"You may not want design patents to be covered under copyright law, where they would last for a century or so. Design patents [uspto.gov] cover things that provide distinctive design but are not necessary to the utility of the device. Such designs might not be copyrightable but can still get design patents."
If they aren't distinctive enough to qualify for copyright then they aren't distinctive enough to qualify for protection.
Yes. You can. Design is not functional, it is aesthetic and aesthetics belong to copyright. 3D art is copyrightable just like 2D art. A car is copyrightable in the same manner in which a sculpture is.
"I don't buy this argument. Firstly, it contradicts itself - if you are eating a certain food just to show how different you are, doesn't that make you a moron? So if this were the case, wouldn't it be keeping the morons in?"
Indeed but his assumption that keeping the morons out would lead to widespread popularity is false. Keeping the morons in is the road to widespread success.
"If you abolish software patents, it makes it very difficult for companies to realistically spend millions on development of new concepts and ideas when someone can then just take the ground breaking UI or process etc."
This is complete FUD. Software patents only keep the little guy out of the game as it is. The big guys all rip one anothers patents off because their competition is violating enough of their own patents that they don't want to face the fallout of a patent war.
"But do you sit there sifting through applications? I don't. I have better things to do with my free time. I think just about everyone else would too."
Do you sit there correcting spelling and grammar errors in random wikipedia articles? I don't. I have better things to do with my free time. I think just about every else would too.
Of course I, and likely you, would be wrong. People do exactly this. All you need is some kind of recognition or reward system and people will do it. This carries extra kudos. If you are the highest scoring prior art finder companies can potentially save a lot of money by having you examine claims for prior art BEFORE they submit them.
"However, in that case, would it actually then be transferred to the people that whose work was used to throw it out?"
No unlike copyrights you don't get patent by default upon creation. You only get it in exchange for disclosing the exact details of how your invention works.
"Perhaps a different twist on this is that a patent can be quickly and easily invalidated if someone shows prior art after it has been granted."
I'm with you here. The USPTO should revoke patents. They should have user submitted prior art and a slashdot like moderation system so they can query highly rated prior art in addition to currently examined patents.
The last time I heard of Microsoft being sued they settled by giving 20 mil worth of software coupons to schools. This was their punishment for being an abusive monopoly, they were forced to engage in a marketing campaign.
I don't see Microsoft crapping bricks anytime soon.
You cut cost from the markup. These companies are making a profit sending you up there so they aren't charging the cost.
Additionally, improved technology may or may not change the energy requirements. More efficient means of climbing that space could come along any day now.
Lastly, the energy utilization can improve. Oil is not the only place energy can be found. The matter floating as airborne particles in my cube right now could power hundreds of those missions if we had the technology to effectively harness it. At least that's what my buddy Einstein told me and I hear he's pretty good with the physics stuff.
That's a pretty wild assumption. Who says our appetite for energy is not finite? On the contrary our appetite for energy is finite. I can effectively tap as much juice from the lines as I want and my bill is ridiculously low I could double or even triple it without concern.
So you propose we wait and change human nature before trying to develop anything. I'm sure we'll all note that.
Being a masochist and all I'm sure you think the ideal solution is restraint. Not being a masochist I believe the ideal solution is one where no restraint is required.
For instance, I can drink all the water I like. No restraint is required. I don't see where being put on a water ration would be a good thing.
The employee is the original author, he has the full rights granted by copyright not the subset granted by the GPL. The original author is not bound by the GPL, only people who receive the work from the original author are bound by its terms.
He is also perfectly within his rights to sue the university for developing and using a derivative in the first place if he never granted them a license.
"If the OP had not published the original work under the GPL, combined with any applicable employment contracts (including the "Employee Handbook" equivalent), then the university can make a case stating that the copyright belongs to them and they have full rights to determine the license. That is where lawyers and documentation get involved, and the case usually goes to he who has the highest paid legal team."
If the OP did not publish, he still gained copyright at the point of creation. So if he didn't publish under the GPL and did not sign a contract granting the university the right to use the work in the first place then they don't even have the right to use the work internally let alone to usurp his copyright.
I think you are missing the part where he developed this code BEFORE working there. It isn't a work for hire unless he was hired before he wrote it.
His employer doesn't get his preexisting copyright for free because they hire him to do work for hire on the project after the fact.
Actually, work for hire or no, there is a strong argument that everything he did for them is a derivative work and therefore falls under his pre-existing copyright.
Just because they hired the original author doesn't mean they get a license to use the work he owns for free and it certainly doesn't mean they get to take his copyright.
The earth has no shortage of mineral salts already. In moderation salts are a good thing, we need them, plants need them. I have a garden grown with no soil, only plants suspended over salt water (the right salts).
Salt concentrated is a bad thing and it would seem that such a device is likely to be in a single location with weather patterns that will be somewhat consistent over time. That has the potential to deposit the salts over a particular area instead of spreading them around.
