The patents are valid until the reexam process is over.
A patent troll, to my mind, is a company whose only assets are patents that they bought from others. Under my definition, NTP is not a patent troll.
Some people use the defintion patent troll = someone who owns and enforces a patent, but doesn't produce any patented items. Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right. I like my definition better.
I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government can't be enjoined from infringing patents. With the government, it's more of a mandatory licensing thing than a exclusionary grant.
Please Please Me was published in 1963 - that would make the expiration of the copyright in 2057 in the States, right?
OTOH, the point is likely moot anyway, as copyright will be retroactively extended as soon as Mickey Mouse starts getting near entering the public domain again. Damn you Sonny Bono!!! Oh...
National security data (specifically, "matters that are -- specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order") is exempted from FOIA requests, so I'm guessing the judge is expecting the DOJ to claim that most of the requested documents are classified.
First, I'm sure that the D.D.C. hears the great majority of FOIA claims. Heck, they may be required to hear them all by statute. I don't know.
Second, to the extent your stating that they went judge shopping, cases are assigned randomly in the D.D.C. pursuant to Local Rule 40.3(a), and you only get one dismissal without prejudice.
Third, why do you think this case's chances in the S. Ct. are "unspectacular"? It seems like the DOJ is saying that "as soon as practical" means "never" (disclosure - I don't know jacka bout FOIA law).
Finally, what is +5, insightful about this post?
1) conclusory statements that sound authoritative, made without backup
Well, given that RIM has had to go to some Norwegian telecom proposal to find prior art, I think it's a given that the PTO, under their regulations/law, were not in error in issuing the patent.
But remember that copyright protection extends only to the compilation, not the underlying facts. I think the fantasy football operator has a winner here.
I'm sure sellers of DVDs are happy with their profits currently. I just saw something on the elevator today saying tha DVD sales are up ~10% year over year.
It's not breaking the law. Apple's actions may give rise to (civil) liability, but it's not breaking the law.
Also, what makes it frivolous? Burst says their patent is valid and Apple infringes. Apple says Burst's patent is invalid and that Apple doesn't infringe (I assume, but haven't read the complaint - they may be saying only one or the other).
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
It would be a factually interesting case, hinging on how "primarily" the mod chips are used for copyright infringement, and how significant the non-infringing purpose of the chips is, but ultimately, I think it highly likely that a manufacturer or distributor of mod chips (in the US, of course) would go to jail, or whatever the penalty is.
Liberal has pretty much been equivalent to our current concept of libertarian for much of history. See, e.g. Hayek's tome on "liberalism," The Road to Serfdom.
Thanks for the correction on the functionality of allofmp3.
Court's make MAI v Peak-like rulings all the time. It's cut and dry settled law at this point. Here's a quote from a Federal Circuit case that was released in August, I think - Storage Technology v CHE - "CHE does not deny that the copyrighted maintenance code is copied into the Control Unit's or Management Unit's RAM when the company reboots its customers' systems. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993)."
itunes is different, because the user of itunes gets an explicit license to the copyrighted song (and, if push came to shove, likely an IMplicit license to make copies in RAM, etc.).
The caching argument is interesting. It would be kind of funny watching these 70 year old judges deciding whether caching constitutes a copyright violation.
Ripping a CD you bought into MP3 is a clear copyright violation. The legality of such behavior is only saved by murky fair use law.
The patent office has soundly rejected all claims of the NTP patent on reexam. The Examiner does not sound happy. See PTO PAIR site for the rejection, entitled "Reexam - Non-Final Action."
Now you too can deal with the horrible USPTO PAIR website.
I doubt a court would find a distinction between the purchase and import of an mp3. I believe a court would find that such an interpretation would nearly completely eviscerate copyright law online, in that online MP3 services could merely "shop" for the cheapest country, and establish a service there. The fact that allofmp3.com charges based on amount downloaded also informs against a distinction between purchase and import. Using allofmp3.com, you pay when you download, correct?
Also, it's somewhat dangerous talking about the first sale doctrine in the context of digital files, because due to MAI v Peak you can purchase a file from someone else, but as soon as you play the file, you create a copy in RAM, and therefore a copying has occurred under the Copyright Act. The first sale doctrine does not protect copying, so you would have to make a fair use argument.
Slashdot Mirror
The patents are valid until the reexam process is over. A patent troll, to my mind, is a company whose only assets are patents that they bought from others. Under my definition, NTP is not a patent troll. Some people use the defintion patent troll = someone who owns and enforces a patent, but doesn't produce any patented items. Under a definition like that, pretty much any research university would be considered a patent troll, which doesn't seem right. I like my definition better.
