This case isn't about patents, it's about copyright. Jeans (and other fashion designs) *can* be patented in the US. They can't be copyrighted (in the US). But patents don't cover showing a picture of the object on your website.
We're talking about treaties, freely entered into by all countries involved, designed to encourage & facilitate commerce between economies.
Treaties don't really come into play here, because the Berne Convention is not self-enacting.
If an American copyright holder in one of those areas was having his American IP rights violated in France, he would be just as capable of suing and gaining satisfaction.
No, you either misspoke or don't understand. Who the copyright holder is doesn't matter. What matters is where the alleged infringement takes place. When an American (or anyone) distributes copyrighted material in the US, they are under US law. When they distribute copyrighted material in France, they're under French law. Of course, getting a ruling in France based on French law for a US company with none of its assets in France, isn't very useful, unless you can convince a US court to enforce the ruling. Under the principle of comity, US courts will usually do this. Then, once the US court makes its ruling, it can be enforced, using injunctions, attachments, liens, and levies, if necessary.
You cannot claim that it goes against free speech unless you're willing to say that all copyright is a violation of free speech.
The claim is that a law granting copyright protection to fashion designs would be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. That's not saying that all copyright protections are unconstitutional, only this one. It's essentially saying that copyright protections in the US have already been extended to their Constitutional limit, and argument I'd pretty much agree with.
Anyone who has delved into the copyright issues on Wikipedia is aware of the significant differences between US and foreign laws. The English Wikipedia tends to take the more liberal approach - there are a number of images which are included which are legal in the US but not legal in other countries (relying on fair use is the most common example, but there are many others including the French protections of fashion designs). A ruling against Viewfinder here would likely have a huge chilling effect on the encyclopedia, even if it were narrowly tailored to uses which lack "sufficient communicative elements".
It is a founding principle of American judiciary and politics that "the only law that applies is American".
It seems to me you know very little about the American judiciary and most likely didn't even RTFA. "The United States adheres to a principle of comity, which means that it will typically enforce the rulings of foreign courts when applicable, and when doing so does not violate ordre public, the fundamental principles of local law."
US courts can, and routinely do, enforce foreign laws. They generally don't do so with regard to copyright law, however, because the US courts don't have the right to enforce a foreign law repugnant to the Constitution, and US copyright law is so broad that pretty much anything that congress *can* legislate without violating the First Amendment *is* legislated.
So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins?
Actually, I couldn't care less. If a bunch of idiots want to use Microsoft products because they have a higher share of the parked domain market, it doesn't bother me.
It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache.
The government isn't going to outlaw Apache just because of Netcraft. They haven't even taken away my "freedom to choose FreeBSD", and we all know what Netcraft shows about them.
ICK. I sure hope they automatically take all those parked domains out of the search engine. Judging from the number of times I've landed on them though, I doubt it.
Forget the ethics of the situation, they have a *right* to do this as far as I'm concerned. But helping people crap up your search engine for a few extra bucks isn't a good business practice.
What does that mean? Mexican birth rates are already declining, and they're currently about equal to US birth rates. If the Earth loses a significant amount of habitable land, this trend will most likely continue.
The only other case mentioned is the ProCD case which I am unfamiliar with but apparently involved someone copying a (not copyrightable) phone book from a CD of some phone book software (in violation of the EULA) and then making competing phone book software. If my assumptions are correct, that would not seem to bode well for the "EULA is not a valid contract" argument.
One key distinction between the ProCD case and most instances of shrinkwrap licenses is that the ProCD software was purchased directly from the manufacturer. The courts analogies to insurance contracts and airline ticket contracts make sense in this instance (and the Blizzard one, for that matter). But if, on the other hand, you buy a copy of Windows from Best Buy, any common law contract formed would be between you and Best Buy, not between you and Microsoft.
The guy has a good idea, but doesn't understand what to watch for in an EULA. Things like indemnification clauses, limitation of liability, waiving of consumer law rights, requirements to arbitrate in some place favorable to the vendor, and similar clauses need to be flagged. It's worth looking at those.
