Okay, I'll bite. Where's your citation to "An Act to Criminalize Not Following ISOO Directives, codified at 18 USC XXX"?
I don't have to explain anything. Your top post in this thread is in support of a post stating "actually, both are felonies." What you don't seem to grasp is that there is no law making anything she may have done illegal.
Prosecutor: "Your Honor, we charge the defendant, Hillary Clinton, with breach of contract and violation of 32 CFR 2001.41, 2001.45, and 2001.48" Judge: "Uh, breach of contract is for civil court, not criminal. And Code of Federal Regulations what? What's the U.S. Code section criminalizing that conduct? Get out of my courtroom."
Unless you're willing to educate yourself at least a little about how law works and what it is, you are indeed spewing Talking Points delivered by I-don't-care who.
Proper citation to actual law usually reads, for instance, 35 USC 798(a), not "section 3, first sentence, of some contract." Indeed, 35 USC 798(a), while referenced in the document you linked to, is just one of the many criminal statutes referenced therein that there is no plausible basis for believing Hillary Clinton violated.
By definition, we look to the "definitions" section of laws to figure out how things are defined. Your view of "negligent" has nothing to do with it. I assume ignorance is your excuse.
But go ahead, keep repeating whatever talking points you've convinced yourself of. I'll stick to being able to do rudimentary research with a basic understanding of the differences between criminal and contract law.
A tier 1 college (as per US News and World Report) will get one hired essentially anywhere... (T)here is no such thing as an unemployed attorney unless they get disbarred.
This would be really good news for me if it were actually true. Honors Tier 1 grad, like 16 months since I passed the bar in the state where the school is located, still no work. Have the resume entries and professional references to boot- after all, I'm an actual adult previously shown to be capable of handling associate work hours, social drinking, business development, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with me that absolutely everyone on the planet is too polite to acknowledge.
That, or you can graduate at exactly the wrong time and there's no accuracy to your observations.
When the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter sixteen years ago, scientists all over the world were prepared: instruments on board the space probes Voyager 2, Galileo and Ulysses documented every detail of this rare incident.
That's funny, because my back-of-the-napkin estimate is that at the time, Voyager 2 was 3 billion miles further away from Jupiter than the Earth is. Wonder what they thought they were gonna see with 15-year-old technology that they weren't going to see with, say, the Hubble telescope, new ground-based instruments, or hell, even the naked eye that was 3 billion miles closer to the event.
The American Bar Association reported on this mere 17 months ago. I think it's less remarkable that some California firm got bilked as much as they got swindled while ignorant of a direct warning from their prime industry trade journal.
A more compelling version of the scam, to me, is overpayment of retainer fees as a new client. Fortunately, only idiot California firms are vulnerable as the ABA has warned about this variation as well. Interestingly, though, the tab appears to have been $500K in that one.
No, they're high because it's a service where productivity can't increase very much. We pay a higher and higher comparative amount for education because you still need a scholar standing at the front of the room, and lab space on a per-student basis and the like. Other prices moderate (by comparison) in the economy because you can capture productivity gains. On the manufacturing end, labor costs, raw material costs, input costs go down as we become more efficient. But you can't make a college professor teach 3% more students next year as well as before, which would be necessary to match the overall economy's productivity gain and keep prices from comparatively inflating.
More to the point, supply and demand wouldn't really seem to be relevant to pricing when so much of the system is public university and community college. If your state's making money at its institutions, please have them contact mine so we can resolve our huge current deficit.
More on Internet drops avg IQ Thus explosive growth MySpace etc now Twitter Relevant in 140 chars? Twtr Tolstoy reads: sh*t happens 2 peeps
There, fixed that for you. Sorry to make you counter your own argument.
Still, there is no reason to even comply (or even respond) to letters or notices that don't give specifics regarding what images are out of compliance and what aspect of the copyright status is being asserted here.
Sure there is: prevent them from suing you. For all you know, they've carefully reviewed a random sample of images and identified several that are problematic. Why should it be Toyota's responsibility to identify all of the bad content for you?
