> to purchase the product and violate US law (and apple policy)
According to Forbes, items that can be purchased at retail do not require an export license.
While the guy at Forbes does seem to say that, he links to the US Treasury's site which states:
EXPORTS TO IRAN - In general, unless licensed by OFAC, goods, technology, or services may not be exported, reexported, sold or supplied, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Iran or the Government of Iran...
In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods, technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or reexportation to Iran.
There doesn't seem to be "any goods, technology or services except those that can be purchased at retail" language there.
Over time, the countries that U.S. biotech and pharmaceutical companies have invested in have moved up the IP barometer
So it's not patents that help the growth of biomedical research, but American biotech companies help the growth of patents (either by lobbying or US pressure).
Pretty much. I am a patent attorney, and I don't believe IP stifles innovation, but I agree that this report is somewhat circular: "increased patent filings don't stifle innovation, and we can prove this through the increased filing of patents."
The idea that software patents should not exist is based on the idea that all software is simply sets of algorithms. Therefore all software can be boiled down to mathematics: algorithms and formulas. According to commonly held ideas about patent law: "You cannot patent a formula."
But, similarly, you can reduce the gear ratios of a machine down to a mathematical algorithm, or describe the operation of an engine through abstract equations... Does that mean that machines and engines shouldn't be patentable? Of course not... The distinction is that you're not attempting to patent the machine or engine algorithms, but rather the hardware implementing the formula, right?
But the same thing happens in software patents. We (and yes, I'm a patent attorney) don't patent the algorithm. As you note, formulae cannot be patented. Instead, we patent the hardware or the method performed by the hardware. The base algorithm is still public domain, as it should be. If the patent requires hardware, then you can do the formula on a pad of paper with a pen, or in your mind, or using a slide rule, and you cannot possibly infringe the patent.
No, as your cited article correctly notes, the 2nd Amendment is about the right of the people to keep arms as a deterrent to a tyrannical government. It says nothing about using them, or using them against criminals.
Since the Constitution says nothing about that, you retain those rights.
Actually, it does say something about that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The states have the power to pass such laws against using guns, or using them against criminals, without violating the 2nd Amendment, because such power is not prohibited by the 2nd Amendment and is reserved to the states by the 10th amendment. The states may then reserve such power to the people in their state constitutions, but they do not need to. It is possible that a state could prohibit firing any firearm, while still allowing people to keep and bear them, and that would be absolutely constitutional.
It's a pity the patent examiners don't seem to always have the resources (or skill?) to do a proper analysis.
They are drastically overworked - I think they get about 8 hours to do a full search and response.
Additionally, at least with many of the patents we see in litigation now, they were examined in the mid to late 90s... And at that time, "CS" wasn't considered sufficiently technical enough for a patent examiner, so you had EEs and Computer Engineers trying to examine software. That's changed, but, with a 20 year lifetime, we won't see the effects for another few years.
I can say (I've been a patent attorney for 4 years) that 99% of the patent examiners I've worked with have been quite up on the technology, with the majority having programming backgrounds, so there's hope for the future.
IMO, most ideas are only incremental improvements and even then it's pretty clear when something is a good idea even after you see it in hindsight.
Yeah, but that's what the patent system is set up for. Say you've got a problem that takes you 10 man-hours. Without patents, you may just keep it a trade secret, because publishing a whitepaper or functional specification would be giving away your work. Well, all over the country, similar companies in your industry have to duplicate your efforts... So, with 1000 companies, that's now 10,000 man-hours. But if you applied for a patent, there'd be no harm in publishing that whitepaper... and now those other 999 companies can buy a cheap license (since it was only 10 hours), and we've saved 9,990 hours - hours that can be used to work on the next problem.
And heck, if another company solves the next problem, you may not even sell them a license, but simply trade a cross-license - their solution for yours. Do this with everyone and in 10 hours, you get access to 1000 solutions. That's how patents spur innovation. Not by rewarding someone for a sufficiently clever solution. If your idea is that clever, the market will do that. Patents are really just about encouraging publication of whitepapers and specifications.
The problem is finding a person skilled in the art that can be considered trustworthy and unbiased in giving their opinion on how novel something really is.
Another option would be to put a bunch of randomly selected engineers into a sealed room with a directive to brainstorm multiple solutions to the generic problem. (Kind of like jury duty for geeks.) And if they come up with the patented solution or describe a clear path to it, then the method as applied for in the patent can be assumed to be either obvious or derivable. Or at least be limited in damage to such specific detail that other similar solutions would not likely infringe on the finally granted patent.
