FYI, Eminent Domain (i.e., Takings Clause) does not only relate to real property, but to any property. As a patent is intellectual _property_, then the U.S. can (and has) taken patents. I won't bother with the look up, but there was a recent/. about how NASA ignored patents.
Of course, if it is a taking, then there must be reasonable (just) compensation.
"However, going back to the Star Trek film in question, I always liked the way that Scotty was able to create a new material and presumably the method for making it on a tiny Apple Mac Plus! Was he using MacDraw I wonder?"
You know, I never thought about this until I read your message. I suppose we now know that Apple beats MS in the end, because Scotty was immediately familiar with the interface.
Naturally, this must be so. Could you imagine Clippy popping up when the reactor core is about to breach?
"Hello! I noticed you're trying to restart the containment field."
"The point is not to *stifle* innovation by allowing people to squat on patents so they can stop companies from implementing an idea."
I'm going out on an assumption here. Did the company that sued Blackberry squat on the patent and not attempt to commercialize it? Or, did they attempt to license to Blackberry, who chose to ignore them and hope the could wrest control from the smaller company? I don't know because I've not delved into the facts of the case.
And, if I have a property right, then I have the right to use or not use that property as I see fit. Therefore, if I chose not to commercialize a patent, I should have that right.
"How can a company enforce (or even hold) a patent on something when they don't actually manufacture anything that uses the patent? Surely this is a restrictive practice that should be outlawed?"
I hate to disagree with you, but I must.
A patent is a property right, and intellectual property right. I, a typical citizen, have a great idea. I patent it. Unfortunately, I have $20k in credit card debt and $450 in my checking account. So, while I have a great idea, I lack the means to produce that idea. What to do? What to do?
I know, I'll license my idea out to companies and they can manufacture it for me. Under your model, I would not be allowed to do this "restrictive" process. You'd rather it be outlawed. I've heard that Leer invented the 8-Track tape; and becuase he could not afford to do anything with it, he sold the patent for the player and licensed the patent for manufacture of the tapes.
The purpose for patents is to foster creativity by allowing an entity a limited monopoly on the idea. This prevents huge companies from stealing others ideas and smothering competition. It has the unfortunate side effect of limiting companies who violate the patent rather than properly license. Granted, I do not know the facts of the Blackberry case, so I am not referring to that.
On a more practical level, Let's say I own 40 acres of quality real estate. Next door, there is Company that produces something and has a fair amount of waste material. Would it be okay for them to dump that waste on my property? I would complain, and somebody would argue that I'm being restrictive with the use of my property--I won't let Company use my property without compensation.
What you are complaining about is when a smaller corporation plays clearing house to several patents. That is no different. You say SCO is sitting on IP? If a large enough company wanted to wrest that IP from SCO, a publically traded company, then they just need to perform a hostile take over, sell the IP to themselves, then dump the carcass. You can't do that with a person, but you can do that with a business.
"What if RIM was a US company and NTP was Canadian. Do you think that the judgement would have been different?"
I don't think that has any relevance. If NTP was Canadian, it would have a U.S. subsidiary to hold its U.S. IP rights. So, even in that situation, it would be a U.S. company. Although, I could be wrong in thinking it wisest for a foreign company to have a U.S. subsidiary for such a purpose. I'm in law, not bidness.
I recently read a case involving an alleged intentional business tort where one of the parties (defendant) was Canadian. Without getting to much into the case, the Canadian company survived what read to be a marginally valid claim. So, federal courts appear to be sovereign-neutral when it comes to resolving disputes--as well they should be.
Besides, such a posture is bad for business. If U.S. courts had a preference for U.S. companies over foreign, then there would be less foreign investment. This does not work in the global market and would only serve to isolate the U.S. more.
"Do you believe that in a neighborhood made up entirely of your ideal family situation (one parent at home full-time) will have less crime than a neighborhood where both parents work full time?"
Yes. There is an editorial in the WSJ this past week that discusses this very observation. More specifically, it discusses the impact of illegitimacy in the underclass, but IIRC, it discusses crime as well.
