I love all my electronic gadgets as much as the next/.er, but there are very practical advantages to paper. It is very high resolution, light weight, very easy to mark up in a comfortable and intuitive way, is always on--no crash, dead batteries, boot up time--is very ergonomic (you can move around and read it, read in direct sunlight, you can fold it and unfold it, etc.) and its very easy to move stuff from your computer to paper.
The Judge's order simply means he has stated a claim--i.e. alleged facts sufficient to meet all the elements of negligence or gross negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages). The order does not weigh the merits of those allegations really and definitely doesn't consider the damages amount he is asking for--that will be up to a judge or jury after all facts are presented, etc. Chances of this cases going anywhere still seem very slim.
And you could sue Bacardi or any other vendor if you could allege they were breaching a duty to you that caused you damages--say they falsely labelled one of their products as containing less alcohol that it did or they laced it with something to make it more addictive, etc.
This lawsuit may or may not be ridiculous--certainly on its face 3 million for game addiction seems ridiculous--but that will be determined in due time once the process has taken its course, it wasn't the purpose of this stage of the proceeding to assess the merits of the claims, just whether they were legally sufficient.
the example is a bit deceptive, its tempting to conclude the first is better because it is a greater percentage change, but going from 10 to 20 is still better than going from 33 to 99 in terms of gallons saved per mile. Traveling 100 miles in a 10mpg, would take 10 gal; 5 gal in a 20mpg; 3 in a 33 and 1 in a 99 mpg car. So you save more gallons per distance in first case even though second is a bigger percentage improvement.
right?
Its not even a full step forward. This is just an office action rejecting the claims. The patent holder has a chance to respond and quite often (in my experience the 2/3 number cited by article is a bit generous) succeeds in having at least one original claim survive. If this is the case, then there are no intervening rights for the accused infringers and the patent holder now has what is often called a "gold plated" patent since it is much less subject to an invalidity defense at trial. Believe me, its still far from a victory. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but it could well be a train.
I believe that under US Copyright law, if you are going to perform another artist's work you pay a default compulsory license fee set by law (unless you strike a separate deal with the original composer) which is from about 2 cents to about 10 cents per song.(Seehttp://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html (setting out compulsory license rates)) That means if you play a dozen of your own songs and a dozen songs from other artists you will have to pay a compulsory license fee of a grand total of about $1.00 U.S. This is how composers and other artists are compensated for their work. Its not the end of free speech, its the government's way of "promot[ing] the progress of the sciences and useful arts" (Article 1, section 8 U.S. Constitution.) Of course its not perfect, but its rationally based on the concept that allowing artists to be compensated for their work will ultimately increase the overall amount of new works being produced. Plus it is consistent with the basic idea that people should be compensated for their work product--in this case the songs that an artist wrote. I find it a bit annoying that people seem to feel a sense of entitlement to use another's work (e.g. a composed work, a program, etc.) without permission from or payment to that person. Don't get me wrong--open source is great IF everyone wants it that way. But you can't just take someone else's work product and decide for yourself you are going to make it open source, public domain, whatever. The alternative to paying the fee is simple of course--come up with your own works.
He missed a couple of records--most consecutive wins on a game show and most opponents defeated--by one day and one opponent each. Check out--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Jennings
There were some interesting coincidences as well--he tied all time most appearances on a game show record (75) and missed both the most consecutive wins on a game show and most opponents defeated both by 1 win/opponent each.
But I don't think our clean cut Mormon returned missionary had it in him to throw in the towel deceptively. If he wanted to walk away he would have. It seems he just had a bad game and his opponent had a pretty good one.
Sounds like you would run into some serious section 112 rejection problems. This is going overboard, but in response to the daily railing on patents, a couple of thoughts:
Bad patents are like some of the big media "bad" lawsuits, there are fewer than we are lead to believe, and the ones that are bad will not last long in court (and can even cost the side asserting them the other side's attorney fees)
Second, getting a patent is not as easy as it seems, again a few exceptions make all the press but they are the exception, not the rule.
the truth is patents reallly do motivate research. sure there are drawbacks, but that's life. There really is a lot of cool stuff being developed by companies motivated by financial gain secured by patents on the eventual by-product of the research.
The laws did not take their toll in this case since there was no trial/proof, what happened was a settlement freely entered into by the parties. True, one party was probably scarred to death, but only because they assessed their chance at escaping the proof required as very low.
It is not improper either for laws to reflect the wishes of lobbyists to a large degree. Lobbyists have influence because they have money. They have money because many people highly value the service they provide. Because many people value the service they provide, they should have influence.
This is a pet peeve of mine, people always want to blame lobbyists--consider large oil company lobbyists for example. But the reason they have so much influence is because we all consume a great deal of their product. The fact that so many value the product a group provides should be reflected in our political system. We vote every time we take out our debit card.
The laws do reinforce the music industry's position arguably too far, but there is a lot of justification for copyright protection. In fact, the only time the word "right" is mentioned in the US constitution is in regard to protecting the work of authors of original works. The extent of the protection is debatable, but protection to some extent as a means for "promoting the arts" it is completely essential.
