A friend of mine has come up with a pretty cool paradigm for centralizing personal information and then defining relationships with other folks that get access to the information. Basically, you have your big pile of personal information and you define specific data profiles (data filters) that you associated with each entity that wants your data. Only that filtered data is provided to the requesting entity. Its a very cool way to give the user total control (though it can be somewhat labor intensive for the user). Right now he has it powering a website for managing personal information and communities of contacts, but it could definitely be expanded to provide information to all kinds of service providers. Unfortunately, it seems to require a centralized service with a critical mass of people using it to be useful. Thus far, he hasn't been able to come up with a business model to support its growth and adoption. The grim reality is that it is going to be someone like Microsoft who will probably control this sort of thing if it ever comes together, not the user at all.
Re:Advert as content?
on
Dog Bites Website
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm not sure that I see the problem with this article. I would say that it makes a valid point about the possibilities of grassroots advertising and the individual creator on the net. There is no doubt that it also advertises JonKatz's new book, but using the same engine that the article comments on--which in some circles might be considered clever. There is probably some argument that this article is such "preaching to the choir" that the newsworthiness of grassroots online advertising is reduced and only the advertisement remains. However, the generally negative reaction to the article suggests that maybe the point is news (or at least a good topic for discussion). Comments that relate less to the obvious fact that there is advertising in the article and more to whether or not such article/advertisements are a boon or bane to open online communities would certainly be more interesting. I support the use of online communities for grassroots marketing, understanding that the marketer must try to walk the line between contributing to the community and mere profiteering. Perhaps, this article crosses that line, but I wouldn't have thought so.
The student is the holder of the copyright in the paper and nothing at turnitin.com changes that. The confusion here seems to come from the difference between the copyright and the copy. Giving someone a copy of your work does not give them the right to copy it. For example, if someone gives you a copy of Laurence Lessig's new book, you own the copy of the book--not the copyright (even if it was Mr. Lessig himself). He continues to hold the copyright and be able to use it and license it however he wants.
In fact, when one submits a paper, the professor can do whatever they want with their copy (e.g., throw it down the stairs, mark it with meaningful comments, give it away, etc.). There may be limitations on this freedom, depending on the implied or explicit limits of the transfer (e.g., you can have my paper to correct, grade, and return--but may not give to others). However, submitting it to be copied into a database is a violation of the students copyright, without the permission of the student. In practice, it seems likely that students are effectively giving permission if they are enrolled in a class that is using the service. Turnitin's rights in the database copy are definitely a little shady. If it turns out that turnitin is trying to further profit from the database (by sharing the papers with others), I could see some serious issues being raised about violation of the student copyrights.
Microsoft also argued that the trial judge's role in approving the proposed settlement is "almost ministerial," and urged her to defer to the judgment of the Justice Department about whether the agreement "is the most appropriate mechanism to resolve the competing interests at stake." To do otherwise, the company argued, would risk constitutional questions over the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.
Review of the settlement isn't a violation of the separation of powers. Its the opposite. Microsoft is asking the Judicial branch to sign off on an executive action without substantive review. Its the court's job to make sure that the DOJ isn't being a bunch of corporate fanboys. Similarly, the court should be taking a good hard look at Microsoft's lobbying activities to make sure they aren't interfering with Congressional checks on the DOJ's actions. This is the purpose of separation of powers--checks and balances.
Anything's possible. Copyright and Patent are both government created property rights under the government's sole control. In fact, forms of antitrust that implicate the unlawful extension or abuse of IP rights frequently result in court's declaring the underlying IP unenforceable. I'm not sure that it would apply to this case, however.
More to the point, Congress has complete power to take away any right given (as it has done with making medical procedure patents unenforceable and contemplated doing to the Cipro patent). However, this is typically not a good remedy and suffers all the normal limitations of congressional actions (delay, lobbying, etc.). I doubt congressional revokation of IP rights has been seriously considered. Some camps claim that doing so might also be an unconstitutional taking.
While it is true that states are not allowed to make laws (or take other actions) that interfere with interstate commerce or unfairly discriminate between residents/businesses in other states, I'm not sure I see how this applies here. There is no doubt that there is local harm in each case and that local remedies are quite possible. I would think that the available remedies might be limited (e.g., break-up may not be a reasonable remedy for state harm), but that does not mean the cases should be dismissed. It simply requires more creative remedies.
Another basis for claiming the states' cases are illegitimate would be more of a federal preemption argument. Basically, stating that the Federal antitrust rules do not leave any room for state regulation of the same issues. I'm no expert in antitrust law, but I'm pretty sure that state's are allowed to have and enforce their own antitrust laws. The other issue I can think of with this would be if the states are actually trying to enforce the Federal laws on their own (in the same way that private parties may sue for other private parties for federal antitrust violations). I could see the Feds having final say there.