Well, if it's a 10 hour problem, that's not too bad... but what if it's a hundred hour problem? We may still think it's obvious, after the fact, but are you really going to force a dozen engineers to sit in a sealed room for three weeks? Plus, if the patent was applied for a year ago, how do you know they didn't hear or read anything about it since then? You need a group of engineers who are constantly a year behind state of the art, no?
That's what the patent examiners are essentially trying to do, in the abstract. Because they have to use prior art references from before the patent application was filed, they're basically looking at the past writings of tons and tons of engineers... which means, want better patents? Publish more specs.:)
IMO, it is far better for each industry overall that the occasional 'good' patent is rejected, than a 'bad' one get approved.
You'll think I'm biased, but I'd disagree. We live in a very short-term, fast-paced industry, but that's not true for all industries. The patent system ha
This type of patent is in no way clever, or anything that couldn't have been thought up by anyone working in that field (and by quite a few people not skilled in the field of video compression and transport). Yes, I agree that in detail it may not "have been done before" and thus not subject to prior art, but the "obviousness" clause is meant to protect the patent pool from accumulating with patents that do nothing but hinder progress.
But, patent allowance is a quasi-judicial decision, and as such, requires due process and evidence. Just like a judge in a murder trial cannot say "eh, he looks guilty. Lock him up," a patent examiner cannot say "eh, this looks obvious. Denied." In both cases, there needs to be sufficient evidence presented.
Specifically, the test for obvious is if one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. So if the claims recite A+B+C+D+E, and you've got one piece of prior art that does A+B+C and another that does D+E and they can be combined without breaking everything (which is almost always, in software), then it's obvious. If you're missing E, and you can't find it in any prior art, then it's not, by definition.
This protects against hindsight. Everything looks obvious in hindsight, after seeing how it's done, from magic tricks to internal combustion engines to automatic transmissions... but that's irrelevant to whether the claimed invention was obvious before anyone read the application. That requires prior art and evidence.
It's a good point, and I don't remember where I first heard it. Furthermore, some googling hasn't turned up anything reliable around it. That said, based on the metrics that I've seen in place in businesses, something this asinine does not surprise me in the least.
It's false. Patent Examiners do get "points" which their pay then reflect, but they earn just as many points for rejecting an application as they do for approving one.
Don't know where you are from but that isn't the way it works here or, from what I understand, in sweden.
The prosecutor brings the charges in court, and the victim is then referred to as a witness, however the person/victim is the one pressing the charges. Without the cooperation of the victim charges cannot be brought, but they've found some wierd loophole to try to get around it in sweden.
The reason there is a seperation in the court room is that there is the situation where the victim(in the case of a murder, or violence resulting in an incapacity to either press charges or testify on the part of the victim) cannot press charges themselves and thus the government or a family member presses charges on their behalf. In cases of violating certain government laws the government itself is registered as the complainant/victim and charges are pressed that way. In this case the government has had no crime committed against it so those cases would not apply, and without the victims to press charges it should not be possible for the government to press charges unless they have the victims declared mentally unsound and rendered into the care of either family or the government who then press charges on their behalf.
Well, I will concede that your jurisdiction may be different, but here in the US, all prosecutions are performed by the state, which is why all criminal cases are "State of ____ v. Defendant" or "Commonwealth of ____ v. Defendant" or (for Federal crimes) "United States v. Defendant". None are "Victim v. Defendant". Maybe you're thinking of a civil suit?
Anyway, as a result, it is solely the prosecutor who can bring or drop charges. The victim is, at most, a witness. And no, they cannot be charged or threatened with perjury for refusing to testify. They could potentially be charged with obstruction of justice, but that's very rare, and would require extreme circumstances where the "victim" is likely a co-conspirator in insurance fraud or the like.
I'm not a Swedish attorney, but I don't believe the system is any different there.
Someone who strings together 3 chords certainly can't dictate what another person who strings together the same 3 chords can do
I'm afraid you're wrong. George Harrison was sucessfully sued for the three note song "My Sweet Lord", ZZ Top was successfully sued by Howlin' Wolf for the "Ahow how how" in "La Grange".
No, you're wrong. You have to read the entire post:
They can only dictate what another person does who copies their arrangement.
In the Harrison case, he had heard "He's so fine" before, and the jury determined that he had copied it. And ZZ Top wasn't successfully sued - the judge ruled that the prior works were in the public domain.