Let me also add the article is one of the worst ever: on one hand it claims that Toyota has made "one of the most wildly arrogant demands in DMCA history," then later realizes "these demands have not been sent in the form of a DMCA notice." Oh, you mean it's a simple cease-and-desist letter? What a headline: "Toyota Sends Letter!" Idiots.
It's just 'cause you're weak, lazy, and kept no logs of zone info.
Look at the bright side: at least you can now eat ham without paying a tax to the mafia.
You can, in fact, still play Avatar by starting here. Unfortunately, every time I've tried, there's not a soul on- and of course, playing with others was the whole reason it was fun in the first place.
It still amazes me that I'm old enough to have played some "dark age" foundational computer game. My 6-year-old son would no doubt simply blink in incomprehension if I ever tried to explain Avatar or Arctic, the mud I eventually graduated to.
I mean, it plainly says that a libelous statement must be made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Seriously, does anyone have reason to believe that Mr. Scherf _didn't_ do those things? Was there 'willful and wanton' disregard for the truth? (What truth? Seems like it could only be willful and wanton disregard if you knew he didn't do those things.)
So yeah, I'd defend that suit for fun, wouldn't you?
This is yet another question that anyone with a clue wouldn't waste lawyer time on.
So, if I google 'internet broadcast license fee' one of the first hits is this. So let me ask, if you're not paying license fees you're obviously supposed to, can they tie you up in legalities?
This isn't a good question and should get modded down.
RICO is a criminal statute. Nobody's suing anybody over it, unless it's the feds. If you're wondering whether the RIAA might come afoul of Justice Department investigation, you're obviously not reading the 'sense of the Senate'.
1) If your trademark application post-dates their domain registration, you will absolutely lose.
2) Even with the cheapest arbitrators, a UDRP filing costs $1300. Why would you pay that when a few hundred more guarantees you get the domain? Remember, filer pays.
3) Trademark applications (in the US and most of civilization) require proof of use to register. You won't even have the registration to throw around unless you're already using the name. Obviously, from the article, the submitter is not already using it.
4) There is no longer an "instant win" in UDRP. The arbitrators are no longer clueless, they actually are crafting careful law to avoid crap like the suggestion above.
Re:Taking it one step further....
on
Public Patents?
·
· Score: 1
Not to be overly critical, but I think this would be a pretty weak argument.
The Congress shall have power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
I'd say that there's a difference between a power and a duty- easily illustrated by its power to declare war: it isn't compelled by the Constitution to declare war on somebody. And given its power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" it seems clear Congress can both promulgate a patent law and charge fees.
It appears the patent office examiners did not consider it in their evaluation of the RealNetworks patent.
That's because they can't, and they shouldn't. We don't do first-to-file here, we do first-to-invent. It's not a Patent Office examiner's job to work out who first reduced an invention to practice, who conceived it first, or who was dillegent in working on it, nor should it be. That takes a jury.
I just don't think it's reasonable to have expected the Patent Office (in 1994) to be able to even fully search, let alone determine the similarity of, internet/computing patent applications. Man, in 1994, we still sent in drawn drawings.
This is the right question, in my mind, and the reason I don't get worked up about statements like this. 35 USC 154(a)(1) codifies the rights of a patent holder:
...the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing
the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States,
products made by that process...
I think this makes it clear the only threat is that MSFT goes after a million little guys. Sure, they might get Linux out of the corporate environment, and that's not a good thing, but I think most of us will still be able to do what we want to.
Besides, that language suggests that a patented algorithm being present in source code would not prevent the source code from being distributed- after all, if you never execute the code, you're no more "using" the invention than someone printing a copy of the patent. And what are MSFT's damages caused by me if I'm using one/ALL of their patents in my Linux box? Seems like nothing more than a lost sale of an operating system. I don't think compelling millions of individuals to pony up for their software is much of a viable business model (or, as some might say, that different from their current business model).
