If you create a market niche, someone will fill it. By shutting themselves out from some providers, they present other content companies with the opportunity to become top dog for those providers. This would be like Microsoft telling PC manufacturers that "we won't let you put Internet Exploder on your Windows-based machines unless you pay us a surcharge".
Agreed, in particular because the warnings are usually unskippable and are often displayed immediately after you choose the "play movie" menu option.
I mean, is there anyone in the US who has never seen one of those warnings? Is it really necessary to delay people's enjoyment of a movie on a DVD they legally purchased, just to tell them not to copy a movie that they don't need to copy since they already own the DVD?
17 USC 1201 (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; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Warden controls access to the online portion of WoW (a copyrighted work) by checking to see if cheat programs are running and refusing access to WoW if it detects any. Glider is such a program that has, in the past, been blocked by Warden. Glider was updated to circumvent this access control.
The ruling, if you bother to take the time to read it, explains all of this stuff. Maybe you don't like the law, but it was at least properly applied here.
It's all about getting reelected. It's never too early to think of your chances the next time you face the voters in a poll, especially if your popularity is waning.
Helping out your constituents is kind of the point of being a Senator. Sometimes you can achieve that goal and improve your chances for re-election at the same time.
First, Belkin is astroturfing Amazon and Newegg. Next thing you'll be telling me is that Monster Cable's stuff isn't actually any better than the generic stuff!
The whole point here is that enforcing these patents against all of those companies is an expensive proposition with no guarantee of returns. However, they can get Free Money by extorting those companies to pay them royalties, backed up by the threat of an import ban from the ITC, and even if their complaint is rejected, they've spent practically nothing.
You forgot to rent a house or apartment for cooking the stuff up, because your own house or apartment will end up being condemned as a hazard to public health if it doesn't burn down before the cops bust you.
Very true. Markey wasn't that great an advocate as the former chair of this subcommittee, but it's not the coup we were all hoping for. Howard Berman did head over to chair Foreign Affairs after Tom Lantos died, but it's apparently not clear yet whether he's ever going to relinquish the Judiciary IP subcommittee chairmanship that the Content Cabal pay him to cling to.
More likely, people who didn't need any converter boxes executed the following plan:
1. Request unneeded coupon. 2. Sell unneeded coupon to someone who needs more than one coupon because they have multiple TVs (but can't get one because there's a limit of one) for a price less than the value of the coupon. 3. ??? 4. Profit!
There are *no* details describing how they accomplish most of the claims.
The enablement requirement does not require a complete step-by-step description. It merely requires sufficient instruction such as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
NCSoft might consider that the patent at hand has a terminal disclaimer filed in it referring to the patent you mentioned. While the new patent has only been issued for a year and change, one might wonder whether the doctrine of laches would apply since the PTO decided that one of the old and new patents is obvious over the other, and the patent holder neglected to sue on the basis of the older patent for 12 years or so.
Also, I think MUDs read on at least some of the claims, and at least some of the others probably won't stand up to Bilski.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it's just something to think about. You know, "hmmmm" and all that.
Austin Powers came out over 10 years ago. At some point (and that point was years ago), making references to it every time you see either the word shark or the word laser becomes old. It's really not funny.
Shhh!
Just know that I've got a whole bag of shhh! with your name on it.
It usually does form a sentence when combined with the claims heading, usually something like "I claim" or "What is claimed is". Still, drafting a patent application is an exercise in obfuscation on many levels, including grammatical.
and perhaps unnecessary set of comma-spliced fragements
Actually, it is necessary. Each claim has to be contained within in a single sentence.
Prior art does not need to address every detail of a patent. One instance (of prior art) can apply to a porttion of a claim. That prior art may be extended through reasonable extension by a person skilled in the art to further limit the validity of the patent.
There is a bit of wiggle room in making an obviousness rejection, but the more gaps you have, the harder it is to convincingly argue obviousness, and the more likely you are to get overturned on appeal if it goes that far. In any case, the logical leaps made by many/.'ers far exceed what any examiner would be allowed to make.
Slashdot Mirror
How am I supposed to get my interocitor working without one of these things?
If you create a market niche, someone will fill it. By shutting themselves out from some providers, they present other content companies with the opportunity to become top dog for those providers. This would be like Microsoft telling PC manufacturers that "we won't let you put Internet Exploder on your Windows-based machines unless you pay us a surcharge".
Actually, they'll use the token fees that they pay out to their own artists to browbeat indie labels into joining up and sucking at the RIAA teat.
It's more about control than it is about money, and this system would bring a lot of the indie labels in line.
