I just think that sales are typically considered to have occurred in the location of the purchaser. For instance, if you are a NY resident, and buy an item from a California online vendor, you don't pay California sales tax. There was no sale in California.
The previous fact, combined with the fact that you never own a copy in Russia (the first copy that you receive ownership of is on your computer, ore more accurately, in your RAM), makes it a losing proposition in my mind. Actually, I think that he second point may be much more significant than the first (because I could be wrong on the first).
With all Russian copyright laws? That doesn't help you much if US copyright law applies (as I believe a court would decide).
I agree there is a colorable argument, but I think it's a losing one. 1. Purchase in Russia. 2. Import of Copy. 3. Later copying from HD to RAM would be fair use based on format shifting of the imported copy.
Actually, unless there's an indemnification agreement, it does work that way. 35 USC 271 - "whoever... uses... any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." There are no exceptions for someone selling you an infringing item or anything.
Also, there is no "strong evidence" that allofmp3.com is paying the licenses they probably should be paying (i.e., to the US copyright holder). I personally think the biggest hurdle is that a court would likely find that the sale takes place in the United States.
Allofmp3 has no right to distribute music in the United States. That will put a huge dent in your fair use argument, as you "bought" something the seller had no right to sell. Napster argued that its users' use was a fair use, but they failed - http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d _1004.htm Look at the factors relevant to a fair use analysis, and you'll see that the issue is not even a close one.
I know nothing about Russian copyright law, so I'm not going to opine on the legality of the service when used by Russians.
I can't imagine a copyright lawyer thinking this is legal. The thing is, even if you can import it, as soon as you actually listen to it, you create a copy under the Copyright Act (copying from the hard drive to RAM is creating a copy), and are in violation of the US copyright laws (assuming you are in the US).
I don't see any reference in the article to the numbers of the issued patents.
6,963,850 ("Computer services for assisting users in locating and evaluating items in an electronic catalog based on actions performed by members of specific user communities") looks like one -
6,963,850
6,963,848 ("Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews") looks like another - 6,963,848
You can watch the 6 DVD's you have out at the time whenever you want.
That wouldn't work well for me. I need instant gratification. I wouldn't be able to plan my DVD watching a week ahead of time.
Dude, you need to chill out.
There is something called the "business judgment rule." Moreover, if sued, IBM could easily justify itself by saying that such a program improves its public image, or increases the efficiency of its employees. Even if those things weren't true, the BJR insulates directors from honest mistakes of business judgment.
They already have everything you are requesting, except for cost controls on patent litigation.
I think a real simple thing to do right now would be to prevent the rest of the government from pillaging the PTO's coffers. The PTO runs at a large profit, and allowing the PTO to keep those funds would increase the time its examiners could spend on each patent.
Do you "use" a fabric softener sheet when you look at it? I don't think so. It isn't defined, but it's pretty much common usage.
Big difference between copyright and patent - copyright gives you the right to do certain things (the ones you listed) - patent gives you no right to do anything - all it gives you is the right to prevent others from selling, using, etc.
35 USC 271(a) is kind of the corollary to 17 USC 106. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
This book completely ignores the most obvious reforms, instead concentrating on tired historical arguments, impossible-to-implement schemes, and irrelevant proposals.
First, the patent office runs at a huge profit. However, the rest of the government takes that profit. If the PTO were to be made completely self-sufficient, it would be able to add a large number of new examiners.
Second, remove the presumption of validity. Validity is effectively re-argued in most patent suits anyways, and the evidentiary presumption seems too strong in light of the inadequacy of certain prior art databases (like for business methods and software).
The article is a little thin, but I will try to address the authors' three suggestions.
I have no idea what his first suggestion actually is. The article expresses a problem, not a solution.
Second suggestion - "There has to be way to figure out how to devote more resources..." I'd be interested to see how he proposed to implement this one. The authors sound like they are proposing some incentives for third parties to take part in the examination process. However, third parties already can take part (in reexam procedures).
Third, both judges and juries are almost certainly going to be clueless about the technology. I think it's irrelevant who actually decides the case.
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless... he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented." 35 USC 102(f).
If Cisco didn't invent it, they can't patent it.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that this isn't an analyst's measure of risk, but rather a mathematical measure based on past volatility (related to Beta, for you finance people who know more than me out there).
You really can buy a home with no money down. It is just more expensive because of mortgage insurance, but you can always refinance when the LTV ratio hits.8.
I think the problem with this (as opposed to 802.11), is that this spectrum would be managed by the government, which means (perhaps) an auction, which would inflate the prices. Look at how much the 3G rights went for in Europe.
Hey, at least it's better than the 78th daily article about the release of the 3.7.24.2 version of some windows manager 3 people use. But honestly, the *AA are really attempting to change the digital future, and it's sort of scary.
Slashdot Mirror
The previous fact, combined with the fact that you never own a copy in Russia (the first copy that you receive ownership of is on your computer, ore more accurately, in your RAM), makes it a losing proposition in my mind. Actually, I think that he second point may be much more significant than the first (because I could be wrong on the first).