Only if you plan on suing the manufacturer. For most of us it's enough to assume we have no recourse against the manufacturer for anything that we could possibly waive in an EULA. If we expect some kind of warranty, OK, then maybe it's worth reading the EULA.
In many places in the U.S. they have been shown to be legal and binding contracts even though you can't read them before you have to agree to them
Can you cite a source for that? Last time I checked EULAs have only been upheld in cases which are easily distinguished from standard shrinkwrap licenses. Of course it's been a little while since I've read about this sort of thing.
And just how do we get to read the EULA for a paticular company's product without purchasing it?
You could try asking the sales associate. Maybe she'll even let you open up the box right there in the store and read the EULA. Or maybe she'll tell you that you can't read the EULA unless you buy the software and open the package, and you can't return the software after you open the package - in which case you have two reasonable choices. 1) Ignore the EULA. 2) Don't buy that software from that store.
Then again, what do I know? I don't buy proprietary software.
Unless you plan on selling the software, the EULA just doesn't matter. 1) It's probably not legally enforcible anyway, and 2) Even if it is, you're not going to get caught if you break it.
Courts don't expect publisher to shrink long contracts that are of reasonable length for their purpose down to the size of a box, nor is it their responsibility to have a printed copy in the store, as the publisher does not control the store.
Well that's the problem, isn't it. The contract that I arguably agree to when I buy the software from the store is between me and the store, the publisher is not a party to it.
I don't know of a court case where an EULA ever held up that the product wasn't purchased directly from the publisher.
That said, I'm puzzled at the attitude the submitter apparently has, in that he seems to be describing environmentalists, and pro-nuke-power people, as two separate groups.
For the most part they are. I always cringed at the anti-nuclear-power statements at the Green Party rallys, but most of the people in the audience cheered along. "Shut down nuclear power plants" is right in the platform. Now it is true that environmentalist != Green Party, but I've certainly noticed a strong correlation between anti-nuclear-power and environmentalists.
If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.
Depends how long it continues, and how quickly things heat up. In any reasonable models I've seen, the "death of us as a civilization" wasn't predicted. No more Florida in 100 years, maybe.
Except that humanity's exponentially growing population wouldn't be able to support itself when some previously furtile land turns to desert and all our coastal cities are destroyed by rising waters, which would cause billions of people to develop the heartland (which is where the farms are). While it may not whipe out our species, it will be the death of the modern lifestyle. The resources will just be too expensive.
Or maybe people will just have fewer children in the future.
My bet would have gone the other way, because when I searched Google for "Bruce Perens" GFDL, the second link was an email (presumably) by you saying that "the GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license".
Anyway, I agree with you that there are a number of problems with the GFDL. But I've gotten off-topic enough for this thread.
The content can still be salvaged by people with Admin access (like wikitruth are doing), and I definitely *don't* want to see wikimedia have to face legal issues over wikipedia, so it's a win-win-win situation. What's the problem again?
There are a number of problems. The hardest one to overcome is that most of us don't have Admin access and have to rely on sites like Wikitruth (which is currently slashdotted).
Google wouldn't have to follow Chinese law if they weren't going into business with the Chinese government.
Google needs to follow Chinese law if they want to make it easy for citizens of China to access Google. As far as I can tell, Google *hasn't* "gone into business with the Chinese government", so if you could elaborate on that, please do.
Given today's world of a 1:1 relationship between users and computers (mostly laptops), there is basically no way to escape the tracking unless you really block the cookies.
Well, you can set Firefox to automatically delete all your cookies every time you close the program. You'll still get tracked if you log in, but otherwise, if you don't have a static IP, you'll be somewhat more anonymous.
Slashdot Mirror
This case isn't about patents, it's about copyright. Jeans (and other fashion designs) *can* be patented in the US. They can't be copyrighted (in the US). But patents don't cover showing a picture of the object on your website.
We're talking about treaties, freely entered into by all countries involved, designed to encourage & facilitate commerce between economies.
Treaties don't really come into play here, because the Berne Convention is not self-enacting.
