrive scenarios where they came up with the idea on their own, or where there's some functional reason for making a tennis ball smell like grass. But do you really dispute that AnotherBallCo. is trying to free-ride on the good will that SmellyBallCo. has built with its customers?
If there was something "functional" about the smell of fresh cut grass as it relates to tennis balls, then the smell could not be used as a trademark. If it's a "functional" feature, only a patent can protect it.
In this case, the only "function" of the smell of fresh cut grass here is to identify a particular brand of tennis balls, which is what trademark's all about.
How to do e-Commerce right
on
Boo No More
·
· Score: 2
Here is a pointer to an excellent article by the equally excellent Malcolm Gladwell, recent author of The Tipping Point, in which he discusses the history of mail order and e-commerce, and provides an example of how one company does it right (hint: they had already mastered the 800 number by the time the Internet came along.)
While I'm at it, I highly recommend everybody read everything at his site. His choice of subject matter is unique, his scholarship is impeccable, and his writing lucidly conveys complicated ideas.
Why is anything written in English copyrightable?
on
Is HTML Copyrightable?
·
· Score: 1
"Why is HTML copyrightable? . ..HTML is so limited that there is only one (or a very limited number) way to mark something up in a certain way."
Why is anything written in English copyrightable? The Roman alphabet is so limited that there is only one (or a very limited number) way to spell dog.
(In other words, a document written in HTML source code is copyrightable; the whole source, not just the tags.)
"hey! your table code looks just like mine. You must have stolen it!"
The issue you raise is what we lawyers refer to as the Merger Doctrine, which deals with the fact that there's only a limited number of ways to express some things. It usually shows up as a defense to copyright infringement: "I did *not* simply copy his table, I wrote it myself. Sure it looks exactly alike, but there's only a limited number of ways to write out that sort of table."
To which the prosecution counters, "A- ha! If, as you say, you wrote it yourself and did not copy from the plaintiff, why then, Sir, does every single typographical error of the plaintiff's code show up in yours? Huh? And why, Sir, did the plaintiff's superfluous 3 tabs on the otherwise blank line 164 of the file also show up in yours, eh monkey boy?!?"
To come up with an idea about how entrenched X is, I propose the following thought experiment: For a hypothetical "Y" Window System, what application programs are on the "must have" list before you'll switch? For me, the list is pretty short:
xterm emacs mozilla Plus, some sort of OpenGL implementation for games.
I'm interested to know what the rest of you think. How many X clients could you leave behind? Which ones would have to be ported?
You missed the point. O'Reilly owns the copyright to their books. But the first sale doctrine prevents them from exerting any control over those books once they're sold. IOW, you can buy books by the hundreds from O'Reilly and resell them on eBay, and copyright law says that's okay.
(And, no, the DMCA does not mean any of those things. Please try to understand the issues before forming opinions. IMHO, the DMCA is a Bad Thing, but not for those reasons. We share the same cause, but your ignorant ranting doesn't help.)
DISCLAIMER: IAAL. What follows does not constitute legal advice, etc etc, and is an oversimplication of the issues anyway. YMMV.
One of the fundamental elements of copyright is the "first sale doctrine," which says once you've bought a copy, that copy is yours. If I buy a book, I can loan that book to hundreds of people and that's okay. In short, as long as I don't make copies, I can't be touched by copyright law.
And besides, the patent expired on the damn thing anyway. The courts have been historically reluctant to grant any kind of IP protection that might be construed as extending patent.
In short, if you buy an e-thingy from CoS, you can do with it what you want. (*)
Legally-unfounded bullying is the CoS's standard operational procedure, and eBay's caving in to it. Seriously, eBay, get some balls! (Or at least some comptetent lawyers.)
(*) That's why you don't "buy" software -- you buy a license to use it. And if the sale of the e-thingy was tied to terms and conditions, then there may be a contract dispute, but definitely nothing involving copyright.
Argh! I can't even get the page to load, let alone get to a point where "Open in new window" will work!
Of all people, SecurityFocus should understand that there is no way I'm turning off my Proxomitron to look at their site.