Dynasty Warriors isn't even Koei's worst title in that regard. Romance of the Three Kingdoms 11, anyone?
With all Russian copyright laws? That doesn't help you much if US copyright law applies (as I believe a court would decide). I agree there is a colorable argument, but I think it's a losing one. 1. Purchase in Russia. 2. Import of Copy. 3. Later copying from HD to RAM would be fair use based on format shifting of the imported copy.
Also, there is no "strong evidence" that allofmp3.com is paying the licenses they probably should be paying (i.e., to the US copyright holder). I personally think the biggest hurdle is that a court would likely find that the sale takes place in the United States.
Avia and/or Digital Video Essentials
You can construct a semi-plausible argument that allofmp3.com is legal. However, I personally believe you would lose in court.
Allofmp3 has no right to distribute music in the United States. That will put a huge dent in your fair use argument, as you "bought" something the seller had no right to sell. Napster argued that its users' use was a fair use, but they failed - http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d _1004.htm Look at the factors relevant to a fair use analysis, and you'll see that the issue is not even a close one.
I know nothing about Russian copyright law, so I'm not going to opine on the legality of the service when used by Russians.
I can't imagine a copyright lawyer thinking this is legal. The thing is, even if you can import it, as soon as you actually listen to it, you create a copy under the Copyright Act (copying from the hard drive to RAM is creating a copy), and are in violation of the US copyright laws (assuming you are in the US).
Too bad it's not legal (in the United States). If I'm going to commit copyright infringement, I'm not going to pay for that privilege.
I really have no idea. It's definitely not legal (or, properly, it definitely constitutes copyright infringement in the United States).
Bela Fleck just dropped several pegs in my mind. DMB? Ick.
6,963,850 ("Computer services for assisting users in locating and evaluating items in an electronic catalog based on actions performed by members of specific user communities") looks like one - 6,963,850
6,963,848 ("Methods and system of obtaining consumer reviews") looks like another - 6,963,848
Anyone know the third?
And it's easy to remember too. Just take all the letters from "Gattaca."
You can watch the 6 DVD's you have out at the time whenever you want. That wouldn't work well for me. I need instant gratification. I wouldn't be able to plan my DVD watching a week ahead of time.
Dude, you need to chill out. There is something called the "business judgment rule." Moreover, if sued, IBM could easily justify itself by saying that such a program improves its public image, or increases the efficiency of its employees. Even if those things weren't true, the BJR insulates directors from honest mistakes of business judgment.
They already have everything you are requesting, except for cost controls on patent litigation.
I think a real simple thing to do right now would be to prevent the rest of the government from pillaging the PTO's coffers. The PTO runs at a large profit, and allowing the PTO to keep those funds would increase the time its examiners could spend on each patent.
I would venture that 90-95% of employment in the US is terminable "at will" - they can fire you at anytime, and you can quit at anytime.
Do you "use" a fabric softener sheet when you look at it? I don't think so. It isn't defined, but it's pretty much common usage. Big difference between copyright and patent - copyright gives you the right to do certain things (the ones you listed) - patent gives you no right to do anything - all it gives you is the right to prevent others from selling, using, etc. 35 USC 271(a) is kind of the corollary to 17 USC 106. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
No way this would fly.
This book completely ignores the most obvious reforms, instead concentrating on tired historical arguments, impossible-to-implement schemes, and irrelevant proposals.
First, the patent office runs at a huge profit. However, the rest of the government takes that profit. If the PTO were to be made completely self-sufficient, it would be able to add a large number of new examiners.
Second, remove the presumption of validity. Validity is effectively re-argued in most patent suits anyways, and the evidentiary presumption seems too strong in light of the inadequacy of certain prior art databases (like for business methods and software).
The article is a little thin, but I will try to address the authors' three suggestions.
I have no idea what his first suggestion actually is. The article expresses a problem, not a solution.
Second suggestion - "There has to be way to figure out how to devote more resources..." I'd be interested to see how he proposed to implement this one. The authors sound like they are proposing some incentives for third parties to take part in the examination process. However, third parties already can take part (in reexam procedures).
Third, both judges and juries are almost certainly going to be clueless about the technology. I think it's irrelevant who actually decides the case.
"A person shall be entitled to a patent unless ... he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented." 35 USC 102(f).
If Cisco didn't invent it, they can't patent it.
I could be wrong, but my guess is that this isn't an analyst's measure of risk, but rather a mathematical measure based on past volatility (related to Beta, for you finance people who know more than me out there).
You really can buy a home with no money down. It is just more expensive because of mortgage insurance, but you can always refinance when the LTV ratio hits .8.
I think the problem with this (as opposed to 802.11), is that this spectrum would be managed by the government, which means (perhaps) an auction, which would inflate the prices. Look at how much the 3G rights went for in Europe.
Hey, at least it's better than the 78th daily article about the release of the 3.7.24.2 version of some windows manager 3 people use. But honestly, the *AA are really attempting to change the digital future, and it's sort of scary.