The fact that this case is being prosecuted just sickens me. This prosecutor needs to stand behind the Duke lacrosse prosecutor in the line to get his license revoked.
Just wanted to say a few things before you get modded down into non-existence.
Evolution isn't any more "non-science" than astro-physics is non-science. Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution. But the same can be said for most of what goes on in space. That hasn't kept science out. Unfortunately, it does mean that the scatter is a little larger and research takes longer. But research still does happen because predictions can be made and then you wait and see if the observations match up.
Evolution is falsifiable. If we actually wanted to run experiments we could. It might take a few hundred million years, but we could do it. Creation, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. But that won't stop those with blinders on from claiming they are similarly situated.
I am sure that they can invent something that can be installed on a million cash registers in the United States but will be impossible to procure by any other means. Why didn't anyone else think of this earlier?
Ok, fine, so I should have said "use my work in a particular way that is outlined in the GPL." I know how the GPL works. Being nitpicky on this point is unrelated to the overall issue and doesn't really add to the conversation at all.
Copyright is not the _only_ set of base rules on which a GPL could exist, it's just the current one.
True. But for the GPL to work the alternative set of rules would have to be one of two things:
1) the GPL, enacted as legislation applying to all computer code (or as opt-in) 2) a set of laws regarding creative works that allows the creator to control what consumers of the work do with the work
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the second things is usually referred to as "copyright." It's true that copyright could be scaled back or changed, but it would still basically be copyright law. If it walks like a duck...
Simply put, the GPL can't exist unless I can force you to do certain things if you choose to use my work. All the hand-waving in the world won't change that fact.
I imagine that the producers force retailers to sign a contract that they will sell the game at a certain price.
Resale price maintenance is illegal under antitrust law. However, a manufacturer can legally decide to stop selling to a distributor/retailer that sells the products at too low of a price. In other words, you can achieve basically the same result but you can't SAY that you're doing it.
What you are describing is a breach of the Duty of Candor and Good Faith. However, that alone is insufficient to render a patent unenforceable. You must also prove that the applicant intended to deceive the USPTO.
They have argued that Blackboard was negligent in not submitting details of prior art with their patent application
Negligence won't cut it. On the other hand, it appears that they have extensively argued that Blackboard fraudulently withheld prior art during prosecution.
That doesn't mean it will go anywhere. Allegations of inequitable conduct are fairly common by defendants. It's very hard to prove an intent to deceive, though.
....an argument about nothing. Do people actually read these reports when they are deciding what to do? This sounds like the public sector version of a "mission statement," and we all know how useful those are.
A while back, Comcast and mail.ru were having a little blacklist war (I don't know if it's still going on) - which really sucked because many business people in Russia use mail.ru as their primary emails. And, no, mail doesn't go to a special folder. Instead, it sends a message back to the sender saying that their domain has been blacklisted.
Is there some way to find out who a specific ISP is blocking at any given time? I am thinking specifically of Comcast (since it affects me), but if there is a general repository of this information it would be nice to know about also.
Wouldn't it be more useful to list the prices in a gold currency that most people here probably have, like WoW gold? Currently the exchange rate seems to be 0.173 USD per gold, which makes Windows Vista Ultimate come out to about 2600 gold (US servers).
Does the defendant have to say "Your Honor, I'd like to admit exhibit X into the court records as evidence" for each one? That would be a long trial, even if only 107 were admitted!
Typically yes. The attorney will also have to lay foundation for the exhibit, asking questions of the witness to establish what the exhibit is and why the witness would know something about it. Putting an exhibit into evidence might only take a minute or two. For 107 exhibits would probably be as little as 2-3 hours total. Not a short amount of time, but since patent trials can last weeks, it's really not that much.
Pretend we're talking a year from now and MS is trying to roll out Vista and the 40% of the population that will be using FF by then balks because FF won't run properly.
It may not be a representative sample, but all of the big corporations I have worked at or visited seem wedded to IE. Since corporations are going to be the slow movers on the Vista transition I think it's unlikely to be the explanation. Keep in mind, consumers are going to get Vista shoved down their throats because that's what will come installed on new machines.
The more likely reason is anti-trust. Microsoft is finally getting some serious competition again in the browser arena. Microsoft will have a tough time explaining things if Vista comes out and Firefox, the arch-rival to IE, doesn't work. Microsoft long ago lost the benefit of the doubt with respect to anti-trust regulators.
The benefits far outweigh the costs of helping the Firefox team out for a few days. In other words: CYA.
I would take the term "patentable inventions" to mean that there exist "unpatentable inventions" (otherwise the term "patentable" is redundant). But maybe that's just me:)
I still believe that what is patentable is simply based on a cost-benefit analysis that results in a social contract. Or maybe I should say "was" since we seem to be forgetting that rationale and moving away from it.
This is a common mistake. You dont have to patent with first to file, you just need to publish it. Once it's been published, it's unpatentable as prior art, both by you yourself or anyone else.
That's a good point. But, if publication can ruin patentability so easily, it would put a much greater burden on researchers and inventors to carefully screen the information they release. Currently, they have up to a year to file for a patent application even after publication of their invention. If the new system would work as you suggest I think that could be a major drawback.
Is this how other (first to file) countries handle publication? If so, how do researchers and inventors handle the publication bar?
What Sony proposes here is no INVENTION. So no surprise that it is not patentable.