If an American copyright holder in one of those areas was having his American IP rights violated in France, he would be just as capable of suing and gaining satisfaction.
No, you either misspoke or don't understand. Who the copyright holder is doesn't matter. What matters is where the alleged infringement takes place. When an American (or anyone) distributes copyrighted material in the US, they are under US law. When they distribute copyrighted material in France, they're under French law. Of course, getting a ruling in France based on French law for a US company with none of its assets in France, isn't very useful, unless you can convince a US court to enforce the ruling. Under the principle of comity, US courts will usually do this. Then, once the US court makes its ruling, it can be enforced, using injunctions, attachments, liens, and levies, if necessary.
You cannot claim that it goes against free speech unless you're willing to say that all copyright is a violation of free speech.
The claim is that a law granting copyright protection to fashion designs would be an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. That's not saying that all copyright protections are unconstitutional, only this one. It's essentially saying that copyright protections in the US have already been extended to their Constitutional limit, and argument I'd pretty much agree with.
Anyone who has delved into the copyright issues on Wikipedia is aware of the significant differences between US and foreign laws. The English Wikipedia tends to take the more liberal approach - there are a number of images which are included which are legal in the US but not legal in other countries (relying on fair use is the most common example, but there are many others including the French protections of fashion designs). A ruling against Viewfinder here would likely have a huge chilling effect on the encyclopedia, even if it were narrowly tailored to uses which lack "sufficient communicative elements".
It is a founding principle of American judiciary and politics that "the only law that applies is American".
It seems to me you know very little about the American judiciary and most likely didn't even RTFA. "The United States adheres to a principle of comity, which means that it will typically enforce the rulings of foreign courts when applicable, and when doing so does not violate ordre public, the fundamental principles of local law."
US courts can, and routinely do, enforce foreign laws. They generally don't do so with regard to copyright law, however, because the US courts don't have the right to enforce a foreign law repugnant to the Constitution, and US copyright law is so broad that pretty much anything that congress *can* legislate without violating the First Amendment *is* legislated.
So the thing to ask yourself is, do you want Microsoft to get those wins?
Actually, I couldn't care less. If a bunch of idiots want to use Microsoft products because they have a higher share of the parked domain market, it doesn't bother me.
It is absolutely necessary and useful to block Microsoft wins in this area if you value your freedom to choose Apache.
The government isn't going to outlaw Apache just because of Netcraft. They haven't even taken away my "freedom to choose FreeBSD", and we all know what Netcraft shows about them.
is available again...
http://www.google.com/domainpark/
ICK. I sure hope they automatically take all those parked domains out of the search engine. Judging from the number of times I've landed on them though, I doubt it.
Forget the ethics of the situation, they have a *right* to do this as far as I'm concerned. But helping people crap up your search engine for a few extra bucks isn't a good business practice.
What does that mean? Mexican birth rates are already declining, and they're currently about equal to US birth rates. If the Earth loses a significant amount of habitable land, this trend will most likely continue.
The only other case mentioned is the ProCD case which I am unfamiliar with but apparently involved someone copying a (not copyrightable) phone book from a CD of some phone book software (in violation of the EULA) and then making competing phone book software. If my assumptions are correct, that would not seem to bode well for the "EULA is not a valid contract" argument.
One key distinction between the ProCD case and most instances of shrinkwrap licenses is that the ProCD software was purchased directly from the manufacturer. The courts analogies to insurance contracts and airline ticket contracts make sense in this instance (and the Blizzard one, for that matter). But if, on the other hand, you buy a copy of Windows from Best Buy, any common law contract formed would be between you and Best Buy, not between you and Microsoft.
Or do what I do - change them to something you do agree to.
That's what I do with all my mattresses. Now the tag says "Do remove under penalty of law"!
The guy has a good idea, but doesn't understand what to watch for in an EULA. Things like indemnification clauses, limitation of liability, waiving of consumer law rights, requirements to arbitrate in some place favorable to the vendor, and similar clauses need to be flagged. It's worth looking at those.