I can't even read it with Lynx! After about a minute of waiting for a reply, I get an "unexpected network read error", and Lynx exits! Who ever heard of a web site crashing Lynx, for Bob's sake?!? Double and triple argh!!!
Seriously: Any and all suggestions appreciated. I want to be able to read SecurityFocus, is that so wrong?
(Does anybody else think that SecurityFocus might just be a huge honeypot infected with all sorts of browser vulnerability exploits? Naah, me neither.)
Slashdot Mirror
You're fucked if you do,
and you're fucked
if you don't.
Five stop mother superior rain.
--
I don't really share too many opinions with the author, his comrades, or the protestors in April in DC for that matter, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with asserting your Constitutional rights no matter how obnoxiously you choose to do it.
I don't think the author "sought" arrest. I think he made a realistic assessment of what he was in for if he dared speak out against the status quo in the Land of Rizzo. (Don't get me started about the Philadelphia Police.) I also think the ultra-high bails for some of the protestors are complete bullshit. And while we're at it, some of the stunts pulled by the DC police in April were nothing short of fascist.
Those obnoxious and misguided punks and hippies are fine Americans. God bless America.
--
Sorry, I can't let this pass. IMHO, trade secrets are the most offensive form of IP because they discourage the sharing of information.
--
Good. So does every patent office on the face of the earth. Please quit perpetuating this straw man.
--
--
I just wanted to throw in a quick testimonial for The Proxomitron. It's my favorite proxy filter. It protects me from all sorts of wacky hi-jinks that web sites try to pull.
--
It is highly unlikely the UK would intervene with military force, as they are a primarily law-abiding country with a strong tradition of respecting the law, due process, etc.
HA!
Try that line in Northern Ireland.
--
The concept of an ASP world frightens me, especially in light of the trend to turn everything into spyware. I don't want to run an installer for the win98 driver for my new printer, let alone the RealNetworks installer. And I sure don't want to rely on some mission-critical application when I can't even read the binary.
From this day forward, I will run no program that I didn't compile myself from source code. Okay, that's currently unrealistic, but it's something to shoot for. So join me, won't you? Spread the word! No source, no cycles!
--
ERP software strikes me as suit-centric enough that the quality of customer hand-holding is the key selection criterion, so I don't see this as a successful open source project.
--
It'd sure help QT get adopted over any competing Microsoft standard, dontcha think?
At the Electronics Boutique last weekend, I gawked at the box like I was rubbernecking at a road accident. I couldn't help myself: I really wanted to buy the damn thing just to wallow in its awfulness.
I didn't buy it, though. It'll hit the bargain bins soon enough.
As soon as John Romero was lionized by the popular press, you just knew that everything he touched from then on would turn to shit.
More or less. You'd have to come up with testimony to convince a jury that the smell used by an accused trademark infringer is likely to cause consumer confusion. Probably, though, the most practical thing to do is give 'em a whiff and let 'em judge for themselves.
Likelihood of Consumer Confusion is the standard by which all trademark disputes are settled. The "fourty some fields of enterprise," called "Classes," are merely for bureaucratic convenience. The namespace itself is, in fact, global.
BUT! Two businesses can coexist using the same trademark if there's no Likelihood of Consumer Confusion. e.g. Delta airlines and Delta faucets.
Both "Pilots" involve writing; both are, roughly speaking, office supplies. Who's to say that a consumer wouldn't think the famous pen manufacturer branched out into the then-new field of personal digital assistants?
Oh forget it, I'm just playing devil's avacado here. The Pilot pen people shouldn't have gotten their panties into such a bunch.
Good point, but trademarks have to be "distinctive," not "merely descriptive," or heaven help you, "generic."
In this case, the smell of mesquite on a cooked cow would not be distinctive, as it would not serve to identify a particular brand of cooked cow. Hence, their application for a trademark would be refused.
The smell would be "functional," which means they couldn't trademark it.
They could, however, seek patent protection for an air freshener smelling like a new car.
The system's not perfect, but it does actually make sense. Consider this fact pattern:
(1) SmellyBallCo. introduces the GrassBall, which is the only ball on the market with the smell of freshly cut grass.
(2) The GrassBall is a smashing success on the market.