In a nutshell, it seems that rates of illegitimacy in minoritys fifty years ago was only about 1/4. Now, it is 2/3. The editorial points to other related trends and crime.
I don't have access to all the research, but IIRC, the majority of these studies supports the "traditional" notion that a parent at home equals to better socially adjusted children, and hense less crime.
For that reason, my wife and I have opted to drive older cars and live in an older house to ensure we can sustain a one-income lifestyle. So far, our son seems happier (says others who meet him) than most kids--and better rested.
First, I can stick in a sic where I want--I was trying to avoid people from correcting my intentional misuse.:-) Second, as a fan who heard nothing about the break, I would disagree with "well-publicized."
It's because dismissal with prejudice isn't as bad as you think. It is possible for a Plaintiff to drop his own lawsuit and have it result as "dismissal with prejudice." That phrase is merely a term d'art which said the suit is dropped and can't be raised again. It is a purely procedural thing.
Of course, not having read the order, I'm not sure what the grounds for the dismissal was. So, it could be a bigger thing.
Okay, we have a Finn telling us we really don't own the music on our CDs. She says that if you want to listen to the music they own (Intellectual Property being what it is) and license to you for personal use, then you should comply with their license requirements.
The Supreme Court just last Term reinforced the ruling that one does not have property rights in land per se. Instead, we have economic rights in land ownership. This is in reference to the Kelo ruling where the Takings Clause allows the government to seize your land and give it to another private citizen if it will increase the government's tax revenue. So, you don't own your land--the government does; and they just let you use it a while.
So, I'm more worried about my house being given to a developer.
Somebody above said you had to contact your city's electrical inspector. That's a little heavy handed. Hire a certified electrician. Inspectors only show up on new construction, if I'm not mistaken. Now, my two cents . . .
Go ahead and mount a whole house surge protector. They cost a couple of hundred dollars, take a couple hundred more to mount. But, then you'll have (I think) somewhere on the order of 40,000 joules of protection. Some smart house sites have more information--let Google do the walking.
Second, while you're adding the whole house protector, add a box on the main that will allow you to connect a generator for those power outages. My step-father did that a few years back after an ice storm took out power for a few days. (Before he just ran the cords into the house). He was able to generate enough power to keep the central heat going and other "essentials."
Of course, if you only lose power for a few minutes every couple of years, this may be a little much.
"If there are simple 'rules' to create proteins, maybe that's how nature was able to come up with life so quickly."
Well, first it is sometimes easier to reverse engineer than create. Second, it is also possible to use these 'rules' to support intelligent design. I mean, if "God" were to create life and all that, wouldn't he create an easy-to-replicate manufacturing process?
I believe there's a Federal law prohibiting squatting. That is, if you either have a trademark or lose a site, then you can buy the domain name for the regular registration site. This was a big deal a few years back.
I can't believe nobody else has taken offense to this. "Cracker" is a highly-charged derogatory term. The politically correct term is "Saltine-American."
Re:I for one welcome our new corporate overlords
on
Microsoft Sues EU
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Would you rather be a poor man in Mexico or Indonesia?
Slashdot Mirror
FYI, Eminent Domain (i.e., Takings Clause) does not only relate to real property, but to any property. As a patent is intellectual _property_, then the U.S. can (and has) taken patents. I won't bother with the look up, but there was a recent /. about how NASA ignored patents.
Of course, if it is a taking, then there must be reasonable (just) compensation.
"However, going back to the Star Trek film in question, I always liked the way that Scotty was able to create a new material and presumably the method for making it on a tiny Apple Mac Plus! Was he using MacDraw I wonder?"
You know, I never thought about this until I read your message. I suppose we now know that Apple beats MS in the end, because Scotty was immediately familiar with the interface.
Naturally, this must be so. Could you imagine Clippy popping up when the reactor core is about to breach?
"Hello! I noticed you're trying to restart the containment field."
