You can try to initiate a Reexamination of the patent by the PTO. You can initiate a reexamination by paying a fee (currently $2,520 for ex parte and $8,800 for inter partes) and sending a brief including references to the PTO. Ex parte means that you are not involved in the process beyond the initiation. Inter partes means that you are involved in the process, and can file responses. You should send some really good references that have not been cited by the Examiner (not listed on the face of the patent.)
You can usually find someone who is willing to help you with the first few steps of the process at least for less than $30K. And I do agree with the above posters, you should band together with the other companies that have been sued. You can at least work together on the first few steps (finding references & writing the initial brief.)
Of course not. The PTO is a government agency and is thus insulated from lawsuit.
Reality is that you cannot prevent bogus lawsuits unless you start imposing punitive damages. Which, you may be able to get.
I would actually advise you to talk to some litigators, and see if you can convince someone to take it on pro-bono (for free) on the assumption that there will be a punitive damage award, and that PanIP will end up paying all the attorney's fees. (If the case is judged to be frivolous, attorneys fees may be awarded.)
a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade.
This is generally one of the points of contention. The definition of the market, for example, can change things radically. For example, if Microsoft could define "the market" as all devices which have a processor, it could legitimately argue that the Palm OS, and Solaris, as well as Linux and MacOS are its competitors.
In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.
Always go directly to the source. This case may finally be used to break the gravy train that is corporate contributions to politicians. The case challenged a Missouri statute imposing limits ranging from $275 to $1,075 on contributions to candidates for state office. The Supreme Court upheld the limitations, saying that limiting contributions left communication significantly unimpaired. Of course, no limits may be imposed on how much they spend, since that is speech.
But, read Stevens' concurring opinion in which he explicitly says that political contributions are property, not speech, and should be regulated tightly.
No, what we're saying is that if you take away all options for places to hang out, they'll just be on the street. And we know that that's not allowed either. So what are kids supposed to do for fun? Internet Cafe's are out, movies are expensive, loitering is prohibited everywhere. You'd figure the government would want to encourage positive behavior, like playing on the Internet.
On the other hand, if the Internet Cafe was a place for gangs to meet, instead maybe they could have a cop come by and visit occasionally? This would protect the legitimate game players from the gang bangers, and would allow kids a place to hangout. Probably a better solution than banning the cafes, or the curfews.
Let's try the intro to patent law again. The abstract is NOT the claim. The summary is also not the claim. In fact, there is a section, labelled "Claims" that are... well, the claims. The scope of the patent is defined solely by the language of the claims, as interpretted in light of any comments made during prosecution.
So, let's look at the broadest claim of the newest patent:
1. A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:
a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and
a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;
wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.
What are the simple limitations in this claim that make it narrow enough to be uninteresting. Well, let's see:
1. The server must store "each of the documents" temporarily. So, dynamic URLs are pretty much out.
2. Log data must be "sent to the sender." This means that if you require the sender to log back on to your side (the traditional way of doing this) instead of sending them the log, you do not infringe this claim.
What do you want to bet that none of the prior art (from BlueMountain to standard email) meet all of these criteria? And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that likely those limitations were discussed during the prosecution of the patent. If you really want to analyze the scope of the claims -- if for example you want to invalidate the patent -- order a copy of the file wrapper from the patent office, which includes every scrap of communication between the PTO and the company. Once you've reviewed that, we can get a real discussion going.
If you actually look at the patents, and in particular 6,192,407, you will find that they cited a huge number of references, including most of the references that you have discussed. This strongly implies that the patent office actually took a look at this patent, before allowing it. Now, whether patents should be permitted at all or not is a different discussion. But assuming that no prior art technology, articles, or patents were referenced is rather silly, when the patent is available for review.
I will agree that this claim is too broad in my (not-a-legal) opinion. However, it is not nearly as broad as/. seems to imply.
So... for future reference, read the bloody patent claims (not just the abstract) before starting to bitch.
Thank you,
Thalia
Re:Coordinated Efforts
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
One of the better suggestions I've seen (for those folks who're on the black hat side) is to hack into the systems of these terrorists (yes, they do use the Internet). One of the reasons why Osama Bin Laden is a successful terrorist (even if he is not responsible for this particular incident) is because he has large amounts of money. I'm pretty sure he doesn't keep it at home, so it's probably in some bank account. I'd love to see some hackers get into that bank account and not only trace who he's been paying what to (I think we can do it better than the CIA), but maybe just making his money go away. It's much harder to pay for effective terrorists if you don't have the money...
