Patents create a legal monopoly on the right to practice the inventions of the patent. This is very different from copyright which deals with the right to copy and distribute.
In practice, very few patents are enforced at the end user level, simply because it is not economical to do so. This is probably why you're not aware that it does, in fact, allow for suits directly to the infringing user, rather than just the product developer.
Recently, however, there have been a number of companies formed to try to exploit patent portfolio's. When they can, they go after suppliers, but in some cases they go after end-users, typically large corporations.
There is one group with 150 patents on call center technology trying to get every company that runs a call center to pay them money. I remember a company lawyer telling me they had received a notice offering to license the portfolio. The letter was one page, the list of addressees was 90 pages long.
Unencumbered? Not Quite
on
SCOoby Snacks
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
SCO UNIX(R) is Legally Unencumbered
Guess they forgot to update the page after receiving formal notice, in a lawsuit no less, of 4 patent infringement claims. And, of course, unlike copyright claims, the patent claims could be applied directly to SCOX customers.... Better check that indemnity clause.... oops no indemnity.....
err, fair enough. I admit to making a mistake, as what I meant to say was that Amendment 2 did not modify the list of included assets in any way. Copyright can only be transferred through an explicit written agreement, and that is what is lacking here. It is not enough to say I don't exclude this explicitly from being transferred, you need to say "I transfer this explictly".
By the way, here is an article on Groklaw that provides the Asset Purchase Agreement reflecting the various modifications.
Ultimately, we probably both agree that it is up to the judge to decide what the meaning of "is" is, or in this case, whether they were transferred or not.
I certainly can't speak to Novell's public relations efforts, and they clearly took a large writedown for System V work when they basically exited the business. However, the Asset purchase agreement is quite explict that they receive the funds. I don't have it on screen at the moment (ok, freely admit this is a lame excuse), but "it's in there".
The registration of the copyrights doesn't buy you anything under normal circumstances. However, with SCO group claiming ownership, Novell acted to counter SCO's planned assault by quietly, without fanfare, registering.
Lastly, I don't know how large the revenue stream from all these Unix licenses is, so can't speak to whether or not the asset is significant enough to list in the corporate reports for a company as large as SCO. You raise a great point, here, however. Life sure would be simpler if they had listed it....
Even if they try to drop their part of it, there is still the IBM countersuit. Given the amount of money IBM is spending on lawyers on this, the only way SCO could get out would be to settle and pay IBM's legal bills. That would probably wipe out the remainder of the $50 Million, at which point Boies would probably demand further payment under his contingency/bonus arrangement.
That Amendment 2 allows for, but does not effectuate, the transfer of specific copyrights only to the extent that they would be required for SCO to complete its obligations in acting as a licensing agent for Novell.
Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.
Further, that copyrights can only be transferred, under title 17, in writing, and that a vauge assertion that there is an agreement to transfer certain copyrights in the event they are required does not constitute a transfer in writing.
Good Question. Andy Robinson, the originator of the program thought up the name. A lot of time was spent considering the social consequences in high school. In many ways, the kids attracted to the program are already less socially active with many high school peers, because they are into computers. We hope this environment actually helps them learn teamwork because it requires a lot of interaction among the team members.
We have all the students sign an agreement, we teach 2 class sessions on ethics, one session on laws, and frequent anti-hacking reminders between classes.
Any student who engages in unlawful use of a computer, during classes or outside of classes, faces immediate expulsion from the program.
This is why the course includes several sessions on ethics, legal issues, and all the students had to sign an extensive security policy governing what they can do.
Any hacking behavior outside of the labs results in immediate expulsion from the program.
For those who are interested, the Information Security Foundation website is at www.isfound.org.
Be gentle, it is not a large machine. You might have better luck with the Google cache. It can be found here
That is why the ISF program is very heavy on lab work. We try to keep the classes to 30 minutes each, and give them bibliographies and practical exercises.
Document retention policies and requirements vary by document type. For something like a trademark or a patent, 7 years would be woefully inadequate, since you may have to defend them for more than 7 years from granting. In these cases, our companies attorney recommended permanent retention.
Hope this works better than the law which mandates the $500 fine per unsolicted fax. I get about 5 unsolicited faxes per day, more than I ever got from telemarketer calls.....
What, realistically, can we do to have the consumer's voice and interests heard more effectively in our Legislatures, balancing our interests in legislation such as UCITA, CFAA, DMCA, etc?
Many companies are going down this route, and you will probably have to live with it. There are a number of benefits from the companies perspective, especially where the company may be liable for any misbehavior on the part of the employee, or if the company is dealing with sensitive information (healthcare and financial services, for example).
The only real problem here is that the company should disclose this in advance of making the offer, or as a condition of acceptance, not after you show up. In addition, they should really safeguard the information, not include it as a routine part of an HR file.
The more you argue, the more you are probably creating a "first impression" as a trouble maker.
yep, MS does want to cram all this DRM stuff onto "your" PC... But that is because they don't believe it is really yours, since it is running MS software.... They view the DRM solution as a wonderful way to gain even more control.... after all, if there is no legislated requirement, then they can end up setting and controlling a non-published de facto standard.
If you read the DOJ memorandum to the court summarizing the public comments, you'll notice that they make the assertion that since they received the comments, there is no requirement for further hearings, and that only the Justice department, Microsoft, and the Settling States should participate in further discussions with the courts. No need for the court to actually allow dissenters to come in and argue the issues.
Amazing example of the finest justice money can buy!