(3) AnotherBallCo. introduces the LawnBall, which also happens to smell like freshly cut grass.
Why did AnotherBallCo. make the LawnBall smell like grass? Sure, we can all contrive scenarios where they came up with the idea on their own, or where there's some functional reason for making a tennis ball smell like grass. But do you really dispute that AnotherBallCo. is trying to free-ride on the good will that SmellyBallCo. has built with its customers?
If there was something "functional" about the smell of fresh cut grass as it relates to tennis balls, then the smell could not be used as a trademark. If it's a "functional" feature, only a patent can protect it.
In this case, the only "function" of the smell of fresh cut grass here is to identify a particular brand of tennis balls, which is what trademark's all about.
While I'm at it, I highly recommend everybody read everything at his site. His choice of subject matter is unique, his scholarship is impeccable, and his writing lucidly conveys complicated ideas.
Why is anything written in English copyrightable? The Roman alphabet is so limited that there is only one (or a very limited number) way to spell dog.
(In other words, a document written in HTML source code is copyrightable; the whole source, not just the tags.)
The issue you raise is what we lawyers refer to as the Merger Doctrine, which deals with the fact that there's only a limited number of ways to express some things. It usually shows up as a defense to copyright infringement: "I did *not* simply copy his table, I wrote it myself. Sure it looks exactly alike, but there's only a limited number of ways to write out that sort of table."
To which the prosecution counters, "A- ha! If, as you say, you wrote it yourself and did not copy from the plaintiff, why then, Sir, does every single typographical error of the plaintiff's code show up in yours? Huh? And why, Sir, did the plaintiff's superfluous 3 tabs on the otherwise blank line 164 of the file also show up in yours, eh monkey boy?!?"
Ah, I love slam-dunk fact patterns.
To come up with an idea about how entrenched X is, I propose the following thought experiment: For a hypothetical "Y" Window System, what application programs are on the "must have" list before you'll switch? For me, the list is pretty short:
xterm
emacs
mozilla
Plus, some sort of OpenGL implementation for games.
I'm interested to know what the rest of you think. How many X clients could you leave behind? Which ones would have to be ported?
You missed the point. O'Reilly owns the copyright to their books. But the first sale doctrine prevents them from exerting any control over those books once they're sold. IOW, you can buy books by the hundreds from O'Reilly and resell them on eBay, and copyright law says that's okay.
(And, no, the DMCA does not mean any of those things. Please try to understand the issues before forming opinions. IMHO, the DMCA is a Bad Thing, but not for those reasons. We share the same cause, but your ignorant ranting doesn't help.)
DISCLAIMER: IAAL. What follows does not constitute legal advice, etc etc, and is an oversimplication of the issues anyway. YMMV.
One of the fundamental elements of copyright is the "first sale doctrine," which says once you've bought a copy, that copy is yours. If I buy a book, I can loan that book to hundreds of people and that's okay. In short, as long as I don't make copies, I can't be touched by copyright law.
And besides, the patent expired on the damn thing anyway. The courts have been historically reluctant to grant any kind of IP protection that might be construed as extending patent.
In short, if you buy an e-thingy from CoS, you can do with it what you want. (*)
Legally-unfounded bullying is the CoS's standard operational procedure, and eBay's caving in to it. Seriously, eBay, get some balls! (Or at least some comptetent lawyers.)
(*) That's why you don't "buy" software -- you buy a license to use it. And if the sale of the e-thingy was tied to terms and conditions, then there may be a contract dispute, but definitely nothing involving copyright.
Argh! I can't even get the page to load, let alone get to a point where "Open in new window" will work!
Of all people, SecurityFocus should understand that there is no way I'm turning off my Proxomitron to look at their site.
I can't even read it with Lynx! After about a minute of waiting for a reply, I get an "unexpected network read error", and Lynx exits! Who ever heard of a web site crashing Lynx, for Bob's sake?!? Double and triple argh!!!
Seriously: Any and all suggestions appreciated. I want to be able to read SecurityFocus, is that so wrong?
(Does anybody else think that SecurityFocus might just be a huge honeypot infected with all sorts of browser vulnerability exploits? Naah, me neither.)