I'm pretty sure that the U.S. government can't be enjoined from infringing patents. With the government, it's more of a mandatory licensing thing than a exclusionary grant.
You realized that their network was going to be shut down, right?
OTOH, the point is likely moot anyway, as copyright will be retroactively extended as soon as Mickey Mouse starts getting near entering the public domain again. Damn you Sonny Bono!!! Oh...
National security data (specifically, "matters that are -- specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order") is exempted from FOIA requests, so I'm guessing the judge is expecting the DOJ to claim that most of the requested documents are classified.
First, I'm sure that the D.D.C. hears the great majority of FOIA claims. Heck, they may be required to hear them all by statute. I don't know.
Second, to the extent your stating that they went judge shopping, cases are assigned randomly in the D.D.C. pursuant to Local Rule 40.3(a), and you only get one dismissal without prejudice.
Third, why do you think this case's chances in the S. Ct. are "unspectacular"? It seems like the DOJ is saying that "as soon as practical" means "never" (disclosure - I don't know jacka bout FOIA law).
Finally, what is +5, insightful about this post?
1) conclusory statements that sound authoritative, made without backup
2) ...
3) Profit!
Hey, thanks for the support. Your post on ars concerning allofmp3.com is quite comprehensive.
I've had these arguments before, but I'm 98% sure allofmp3.com is illegal in the US. You aren't importing a copy. You're making a new copy.
It is the same way. It's called "laches." If you learn of an infringer, and do nothing for six (6) years, suit is barred.
Well, given that RIM has had to go to some Norwegian telecom proposal to find prior art, I think it's a given that the PTO, under their regulations/law, were not in error in issuing the patent.
Of course, we can't even judge for ourselves because the administration will not tell us anything about how the program works.
But remember that copyright protection extends only to the compilation, not the underlying facts. I think the fantasy football operator has a winner here.
HDTV may very well be the result of feds forcing a new technology on the public, but that doesn't mean it isn't sweet.
I'm sure sellers of DVDs are happy with their profits currently. I just saw something on the elevator today saying tha DVD sales are up ~10% year over year.
Do you stand 48' away or something? Going from 480p to (presumably) 1080p should be easily visible (assuming the source material is decent).
Also, what makes it frivolous? Burst says their patent is valid and Apple infringes. Apple says Burst's patent is invalid and that Apple doesn't infringe (I assume, but haven't read the complaint - they may be saying only one or the other).
Actually, this probably means that licensing negotiations were pretty much dead, and they just wanted the choice of forum/timing, so they sued first.
FYI - if he ever sues on the patent, he loses. The patent is invalid for improper inventorship.
Definitely talk to a lawyer. ~$10k would be the cost of typical patent application.
Any sort of property is a legal contrivance. Also, that "government assistance" is constitutionally mandated.
From the DMCA:
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
It would be a factually interesting case, hinging on how "primarily" the mod chips are used for copyright infringement, and how significant the non-infringing purpose of the chips is, but ultimately, I think it highly likely that a manufacturer or distributor of mod chips (in the US, of course) would go to jail, or whatever the penalty is.
Liberal has pretty much been equivalent to our current concept of libertarian for much of history. See, e.g. Hayek's tome on "liberalism," The Road to Serfdom.
Thanks for the correction on the functionality of allofmp3. Court's make MAI v Peak-like rulings all the time. It's cut and dry settled law at this point. Here's a quote from a Federal Circuit case that was released in August, I think - Storage Technology v CHE - "CHE does not deny that the copyrighted maintenance code is copied into the Control Unit's or Management Unit's RAM when the company reboots its customers' systems. See MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518-19 (9th Cir. 1993)." itunes is different, because the user of itunes gets an explicit license to the copyrighted song (and, if push came to shove, likely an IMplicit license to make copies in RAM, etc.). The caching argument is interesting. It would be kind of funny watching these 70 year old judges deciding whether caching constitutes a copyright violation. Ripping a CD you bought into MP3 is a clear copyright violation. The legality of such behavior is only saved by murky fair use law.
Now you too can deal with the horrible USPTO PAIR website.
Also, it's somewhat dangerous talking about the first sale doctrine in the context of digital files, because due to MAI v Peak you can purchase a file from someone else, but as soon as you play the file, you create a copy in RAM, and therefore a copying has occurred under the Copyright Act. The first sale doctrine does not protect copying, so you would have to make a fair use argument.