Kevin Kelly's Cool Tools recently had a write up at http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archive/003428.php
regarding Generac Guardian Automatic Standby Generator. It is more detailed than I could be on the subject. The most import thing is making sure that the generator output (kW/hr) is greater than your probable consumption during a blackout.
When determining which systems will run off the generator, consider other creature comforts, such as running the hot-water heater and some/all of the electrical outlets in the kitchen (for charging cell phones, making coffee, etc.); however, such additions will add to consumption calculation.
More Information at chillingeffects.org
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 4, Informative
No, but (an exact copy of) the code contained on those disks is present in the final product, therefore the code could be considered a component of the system.
Actually, AT&T made that exact same argument:
AT&T urges that reading 271(f) to cover only those copies of software actually dispatched from the United States creates a "loophole" for software makers. Liability for infringing a United States patent could be avoided, as Microsoft's practice shows, by an easily arranged circumvention: Instead of making installation copies of software in the United States, the copies can be made abroad, swiftly and at small cost, by generating them from a master supplied from the United States.
The SC, however, thought otherwise:
Until it is expressed as a computer-readable "copy," e.g., on a CD-ROM, Windows software--indeed any software detached from an activating medium--remains uncombinable. It cannot be inserted into a CD-ROM drive or downloaded from the Internet; it cannot be installed or executed on a computer. Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match 271(f)'s categorization: "components" amenable to "combination." Windows abstracted from a tangible copy no doubt is information--a detailed set of instructions--and thus might be compared to a blueprint (or anything containing design information, e.g., a schematic, template, or prototype). A blueprint may contain precise instructions for the construction and combination of the components of a patented device, but it is not itself a combinable component of that device.
Remember, the SC is interpreting "component" very narrowly.
"Component" is commonly defined as "a constituent part," "element," or "ingredient." Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 466 (1981).
Let's clarify something. Section 271 of the Patent Act defines many different types of infringing acts. Section 271(a) defines infringement as the making, using, selling, or importing (the most common types of infringement). Section 271(f)(1) defines another type of infringing act, namely, exporting "components" of a patented invention.
Section 271(f)(1) states:
Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer.
Section 271(f)(1) was created to close a loophole in patent laws that allowed companies to manufacture the "patented invention" by manufacturing the components of the invention and then shipping the components overseas to be assembled and sold. Because the individual components did not infringe to the "patented invention," these companies were not infringers.
Section 271(f)(1) was an attempt to close that loophole, and provides that infringement does occur when one "suppl[ies]... from the United States," for "combination" abroad, a patented invention's "components."
In Microsoft, the SC addressed Section 271(f)(1), and specifically the term "component." The Supreme Court held that "component" means "component," or a part of the whole which is combined to form the final product. The master disks exported by Microsoft were not "components" because the disks themselves where not combined with the "whole." Instead, the disks where used to make software, which then became part of the whole. The Supreme Court analogized the master disks to tools. Tools are used to make a "component" but they are not "components." Section 271(f)(1) only applies to "components" and not to tools for making components. Thus, Microsoft did not infringe (as defined by 271(f)(1)). The opinion is limited to section 271(f)(1), and likely will not affect "normal" infringing activities.
The 5th Amendment typically only applies in "criminal cases" (i.e. jail time and/or fine) but can be invoked in civil cases (i.e. injunction and/or damages suffered) when the testimony the witness is asked to offer would be incriminating against him. Additionally, the production of physical evidence (gun, blood sample, computer, etc.) is not considered to be "testifying." Under the 5th, you cannot be forced to "testify" (verbally) against yourself. However, the government (in criminal cases) and parties (civil cases) can still obtain all physical evidence which is relevant OR is likely to lead to relevant evidence.
I would hope that you won't be allowed to "patent" this proposal because it is not "new type of patent." In fact, IEEE's proposal parallels the system in Australia, which allows "innovation" patents to issue without review. http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what_innovat ion.shtml
Australian Innovation Patents, as they are called, last a maximum of 8 years, are granted without examination within 1 to 3 months. However, before enforcement or even threatened enforcement of an innovation patent, someone (not just the owner of the patent) must request a formal examination of the patent.
Nevertheless, with sad state of affairs in this country, you probably could file an application and get a piece of paper back granting you a patent this "process.":)
[ Begin Rant ]
The problem with these types of "IEEE" or "innovation" patents is that they worthless.