Reality is that a patent takes two or three years to issue. Most of the time, these companies would file a patent application at the same time, or slightly before, joining the standards committee. While the standards were being set, the patent was in the PTO, being kept secret.
In fact, since the DEC case most standards committees have a specific disclosure requirement, for example the IEEE standard requires such disclosure. In order to participate, each company must provide the list of patents they hold in this area, as well as guarantee a "reasonable licensing arragement."
Do note that if you want to find patents, because you're writing a standard or for any other reason, go to the USPTO's database search, and go for it. It's easy, it's cheap, and you can get PDF's for $3.
Yes, there are secret lawyers on Slashdot. Really.
I do agree that posing these questions to Slashdot in general is rather silly. I've attempted once to volunteer to provide a "not a legal opinion" opinion on legal questions (specifically intellectual property, since that's my area of expertise)... but I never got a response. I think in general Slashdot prefers inane rants to reasoned opinions.
Thalia
Oh, in case you were wondering, you should delete the files that SirCam sent to you. You can be held liable for disclosing a trade secret. Odds are, however, that no jury would convict you. Still, it's an expensive/painful process, so unless the information is valuable enough that you're willing to risk jail time, just delete it all.
Biometrics is coming... and it's going to replace passwords. You can kiss your privacy goodby... but you will never be embarrassed by having a crappy password or even worse, forgetting your password.
Research grants are indeed there to provide research for the benefit of the corporation providing the dough. You think corporations are in it for charity? As a shareholder, I sincerely hope that when they provide millions of dollars to some university or another, they get something out of it. Advancing the state of human knowledge is a valuable thing. But it's not going to keep those share prices hopping...
Seriously though, having worked with numerous professors who get research grants I can tell you that it's all about approaching useful technologies, and developing intellectual property that is at least potentially useful for the corporation.
By the way, much of the Internet was developed by the government, for government use. This is a good thing, I agree. But it didn't become wide-spread until private corporations put in the money to connect the world. Before that, the connections only existed between specific Universities. I don't think you would want to leave the development of all future technologies to the government. And corporations are, and should be, motivated by money.
I know open source is a grand thing. But you'll find that open source programmers are either employed by corporations (who generally believe in IP), work for Universities (supported by corporate and government grants), or are still kids living off their parents (who work for corporations.) With the exception of a few open source based companies, everyone relies on intellectual property...
I don't know if Keith had a lawyer in this case. I sat in on one of his cases some years ago (he was being sued for copyright infringment) and he was defending himself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But Keith, in his full glory, telling the judge that he was prejudiced and mean, is not a pretty sight. Keith has a tendency (no, I think it's more accurate to say he has a need) to be a rabble rouser. He doesn't do very well at it. But he does have a tendency to not listen to the judge, refuse to answer questions, and call the judge dumb/prejudiced. Now, as a normal human, the judge is not going to react favorably to this. Keith usually causes half the trouble he's in by not knowing what not to say.
Independent side note: A recent (this week) Supreme Court case found that if there is a misdemeanor charge that may result in jail time, the defendant has a right to an attorney. Public Defenders love this stuff. (Except maybe in Riverside, which is definitely conservative...)
I wish he hadn't fled. There are attorneys out there who would help him. (not that he'd listen to them).
I agree with 2600 that Ford should've asked them nicely first, to remove the pointer of www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. On the other hand, I can understand Ford's point of view. How would you feel if someone pointed the URL of allslashottersareassholes at your site? The problem is that people who see this pointer will assume that Ford owns the site. Yes, people are that stupid. So Ford's just trying to protect itself... not in the smartest way possible, but still reasonably.
As a side note, doing a car caravan to protest actions by a car manufacturer is a fairly bizarre idea, isn't it? Why not do a bicycle rally instead? It might hurt Ford more...
There is a high demand for IP (read patent) lawyers. The demand for business lawyers in the high tech field is decreasing as a result of the downturn in the economy (not surprising). But the demand for intellectual property work has not decreased in Silicon Valley. Starting salary for IP lawyers is about $120K, and over the 5-8 years to partnership it goes up to about $200K, with bonuses possible (depending on the hours you work). Whether that offsets law school or not is an open question. Consultants can make more... on the other hand, lawyers have fairly steady work and get benefits.
But to be a good (and happy) IP lawyer, you should like to write papers (things like documentation natch!), research, and listen well.
And, of course, you may lose some of the respect of your peers. There will be those who think you sold out... so think carefully.