Only kinda. The parent post clarifies a fair amount (as in steering you away from patent or copyright claims) but misses the right question:
Does the relevant class of potential consumers (that is, the comic-book-purchasing public) understand the term "SUPERHERO" to function as an indicator of source, origin, sponsorship, or affiliation when used in association with comic books, and do any consumers that have that understanding believe that the source/origin/sponsorship/affiliation is with DC and Marvel?
Let me summarize a bunch of what the irrelevant who-used-it-first posters are thinking: no freaking way.
Problem with that one is that it's for "masquerade costumes". Wouldn't seem relevant to a newly-published comic book. And besides, there's no way in hell the USPTO is going to let "SUPERHERO" for comic books through even with a claim of acquired distinctiveness.
From reading this Amicus brief, it appears the issue is that the rule in the courts has evolved from authorization to issue injunctions "in accordance with the principles of equity" to a situation where a patent holder is entitled to an injunction "absent exceptional circumstances."
The brief makes a pretty good point about why that's not appropriate in terms of the financial services industry. I'm not sure that the fact that ebay has a ton of customers who could continue to auction things without a 'buy it now' price means an injunction would be inequitable. If ebay is considered a willful infringer, it seems like you have to enjoin them in circumstances short of huge disruptions to non-parties.
Invalidity is an affirmative defense to infringement:
35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses. The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded: (1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability, (2)Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition
for patentability, (3)Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title, (4)Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.
Meaning they'll essentially always assert invalidity and make the court/jury make a finding on it.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, I'll bite. Where's your citation to "An Act to Criminalize Not Following ISOO Directives, codified at 18 USC XXX"?
I don't have to explain anything. Your top post in this thread is in support of a post stating "actually, both are felonies." What you don't seem to grasp is that there is no law making anything she may have done illegal.
Prosecutor: "Your Honor, we charge the defendant, Hillary Clinton, with breach of contract and violation of 32 CFR 2001.41, 2001.45, and 2001.48"
Judge: "Uh, breach of contract is for civil court, not criminal. And Code of Federal Regulations what? What's the U.S. Code section criminalizing that conduct? Get out of my courtroom."
Unless you're willing to educate yourself at least a little about how law works and what it is, you are indeed spewing Talking Points delivered by I-don't-care who.
Proper citation to actual law usually reads, for instance, 35 USC 798(a), not "section 3, first sentence, of some contract." Indeed, 35 USC 798(a), while referenced in the document you linked to, is just one of the many criminal statutes referenced therein that there is no plausible basis for believing Hillary Clinton violated. By definition, we look to the "definitions" section of laws to figure out how things are defined. Your view of "negligent" has nothing to do with it. I assume ignorance is your excuse. But go ahead, keep repeating whatever talking points you've convinced yourself of. I'll stick to being able to do rudimentary research with a basic understanding of the differences between criminal and contract law.
A tier 1 college (as per US News and World Report) will get one hired essentially anywhere... (T)here is no such thing as an unemployed attorney unless they get disbarred.
This would be really good news for me if it were actually true. Honors Tier 1 grad, like 16 months since I passed the bar in the state where the school is located, still no work. Have the resume entries and professional references to boot- after all, I'm an actual adult previously shown to be capable of handling associate work hours, social drinking, business development, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with me that absolutely everyone on the planet is too polite to acknowledge.
That, or you can graduate at exactly the wrong time and there's no accuracy to your observations.
When the comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter sixteen years ago, scientists all over the world were prepared: instruments on board the space probes Voyager 2, Galileo and Ulysses documented every detail of this rare incident.
That's funny, because my back-of-the-napkin estimate is that at the time, Voyager 2 was 3 billion miles further away from Jupiter than the Earth is. Wonder what they thought they were gonna see with 15-year-old technology that they weren't going to see with, say, the Hubble telescope, new ground-based instruments, or hell, even the naked eye that was 3 billion miles closer to the event.