First, without the initial review, the patent owner is left unaware if there are serious deficiencies in his patent until he tries to enforce it. Between 2000 and 2003 roughly 300,000 patent applications were filed each year. Between 2001 and 2004 roughly only half those applications matured into granted patents. http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/us_stat.htm. During the examination process, there are ways to cure these deficiencies. For example, the inventor may amend the claims or file another application. The system currently proposed by IEEE does not serve inventors because it cannot forewarn applicants that there is a problem. (Of course, the current system is broken, but in other ways.)
Second, even if the owner has a valid patent, he would not be able to recuperate the costs of enforcing that patent. By giving a limited monopoly for 4 years, the patent owner can only recover damages for those 4 years. Take this example: Inventor A gets invents a widget and wants to bring it immediately to market (and can), so he gets an "IEEE" patent. Company B sees A widget and decides to reverse engineer and sell the widget. If it takes Company B a year to reverse engineer and market widget, then the soonest A would realize that B is infrigning is in the 2nd year of his patent's 4 year term. However, before he can even threaten B, he must have the patent reviewed by the patent office for validity. This might take 3-6 months (I am guessing). This puts him into his 3rd year. After a finding of validity, A then has to commence suit, which generally takes more than a year. So after everything is said and done, B only has to pay royalties for 3 years and can continue manufacturing the widget because A's 4-year patent term has expired by the end of litigation. What was accomplished by suing B? A expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation only to gain 3 years worth of royalties, which probably weren't that much.
On the other hand, with a standard patent, the patent owner, A, could recover damages for 20 years and/or charge Company B a royalty for the remaining term of the patent. Now, if that widget was, for example, the iPod, then A would have benefited by obtaining a standard patent.
For these reasons, no major company will pursue an "IEEE" patent even if it was allowed. [/end Rant]
After reading the article, I think there are many good common sense suggestions to prevent Podjack. Most effective, I think, is repeating your main URL to listeners and directing them to your website.
However, I foresee disputes arising among different individuals each claiming the other is podjacking or attempting to podjack their RSS feed. It is likely that both Yahoo! and iTunes will not develop "dispute resolution" methods for solving these conflicts. Consequently, I think podcasters should develop a strong legal base to use against podjackers.
The first step should be contract protection. A short warning or license, similar to what is used at the end of radio shows or NFL games, should be displayed your website and appended at the end of every broadcast. I think the creative commons in some cases (but not all) would)be effective. I, personally, like saying "my not be linked to or rebroadcast without permission" not because I won't grant permission, but I want to get to know my audience and try to find out about new audiences elsewhere on the web.
Your voice is your biggest growing asset, spend some money and get some statutory copyright protection. While podcasting is new, I foresee in the future individuals re-running older podcasts of others for their gain. Copyright in theory should prevent this. Full protection, however, only occurs if you register your copyrights with the Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/). After registration, copyright holders get to wave the flag of mandatory statutory damages (you only get actual damages if it is not registered and in podcasting that is usually nothing). One method is to aggregate all your pod casts for a year or 6-months into one file and file that Copyright Office for a minor fee, or pick and choose the most important broadcasts and file those.
Lastly, get a federal trademark or remind others of trademark law. In the truest legal sense, podjacking is not copyright infringement, but trademark infringement because the podjacker falsely designates his site as the source of the goods/services (the podcast). In the example given by Erik, the podjacker did not "re-broadcast" but directed listeners to his website and then redirected them to the original podcast. So, he did not violate the copyright act by re-broadcasting a copy. However, by listing his website as the source of the podcast in Yahoo!'s directories, the podjacker lied to the world, in a sense, by telling them that he was originating the podcast.
While I say this, the best initial steps are the ones Erik mentions in his article. Play nice, but be ready with solid legal stick to strike the other side if necessary.
"You're a liability" is true. While all companies want happy employees and happy ex-employees, the middle ground is a time of turmoil. If you look at it from the company's view they don't know where you are going or, worse, what you are taking.
Imagine a simple tech company, with happy employees. However, everything, the tables, chairs, lights, computers, even the mini-frige filled with bawls is rented. The only assets the company has is its software and its trade secrets (the experience and knowledge of "trial and error" or knowledge what works and doesn't and the concepts and ideas embodied by the software). Now one or two employees leave. While it seems like everyone left on amicable terms, it turns out that the employees had gathered up all of the company's information to start a directly competing firm.