There are quite a few lawyers who believe in open source. Personally, I think the GPL is a bit too predatory, but I do believe that open source software in general is a necessary counter balance to the increasingly vicious behavior of closed source suppliers like Microsoft. The problem is, it's very difficult to get funding to challenge Microsoft's dominance in operating systems, as well as certain applications. So the only legitimate challengers are open source folks... who don't need to make money to be successful.
I think of the open source movement as the software analogue to the ACLU. They are necessary to counteract overly acquisitive folks who want to trample our rights. Sometimes they do things I can't support, but in general, their existence is necessary to balance the existence of their opponents.
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the GPL, or of Mr. Stallman. And he isn't much of a fan of mine. But my original interest in open source stems from having used programs that are open source, and having coded in the past. I may not get anything out of it, but I do support the EFF, and the open source community... even if they think I'm evil sometimes.
And you know, open source guys do like patents sometimes... you'd be surprised at how many folks whose code is in the kernel have applied for patents...
Don't hate the lawyers. They are the ones defending the ISPs, as well as the ones who are attacking. Remember that people *hire* lawyers to do their work. The lawyers don't go out on their own to go after ISPs. If you want to hate folks, hate the ones who are trying to enforce their "rights" at the cost of your basic freedoms.
The easiest way to solve this problem is by supporting & giving money to groups like the EFF who'll go to court on behalf of the little ISP, and help them fight.
For communications freedom support the EFF, for Constitutional freedoms join the ACLU. They're both very necessary
The problem is that ISP's don't want to go to court. They can be threatened by the MPAA, and they're likely to cave, because if they don't, they'll end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees. And most of them can't afford to do that.
But the truly odd part of the story is that it says that ExciteAtHome has responded by sending e-mails telling Gnutella users their services will be terminated within 24 hours if their alleged movie sharing continues. Now, how "alleged movie sharing" continues is beyond me. How do they know that folks are sharing copyrighted movies? Maybe they're sending each other something else that requires large files. Maybe it's home movies.
There really isn't a business reason for the ISP to protect the user. After all, they don't have a time-based contract. The user can't sue the ISP (I think) for terminating them illegally, unless the ISP refuses to return any prepaid moneys or deposits.
Review your ISP contract. I bet it allows your ISP to terminate you "at will." But if it doesn't, the subscriber who hasn't been using it for illegal stuff and is terminated should sue. A few lawsuits like that, and ISPs will think twice about just kicking users off based on a nasty-gram from the MPAA or RIAA.
Although all of these toys are very cool (some cooler than others, I'll admit), very few school districts will spring for more science toys. In fact, science teachers spend on the order of $400/year on toys/classroom equipment, and such.
Given the local advocacy of science teachers, you should put your money where your mouth is, and donate school supplies to teachers. What the heck, search for science teachers, and give them only science toys! The site is TrueGift a charity that simply takes gift lists from teachers are tries to find donors to provide the basic necessities.
I've been pondering this very question since I'm getting married & both my fiance and I are mostly geek... and the guests will be too. My current plan is to register at Amazon for toys & electronics, and put up a personal web site for the wedding, showing pointers to other stuff we want. Actually, I'm tempted by a site I came across that allows people to give stock (given how the market is, this may be a cheap gift!) but I decided that was a bit too mercenary. So we're going to go with the MP3 player, the new computer screen (I've been wanting a nice 21" screen since my bf now hogs the machine that has it), probably a docking station for my favorite laptop, and some random kitchen stuff. Given that I'm a grownup (and own a house and all that) I don't need china or silverware, or any of that stuff. I have it already. My nightmare is that every one of my guest will give me a toaster... and I don't even eat toast.
Anyway, best of luck and if you come up with something brilliant, post it, because the rest of us are looking too.
I agree. This sentence in particular brought it out for me:
"What do you do with humans who are born with half a kidney or no immune system?" And, he said, what about the possibility of creating children who appear to be normal but whose genes for neurological development work improperly?"
Well, you know, people "create" children like this every day, through "normal" reproduction. There are children who are born without immune systems (think of the Boy in the Bubble), with half, or even no kidneys, with neurological defects. It's rather strange to assume that these "defects" were created only by the cloning process, since we don't actually know what causes these defects in the first place. Generally, the mice and sheep that are cloned don't have their full DNA analysis prior to cloning. So, maybe they were actually carrying these recessive genes for fatness or bad immune response, or what have you. In any case, assuming that having cloning create a human that has health issues is unethical, while not saying that creating such children through reproduction is a problem, is definitely propaganda.
Anyone else surprised that U.S. colleges generally considered tops for programming are lagging here? Only 3 of the top 10 are U.S. That's a pretty sad showing.