It's worth looking into. Hopefully this research will consider it.
Increasing ocean evaporation by 1% would probably be a wee bit excessive don't you think?
Increasing any global force by 1% would be a massive shift. We aren't talking about scales at which 1/100 is reasonable, we are talking about scales you measure in millionths or billionths.
I don't know of anything you could say that changes this simple fact and nothing short of that would change my answer.
The risk/reward ratio of making the sacrifice you ask simply isn't there. It is far more productive to work toward educating the idiots on what jury nullification and reasonable doubt mean than to toss my life away on the next poor sap.
If you want to do something useful, don't throw your career and family prosperity away. Start working toward bringing advisement of jurors rights and the final check of the people against government back into jury instruction. Or at least work on getting judges to stop lying to juries and explicitly telling them they can't do this.
Not anywhere that I know of. That would be impossible to budget. As far as I know, in most locals they either pay a fixed rate to anyone appointed or they require all attorney's in the county/city/ or other jurisdiction to participate for free when their turn comes up in exchange for having a practice there.
The latter is what they do in my home town. Different attorneys react differently to this. Some see it as a chance to do something worthwhile the first time or two it comes up. After serving as a PD for a couple terms they all do pretty much the same thing, they measure success by how good of a deal they negotiate in a single sitting for their client not how many clients went free.
The ones who see it as a burden from the start measure success by how quickly the case is resolved, regardless of how poor a deal they cut.
"And then there's people like one of the posters below who would gladly pay a subscription fee for unlimited access. Sure, who wouldn't. 2 months subscription at some measly $30/month + downloading 24/7 = set for years. New releases? Well just 'pirate' those, as $30 for 1, maybe 2 movies per month is far too expensive, of course."
Netflix does this already. The problem is the selection of blockbuster level films, the quality of the streaming, and the drm that locks you into silverlight. If the studios would just drop the restrictions and open up the selection I think most pirates would hop on board netflix.
I am all for empowering juries by notifying them of their right of nullification and I am certainly in favor of using said right to nullify unjust action against cannabis users.
I am not in favor of bankrupting myself and starving my own family for the sake of a single opportunity to make it happen.
Slashdot Mirror
"You may not want design patents to be covered under copyright law, where they would last for a century or so. Design patents [uspto.gov] cover things that provide distinctive design but are not necessary to the utility of the device. Such designs might not be copyrightable but can still get design patents."
If they aren't distinctive enough to qualify for copyright then they aren't distinctive enough to qualify for protection.
"you can't copyright a car"
Yes. You can. Design is not functional, it is aesthetic and aesthetics belong to copyright. 3D art is copyrightable just like 2D art. A car is copyrightable in the same manner in which a sculpture is.
Don't forget the original, now armless chick.
"I don't buy this argument. Firstly, it contradicts itself - if you are eating a certain food just to show how different you are, doesn't that make you a moron? So if this were the case, wouldn't it be keeping the morons in?"
Indeed but his assumption that keeping the morons out would lead to widespread popularity is false. Keeping the morons in is the road to widespread success.
It's not yummy, its raw fish ffs
Which is an illustration of the IP problem. A design is a textbook case of something which clearly belongs to copyright protection, not patent.
"If you abolish software patents, it makes it very difficult for companies to realistically spend millions on development of new concepts and ideas when someone can then just take the ground breaking UI or process etc."
This is complete FUD. Software patents only keep the little guy out of the game as it is. The big guys all rip one anothers patents off because their competition is violating enough of their own patents that they don't want to face the fallout of a patent war.
"But do you sit there sifting through applications? I don't. I have better things to do with my free time. I think just about everyone else would too."
Do you sit there correcting spelling and grammar errors in random wikipedia articles? I don't. I have better things to do with my free time. I think just about every else would too.
Of course I, and likely you, would be wrong. People do exactly this. All you need is some kind of recognition or reward system and people will do it. This carries extra kudos. If you are the highest scoring prior art finder companies can potentially save a lot of money by having you examine claims for prior art BEFORE they submit them.
"However, in that case, would it actually then be transferred to the people that whose work was used to throw it out?"
No unlike copyrights you don't get patent by default upon creation. You only get it in exchange for disclosing the exact details of how your invention works.
"Perhaps a different twist on this is that a patent can be quickly and easily invalidated if someone shows prior art after it has been granted."
I'm with you here. The USPTO should revoke patents. They should have user submitted prior art and a slashdot like moderation system so they can query highly rated prior art in addition to currently examined patents.
"As a benchmark, we should strive towards the ability to reconstruct hot chicks only from part of their arm! ;)"
I'm with you. They have two arms, so you could potentially end up with two hot chicks!
The last time I heard of Microsoft being sued they settled by giving 20 mil worth of software coupons to schools. This was their punishment for being an abusive monopoly, they were forced to engage in a marketing campaign.
I don't see Microsoft crapping bricks anytime soon.
You cut cost from the markup. These companies are making a profit sending you up there so they aren't charging the cost.