Nonetheless, as I said, the question isn't "were there three notes," which is what you seemed to be focusing on, but "did the alleged infringer copy the prior work". In other words, did they know about it, and did they copy it in their work. If a hermit in the woods who had been out of popular culture for 20 years wrote a book about a boy wizard named Harry Potter who attends Hogwart's school and had honestly never heard of Rowling, that would not be copyright infringement, even if every word was exactly the same.
Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.
No it's not. Try yanking a purse from a girl on a street and see whether she opts to scream or to calmly go home and have her lawyer contact you. Personal property is way, way older than any law or religion, and is understood on a visceral level. The fact that chimps own personal tools should be a dead giveaway.
You misunderstood his point. Absent a force protecting property - the government, the lawyer, a gun, an angry chimp fist - your "ownership" of the property is a legal fiction, and even more so when you're dealing with intangible property, such as a deed, a pension, a stock share, or a song.
I have a reasonable expectation that people should respect my wishes when it comes to how the song should be copied, played, or otherwise consumed.
I disagree, your expectations are completely unreasonable. What is reasonable is for you to expect that I won't sell copies of it.
So, Apple should be able to give away free copies of Windows and Microsoft Office? As long as they aren't selling copies, it's perfectly kosher? Or let's forget the big company... Apple should be able to give away free, fully unlocked copies of Minecraft, not paying Notch a dime, as long as they don't sell them? Or any other indie developer's product they like? How many Slashdot posters do you think are programmers - if one of them makes something cool, is it reasonable for Apple to put it up in the App Store without their permission, as long as it's free?
Frankly, I think it's unreasonable that you believe that giving something away has no commercial impact.
Then again, if we look at the patronage models of old (or modern crowdsourcing), people supported the artist because they wanted him or her to generate future content.
If we look at the patronage models of old, then only the 1% would get music, movies, theater, art, books, etc.
If it's "crap", then why do people pirate it? Could it be that they don't share your esteemed opinion? In which case, how is your opinion - "most music and other art is crap and therefore no one ever would waste the effort to pirate it" - at all relevant to a discussion of piracy?
The musicians who are very talented and easy to work with became popular and were paid more, and the musicians who weren't quite as talented would just play music in their spare time, with friends at pubs and family gatherings in exchange for dinner and drinks -- and work in other trades to make a livelihood.
There is no law on the books that states "Anyone who decides they're an 'artist' should therefore be able to make a living at it."
And flash forward to today, where the musicians who are very talented and easy to work with are popular and paid more, and musicians who aren't quite as talented don't make money. There is still no law on the books that requires us to pay anyone who claims they're an artist: if you disagree, swing on down to your local modern art gallery and see if you're able to leave without buying something.
Although you may claim that Beiber or Katy Perry have no talent, it's clearly untrue. You may dislike their style and subjectively dislike them, but it's mere hyperbole to claim that they are making money simply because they "decide" they're artists. For better or for worse, they are popular, just as the high-paid musicians in your premise.
We have a choice between strong intellectual property protection and a functioning Internet. We cannot have both, as they are in direct conflict with each other.
[Citation needed].
IP protections have gotten stronger and stronger over the past three decades, and, as I believe your ability to read this post shows, we have a functioning internet.
The "owner" can only exert control so long as something is entirely within their possession. After it leaves that state, there is no good moral or ethical argument for placing the rights of the "artiste" above everyone elses.
An owner cannot possess their house. They cannot pick it up and put it in their pocket, or otherwise exercise exclusive physical control over it. Therefore, can I have your house, since you believe there is no good moral or ethical argument for why you should have greater rights to it?
They think that just because they strung 3 chords together and said "baby" a lot that they have the inalienable right to dictate who can and cannot repeat those sounds and for what purposes for about 120 years.
You seem to be mixing up copyrights and patents, in an odd way, since patents can't protect creative works. But similarly, copyrights don't protect against independent creation, just copying. Someone who strings together 3 chords certainly can't dictate what another person who strings together the same 3 chords can do... They can only dictate what another person does who copies their arrangement.
Why is it people who quote the constitution never bother quoting the whole sentence:
Because everyone up to and including SCOTUS seems to think the most important part of what you bolded is irrelevant?
Particularly, the word "limited."
Actually, that's the only word SCOTUS has quibbled over, and even then, they've simply said that "limited" means "limited", not necessarily "short". SCOTUS has certainly upheld exclusive copyrights and patent rights.