I also noticed with some surprise that there are no Finnish schools in the top 10. Considering how involved the Finns are in Open Source and the like, it's interesting. Maybe they're all self-taught.
So Warsaw University kicked Stanford's and CalTech's butt! Not to mention UCBerkeley's. I guess it's Virginia Tech all the way! They managed to only get beaten by Russians.
IP agreements are valid in California. Please don't spout legal BS, if you don't know the law. Employment agreements that restrict your right to work somewhere else are invalid in California. (California is a "right to work" state.) But IP agreements are just fine...
Just as a side note, you're probably going to get sued. And they're going to win. Sorry.
The rule for a contract is that there has to be a "meeting of the minds" both sides have to *understand* what the contract means. If you're signing something that you truly don't understand, and the other side deliberately obscured the meaning, you can actually get out of that contract. Not to mention suing your ass for raiding (for taking the employees as a group), misleading your previous boss, and breach of fiduciary duties.
Although I'm not an employment lawyer (but hey, I do have a J.D. so I can give actual legal opinions) if I were you I'd hire myself a lawyer fast, because that suit is just around the corner...
Still amazed at the sleazy shit people try to get away with,
Oddly enough I've found hackers to be closest to the Protestant work ethic that I learned about in school. The biggest component of the Protestant work ethic generally seems to be to "work until the project is done." There is inherent disapproval of folks who start a project and then stop. Cooperation, although generally only local, was expected as well. After all, think of a barn raising, the quintessential activity. It requires a number of people to work in concert to get something done.
Hackers are the folks who will work 18 hour days until their coding project is done. If that's not nose-to-the-grindstone, I don't know what is. They're also one of the very few groups that require close cooperation to accomplish a complex project. (For example, to bring new elements into an open source project requires cooperation.) Compare this to a standard office worker, who shuffles paper & generally does projects alone, and leaves the job at 5 p.m. sharp. Although current folks like to think that the Protestants had no fun, this isn't true either. Generally, they partied hard as well. I remember reading about the post-barn-raising events... quite impressive. (after their work was done, of course.)
I do agree with the author that the focus on Information is a major shift. But I think the work ethic of most hackers quite closely parallels those of Protestant farmers of yesteryear.
Business Method patents are only the newest complaint. Before that it was Software Patents. Before that, it was Genetics patents. Before that, it was patents on anything that involved any math. The fact is, separating these things out is almost impossible. How do you draw the line between a software patent and a hardware patent? How about a software patent and a business method patent?
I read Amazon's one click patent, and to me at least, it looks like a software method. After all, what's the claim? The computer receives certain inputs, processes them in a certain way, and generates a certain output. This is exactly what a software claim would look like. And if their lawyer had needed to, changing this claim to a hardware claim is trivial. Merely make reference to the processor/memories that perform each of these actions.
So, eliminating a subgroup of patents is very close to impossible. Now, if you want to eliminate all patents, that's a different matter. You could certainly do that. Of course, you'd affect patents that most folks support, in addition to silly reverse auctions. Reality is that patents help the little guy. Something like 99.9% of patents are never litigated. The're simply for one of two things. First, to get money from investors because investors love to see that there is something defineable that is novel. Second, to build a portfolio, in case of negotiation with a competitor.
Personally, I think there are two solutions to the low quality of patents being issued today.
First, publication. The Patent Office has already implemented this. Most patents filed after November of last year will be published. (The inventor can request non-publication, but only if the patent is not going to be filed in any other country.) This should allow folks to review future patents, and send prior art to the inventor or to the PTO.
Second, hiring competent examiners. The real problem is that the PTO is paying $30K for engineers, to live in DC. In today's economy, this is not realistic. You have to pay people a reasonable amount if you want to get competent people. There are only two types of people who work at the PTO right now. Those who really need the job security/insurance benefits provided by the PTO and those who can't hack it in the real world. I talk to Examiners on a regular basis, and I'd say 75% of them don't speak English. This makes it very hard for them to even understand the claims, much less make a competent prior art search & rejection. The suggestion has been floated by someone that we hire from overseas. One of the few perks a government agency can offer is guaranteed green cards of visas, outside the normal bounds of immigration. So, they could hire competent programmers, say from India, who speak proper English, and in addition to their $30K, they could offer a green card after four years. There are plenty of folks who'd jump at this chance. And I expect that the quality of examination would rapidly rise.