The American Bar Association reported on this mere 17 months ago. I think it's less remarkable that some California firm got bilked as much as they got swindled while ignorant of a direct warning from their prime industry trade journal.
A more compelling version of the scam, to me, is overpayment of retainer fees as a new client. Fortunately, only idiot California firms are vulnerable as the ABA has warned about this variation as well. Interestingly, though, the tab appears to have been $500K in that one.
No, they're high because it's a service where productivity can't increase very much. We pay a higher and higher comparative amount for education because you still need a scholar standing at the front of the room, and lab space on a per-student basis and the like. Other prices moderate (by comparison) in the economy because you can capture productivity gains. On the manufacturing end, labor costs, raw material costs, input costs go down as we become more efficient. But you can't make a college professor teach 3% more students next year as well as before, which would be necessary to match the overall economy's productivity gain and keep prices from comparatively inflating. More to the point, supply and demand wouldn't really seem to be relevant to pricing when so much of the system is public university and community college. If your state's making money at its institutions, please have them contact mine so we can resolve our huge current deficit.
More on Internet drops avg IQ Thus explosive growth MySpace etc now Twitter Relevant in 140 chars? Twtr Tolstoy reads: sh*t happens 2 peeps There, fixed that for you. Sorry to make you counter your own argument.
Still, there is no reason to even comply (or even respond) to letters or notices that don't give specifics regarding what images are out of compliance and what aspect of the copyright status is being asserted here.
Sure there is: prevent them from suing you. For all you know, they've carefully reviewed a random sample of images and identified several that are problematic. Why should it be Toyota's responsibility to identify all of the bad content for you?
Let me also add the article is one of the worst ever: on one hand it claims that Toyota has made "one of the most wildly arrogant demands in DMCA history," then later realizes "these demands have not been sent in the form of a DMCA notice." Oh, you mean it's a simple cease-and-desist letter? What a headline: "Toyota Sends Letter!" Idiots.
It's just 'cause you're weak, lazy, and kept no logs of zone info. Look at the bright side: at least you can now eat ham without paying a tax to the mafia.
You can, in fact, still play Avatar by starting here. Unfortunately, every time I've tried, there's not a soul on- and of course, playing with others was the whole reason it was fun in the first place. It still amazes me that I'm old enough to have played some "dark age" foundational computer game. My 6-year-old son would no doubt simply blink in incomprehension if I ever tried to explain Avatar or Arctic, the mud I eventually graduated to.
It says this part of The Hustle implores the gods to grant a favour. Usually a Trans-AM.
Nuff said about the best pieces of television ever.
You should read the wikipedia entry on libel.
I mean, it plainly says that a libelous statement must be made knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Seriously, does anyone have reason to believe that Mr. Scherf _didn't_ do those things? Was there 'willful and wanton' disregard for the truth? (What truth? Seems like it could only be willful and wanton disregard if you knew he didn't do those things.)
So yeah, I'd defend that suit for fun, wouldn't you?
This is yet another question that anyone with a clue wouldn't waste lawyer time on. So, if I google 'internet broadcast license fee' one of the first hits is this. So let me ask, if you're not paying license fees you're obviously supposed to, can they tie you up in legalities?
This isn't a good question and should get modded down.
RICO is a criminal statute. Nobody's suing anybody over it, unless it's the feds. If you're wondering whether the RIAA might come afoul of Justice Department investigation, you're obviously not reading the 'sense of the Senate'.
1) If your trademark application post-dates their domain registration, you will absolutely lose.
2) Even with the cheapest arbitrators, a UDRP filing costs $1300. Why would you pay that when a few hundred more guarantees you get the domain? Remember, filer pays.
3) Trademark applications (in the US and most of civilization) require proof of use to register. You won't even have the registration to throw around unless you're already using the name. Obviously, from the article, the submitter is not already using it.
4) There is no longer an "instant win" in UDRP. The arbitrators are no longer clueless, they actually are crafting careful law to avoid crap like the suggestion above.
Not to be overly critical, but I think this would be a pretty weak argument.