Think about it: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Frankenstein, Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek, Moby Dick, Disney cartoons etc., all of that is part of our culture. Why? Because people know what those stories are all about. But there's also a bajillion obscure books and movies that are not part of our culture because nobody has ever heard of them. That's why locking down content is wrong.
... Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Disney cartoons are all covered by copyright, and Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Frankenstein were. It sounds like you're making an argument for copyright, not against it.
In most of the world, if a woman does not want to bring a case, the suspect has nothing to answer.
On the contrary, once a victim - also known as a complaining witness - has provided evidence and testimony to the prosecutor, it is out of their hands. It's like a torpedo you can't recall once fired. The prosecutor is the only person who can bring or drop charges at that point.
Charges frequently get dropped because without testimony in court from the victim, it may be tough to secure a conviction. However, if there's sufficient evidence, then the victim doesn't have to even show up. Consider a murder - you don't really need the dead body pressing charges, do you?
In this case, Assange (through his lawyer) has admitted that he did each and every element of the crime, but has argued that it shouldn't be criminal. That's like saying you didn't pay income taxes because you don't think they're constitutional. The prosecution doesn't need additional evidence at that point, because you've admitted all the facts that are necessary, and are merely arguing the legal issue.
Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?
No, he's not *afraid* of it. He *knows* it. This whole thing was such an obvious setup from the get-go that I'm surprised the CIA had the balls to even try it. Shit, even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was less obvious than this mess.
Considering that DSK's story went from "I've never seen that maid before" to "she cleaned my room but nothing happened" to "we had consensual sex and I may have accidentally tore her rotator cuff during it," I wouldn't put so much stock in his credibility.
Way to drink the kool-aid. That or you are astro turfing.
He's not even being charged by the women involved anymore. The women suddenly wanted to charge him AFTER they were approached by a swedish prosecutor. They later attempted to drop the charges, were told they couldn't, eventually succeeded in dropping the charges, only to have the charges somehow re-instituted by a swedish prosecutor with known high up US ties under pressure from the swedish government.
This is all as reported by the SWEDISH Press. Stop fucking astro-turfing to attempt to cover this shit up. This is the most blatant abuse of power by the US over its allies I've ever seen.
This may be a newsflash to you, but victims don't charge defendants. They're even usually referred to as "complaining witnesses". Prosecutors charge defendants, and only prosecutors can bring charges or drop them. Even if what you said was true about women, which it isn't, they would lack any power to "charge" him or "drop the charges". Hence, why should we believe your frothing rantings about astro-turfing and abuses of power?
Even if they did read Slashdot (which many of the Examiners do), that quote of yours doesn't tell anyone how to inject noise, nor does it teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. It's what's called non-enabling prior art, and is only prior art for what it teaches. For example, H.G. Wells' Time Machine is anticipatory prior art if someone wanted to claim "1. A device comprising a machine for traveling through time," but that's it. As soon as they start getting into the implementation, the fact that someone expressed a wish for a solution is irrelevant.
Being intrigued by the summary, and naturally reluctant to RTFA, I tried to find out what an "Automated Litter Brother" is. Best I could come up with is something from the same litter as an other automaton, or some kind of automaton that litters.
From the background:
Concerns about the government and its knowledge about its citizenry is often referred to in a derogatory sense as actions of "Big Brother" who is omnipresent and gathering information to use to its advantage when needed. The electronic age has given rise to what is now known as thousands of "Little Brothers," who perform Internet surveillance by collecting information to form electronic profiles about a user not through human eyes or through the lens of a camera but through data collection. This form of Internet surveillance via data collection is often referred to as "dataveillance." In a sense, thousands of "Little Brothers" or automated programs can monitor virtually every action of users over the Internet. The data about a user can be accumulated and combined with other data about the user to form electronic profiles of the users.
'Litter Brothers' is a typo, albeit an awesome one.
Don't you remember, we're not a first to invent country anymore, we're first to file. They filed first, so they're right.
To be honest, I never followed up on this, did it get signed into law?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with what you think. All it does away with is the very rare (20 per year, compared to over 10,000 patent applications) interference situation where two completely separate inventors file for a patent on the same exact invention simultaneously. Previously, there was a long, expensive fight while a court figured out which one invented first, using lab notebooks, witness testimony, etc. Now, it's whichever one got to the patent office first. That's it. Prior art is still prior art, and inventors must still be inventors.
Slashdot Mirror
> to purchase the product and violate US law (and apple policy)
According to Forbes, items that can be purchased at retail do not require an export license.