Slashdot Mirror
Patents create a legal monopoly on the right to practice the inventions of the patent. This is very different from copyright which deals with the right to copy and distribute.
In practice, very few patents are enforced at the end user level, simply because it is not economical to do so. This is probably why you're not aware that it does, in fact, allow for suits directly to the infringing user, rather than just the product developer.
Recently, however, there have been a number of companies formed to try to exploit patent portfolio's. When they can, they go after suppliers, but in some cases they go after end-users, typically large corporations.
There is one group with 150 patents on call center technology trying to get every company that runs a call center to pay them money. I remember a company lawyer telling me they had received a notice offering to license the portfolio. The letter was one page, the list of addressees was 90 pages long.
ROTFLMAO
By the way, here is an article on Groklaw that provides the Asset Purchase Agreement reflecting the various modifications.
Ultimately, we probably both agree that it is up to the judge to decide what the meaning of "is" is, or in this case, whether they were transferred or not.
I certainly can't speak to Novell's public relations efforts, and they clearly took a large writedown for System V work when they basically exited the business. However, the Asset purchase agreement is quite explict that they receive the funds. I don't have it on screen at the moment (ok, freely admit this is a lame excuse), but "it's in there".
The registration of the copyrights doesn't buy you anything under normal circumstances. However, with SCO group claiming ownership, Novell acted to counter SCO's planned assault by quietly, without fanfare, registering.
Lastly, I don't know how large the revenue stream from all these Unix licenses is, so can't speak to whether or not the asset is significant enough to list in the corporate reports for a company as large as SCO. You raise a great point, here, however. Life sure would be simpler if they had listed it....
So, since companies have been gladly (well, probably not all that gladly) paying NOVELL for all these years, NOVELL must own it... right?
Even if they try to drop their part of it, there is still the IBM countersuit. Given the amount of money IBM is spending on lawyers on this, the only way SCO could get out would be to settle and pay IBM's legal bills. That would probably wipe out the remainder of the $50 Million, at which point Boies would probably demand further payment under his contingency/bonus arrangement.
Further, copyrights are contained in the list of excluded assets, and that list is not modified in any way by Amendment 2.
Further, that copyrights can only be transferred, under title 17, in writing, and that a vauge assertion that there is an agreement to transfer certain copyrights in the event they are required does not constitute a transfer in writing.
What is your interpretation?
If money is no object, you might also want to investigate Tumi. Fantastic stuff, but at very high prices.
But we all already knew that!
Good Question. Andy Robinson, the originator of the program thought up the name. A lot of time was spent considering the social consequences in high school. In many ways, the kids attracted to the program are already less socially active with many high school peers, because they are into computers. We hope this environment actually helps them learn teamwork because it requires a lot of interaction among the team members.
You can get the contact information on the ISF website or you can email information@isfound.org.
Not at the present time. This is our first run through, and we do hope to take the program national in the near future.
We have all the students sign an agreement, we teach 2 class sessions on ethics, one session on laws, and frequent anti-hacking reminders between classes.
Any student who engages in unlawful use of a computer, during classes or outside of classes, faces immediate expulsion from the program.
This is why the course includes several sessions on ethics, legal issues, and all the students had to sign an extensive security policy governing what they can do.
Any hacking behavior outside of the labs results in immediate expulsion from the program.
For those who are interested, the Information Security Foundation website is at www.isfound.org. Be gentle, it is not a large machine. You might have better luck with the Google cache. It can be found here
Right now, the teachers are volunteers from local companies, with Security job responsibilities or working for a computer security company.
You can get some more details at www.isfound.org
That is why the ISF program is very heavy on lab work. We try to keep the classes to 30 minutes each, and give them bibliographies and practical exercises.
If anyone has any questions about the Tiger Team, I am on the Board of Directors and would be glad to answer them.
I figured they would just rename DLL's, like they did with the GPF problem
Document retention policies and requirements vary by document type. For something like a trademark or a patent, 7 years would be woefully inadequate, since you may have to defend them for more than 7 years from granting. In these cases, our companies attorney recommended permanent retention.
Yippee!!!
Hope this works better than the law which mandates the $500 fine per unsolicted fax. I get about 5 unsolicited faxes per day, more than I ever got from telemarketer calls.....
What, realistically, can we do to have the consumer's voice and interests heard more effectively in our Legislatures, balancing our interests in legislation such as UCITA, CFAA, DMCA, etc?
Many companies are going down this route, and you will probably have to live with it. There are a number of benefits from the companies perspective, especially where the company may be liable for any misbehavior on the part of the employee, or if the company is dealing with sensitive information (healthcare and financial services, for example).
The only real problem here is that the company should disclose this in advance of making the offer, or as a condition of acceptance, not after you show up. In addition, they should really safeguard the information, not include it as a routine part of an HR file.
The more you argue, the more you are probably creating a "first impression" as a trouble maker.
yep, MS does want to cram all this DRM stuff onto "your" PC... But that is because they don't believe it is really yours, since it is running MS software.... They view the DRM solution as a wonderful way to gain even more control.... after all, if there is no legislated requirement, then they can end up setting and controlling a non-published de facto standard.
Be afraid.... Be very afraid....
If you read the DOJ memorandum to the court summarizing the public comments, you'll notice that they make the assertion that since they received the comments, there is no requirement for further hearings, and that only the Justice department, Microsoft, and the Settling States should participate in further discussions with the courts. No need for the court to actually allow dissenters to come in and argue the issues.
Amazing example of the finest justice money can buy!