A tech company's software is their lifeblood. To lose it or to let some walk off with it is devastating. I've seen it. I've spoken up for those companies and the normal people with the entrepreneurial spirit that start them. I strive to be a lawyer that helps rather than hurts. I've helped tech companies recover their software, ideas and trade secrets from former employees. It's a painful process. Most times, the former employees don't think they did anything wrong. But, in my experience, there is at least one company that would have saved itself if it had done exactly what your company did because it was during this intermediate period when the employees decide to start thinking and preparing for the future. In this case, that meant taking company's lifeblood.
You sound like you did the right thing. Give notice. Say you are willing to help in your remaining time. And then leave it all behind and go foward.
I agree with everyone else, be happy that the company valued your happiness (and maybe your expectations) by paying you for those two weeks. They could have let you go on the spot.
One day when you have your own System Administrative consulting service you might think the same way.
But we are talking about N A ("my bad, that was metric?") S A.
The way things work there, we might have a asteroid AND a 20-ton spacecraft hurtling toward the earth
Think for a minute how many vehicle recalls have happen for your car.
I own a 2001 Chrysler and its been subject to six recalls already.
Now think about the probabilities of fatal software errors in complex systems.
(It is fairly high)
Ask yourself the real question: if your car drives you off a bridge, whom are you going to sue?
Cars will not be autonomous, ever. This is mainly because no manufacture would be willing to subject itself to the possible liability of injury/wrongful death/negligence/class action product liability suits.
The problem is we need the law. Would be willing to buy an autonomous car made by someone that has complete immunity from suit? Coming to a balance in this area would be difficult. I don't think the car manufactures would dare enter into a regulated arena, at least any more so than they are now.
Let's look at the broadest claim: 1. A transmission system for providing information to be transmitted to remote locations, the transmission system comprising: library means for storing items containing information; identification encoding means for retrieving the information in the items from the library means and for assigning a unique identification code to the retrieved information; conversion means, coupled to the identification encoding means, for placing the retrieved information into a predetermined format as formatted data; ordering means, coupled to the conversion means, for placing the formatted data into a sequence of addressable data blocks; compression means, coupled to the ordering means, for compressing the formatted and sequenced data blocks; compressed data storing means, coupled to the data compression means, for storing as files the compressed, sequenced data blocks received from the data compression means with the unique identification code assigned by the identification encoding means; and transmitter means, coupled to the compressed data storing means, for sending at least a portion of one of the files to one of the remote locations.
At least from the conversion to the transmitting means there is good prior art out there. I would begin by looking at early DARPANET / ARPANET research. Specifically, the research of Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch and Vinton Cerf on TCP/IP communications. Most people don't realize it, but much of the original work that resulted in TCP/IP was based on radio communications. Thus, there may be a good obviousness argument to be made. We will see. There is almost always prior art... it is just a question of if you find it can you convince someone it is prior art.
Slashdot Mirror
Kevin Kelly's Cool Tools recently had a write up at http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archive/003428.php regarding Generac Guardian Automatic Standby Generator. It is more detailed than I could be on the subject. The most import thing is making sure that the generator output (kW/hr) is greater than your probable consumption during a blackout. When determining which systems will run off the generator, consider other creature comforts, such as running the hot-water heater and some/all of the electrical outlets in the kitchen (for charging cell phones, making coffee, etc.); however, such additions will add to consumption calculation.
More information about AACS's (Access Content System Licensing Administrator, LLC) take down notices can be found at: http://www.chillingeffects.org/index.cgi
and specifically: http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/n otice.cgi?NoticeID=7180
They give an example of AACS's take down notices and pretty good legal analysis of its contents.
Actually, AT&T made that exact same argument:
The SC, however, thought otherwise:
Remember, the SC is interpreting "component" very narrowly.
The full text of the SC's opinion is available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1056.ZO.h tml
Let's clarify something. Section 271 of the Patent Act defines many different types of infringing acts. Section 271(a) defines infringement as the making, using, selling, or importing (the most common types of infringement). Section 271(f)(1) defines another type of infringing act, namely, exporting "components" of a patented invention.
Section 271(f)(1) states:
Section 271(f)(1) was created to close a loophole in patent laws that allowed companies to manufacture the "patented invention" by manufacturing the components of the invention and then shipping the components overseas to be assembled and sold. Because the individual components did not infringe to the "patented invention," these companies were not infringers.
Section 271(f)(1) was an attempt to close that loophole, and provides that infringement does occur when one "suppl[ies] ... from the United States," for "combination" abroad, a patented invention's "components."