While the guy at Forbes does seem to say that, he links to the US Treasury's site which states:
EXPORTS TO IRAN - In general, unless licensed by OFAC, goods, technology, or services may not be exported, reexported, sold or supplied, directly or indirectly, from the United States or by a U.S. person, wherever located, to Iran or the Government of Iran...
In general, a person may not export from the U.S. any goods, technology or services, if that person knows or has reason to know such items are intended specifically for supply, transshipment or reexportation to Iran.
There doesn't seem to be "any goods, technology or services except those that can be purchased at retail" language there.
So it's not patents that help the growth of biomedical research, but American biotech companies help the growth of patents (either by lobbying or US pressure).
Pretty much. I am a patent attorney, and I don't believe IP stifles innovation, but I agree that this report is somewhat circular: "increased patent filings don't stifle innovation, and we can prove this through the increased filing of patents."
The idea that software patents should not exist is based on the idea that all software is simply sets of algorithms. Therefore all software can be boiled down to mathematics: algorithms and formulas. According to commonly held ideas about patent law: "You cannot patent a formula."
But, similarly, you can reduce the gear ratios of a machine down to a mathematical algorithm, or describe the operation of an engine through abstract equations... Does that mean that machines and engines shouldn't be patentable? Of course not... The distinction is that you're not attempting to patent the machine or engine algorithms, but rather the hardware implementing the formula, right?
But the same thing happens in software patents. We (and yes, I'm a patent attorney) don't patent the algorithm. As you note, formulae cannot be patented. Instead, we patent the hardware or the method performed by the hardware. The base algorithm is still public domain, as it should be. If the patent requires hardware, then you can do the formula on a pad of paper with a pen, or in your mind, or using a slide rule, and you cannot possibly infringe the patent.
Since the Constitution says nothing about that, you retain those rights.
Actually, it does say something about that:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The states have the power to pass such laws against using guns, or using them against criminals, without violating the 2nd Amendment, because such power is not prohibited by the 2nd Amendment and is reserved to the states by the 10th amendment. The states may then reserve such power to the people in their state constitutions, but they do not need to. It is possible that a state could prohibit firing any firearm, while still allowing people to keep and bear them, and that would be absolutely constitutional.
Mod the parent +5 Informative.
Thank you.
It's a pity the patent examiners don't seem to always have the resources (or skill?) to do a proper analysis.
They are drastically overworked - I think they get about 8 hours to do a full search and response.
Additionally, at least with many of the patents we see in litigation now, they were examined in the mid to late 90s... And at that time, "CS" wasn't considered sufficiently technical enough for a patent examiner, so you had EEs and Computer Engineers trying to examine software. That's changed, but, with a 20 year lifetime, we won't see the effects for another few years.
I can say (I've been a patent attorney for 4 years) that 99% of the patent examiners I've worked with have been quite up on the technology, with the majority having programming backgrounds, so there's hope for the future.
IMO, most ideas are only incremental improvements and even then it's pretty clear when something is a good idea even after you see it in hindsight.
Yeah, but that's what the patent system is set up for. Say you've got a problem that takes you 10 man-hours. Without patents, you may just keep it a trade secret, because publishing a whitepaper or functional specification would be giving away your work. Well, all over the country, similar companies in your industry have to duplicate your efforts... So, with 1000 companies, that's now 10,000 man-hours. But if you applied for a patent, there'd be no harm in publishing that whitepaper... and now those other 999 companies can buy a cheap license (since it was only 10 hours), and we've saved 9,990 hours - hours that can be used to work on the next problem.
And heck, if another company solves the next problem, you may not even sell them a license, but simply trade a cross-license - their solution for yours. Do this with everyone and in 10 hours, you get access to 1000 solutions. That's how patents spur innovation. Not by rewarding someone for a sufficiently clever solution. If your idea is that clever, the market will do that. Patents are really just about encouraging publication of whitepapers and specifications.
The problem is finding a person skilled in the art that can be considered trustworthy and unbiased in giving their opinion on how novel something really is.
Another option would be to put a bunch of randomly selected engineers into a sealed room with a directive to brainstorm multiple solutions to the generic problem. (Kind of like jury duty for geeks.) And if they come up with the patented solution or describe a clear path to it, then the method as applied for in the patent can be assumed to be either obvious or derivable. Or at least be limited in damage to such specific detail that other similar solutions would not likely infringe on the finally granted patent.