Slashdot Mirror
You can try to initiate a Reexamination of the patent by the PTO. You can initiate a reexamination by paying a fee (currently $2,520 for ex parte and $8,800 for inter partes) and sending a brief including references to the PTO. Ex parte means that you are not involved in the process beyond the initiation. Inter partes means that you are involved in the process, and can file responses. You should send some really good references that have not been cited by the Examiner (not listed on the face of the patent.)
You can usually find someone who is willing to help you with the first few steps of the process at least for less than $30K. And I do agree with the above posters, you should band together with the other companies that have been sued. You can at least work together on the first few steps (finding references & writing the initial brief.)
Thalia
Of course not. The PTO is a government agency and is thus insulated from lawsuit.
Reality is that you cannot prevent bogus lawsuits unless you start imposing punitive damages. Which, you may be able to get.
I would actually advise you to talk to some litigators, and see if you can convince someone to take it on pro-bono (for free) on the assumption that there will be a punitive damage award, and that PanIP will end up paying all the attorney's fees. (If the case is judged to be frivolous, attorneys fees may be awarded.)
Thalia
Actually, a monopoly is defined as:
a business or inter-related group of businesses which controls so much of the production or sale of a product or kind of product as to control the market, including prices and distribution. Business practices, combinations and/or acquisitions which tend to create a monopoly may violate various federal statutes which regulate or prohibit business trusts and monopolies or prohibit restraint of trade.
This is generally one of the points of contention. The definition of the market, for example, can change things radically. For example, if Microsoft could define "the market" as all devices which have a processor, it could legitimately argue that the Palm OS, and Solaris, as well as Linux and MacOS are its competitors.
In the Microsoft case, the "market" was defined as "personal computers" in which market Microsoft clearly has enough power to dictate pricing and distribution... and they have demonstrated.
Thalia
Always go directly to the source. This case may finally be used to break the gravy train that is corporate contributions to politicians. The case challenged a Missouri statute imposing limits ranging from $275 to $1,075 on contributions to candidates for state office. The Supreme Court upheld the limitations, saying that limiting contributions left communication significantly unimpaired. Of course, no limits may be imposed on how much they spend, since that is speech.
But, read Stevens' concurring opinion in which he explicitly says that political contributions are property, not speech, and should be regulated tightly.
Thalia
No, what we're saying is that if you take away all options for places to hang out, they'll just be on the street. And we know that that's not allowed either. So what are kids supposed to do for fun? Internet Cafe's are out, movies are expensive, loitering is prohibited everywhere. You'd figure the government would want to encourage positive behavior, like playing on the Internet.
On the other hand, if the Internet Cafe was a place for gangs to meet, instead maybe they could have a cop come by and visit occasionally? This would protect the legitimate game players from the gang bangers, and would allow kids a place to hangout. Probably a better solution than banning the cafes, or the curfews.
Thalia
So, let's look at the broadest claim of the newest patent:
1. A document delivery system for delivering one or more documents between a sender and at least one recipient, said system comprising:
a server that temporarily stores said documents, wherein said server generates a URL for each intended recipient of said documents, the URL unique to each recipient, and sends each of the URLs to each respective intended recipient; and
a database which is associated with said server and which records log data describing which recipients accessed said documents;
wherein said server sends the log data to the sender of said documents.
What are the simple limitations in this claim that make it narrow enough to be uninteresting. Well, let's see:
1. The server must store "each of the documents" temporarily. So, dynamic URLs are pretty much out.
2. Log data must be "sent to the sender." This means that if you require the sender to log back on to your side (the traditional way of doing this) instead of sending them the log, you do not infringe this claim.
What do you want to bet that none of the prior art (from BlueMountain to standard email) meet all of these criteria? And this doesn't even take into consideration the fact that likely those limitations were discussed during the prosecution of the patent. If you really want to analyze the scope of the claims -- if for example you want to invalidate the patent -- order a copy of the file wrapper from the patent office, which includes every scrap of communication between the PTO and the company. Once you've reviewed that, we can get a real discussion going.
If you actually look at the patents, and in particular 6,192,407, you will find that they cited a huge number of references, including most of the references that you have discussed. This strongly implies that the patent office actually took a look at this patent, before allowing it. Now, whether patents should be permitted at all or not is a different discussion. But assuming that no prior art technology, articles, or patents were referenced is rather silly, when the patent is available for review.
I will agree that this claim is too broad in my (not-a-legal) opinion. However, it is not nearly as broad as /. seems to imply.
So... for future reference, read the bloody patent claims (not just the abstract) before starting to bitch.