This is a little too late--the trilogy has already been through the theaters and passed on to DVDs.
Ben
"The point is not to *stifle* innovation by allowing people to squat on patents so they can stop companies from implementing an idea."
I'm going out on an assumption here. Did the company that sued Blackberry squat on the patent and not attempt to commercialize it? Or, did they attempt to license to Blackberry, who chose to ignore them and hope the could wrest control from the smaller company? I don't know because I've not delved into the facts of the case.
And, if I have a property right, then I have the right to use or not use that property as I see fit. Therefore, if I chose not to commercialize a patent, I should have that right.
"How can a company enforce (or even hold) a patent on something when they don't actually manufacture anything that uses the patent? Surely this is a restrictive practice that should be outlawed?"
I hate to disagree with you, but I must.
A patent is a property right, and intellectual property right. I, a typical citizen, have a great idea. I patent it. Unfortunately, I have $20k in credit card debt and $450 in my checking account. So, while I have a great idea, I lack the means to produce that idea. What to do? What to do?
I know, I'll license my idea out to companies and they can manufacture it for me. Under your model, I would not be allowed to do this "restrictive" process. You'd rather it be outlawed. I've heard that Leer invented the 8-Track tape; and becuase he could not afford to do anything with it, he sold the patent for the player and licensed the patent for manufacture of the tapes.
The purpose for patents is to foster creativity by allowing an entity a limited monopoly on the idea. This prevents huge companies from stealing others ideas and smothering competition. It has the unfortunate side effect of limiting companies who violate the patent rather than properly license. Granted, I do not know the facts of the Blackberry case, so I am not referring to that.
On a more practical level, Let's say I own 40 acres of quality real estate. Next door, there is Company that produces something and has a fair amount of waste material. Would it be okay for them to dump that waste on my property? I would complain, and somebody would argue that I'm being restrictive with the use of my property--I won't let Company use my property without compensation.
What you are complaining about is when a smaller corporation plays clearing house to several patents. That is no different. You say SCO is sitting on IP? If a large enough company wanted to wrest that IP from SCO, a publically traded company, then they just need to perform a hostile take over, sell the IP to themselves, then dump the carcass. You can't do that with a person, but you can do that with a business.
"What if RIM was a US company and NTP was Canadian. Do you think that the judgement would have been different?"
I don't think that has any relevance. If NTP was Canadian, it would have a U.S. subsidiary to hold its U.S. IP rights. So, even in that situation, it would be a U.S. company. Although, I could be wrong in thinking it wisest for a foreign company to have a U.S. subsidiary for such a purpose. I'm in law, not bidness.
I recently read a case involving an alleged intentional business tort where one of the parties (defendant) was Canadian. Without getting to much into the case, the Canadian company survived what read to be a marginally valid claim. So, federal courts appear to be sovereign-neutral when it comes to resolving disputes--as well they should be.
Besides, such a posture is bad for business. If U.S. courts had a preference for U.S. companies over foreign, then there would be less foreign investment. This does not work in the global market and would only serve to isolate the U.S. more.
So long as Linux relies on GPL, Microsoft cannot co-opt the code into Windows. SCO can also roll Linux code into its Unix and not apologize.
I agree with the above poster's comment that GPL gives Linux life as well as drag--but more lift.
"Do you believe that in a neighborhood made up entirely of your ideal family situation (one parent at home full-time) will have less crime than a neighborhood where both parents work full time?"
Yes. There is an editorial in the WSJ this past week that discusses this very observation. More specifically, it discusses the impact of illegitimacy in the underclass, but IIRC, it discusses crime as well.
In a nutshell, it seems that rates of illegitimacy in minoritys fifty years ago was only about 1/4. Now, it is 2/3. The editorial points to other related trends and crime.
I don't have access to all the research, but IIRC, the majority of these studies supports the "traditional" notion that a parent at home equals to better socially adjusted children, and hense less crime.
For that reason, my wife and I have opted to drive older cars and live in an older house to ensure we can sustain a one-income lifestyle. So far, our son seems happier (says others who meet him) than most kids--and better rested.