Well, if it's a 10 hour problem, that's not too bad... but what if it's a hundred hour problem? We may still think it's obvious, after the fact, but are you really going to force a dozen engineers to sit in a sealed room for three weeks? Plus, if the patent was applied for a year ago, how do you know they didn't hear or read anything about it since then? You need a group of engineers who are constantly a year behind state of the art, no?
That's what the patent examiners are essentially trying to do, in the abstract. Because they have to use prior art references from before the patent application was filed, they're basically looking at the past writings of tons and tons of engineers... which means, want better patents? Publish more specs. :)
IMO, it is far better for each industry overall that the occasional 'good' patent is rejected, than a 'bad' one get approved.
You'll think I'm biased, but I'd disagree. We live in a very short-term, fast-paced industry, but that's not true for all industries. The patent system ha
This type of patent is in no way clever, or anything that couldn't have been thought up by anyone working in that field (and by quite a few people not skilled in the field of video compression and transport). Yes, I agree that in detail it may not "have been done before" and thus not subject to prior art, but the "obviousness" clause is meant to protect the patent pool from accumulating with patents that do nothing but hinder progress.
But, patent allowance is a quasi-judicial decision, and as such, requires due process and evidence. Just like a judge in a murder trial cannot say "eh, he looks guilty. Lock him up," a patent examiner cannot say "eh, this looks obvious. Denied." In both cases, there needs to be sufficient evidence presented.
Specifically, the test for obvious is if one or more pieces of prior art, alone or in combination, teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. So if the claims recite A+B+C+D+E, and you've got one piece of prior art that does A+B+C and another that does D+E and they can be combined without breaking everything (which is almost always, in software), then it's obvious. If you're missing E, and you can't find it in any prior art, then it's not, by definition.
This protects against hindsight. Everything looks obvious in hindsight, after seeing how it's done, from magic tricks to internal combustion engines to automatic transmissions... but that's irrelevant to whether the claimed invention was obvious before anyone read the application. That requires prior art and evidence.
It's a good point, and I don't remember where I first heard it. Furthermore, some googling hasn't turned up anything reliable around it. That said, based on the metrics that I've seen in place in businesses, something this asinine does not surprise me in the least.
It's false. Patent Examiners do get "points" which their pay then reflect, but they earn just as many points for rejecting an application as they do for approving one.
Don't know where you are from but that isn't the way it works here or, from what I understand, in sweden.
The prosecutor brings the charges in court, and the victim is then referred to as a witness, however the person/victim is the one pressing the charges. Without the cooperation of the victim charges cannot be brought, but they've found some wierd loophole to try to get around it in sweden.
The reason there is a seperation in the court room is that there is the situation where the victim(in the case of a murder, or violence resulting in an incapacity to either press charges or testify on the part of the victim) cannot press charges themselves and thus the government or a family member presses charges on their behalf. In cases of violating certain government laws the government itself is registered as the complainant/victim and charges are pressed that way. In this case the government has had no crime committed against it so those cases would not apply, and without the victims to press charges it should not be possible for the government to press charges unless they have the victims declared mentally unsound and rendered into the care of either family or the government who then press charges on their behalf.
Well, I will concede that your jurisdiction may be different, but here in the US, all prosecutions are performed by the state, which is why all criminal cases are "State of ____ v. Defendant" or "Commonwealth of ____ v. Defendant" or (for Federal crimes) "United States v. Defendant". None are "Victim v. Defendant". Maybe you're thinking of a civil suit?
Anyway, as a result, it is solely the prosecutor who can bring or drop charges. The victim is, at most, a witness. And no, they cannot be charged or threatened with perjury for refusing to testify. They could potentially be charged with obstruction of justice, but that's very rare, and would require extreme circumstances where the "victim" is likely a co-conspirator in insurance fraud or the like.
I'm not a Swedish attorney, but I don't believe the system is any different there.
Someone who strings together 3 chords certainly can't dictate what another person who strings together the same 3 chords can do
I'm afraid you're wrong. George Harrison was sucessfully sued for the three note song "My Sweet Lord", ZZ Top was successfully sued by Howlin' Wolf for the "Ahow how how" in "La Grange".
No, you're wrong. You have to read the entire post:
They can only dictate what another person does who copies their arrangement.
In the Harrison case, he had heard "He's so fine" before, and the jury determined that he had copied it. And ZZ Top wasn't successfully sued - the judge ruled that the prior works were in the public domain.