In Microsoft, the SC addressed Section 271(f)(1), and specifically the term "component." The Supreme Court held that "component" means "component," or a part of the whole which is combined to form the final product. The master disks exported by Microsoft were not "components" because the disks themselves where not combined with the "whole." Instead, the disks where used to make software, which then became part of the whole. The Supreme Court analogized the master disks to tools. Tools are used to make a "component" but they are not "components." Section 271(f)(1) only applies to "components" and not to tools for making components. Thus, Microsoft did not infringe (as defined by 271(f)(1)). The opinion is limited to section 271(f)(1), and likely will not affect "normal" infringing activities.
The 5th Amendment typically only applies in "criminal cases" (i.e. jail time and/or fine) but can be invoked in civil cases (i.e. injunction and/or damages suffered) when the testimony the witness is asked to offer would be incriminating against him.
Additionally, the production of physical evidence (gun, blood sample, computer, etc.) is not considered to be "testifying." Under the 5th, you cannot be forced to "testify" (verbally) against yourself. However, the government (in criminal cases) and parties (civil cases) can still obtain all physical evidence which is relevant OR is likely to lead to relevant evidence.
I would hope that you won't be allowed to "patent" this proposal because it is not "new type of patent."t ion.shtml
8 165.stm in which a lawyer patented the wheel using this system.
:)
In fact, IEEE's proposal parallels the system in Australia, which allows "innovation" patents to issue without review. http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what_innova
Australian Innovation Patents, as they are called, last a maximum of 8 years, are granted without examination within 1 to 3 months. However, before enforcement or even threatened enforcement of an innovation patent, someone (not just the owner of the patent) must request a formal examination of the patent.
These systems have their problems as well. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/141
Nevertheless, with sad state of affairs in this country, you probably could file an application and get a piece of paper back granting you a patent this "process."
[ Begin Rant ]
The problem with these types of "IEEE" or "innovation" patents is that they worthless.
First, without the initial review, the patent owner is left unaware if there are serious deficiencies in his patent until he tries to enforce it. Between 2000 and 2003 roughly 300,000 patent applications were filed each year. Between 2001 and 2004 roughly only half those applications matured into granted patents. http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/us_stat.htm. During the examination process, there are ways to cure these deficiencies. For example, the inventor may amend the claims or file another application. The system currently proposed by IEEE does not serve inventors because it cannot forewarn applicants that there is a problem. (Of course, the current system is broken, but in other ways.)
Second, even if the owner has a valid patent, he would not be able to recuperate the costs of enforcing that patent. By giving a limited monopoly for 4 years, the patent owner can only recover damages for those 4 years. Take this example: Inventor A gets invents a widget and wants to bring it immediately to market (and can), so he gets an "IEEE" patent. Company B sees A widget and decides to reverse engineer and sell the widget. If it takes Company B a year to reverse engineer and market widget, then the soonest A would realize that B is infrigning is in the 2nd year of his patent's 4 year term. However, before he can even threaten B, he must have the patent reviewed by the patent office for validity. This might take 3-6 months (I am guessing). This puts him into his 3rd year. After a finding of validity, A then has to commence suit, which generally takes more than a year. So after everything is said and done, B only has to pay royalties for 3 years and can continue manufacturing the widget because A's 4-year patent term has expired by the end of litigation. What was accomplished by suing B? A expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation only to gain 3 years worth of royalties, which probably weren't that much.
On the other hand, with a standard patent, the patent owner, A, could recover damages for 20 years and/or charge Company B a royalty for the remaining term of the patent. Now, if that widget was, for example, the iPod, then A would have benefited by obtaining a standard patent.
For these reasons, no major company will pursue an "IEEE" patent even if it was allowed.
[/end Rant]
After reading the article, I think there are many good common sense suggestions to prevent Podjack. Most effective, I think, is repeating your main URL to listeners and directing them to your website.
However, I foresee disputes arising among different individuals each claiming the other is podjacking or attempting to podjack their RSS feed. It is likely that both Yahoo! and iTunes will not develop "dispute resolution" methods for solving these conflicts. Consequently, I think podcasters should develop a strong legal base to use against podjackers.
The first step should be contract protection. A short warning or license, similar to what is used at the end of radio shows or NFL games, should be displayed your website and appended at the end of every broadcast. I think the creative commons in some cases (but not all) would)be effective. I, personally, like saying "my not be linked to or rebroadcast without permission" not because I won't grant permission, but I want to get to know my audience and try to find out about new audiences elsewhere on the web.