Thank you,
Thalia
One of the better suggestions I've seen (for those folks who're on the black hat side) is to hack into the systems of these terrorists (yes, they do use the Internet). One of the reasons why Osama Bin Laden is a successful terrorist (even if he is not responsible for this particular incident) is because he has large amounts of money. I'm pretty sure he doesn't keep it at home, so it's probably in some bank account. I'd love to see some hackers get into that bank account and not only trace who he's been paying what to (I think we can do it better than the CIA), but maybe just making his money go away. It's much harder to pay for effective terrorists if you don't have the money...
T.
Reality is that a patent takes two or three years to issue. Most of the time, these companies would file a patent application at the same time, or slightly before, joining the standards committee. While the standards were being set, the patent was in the PTO, being kept secret.
In fact, since the DEC case most standards committees have a specific disclosure requirement, for example the IEEE standard requires such disclosure. In order to participate, each company must provide the list of patents they hold in this area, as well as guarantee a "reasonable licensing arragement."
Do note that if you want to find patents, because you're writing a standard or for any other reason, go to the USPTO's database search, and go for it. It's easy, it's cheap, and you can get PDF's for $3.
Thalia
Yes, there are secret lawyers on Slashdot. Really.
I do agree that posing these questions to Slashdot in general is rather silly. I've attempted once to volunteer to provide a "not a legal opinion" opinion on legal questions (specifically intellectual property, since that's my area of expertise)... but I never got a response. I think in general Slashdot prefers inane rants to reasoned opinions.
Thalia
Oh, in case you were wondering, you should delete the files that SirCam sent to you. You can be held liable for disclosing a trade secret. Odds are, however, that no jury would convict you. Still, it's an expensive/painful process, so unless the information is valuable enough that you're willing to risk jail time, just delete it all.
Biometrics is coming... and it's going to replace passwords. You can kiss your privacy goodby... but you will never be embarrassed by having a crappy password or even worse, forgetting your password.
Thalia
Seriously though, having worked with numerous professors who get research grants I can tell you that it's all about approaching useful technologies, and developing intellectual property that is at least potentially useful for the corporation.
By the way, much of the Internet was developed by the government, for government use. This is a good thing, I agree. But it didn't become wide-spread until private corporations put in the money to connect the world. Before that, the connections only existed between specific Universities. I don't think you would want to leave the development of all future technologies to the government. And corporations are, and should be, motivated by money.
I know open source is a grand thing. But you'll find that open source programmers are either employed by corporations (who generally believe in IP), work for Universities (supported by corporate and government grants), or are still kids living off their parents (who work for corporations.) With the exception of a few open source based companies, everyone relies on intellectual property...
Thalia
I don't know if Keith had a lawyer in this case. I sat in on one of his cases some years ago (he was being sued for copyright infringment) and he was defending himself. This is not necessarily a bad thing. But Keith, in his full glory, telling the judge that he was prejudiced and mean, is not a pretty sight. Keith has a tendency (no, I think it's more accurate to say he has a need) to be a rabble rouser. He doesn't do very well at it. But he does have a tendency to not listen to the judge, refuse to answer questions, and call the judge dumb/prejudiced. Now, as a normal human, the judge is not going to react favorably to this. Keith usually causes half the trouble he's in by not knowing what not to say.
Independent side note: A recent (this week) Supreme Court case found that if there is a misdemeanor charge that may result in jail time, the defendant has a right to an attorney. Public Defenders love this stuff. (Except maybe in Riverside, which is definitely conservative...)
I wish he hadn't fled. There are attorneys out there who would help him. (not that he'd listen to them).
Thalia
I agree with 2600 that Ford should've asked them nicely first, to remove the pointer of www.fuckgeneralmotors.com. On the other hand, I can understand Ford's point of view. How would you feel if someone pointed the URL of allslashottersareassholes at your site? The problem is that people who see this pointer will assume that Ford owns the site. Yes, people are that stupid. So Ford's just trying to protect itself... not in the smartest way possible, but still reasonably.
As a side note, doing a car caravan to protest actions by a car manufacturer is a fairly bizarre idea, isn't it? Why not do a bicycle rally instead? It might hurt Ford more...
Thalia
There is a high demand for IP (read patent) lawyers. The demand for business lawyers in the high tech field is decreasing as a result of the downturn in the economy (not surprising). But the demand for intellectual property work has not decreased in Silicon Valley. Starting salary for IP lawyers is about $120K, and over the 5-8 years to partnership it goes up to about $200K, with bonuses possible (depending on the hours you work). Whether that offsets law school or not is an open question. Consultants can make more... on the other hand, lawyers have fairly steady work and get benefits.