The Congress shall have power to... promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
I'd say that there's a difference between a power and a duty- easily illustrated by its power to declare war: it isn't compelled by the Constitution to declare war on somebody. And given its power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises" it seems clear Congress can both promulgate a patent law and charge fees.
It appears the patent office examiners did not consider it in their evaluation of the RealNetworks patent.
That's because they can't, and they shouldn't. We don't do first-to-file here, we do first-to-invent. It's not a Patent Office examiner's job to work out who first reduced an invention to practice, who conceived it first, or who was dillegent in working on it, nor should it be. That takes a jury.
I just don't think it's reasonable to have expected the Patent Office (in 1994) to be able to even fully search, let alone determine the similarity of, internet/computing patent applications. Man, in 1994, we still sent in drawn drawings.
If Google's work was created entirely by them then there's no legal issue here, no matter what ARS thinks.
Unless it's a derivative work. Which it obviously is. There's a legal issue here, no matter what you think.
This is the right question, in my mind, and the reason I don't get worked up about statements like this. 35 USC 154(a)(1) codifies the rights of a patent holder:
...the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing
the invention into the United States, and, if the invention is a process, of the right to exclude others from using, offering for sale or selling throughout the United States, or importing into the United States,
products made by that process...
I think this makes it clear the only threat is that MSFT goes after a million little guys. Sure, they might get Linux out of the corporate environment, and that's not a good thing, but I think most of us will still be able to do what we want to.
Besides, that language suggests that a patented algorithm being present in source code would not prevent the source code from being distributed- after all, if you never execute the code, you're no more "using" the invention than someone printing a copy of the patent. And what are MSFT's damages caused by me if I'm using one/ALL of their patents in my Linux box? Seems like nothing more than a lost sale of an operating system. I don't think compelling millions of individuals to pony up for their software is much of a viable business model (or, as some might say, that different from their current business model).
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=78356610
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=76526513
(ice cream, actually)
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&e ntry=73222079
(dear lord, I posted elsewhere that there's no way the USPTO would allow that mark to be registered for those goods. Is it even remotely possible the term wasn't in generic use 25 years ago??)
If you don't defend a trademark, you lose it.
Only kinda. The parent post clarifies a fair amount (as in steering you away from patent or copyright claims) but misses the right question:
Does the relevant class of potential consumers (that is, the comic-book-purchasing public) understand the term "SUPERHERO" to function as an indicator of source, origin, sponsorship, or affiliation when used in association with comic books, and do any consumers that have that understanding believe that the source/origin/sponsorship/affiliation is with DC and Marvel?
Let me summarize a bunch of what the irrelevant who-used-it-first posters are thinking: no freaking way.
If you use the "TARR Status" page from the databases, that link is static:
e ntry=72243225
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&
Problem with that one is that it's for "masquerade costumes". Wouldn't seem relevant to a newly-published comic book. And besides, there's no way in hell the USPTO is going to let "SUPERHERO" for comic books through even with a claim of acquired distinctiveness.
From reading this Amicus brief, it appears the issue is that the rule in the courts has evolved from authorization to issue injunctions "in accordance with the principles of equity" to a situation where a patent holder is entitled to an injunction "absent exceptional circumstances."
The brief makes a pretty good point about why that's not appropriate in terms of the financial services industry. I'm not sure that the fact that ebay has a ton of customers who could continue to auction things without a 'buy it now' price means an injunction would be inequitable. If ebay is considered a willful infringer, it seems like you have to enjoin them in circumstances short of huge disruptions to non-parties.
Invalidity is an affirmative defense to infringement:
35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses.
The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded:
(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability,
(2)Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II of this title as a condition for patentability,
(3)Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title,
(4)Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.
Meaning they'll essentially always assert invalidity and make the court/jury make a finding on it.
"As a result, Microsoft must make available a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing code replaced."
What about a "a verdict last year by a jury" makes the code anything but_actually_ infringing instead of _allegedly_?