Additionally, improved technology may or may not change the energy requirements. More efficient means of climbing that space could come along any day now.
Lastly, the energy utilization can improve. Oil is not the only place energy can be found. The matter floating as airborne particles in my cube right now could power hundreds of those missions if we had the technology to effectively harness it. At least that's what my buddy Einstein told me and I hear he's pretty good with the physics stuff.
ps why subtract the oceans? It seems like the ideal surface area to use for harnessing solar since we aren't using it for anything else.
"Our appetite for energy is not."
That's a pretty wild assumption. Who says our appetite for energy is not finite? On the contrary our appetite for energy is finite. I can effectively tap as much juice from the lines as I want and my bill is ridiculously low I could double or even triple it without concern.
So you propose we wait and change human nature before trying to develop anything. I'm sure we'll all note that.
Being a masochist and all I'm sure you think the ideal solution is restraint. Not being a masochist I believe the ideal solution is one where no restraint is required.
For instance, I can drink all the water I like. No restraint is required. I don't see where being put on a water ration would be a good thing.
The employee is the original author, he has the full rights granted by copyright not the subset granted by the GPL. The original author is not bound by the GPL, only people who receive the work from the original author are bound by its terms.
He is also perfectly within his rights to sue the university for developing and using a derivative in the first place if he never granted them a license.
"If the OP had not published the original work under the GPL, combined with any applicable employment contracts (including the "Employee Handbook" equivalent), then the university can make a case stating that the copyright belongs to them and they have full rights to determine the license. That is where lawyers and documentation get involved, and the case usually goes to he who has the highest paid legal team."
If the OP did not publish, he still gained copyright at the point of creation. So if he didn't publish under the GPL and did not sign a contract granting the university the right to use the work in the first place then they don't even have the right to use the work internally let alone to usurp his copyright.
I think you are missing the part where he developed this code BEFORE working there. It isn't a work for hire unless he was hired before he wrote it.
His employer doesn't get his preexisting copyright for free because they hire him to do work for hire on the project after the fact.
Actually, work for hire or no, there is a strong argument that everything he did for them is a derivative work and therefore falls under his pre-existing copyright.
Just because they hired the original author doesn't mean they get a license to use the work he owns for free and it certainly doesn't mean they get to take his copyright.
The earth has no shortage of mineral salts already. In moderation salts are a good thing, we need them, plants need them. I have a garden grown with no soil, only plants suspended over salt water (the right salts).
Salt concentrated is a bad thing and it would seem that such a device is likely to be in a single location with weather patterns that will be somewhat consistent over time. That has the potential to deposit the salts over a particular area instead of spreading them around.
It's worth looking into. Hopefully this research will consider it.
Increasing ocean evaporation by 1% would probably be a wee bit excessive don't you think?
Increasing any global force by 1% would be a massive shift. We aren't talking about scales at which 1/100 is reasonable, we are talking about scales you measure in millionths or billionths.
Let me state this as simply as possible.
Self|Family|Friend > Other
I don't know of anything you could say that changes this simple fact and nothing short of that would change my answer.
The risk/reward ratio of making the sacrifice you ask simply isn't there. It is far more productive to work toward educating the idiots on what jury nullification and reasonable doubt mean than to toss my life away on the next poor sap.
If you want to do something useful, don't throw your career and family prosperity away. Start working toward bringing advisement of jurors rights and the final check of the people against government back into jury instruction. Or at least work on getting judges to stop lying to juries and explicitly telling them they can't do this.
Not anywhere that I know of. That would be impossible to budget. As far as I know, in most locals they either pay a fixed rate to anyone appointed or they require all attorney's in the county/city/ or other jurisdiction to participate for free when their turn comes up in exchange for having a practice there.
The latter is what they do in my home town. Different attorneys react differently to this. Some see it as a chance to do something worthwhile the first time or two it comes up. After serving as a PD for a couple terms they all do pretty much the same thing, they measure success by how good of a deal they negotiate in a single sitting for their client not how many clients went free.
The ones who see it as a burden from the start measure success by how quickly the case is resolved, regardless of how poor a deal they cut.
"And then there's people like one of the posters below who would gladly pay a subscription fee for unlimited access. Sure, who wouldn't. 2 months subscription at some measly $30/month + downloading 24/7 = set for years. New releases? Well just 'pirate' those, as $30 for 1, maybe 2 movies per month is far too expensive, of course."
Netflix does this already. The problem is the selection of blockbuster level films, the quality of the streaming, and the drm that locks you into silverlight. If the studios would just drop the restrictions and open up the selection I think most pirates would hop on board netflix.
I am all for empowering juries by notifying them of their right of nullification and I am certainly in favor of using said right to nullify unjust action against cannabis users.
I am not in favor of bankrupting myself and starving my own family for the sake of a single opportunity to make it happen.
Exactly, factual anatomy data is based entirely upon my personal bigotry.