But to be a good (and happy) IP lawyer, you should like to write papers (things like documentation natch!), research, and listen well.
And, of course, you may lose some of the respect of your peers. There will be those who think you sold out... so think carefully.
Thalia
There are quite a few lawyers who believe in open source. Personally, I think the GPL is a bit too predatory, but I do believe that open source software in general is a necessary counter balance to the increasingly vicious behavior of closed source suppliers like Microsoft. The problem is, it's very difficult to get funding to challenge Microsoft's dominance in operating systems, as well as certain applications. So the only legitimate challengers are open source folks... who don't need to make money to be successful.
I think of the open source movement as the software analogue to the ACLU. They are necessary to counteract overly acquisitive folks who want to trample our rights. Sometimes they do things I can't support, but in general, their existence is necessary to balance the existence of their opponents.
I have to admit, I'm not a big fan of the GPL, or of Mr. Stallman. And he isn't much of a fan of mine. But my original interest in open source stems from having used programs that are open source, and having coded in the past. I may not get anything out of it, but I do support the EFF, and the open source community... even if they think I'm evil sometimes.
And you know, open source guys do like patents sometimes... you'd be surprised at how many folks whose code is in the kernel have applied for patents...
Thalia
The easiest way to solve this problem is by supporting & giving money to groups like the EFF who'll go to court on behalf of the little ISP, and help them fight.
For communications freedom support the EFF, for Constitutional freedoms join the ACLU. They're both very necessary
Thalia
The problem is that ISP's don't want to go to court. They can be threatened by the MPAA, and they're likely to cave, because if they don't, they'll end up spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorney fees. And most of them can't afford to do that.
But the truly odd part of the story is that it says that ExciteAtHome has responded by sending e-mails telling Gnutella users their services will be terminated within 24 hours if their alleged movie sharing continues. Now, how "alleged movie sharing" continues is beyond me. How do they know that folks are sharing copyrighted movies? Maybe they're sending each other something else that requires large files. Maybe it's home movies.
There really isn't a business reason for the ISP to protect the user. After all, they don't have a time-based contract. The user can't sue the ISP (I think) for terminating them illegally, unless the ISP refuses to return any prepaid moneys or deposits.
Review your ISP contract. I bet it allows your ISP to terminate you "at will." But if it doesn't, the subscriber who hasn't been using it for illegal stuff and is terminated should sue. A few lawsuits like that, and ISPs will think twice about just kicking users off based on a nasty-gram from the MPAA or RIAA.
Thalia
Given the local advocacy of science teachers, you should put your money where your mouth is, and donate school supplies to teachers. What the heck, search for science teachers, and give them only science toys! The site is TrueGift a charity that simply takes gift lists from teachers are tries to find donors to provide the basic necessities.
Thalia
I've been pondering this very question since I'm getting married & both my fiance and I are mostly geek... and the guests will be too. My current plan is to register at Amazon for toys & electronics, and put up a personal web site for the wedding, showing pointers to other stuff we want. Actually, I'm tempted by a site I came across that allows people to give stock (given how the market is, this may be a cheap gift!) but I decided that was a bit too mercenary. So we're going to go with the MP3 player, the new computer screen (I've been wanting a nice 21" screen since my bf now hogs the machine that has it), probably a docking station for my favorite laptop, and some random kitchen stuff. Given that I'm a grownup (and own a house and all that) I don't need china or silverware, or any of that stuff. I have it already. My nightmare is that every one of my guest will give me a toaster... and I don't even eat toast.
Anyway, best of luck and if you come up with something brilliant, post it, because the rest of us are looking too.
Thalia
I agree. This sentence in particular brought it out for me:
"What do you do with humans who are born with half a kidney or no immune system?" And, he said, what about the possibility of creating children who appear to be normal but whose genes for neurological development work improperly?"
Well, you know, people "create" children like this every day, through "normal" reproduction. There are children who are born without immune systems (think of the Boy in the Bubble), with half, or even no kidneys, with neurological defects. It's rather strange to assume that these "defects" were created only by the cloning process, since we don't actually know what causes these defects in the first place. Generally, the mice and sheep that are cloned don't have their full DNA analysis prior to cloning. So, maybe they were actually carrying these recessive genes for fatness or bad immune response, or what have you. In any case, assuming that having cloning create a human that has health issues is unethical, while not saying that creating such children through reproduction is a problem, is definitely propaganda.
Thalia
Anyone else surprised that U.S. colleges generally considered tops for programming are lagging here? Only 3 of the top 10 are U.S. That's a pretty sad showing.