As it turns out, nothing.
Actually, the ruling mentions that Warden does a check when you first run the game.
Agreed, in particular because the warnings are usually unskippable and are often displayed immediately after you choose the "play movie" menu option.
I mean, is there anyone in the US who has never seen one of those warnings? Is it really necessary to delay people's enjoyment of a movie on a DVD they legally purchased, just to tell them not to copy a movie that they don't need to copy since they already own the DVD?
17 USC 1201
(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; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Warden controls access to the online portion of WoW (a copyrighted work) by checking to see if cheat programs are running and refusing access to WoW if it detects any. Glider is such a program that has, in the past, been blocked by Warden. Glider was updated to circumvent this access control.
The ruling, if you bother to take the time to read it, explains all of this stuff. Maybe you don't like the law, but it was at least properly applied here.
But was it an increase in African or European DVD sales?
African DVDs are non-migratory.
It's all about getting reelected. It's never too early to think of your chances the next time you face the voters in a poll, especially if your popularity is waning.
Helping out your constituents is kind of the point of being a Senator. Sometimes you can achieve that goal and improve your chances for re-election at the same time.
So, will YouTube bother vetting these ads, or will they become the next great haven for unvetted rogue Flash ads that redirect you to malware sites?
Fry: I can't swallow that!
Farnsworth: Well then, good news! It's a suppository.
The police need to do something to help us.
They've already sent an SOS to the world. What more do you want?
I think he means flip-flops.
the Adrienne Barbeaubot
Sparkimus Prime!!!
First, Belkin is astroturfing Amazon and Newegg. Next thing you'll be telling me is that Monster Cable's stuff isn't actually any better than the generic stuff!
...but filing ITC complaints is cheap.
The whole point here is that enforcing these patents against all of those companies is an expensive proposition with no guarantee of returns. However, they can get Free Money by extorting those companies to pay them royalties, backed up by the threat of an import ban from the ITC, and even if their complaint is rejected, they've spent practically nothing.
You forgot to rent a house or apartment for cooking the stuff up, because your own house or apartment will end up being condemned as a hazard to public health if it doesn't burn down before the cops bust you.
Very true. Markey wasn't that great an advocate as the former chair of this subcommittee, but it's not the coup we were all hoping for. Howard Berman did head over to chair Foreign Affairs after Tom Lantos died, but it's apparently not clear yet whether he's ever going to relinquish the Judiciary IP subcommittee chairmanship that the Content Cabal pay him to cling to.
More likely, people who didn't need any converter boxes executed the following plan:
1. Request unneeded coupon.
2. Sell unneeded coupon to someone who needs more than one coupon because they have multiple TVs (but can't get one because there's a limit of one) for a price less than the value of the coupon.
3. ???
4. Profit!
There are *no* details describing how they accomplish most of the claims.
The enablement requirement does not require a complete step-by-step description. It merely requires sufficient instruction such as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation.
NCSoft might consider that the patent at hand has a terminal disclaimer filed in it referring to the patent you mentioned. While the new patent has only been issued for a year and change, one might wonder whether the doctrine of laches would apply since the PTO decided that one of the old and new patents is obvious over the other, and the patent holder neglected to sue on the basis of the older patent for 12 years or so.
Also, I think MUDs read on at least some of the claims, and at least some of the others probably won't stand up to Bilski.
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but it's just something to think about. You know, "hmmmm" and all that.
Austin Powers came out over 10 years ago. At some point (and that point was years ago), making references to it every time you see either the word shark or the word laser becomes old. It's really not funny.
Shhh!
Just know that I've got a whole bag of shhh! with your name on it.
It usually does form a sentence when combined with the claims heading, usually something like "I claim" or "What is claimed is". Still, drafting a patent application is an exercise in obfuscation on many levels, including grammatical.
But when it costs around the same amount as a minute of telephone call, I can't help wondering if they would be better off just making a short call...
But that would be, like, totally lame! (or ghey, or whatever it is those whippersnappers are saying these days)
and perhaps unnecessary set of comma-spliced fragements
Actually, it is necessary. Each claim has to be contained within in a single sentence.
Prior art does not need to address every detail of a patent. One instance (of prior art) can apply to a porttion of a claim. That prior art may be extended through reasonable extension by a person skilled in the art to further limit the validity of the patent.
There is a bit of wiggle room in making an obviousness rejection, but the more gaps you have, the harder it is to convincingly argue obviousness, and the more likely you are to get overturned on appeal if it goes that far. In any case, the logical leaps made by many /.'ers far exceed what any examiner would be allowed to make.