Only if you plan on suing the manufacturer. For most of us it's enough to assume we have no recourse against the manufacturer for anything that we could possibly waive in an EULA. If we expect some kind of warranty, OK, then maybe it's worth reading the EULA.
In many places in the U.S. they have been shown to be legal and binding contracts even though you can't read them before you have to agree to them
Can you cite a source for that? Last time I checked EULAs have only been upheld in cases which are easily distinguished from standard shrinkwrap licenses. Of course it's been a little while since I've read about this sort of thing.
And just how do we get to read the EULA for a paticular company's product without purchasing it?
You could try asking the sales associate. Maybe she'll even let you open up the box right there in the store and read the EULA. Or maybe she'll tell you that you can't read the EULA unless you buy the software and open the package, and you can't return the software after you open the package - in which case you have two reasonable choices. 1) Ignore the EULA. 2) Don't buy that software from that store.
Then again, what do I know? I don't buy proprietary software.
Unless you plan on selling the software, the EULA just doesn't matter. 1) It's probably not legally enforcible anyway, and 2) Even if it is, you're not going to get caught if you break it.
Courts don't expect publisher to shrink long contracts that are of reasonable length for their purpose down to the size of a box, nor is it their responsibility to have a printed copy in the store, as the publisher does not control the store.
Well that's the problem, isn't it. The contract that I arguably agree to when I buy the software from the store is between me and the store, the publisher is not a party to it.
I don't know of a court case where an EULA ever held up that the product wasn't purchased directly from the publisher.
That said, I'm puzzled at the attitude the submitter apparently has, in that he seems to be describing environmentalists, and pro-nuke-power people, as two separate groups.
For the most part they are. I always cringed at the anti-nuclear-power statements at the Green Party rallys, but most of the people in the audience cheered along. "Shut down nuclear power plants" is right in the platform. Now it is true that environmentalist != Green Party, but I've certainly noticed a strong correlation between anti-nuclear-power and environmentalists.
If the cycle continues it will certainly, without a doubt, lead to the death of us as a civilization, whether we were the cause or not.
Depends how long it continues, and how quickly things heat up. In any reasonable models I've seen, the "death of us as a civilization" wasn't predicted. No more Florida in 100 years, maybe.
Except that humanity's exponentially growing population wouldn't be able to support itself when some previously furtile land turns to desert and all our coastal cities are destroyed by rising waters, which would cause billions of people to develop the heartland (which is where the farms are). While it may not whipe out our species, it will be the death of the modern lifestyle. The resources will just be too expensive.
Or maybe people will just have fewer children in the future.
My bet would have gone the other way, because when I searched Google for "Bruce Perens" GFDL, the second link was an email (presumably) by you saying that "the GFDL is a DFSG-compliant license".
Anyway, I agree with you that there are a number of problems with the GFDL. But I've gotten off-topic enough for this thread.
Are you [[User:Bruce Perens]] on Wikipedia?
The content can still be salvaged by people with Admin access (like wikitruth are doing), and I definitely *don't* want to see wikimedia have to face legal issues over wikipedia, so it's a win-win-win situation. What's the problem again?
There are a number of problems. The hardest one to overcome is that most of us don't have Admin access and have to rely on sites like Wikitruth (which is currently slashdotted).
Why should there be an article about this website in Wikipedia? You wouldn't expect to find one in Britannica or Encarta.
Because Wikipedia is aiming to be better than Britannica and Encarta.
Give it about 48 hours. I'm sure someone will come up with a competing US Holiday calendar. Then you can use that.
Google wouldn't have to follow Chinese law if they weren't going into business with the Chinese government.
Google needs to follow Chinese law if they want to make it easy for citizens of China to access Google. As far as I can tell, Google *hasn't* "gone into business with the Chinese government", so if you could elaborate on that, please do.
Given today's world of a 1:1 relationship between users and computers (mostly laptops), there is basically no way to escape the tracking unless you really block the cookies.
Well, you can set Firefox to automatically delete all your cookies every time you close the program. You'll still get tracked if you log in, but otherwise, if you don't have a static IP, you'll be somewhat more anonymous.