I also noticed with some surprise that there are no Finnish schools in the top 10. Considering how involved the Finns are in Open Source and the like, it's interesting. Maybe they're all self-taught.
So Warsaw University kicked Stanford's and CalTech's butt! Not to mention UCBerkeley's. I guess it's Virginia Tech all the way! They managed to only get beaten by Russians.
Thalia
IP agreements are valid in California. Please don't spout legal BS, if you don't know the law. Employment agreements that restrict your right to work somewhere else are invalid in California. (California is a "right to work" state.) But IP agreements are just fine...
Thalia
(Yes, IAAL)
Just as a side note, you're probably going to get sued. And they're going to win. Sorry.
The rule for a contract is that there has to be a "meeting of the minds" both sides have to *understand* what the contract means. If you're signing something that you truly don't understand, and the other side deliberately obscured the meaning, you can actually get out of that contract. Not to mention suing your ass for raiding (for taking the employees as a group), misleading your previous boss, and breach of fiduciary duties.
Although I'm not an employment lawyer (but hey, I do have a J.D. so I can give actual legal opinions) if I were you I'd hire myself a lawyer fast, because that suit is just around the corner...
Still amazed at the sleazy shit people try to get away with,
Thalia
Oddly enough I've found hackers to be closest to the Protestant work ethic that I learned about in school. The biggest component of the Protestant work ethic generally seems to be to "work until the project is done." There is inherent disapproval of folks who start a project and then stop. Cooperation, although generally only local, was expected as well. After all, think of a barn raising, the quintessential activity. It requires a number of people to work in concert to get something done.
Hackers are the folks who will work 18 hour days until their coding project is done. If that's not nose-to-the-grindstone, I don't know what is. They're also one of the very few groups that require close cooperation to accomplish a complex project. (For example, to bring new elements into an open source project requires cooperation.) Compare this to a standard office worker, who shuffles paper & generally does projects alone, and leaves the job at 5 p.m. sharp. Although current folks like to think that the Protestants had no fun, this isn't true either. Generally, they partied hard as well. I remember reading about the post-barn-raising events... quite impressive. (after their work was done, of course.)
I do agree with the author that the focus on Information is a major shift. But I think the work ethic of most hackers quite closely parallels those of Protestant farmers of yesteryear.
Thalia
Business Method patents are only the newest complaint. Before that it was Software Patents. Before that, it was Genetics patents. Before that, it was patents on anything that involved any math. The fact is, separating these things out is almost impossible. How do you draw the line between a software patent and a hardware patent? How about a software patent and a business method patent?
I read Amazon's one click patent, and to me at least, it looks like a software method. After all, what's the claim? The computer receives certain inputs, processes them in a certain way, and generates a certain output. This is exactly what a software claim would look like. And if their lawyer had needed to, changing this claim to a hardware claim is trivial. Merely make reference to the processor/memories that perform each of these actions.
So, eliminating a subgroup of patents is very close to impossible. Now, if you want to eliminate all patents, that's a different matter. You could certainly do that. Of course, you'd affect patents that most folks support, in addition to silly reverse auctions. Reality is that patents help the little guy. Something like 99.9% of patents are never litigated. The're simply for one of two things. First, to get money from investors because investors love to see that there is something defineable that is novel. Second, to build a portfolio, in case of negotiation with a competitor.
Personally, I think there are two solutions to the low quality of patents being issued today.
First, publication. The Patent Office has already implemented this. Most patents filed after November of last year will be published. (The inventor can request non-publication, but only if the patent is not going to be filed in any other country.) This should allow folks to review future patents, and send prior art to the inventor or to the PTO.
Second, hiring competent examiners. The real problem is that the PTO is paying $30K for engineers, to live in DC. In today's economy, this is not realistic. You have to pay people a reasonable amount if you want to get competent people. There are only two types of people who work at the PTO right now. Those who really need the job security/insurance benefits provided by the PTO and those who can't hack it in the real world. I talk to Examiners on a regular basis, and I'd say 75% of them don't speak English. This makes it very hard for them to even understand the claims, much less make a competent prior art search & rejection. The suggestion has been floated by someone that we hire from overseas. One of the few perks a government agency can offer is guaranteed green cards of visas, outside the normal bounds of immigration. So, they could hire competent programmers, say from India, who speak proper English, and in addition to their $30K, they could offer a green card after four years. There are plenty of folks who'd jump at this chance. And I expect that the quality of examination would rapidly rise.
Thalia