Nonetheless, as I said, the question isn't "were there three notes," which is what you seemed to be focusing on, but "did the alleged infringer copy the prior work". In other words, did they know about it, and did they copy it in their work. If a hermit in the woods who had been out of popular culture for 20 years wrote a book about a boy wizard named Harry Potter who attends Hogwart's school and had honestly never heard of Rowling, that would not be copyright infringement, even if every word was exactly the same.
Some food for thought: All property is a legal fiction.
No it's not. Try yanking a purse from a girl on a street and see whether she opts to scream or to calmly go home and have her lawyer contact you. Personal property is way, way older than any law or religion, and is understood on a visceral level. The fact that chimps own personal tools should be a dead giveaway.
You misunderstood his point. Absent a force protecting property - the government, the lawyer, a gun, an angry chimp fist - your "ownership" of the property is a legal fiction, and even more so when you're dealing with intangible property, such as a deed, a pension, a stock share, or a song.
I have a reasonable expectation that people should respect my wishes when it comes to how the song should be copied, played, or otherwise consumed.
I disagree, your expectations are completely unreasonable. What is reasonable is for you to expect that I won't sell copies of it.
So, Apple should be able to give away free copies of Windows and Microsoft Office? As long as they aren't selling copies, it's perfectly kosher? Or let's forget the big company... Apple should be able to give away free, fully unlocked copies of Minecraft, not paying Notch a dime, as long as they don't sell them? Or any other indie developer's product they like? How many Slashdot posters do you think are programmers - if one of them makes something cool, is it reasonable for Apple to put it up in the App Store without their permission, as long as it's free?
Frankly, I think it's unreasonable that you believe that giving something away has no commercial impact.
Then again, if we look at the patronage models of old (or modern crowdsourcing), people supported the artist because they wanted him or her to generate future content.
If we look at the patronage models of old, then only the 1% would get music, movies, theater, art, books, etc.
I'm sorry, but most music and other art is crap
If it's "crap", then why do people pirate it? Could it be that they don't share your esteemed opinion? In which case, how is your opinion - "most music and other art is crap and therefore no one ever would waste the effort to pirate it" - at all relevant to a discussion of piracy?
The musicians who are very talented and easy to work with became popular and were paid more, and the musicians who weren't quite as talented would just play music in their spare time, with friends at pubs and family gatherings in exchange for dinner and drinks -- and work in other trades to make a livelihood. There is no law on the books that states "Anyone who decides they're an 'artist' should therefore be able to make a living at it."
And flash forward to today, where the musicians who are very talented and easy to work with are popular and paid more, and musicians who aren't quite as talented don't make money. There is still no law on the books that requires us to pay anyone who claims they're an artist: if you disagree, swing on down to your local modern art gallery and see if you're able to leave without buying something.
Although you may claim that Beiber or Katy Perry have no talent, it's clearly untrue. You may dislike their style and subjectively dislike them, but it's mere hyperbole to claim that they are making money simply because they "decide" they're artists. For better or for worse, they are popular, just as the high-paid musicians in your premise.
We have a choice between strong intellectual property protection and a functioning Internet. We cannot have both, as they are in direct conflict with each other.
[Citation needed].
IP protections have gotten stronger and stronger over the past three decades, and, as I believe your ability to read this post shows, we have a functioning internet.
The "owner" can only exert control so long as something is entirely within their possession. After it leaves that state, there is no good moral or ethical argument for placing the rights of the "artiste" above everyone elses.
An owner cannot possess their house. They cannot pick it up and put it in their pocket, or otherwise exercise exclusive physical control over it. Therefore, can I have your house, since you believe there is no good moral or ethical argument for why you should have greater rights to it?
They think that just because they strung 3 chords together and said "baby" a lot that they have the inalienable right to dictate who can and cannot repeat those sounds and for what purposes for about 120 years.
You seem to be mixing up copyrights and patents, in an odd way, since patents can't protect creative works. But similarly, copyrights don't protect against independent creation, just copying. Someone who strings together 3 chords certainly can't dictate what another person who strings together the same 3 chords can do... They can only dictate what another person does who copies their arrangement.
Why is it people who quote the constitution never bother quoting the whole sentence:
Because everyone up to and including SCOTUS seems to think the most important part of what you bolded is irrelevant?
Particularly, the word "limited."
Actually, that's the only word SCOTUS has quibbled over, and even then, they've simply said that "limited" means "limited", not necessarily "short". SCOTUS has certainly upheld exclusive copyrights and patent rights.