Slashdot Mirror
I love all my electronic gadgets as much as the next /.er, but there are very practical advantages to paper. It is very high resolution, light weight, very easy to mark up in a comfortable and intuitive way, is always on--no crash, dead batteries, boot up time--is very ergonomic (you can move around and read it, read in direct sunlight, you can fold it and unfold it, etc.) and its very easy to move stuff from your computer to paper.
not sure I agree totally with 2nd paragraph, but right on with your point in general and amen to last paragraph.
The Judge's order simply means he has stated a claim--i.e. alleged facts sufficient to meet all the elements of negligence or gross negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages). The order does not weigh the merits of those allegations really and definitely doesn't consider the damages amount he is asking for--that will be up to a judge or jury after all facts are presented, etc. Chances of this cases going anywhere still seem very slim. And you could sue Bacardi or any other vendor if you could allege they were breaching a duty to you that caused you damages--say they falsely labelled one of their products as containing less alcohol that it did or they laced it with something to make it more addictive, etc. This lawsuit may or may not be ridiculous--certainly on its face 3 million for game addiction seems ridiculous--but that will be determined in due time once the process has taken its course, it wasn't the purpose of this stage of the proceeding to assess the merits of the claims, just whether they were legally sufficient.
the example is a bit deceptive, its tempting to conclude the first is better because it is a greater percentage change, but going from 10 to 20 is still better than going from 33 to 99 in terms of gallons saved per mile. Traveling 100 miles in a 10mpg, would take 10 gal; 5 gal in a 20mpg; 3 in a 33 and 1 in a 99 mpg car. So you save more gallons per distance in first case even though second is a bigger percentage improvement. right?
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6778979
Its not even a full step forward. This is just an office action rejecting the claims. The patent holder has a chance to respond and quite often (in my experience the 2/3 number cited by article is a bit generous) succeeds in having at least one original claim survive. If this is the case, then there are no intervening rights for the accused infringers and the patent holder now has what is often called a "gold plated" patent since it is much less subject to an invalidity defense at trial. Believe me, its still far from a victory. There is light at the end of the tunnel, but it could well be a train.
I believe that under US Copyright law, if you are going to perform another artist's work you pay a default compulsory license fee set by law (unless you strike a separate deal with the original composer) which is from about 2 cents to about 10 cents per song.(See http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html (setting out compulsory license rates)) That means if you play a dozen of your own songs and a dozen songs from other artists you will have to pay a compulsory license fee of a grand total of about $1.00 U.S. This is how composers and other artists are compensated for their work. Its not the end of free speech, its the government's way of "promot[ing] the progress of the sciences and useful arts" (Article 1, section 8 U.S. Constitution.) Of course its not perfect, but its rationally based on the concept that allowing artists to be compensated for their work will ultimately increase the overall amount of new works being produced. Plus it is consistent with the basic idea that people should be compensated for their work product--in this case the songs that an artist wrote. I find it a bit annoying that people seem to feel a sense of entitlement to use another's work (e.g. a composed work, a program, etc.) without permission from or payment to that person. Don't get me wrong--open source is great IF everyone wants it that way. But you can't just take someone else's work product and decide for yourself you are going to make it open source, public domain, whatever. The alternative to paying the fee is simple of course--come up with your own works.
But then who will pay for Google then? Somebody has to keep the power on at those server farms.
He missed a couple of records--most consecutive wins on a game show and most opponents defeated--by one day and one opponent each. Check out--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Jennings
There were some interesting coincidences as well--he tied all time most appearances on a game show record (75) and missed both the most consecutive wins on a game show and most opponents defeated both by 1 win/opponent each. But I don't think our clean cut Mormon returned missionary had it in him to throw in the towel deceptively. If he wanted to walk away he would have. It seems he just had a bad game and his opponent had a pretty good one.
Sounds like you would run into some serious section 112 rejection problems. This is going overboard, but in response to the daily railing on patents, a couple of thoughts: Bad patents are like some of the big media "bad" lawsuits, there are fewer than we are lead to believe, and the ones that are bad will not last long in court (and can even cost the side asserting them the other side's attorney fees) Second, getting a patent is not as easy as it seems, again a few exceptions make all the press but they are the exception, not the rule. the truth is patents reallly do motivate research. sure there are drawbacks, but that's life. There really is a lot of cool stuff being developed by companies motivated by financial gain secured by patents on the eventual by-product of the research.
The laws did not take their toll in this case since there was no trial/proof, what happened was a settlement freely entered into by the parties. True, one party was probably scarred to death, but only because they assessed their chance at escaping the proof required as very low. It is not improper either for laws to reflect the wishes of lobbyists to a large degree. Lobbyists have influence because they have money. They have money because many people highly value the service they provide. Because many people value the service they provide, they should have influence. This is a pet peeve of mine, people always want to blame lobbyists--consider large oil company lobbyists for example. But the reason they have so much influence is because we all consume a great deal of their product. The fact that so many value the product a group provides should be reflected in our political system. We vote every time we take out our debit card. The laws do reinforce the music industry's position arguably too far, but there is a lot of justification for copyright protection. In fact, the only time the word "right" is mentioned in the US constitution is in regard to protecting the work of authors of original works. The extent of the protection is debatable, but protection to some extent as a means for "promoting the arts" it is completely essential.