This might also be more of a double jeopardy/due process kind of issue. You shouldn't have to deal with the same case twice. But again, it seems like the states shouldn't be bound by a Federal settlement if they are enforcing their own antitrust laws.
I guess my observations bring up more questions than answers. There are issues here, but I doubt they are cut and dry for either side. Sadly, I'm left to pontificate, since I don't have time to study all the angles.
In fact, any release of the source code would be released only under a protective order that specifically enumerates who is allowed to see it(states' attorneys and one or two expert witnesses). All would be bound to the strictest confidentiality and the code itself (and possibly any but the most conclusory references to the code) would not be available in the public record of the case. Leaks by any of the people with access would be punishable for contempt of court and subject to separate civil or criminal suits depending on how it was leaked and what was done with it after.
In spite of all this protection, Microsoft will still fight it tooth and nail.
Re:Licensure does not Mean What You Might Think
on
Losing the War on Patents
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Conceptually, BountyQuest is a good thing. It can help locate hard-to-find prior art in certain technical areas (such as software)--the kind of stuff that isn't in prior patents, hasn't been published in a widely distributed/searchable medium, or just might not be appreciated for what it is by those of less technical skill (including patent attorneys and patent examiners). It also has the potential to empower those who complain about overly broad patents to do something about them. If you think the patent had obviously been done before, go find a reference to prove it.
However, BountyQuest has some tragic flaws and is in no way a solution to all that ails the patent system. Finding a good prior art reference after a patent has issued does not eliminate the patent or necessarily prevent it from being enforced. Identifying a reference is just the first step. The procedural costs and risks associated with invalidating a patent (either through the courts or the Patent Office) are high. As long as there is a legally viable argument (which there almost always is) that the patent is still valid, the owner may continue to assert it.
Identification of a strong reference does hurt the patent holder though and is a great service to those the patent is asserted against. It greatly reduces the patent holder's negotiating power because they want to avoid litigation as much as accused infringers. I'm sure that Amazon managed to negotiate a more favorable license (if the reference was really that good). There are others who will be willing to fight if the patent holder pushes too hard or asks for too much.
Unfortunately, this service does little for small companies and individuals and does not rid the system of patents that should never have existed in the first place. The companies that can absorb the licensing costs are subjected to an illegitimate tax that raises the cost of doing business--again, ultimately hurting the consumer. If BountyQuest really wanted to put its money where its mouth is, it would put together a legal service for invalidating overreaching patents. Something like a legal defense fund for the public domain of ideas. Actually, a lot of patent attorneys might be interested in the pro bono opportunity if it existed.
Does anyone know the patent number of the SightSound patent (or patents)? I was thinking about checking it out on the PTO website, PTO Patent Search, to see what it actually says. I thought it might be a good idea to read the patent before I made any sweeping generalizations about the patent system, American jurisprudence, or the character of the people enforcing it.
Slashdot Mirror
A friend of mine has come up with a pretty cool paradigm for centralizing personal information and then defining relationships with other folks that get access to the information. Basically, you have your big pile of personal information and you define specific data profiles (data filters) that you associated with each entity that wants your data. Only that filtered data is provided to the requesting entity. Its a very cool way to give the user total control (though it can be somewhat labor intensive for the user). Right now he has it powering a website for managing personal information and communities of contacts, but it could definitely be expanded to provide information to all kinds of service providers. Unfortunately, it seems to require a centralized service with a critical mass of people using it to be useful. Thus far, he hasn't been able to come up with a business model to support its growth and adoption. The grim reality is that it is going to be someone like Microsoft who will probably control this sort of thing if it ever comes together, not the user at all.
His site is azazoo.com.
I'm not sure that I see the problem with this article. I would say that it makes a valid point about the possibilities of grassroots advertising and the individual creator on the net. There is no doubt that it also advertises JonKatz's new book, but using the same engine that the article comments on--which in some circles might be considered clever. There is probably some argument that this article is such "preaching to the choir" that the newsworthiness of grassroots online advertising is reduced and only the advertisement remains. However, the generally negative reaction to the article suggests that maybe the point is news (or at least a good topic for discussion). Comments that relate less to the obvious fact that there is advertising in the article and more to whether or not such article/advertisements are a boon or bane to open online communities would certainly be more interesting. I support the use of online communities for grassroots marketing, understanding that the marketer must try to walk the line between contributing to the community and mere profiteering. Perhaps, this article crosses that line, but I wouldn't have thought so.
The student is the holder of the copyright in the paper and nothing at turnitin.com changes that. The confusion here seems to come from the difference between the copyright and the copy. Giving someone a copy of your work does not give them the right to copy it. For example, if someone gives you a copy of Laurence Lessig's new book, you own the copy of the book--not the copyright (even if it was Mr. Lessig himself). He continues to hold the copyright and be able to use it and license it however he wants.