Think about it: Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, Frankenstein, Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek, Moby Dick, Disney cartoons etc., all of that is part of our culture. Why? Because people know what those stories are all about. But there's also a bajillion obscure books and movies that are not part of our culture because nobody has ever heard of them. That's why locking down content is wrong.
... Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek, and Disney cartoons are all covered by copyright, and Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Frankenstein were. It sounds like you're making an argument for copyright, not against it.
In most of the world, if a woman does not want to bring a case, the suspect has nothing to answer.
On the contrary, once a victim - also known as a complaining witness - has provided evidence and testimony to the prosecutor, it is out of their hands. It's like a torpedo you can't recall once fired. The prosecutor is the only person who can bring or drop charges at that point.
Charges frequently get dropped because without testimony in court from the victim, it may be tough to secure a conviction. However, if there's sufficient evidence, then the victim doesn't have to even show up. Consider a murder - you don't really need the dead body pressing charges, do you?
In this case, Assange (through his lawyer) has admitted that he did each and every element of the crime, but has argued that it shouldn't be criminal. That's like saying you didn't pay income taxes because you don't think they're constitutional. The prosecution doesn't need additional evidence at that point, because you've admitted all the facts that are necessary, and are merely arguing the legal issue.
Is he really that afraid that he won't get a fair trial - in Sweden?!?
No, he's not *afraid* of it. He *knows* it. This whole thing was such an obvious setup from the get-go that I'm surprised the CIA had the balls to even try it. Shit, even Dominique Strauss-Kahn was less obvious than this mess.
Considering that DSK's story went from "I've never seen that maid before" to "she cleaned my room but nothing happened" to "we had consensual sex and I may have accidentally tore her rotator cuff during it," I wouldn't put so much stock in his credibility.
Way to drink the kool-aid. That or you are astro turfing.
He's not even being charged by the women involved anymore. The women suddenly wanted to charge him AFTER they were approached by a swedish prosecutor. They later attempted to drop the charges, were told they couldn't, eventually succeeded in dropping the charges, only to have the charges somehow re-instituted by a swedish prosecutor with known high up US ties under pressure from the swedish government.
This is all as reported by the SWEDISH Press. Stop fucking astro-turfing to attempt to cover this shit up. This is the most blatant abuse of power by the US over its allies I've ever seen.
This may be a newsflash to you, but victims don't charge defendants. They're even usually referred to as "complaining witnesses". Prosecutors charge defendants, and only prosecutors can bring charges or drop them. Even if what you said was true about women, which it isn't, they would lack any power to "charge" him or "drop the charges". Hence, why should we believe your frothing rantings about astro-turfing and abuses of power?
Prior art, see my comment from June 12: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2909133&cid=40294085
Even if they did read Slashdot (which many of the Examiners do), that quote of yours doesn't tell anyone how to inject noise, nor does it teach or suggest each and every element of the claims. It's what's called non-enabling prior art, and is only prior art for what it teaches. For example, H.G. Wells' Time Machine is anticipatory prior art if someone wanted to claim "1. A device comprising a machine for traveling through time," but that's it. As soon as they start getting into the implementation, the fact that someone expressed a wish for a solution is irrelevant.
Being intrigued by the summary, and naturally reluctant to RTFA, I tried to find out what an "Automated Litter Brother" is. Best I could come up with is something from the same litter as an other automaton, or some kind of automaton that litters.
From the background: Concerns about the government and its knowledge about its citizenry is often referred to in a derogatory sense as actions of "Big Brother" who is omnipresent and gathering information to use to its advantage when needed. The electronic age has given rise to what is now known as thousands of "Little Brothers," who perform Internet surveillance by collecting information to form electronic profiles about a user not through human eyes or through the lens of a camera but through data collection. This form of Internet surveillance via data collection is often referred to as "dataveillance." In a sense, thousands of "Little Brothers" or automated programs can monitor virtually every action of users over the Internet. The data about a user can be accumulated and combined with other data about the user to form electronic profiles of the users.
'Litter Brothers' is a typo, albeit an awesome one.
Don't you remember, we're not a first to invent country anymore, we're first to file . They filed first, so they're right. To be honest, I never followed up on this, did it get signed into law?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with what you think. All it does away with is the very rare (20 per year, compared to over 10,000 patent applications) interference situation where two completely separate inventors file for a patent on the same exact invention simultaneously. Previously, there was a long, expensive fight while a court figured out which one invented first, using lab notebooks, witness testimony, etc. Now, it's whichever one got to the patent office first. That's it. Prior art is still prior art, and inventors must still be inventors.