Your voice is your biggest growing asset, spend some money and get some statutory copyright protection. While podcasting is new, I foresee in the future individuals re-running older podcasts of others for their gain. Copyright in theory should prevent this. Full protection, however, only occurs if you register your copyrights with the Copyright Office (http://www.copyright.gov/). After registration, copyright holders get to wave the flag of mandatory statutory damages (you only get actual damages if it is not registered and in podcasting that is usually nothing). One method is to aggregate all your pod casts for a year or 6-months into one file and file that Copyright Office for a minor fee, or pick and choose the most important broadcasts and file those.
Lastly, get a federal trademark or remind others of trademark law. In the truest legal sense, podjacking is not copyright infringement, but trademark infringement because the podjacker falsely designates his site as the source of the goods/services (the podcast). In the example given by Erik, the podjacker did not "re-broadcast" but directed listeners to his website and then redirected them to the original podcast. So, he did not violate the copyright act by re-broadcasting a copy. However, by listing his website as the source of the podcast in Yahoo!'s directories, the podjacker lied to the world, in a sense, by telling them that he was originating the podcast.
While I say this, the best initial steps are the ones Erik mentions in his article. Play nice, but be ready with solid legal stick to strike the other side if necessary.
"You're a liability" is true. While all companies want happy employees and happy ex-employees, the middle ground is a time of turmoil. If you look at it from the company's view they don't know where you are going or, worse, what you are taking. Imagine a simple tech company, with happy employees. However, everything, the tables, chairs, lights, computers, even the mini-frige filled with bawls is rented. The only assets the company has is its software and its trade secrets (the experience and knowledge of "trial and error" or knowledge what works and doesn't and the concepts and ideas embodied by the software). Now one or two employees leave. While it seems like everyone left on amicable terms, it turns out that the employees had gathered up all of the company's information to start a directly competing firm. A tech company's software is their lifeblood. To lose it or to let some walk off with it is devastating. I've seen it. I've spoken up for those companies and the normal people with the entrepreneurial spirit that start them. I strive to be a lawyer that helps rather than hurts. I've helped tech companies recover their software, ideas and trade secrets from former employees. It's a painful process. Most times, the former employees don't think they did anything wrong. But, in my experience, there is at least one company that would have saved itself if it had done exactly what your company did because it was during this intermediate period when the employees decide to start thinking and preparing for the future. In this case, that meant taking company's lifeblood. You sound like you did the right thing. Give notice. Say you are willing to help in your remaining time. And then leave it all behind and go foward. I agree with everyone else, be happy that the company valued your happiness (and maybe your expectations) by paying you for those two weeks. They could have let you go on the spot. One day when you have your own System Administrative consulting service you might think the same way.
But we are talking about N A ("my bad, that was metric?") S A. The way things work there, we might have a asteroid AND a 20-ton spacecraft hurtling toward the earth
Think for a minute how many vehicle recalls have happen for your car.
I own a 2001 Chrysler and its been subject to six recalls already.
Now think about the probabilities of fatal software errors in complex systems. (It is fairly high)
Ask yourself the real question: if your car drives you off a bridge, whom are you going to sue?
Cars will not be autonomous, ever. This is mainly because no manufacture would be willing to subject itself to the possible liability of injury/wrongful death/negligence/class action product liability suits. The problem is we need the law. Would be willing to buy an autonomous car made by someone that has complete immunity from suit? Coming to a balance in this area would be difficult. I don't think the car manufactures would dare enter into a regulated arena, at least any more so than they are now.
Let's look at the broadest claim:
1. A transmission system for providing information to be transmitted to remote locations, the transmission system comprising:
library means for storing items containing information; identification encoding means for retrieving the information in the items from the library means and for assigning a unique identification code to the retrieved information;
conversion means, coupled to the identification encoding means, for placing the retrieved information into a predetermined format as formatted data;
ordering means, coupled to the conversion means, for placing the formatted data into a sequence of addressable data blocks;
compression means, coupled to the ordering means, for compressing the formatted and sequenced data blocks;
compressed data storing means, coupled to the data compression means, for storing as files the compressed, sequenced data blocks received from the data compression means with the unique identification code assigned by the identification encoding means; and
transmitter means, coupled to the compressed data storing means, for sending at least a portion of one of the files to one of the remote locations.
At least from the conversion to the transmitting means there is good prior art out there.
I would begin by looking at early DARPANET / ARPANET research.
Specifically, the research of Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch and Vinton Cerf on TCP/IP communications. Most people don't realize it, but much of the original work that resulted in TCP/IP was based on radio communications.
Thus, there may be a good obviousness argument to be made. We will see.
There is almost always prior art... it is just a question of if you find it can you convince someone it is prior art.