In fact, when one submits a paper, the professor can do whatever they want with their copy (e.g., throw it down the stairs, mark it with meaningful comments, give it away, etc.). There may be limitations on this freedom, depending on the implied or explicit limits of the transfer (e.g., you can have my paper to correct, grade, and return--but may not give to others). However, submitting it to be copied into a database is a violation of the students copyright, without the permission of the student. In practice, it seems likely that students are effectively giving permission if they are enrolled in a class that is using the service. Turnitin's rights in the database copy are definitely a little shady. If it turns out that turnitin is trying to further profit from the database (by sharing the papers with others), I could see some serious issues being raised about violation of the student copyrights.
Review of the settlement isn't a violation of the separation of powers. Its the opposite. Microsoft is asking the Judicial branch to sign off on an executive action without substantive review. Its the court's job to make sure that the DOJ isn't being a bunch of corporate fanboys. Similarly, the court should be taking a good hard look at Microsoft's lobbying activities to make sure they aren't interfering with Congressional checks on the DOJ's actions. This is the purpose of separation of powers--checks and balances.
More to the point, Congress has complete power to take away any right given (as it has done with making medical procedure patents unenforceable and contemplated doing to the Cipro patent). However, this is typically not a good remedy and suffers all the normal limitations of congressional actions (delay, lobbying, etc.). I doubt congressional revokation of IP rights has been seriously considered. Some camps claim that doing so might also be an unconstitutional taking.
While it is true that states are not allowed to make laws (or take other actions) that interfere with interstate commerce or unfairly discriminate between residents/businesses in other states, I'm not sure I see how this applies here. There is no doubt that there is local harm in each case and that local remedies are quite possible. I would think that the available remedies might be limited (e.g., break-up may not be a reasonable remedy for state harm), but that does not mean the cases should be dismissed. It simply requires more creative remedies.
Another basis for claiming the states' cases are illegitimate would be more of a federal preemption argument. Basically, stating that the Federal antitrust rules do not leave any room for state regulation of the same issues. I'm no expert in antitrust law, but I'm pretty sure that state's are allowed to have and enforce their own antitrust laws. The other issue I can think of with this would be if the states are actually trying to enforce the Federal laws on their own (in the same way that private parties may sue for other private parties for federal antitrust violations). I could see the Feds having final say there.
This might also be more of a double jeopardy/due process kind of issue. You shouldn't have to deal with the same case twice. But again, it seems like the states shouldn't be bound by a Federal settlement if they are enforcing their own antitrust laws.
I guess my observations bring up more questions than answers. There are issues here, but I doubt they are cut and dry for either side. Sadly, I'm left to pontificate, since I don't have time to study all the angles.
I assume that "stable and consistent" was referring to their market penetration and not the platform itself.
In spite of all this protection, Microsoft will still fight it tooth and nail.
Conceptually, BountyQuest is a good thing. It can help locate hard-to-find prior art in certain technical areas (such as software)--the kind of stuff that isn't in prior patents, hasn't been published in a widely distributed/searchable medium, or just might not be appreciated for what it is by those of less technical skill (including patent attorneys and patent examiners). It also has the potential to empower those who complain about overly broad patents to do something about them. If you think the patent had obviously been done before, go find a reference to prove it.
However, BountyQuest has some tragic flaws and is in no way a solution to all that ails the patent system. Finding a good prior art reference after a patent has issued does not eliminate the patent or necessarily prevent it from being enforced. Identifying a reference is just the first step. The procedural costs and risks associated with invalidating a patent (either through the courts or the Patent Office) are high. As long as there is a legally viable argument (which there almost always is) that the patent is still valid, the owner may continue to assert it.
Identification of a strong reference does hurt the patent holder though and is a great service to those the patent is asserted against. It greatly reduces the patent holder's negotiating power because they want to avoid litigation as much as accused infringers. I'm sure that Amazon managed to negotiate a more favorable license (if the reference was really that good). There are others who will be willing to fight if the patent holder pushes too hard or asks for too much.
Unfortunately, this service does little for small companies and individuals and does not rid the system of patents that should never have existed in the first place. The companies that can absorb the licensing costs are subjected to an illegitimate tax that raises the cost of doing business--again, ultimately hurting the consumer. If BountyQuest really wanted to put its money where its mouth is, it would put together a legal service for invalidating overreaching patents. Something like a legal defense fund for the public domain of ideas. Actually, a lot of patent attorneys might be interested in the pro bono opportunity if it existed.
Does anyone know the patent number of the SightSound patent (or patents)? I was thinking about checking it out on the PTO website, PTO Patent Search, to see what it actually says. I thought it might be a good idea to read the patent before I made any sweeping generalizations about the patent system, American jurisprudence, or the character of the people enforcing it.