Of course, this is just my humble opinion.
"Shhh!! I was waiting until everyone started using them before hitting them with my patent"
I know you're being cheeky, and I see the humor. Although, this tactic can cause one's patent to be invalidated. I forget the basic rule.
If SSH Comm. uses OpenSSH in their products. I mean, maybe all they're doing is slapping some lipstick on a pig and calling it Paris Hilton.
". . . at a distance 94 times that of the distance from the Sun to Earth."
So . . . how far is that in AU?
First, I can stick in a sic where I want--I was trying to avoid people from correcting my intentional misuse. :-) Second, as a fan who heard nothing about the break, I would disagree with "well-publicized."
". . . there is only so much time in a movie."
Yes, but you can always do like they just did in Battlestar Galaga (sic) and throw up a "to be continued."
Actually, they sort of did that in Matrix. Never mind.
"please say yes ;-)"
No
It's because dismissal with prejudice isn't as bad as you think. It is possible for a Plaintiff to drop his own lawsuit and have it result as "dismissal with prejudice." That phrase is merely a term d'art which said the suit is dropped and can't be raised again. It is a purely procedural thing.
Of course, not having read the order, I'm not sure what the grounds for the dismissal was. So, it could be a bigger thing.
Ben
Okay, we have a Finn telling us we really don't own the music on our CDs. She says that if you want to listen to the music they own (Intellectual Property being what it is) and license to you for personal use, then you should comply with their license requirements.
The Supreme Court just last Term reinforced the ruling that one does not have property rights in land per se. Instead, we have economic rights in land ownership. This is in reference to the Kelo ruling where the Takings Clause allows the government to seize your land and give it to another private citizen if it will increase the government's tax revenue. So, you don't own your land--the government does; and they just let you use it a while.
So, I'm more worried about my house being given to a developer.
Somebody above said you had to contact your city's electrical inspector. That's a little heavy handed. Hire a certified electrician. Inspectors only show up on new construction, if I'm not mistaken. Now, my two cents . . .
Go ahead and mount a whole house surge protector. They cost a couple of hundred dollars, take a couple hundred more to mount. But, then you'll have (I think) somewhere on the order of 40,000 joules of protection. Some smart house sites have more information--let Google do the walking.
Second, while you're adding the whole house protector, add a box on the main that will allow you to connect a generator for those power outages. My step-father did that a few years back after an ice storm took out power for a few days. (Before he just ran the cords into the house). He was able to generate enough power to keep the central heat going and other "essentials."
Of course, if you only lose power for a few minutes every couple of years, this may be a little much.
"If there are simple 'rules' to create proteins, maybe that's how nature was able to come up with life so quickly."
Well, first it is sometimes easier to reverse engineer than create. Second, it is also possible to use these 'rules' to support intelligent design. I mean, if "God" were to create life and all that, wouldn't he create an easy-to-replicate manufacturing process?
I believe there's a Federal law prohibiting squatting. That is, if you either have a trademark or lose a site, then you can buy the domain name for the regular registration site. This was a big deal a few years back.
Yes, but can you re-write the flamewar in any other language than BASIC? That invites a flame war in-and-of itself.
Let's see the flame war in your favorite programming language, Slashdotters!
"Note pad -> Word pad -> Word -> Word Publishing"
:-)
You missed a key step:
Notepad -> Wordpad -> Word -> vim -> perfect desktop publishing.
You may now go about your business.
Yes, but can you re-write the flamewar in any other language than BASIC? That invites a flame war in-and-of itself.
Let's see the flame war in your favorite programming language, Slashdotters!
Look, this is a city-state who canes graphiti painters. You know they'll not be looking too kindly on seditious postings.
Wonder if that could happen here?
"Ohio Cracker Confesses . . . "
I can't believe nobody else has taken offense to this. "Cracker" is a highly-charged derogatory term. The politically correct term is "Saltine-American."
Would you rather be a poor man in Mexico or Indonesia?