But according to the article, the application was not rejected for lack of novelty (ie. inventiveness), but rather due to subject matter. The subject matter which is patentable has nothing to do with invention and everything to do with the kind of social contract the citizens of a country want to make with inventors.
In the US, a prior inventor only gets priority over a later inventor (the later inventor filing the patent application first) IF the prior inventor worked diligently toward making the invention work and filing a patent application AND did not abandon the invention. So any kind of "waiting" is likely to ruin the patent claim of the earlier inventor.
First to file makes things simpler for the patent office and the courts, but I wouldn't say that the current US system is easy to abuse. Instead, first to file basically forces someone to file for a patent. Under the US system, if I invent something before you, I can use that invention even if I don't file for a patent application and you do. Why? Because I invented it first and that denies you a patent on it. With first to file, I would have to file for a patent.
There's a difference between the outside counsel's opinion that a defendant parades before the world (and the judge) and the defendant's own privileged discussions with its main trial counsel about what outcome they should really expect.
Well, bear in mind one of the reasons the Judge felt that way was because of evidence that Echostar hasn't actually been allowed to present. Specifically, it received outside legal advice that said that the DVRs it was about to, (and subsequently did), deploy did not violate TiVo's patents.
I have two things to say about that. First, the reason that evidence is submitted is to avoid the trebling of damages for willful infringement. It probably won't have an impact on the injunction decision (although, after the eBay case one never knows). Second, it's possible to find outside counsel to render an opinion supporting almost any non-infringement position. Defendants routinely get this kind of "opinion" for the reason mentioned above.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that this case is being prosecuted just sickens me. This prosecutor needs to stand behind the Duke lacrosse prosecutor in the line to get his license revoked.
Female teachers don't get 4 years for doing it with students.
Fixed.
Male teachers get sent to prison to die.
Just wanted to say a few things before you get modded down into non-existence.
Evolution isn't any more "non-science" than astro-physics is non-science. Sure, it's pretty hard to set up an experiment to test evolution. But the same can be said for most of what goes on in space. That hasn't kept science out. Unfortunately, it does mean that the scatter is a little larger and research takes longer. But research still does happen because predictions can be made and then you wait and see if the observations match up.
Evolution is falsifiable. If we actually wanted to run experiments we could. It might take a few hundred million years, but we could do it. Creation, on the other hand, is not falsifiable. But that won't stop those with blinders on from claiming they are similarly situated.
I am sure that they can invent something that can be installed on a million cash registers in the United States but will be impossible to procure by any other means. Why didn't anyone else think of this earlier?
Ok, fine, so I should have said "use my work in a particular way that is outlined in the GPL." I know how the GPL works. Being nitpicky on this point is unrelated to the overall issue and doesn't really add to the conversation at all.
Does this mean all my friends will have to get their pirated music from the Internet now?
I guess people do use these stores, but I still wonder why anyone cares.....?
Copyright is not the _only_ set of base rules on which a GPL could exist, it's just the current one.
True. But for the GPL to work the alternative set of rules would have to be one of two things:
1) the GPL, enacted as legislation applying to all computer code (or as opt-in)
2) a set of laws regarding creative works that allows the creator to control what consumers of the work do with the work
It shouldn't surprise anyone that the second things is usually referred to as "copyright." It's true that copyright could be scaled back or changed, but it would still basically be copyright law. If it walks like a duck...
Simply put, the GPL can't exist unless I can force you to do certain things if you choose to use my work. All the hand-waving in the world won't change that fact.
But, honestly - what does the DMCA have to do with this anyway? This is a plain old copyright case (no measures taken to secure content on tv).
I imagine that the producers force retailers to sign a contract that they will sell the game at a certain price. Resale price maintenance is illegal under antitrust law. However, a manufacturer can legally decide to stop selling to a distributor/retailer that sells the products at too low of a price. In other words, you can achieve basically the same result but you can't SAY that you're doing it.
It has nothing to do with "big business." What you're describing simply isn't the law.
What you are describing is a breach of the Duty of Candor and Good Faith. However, that alone is insufficient to render a patent unenforceable. You must also prove that the applicant intended to deceive the USPTO.
They have argued that Blackboard was negligent in not submitting details of prior art with their patent application
Negligence won't cut it. On the other hand, it appears that they have extensively argued that Blackboard fraudulently withheld prior art during prosecution.
That doesn't mean it will go anywhere. Allegations of inequitable conduct are fairly common by defendants. It's very hard to prove an intent to deceive, though.
....an argument about nothing. Do people actually read these reports when they are deciding what to do? This sounds like the public sector version of a "mission statement," and we all know how useful those are.
A while back, Comcast and mail.ru were having a little blacklist war (I don't know if it's still going on) - which really sucked because many business people in Russia use mail.ru as their primary emails. And, no, mail doesn't go to a special folder. Instead, it sends a message back to the sender saying that their domain has been blacklisted.
Is there some way to find out who a specific ISP is blocking at any given time? I am thinking specifically of Comcast (since it affects me), but if there is a general repository of this information it would be nice to know about also.
Wouldn't it be more useful to list the prices in a gold currency that most people here probably have, like WoW gold? Currently the exchange rate seems to be 0.173 USD per gold, which makes Windows Vista Ultimate come out to about 2600 gold (US servers).
Does the defendant have to say "Your Honor, I'd like to admit exhibit X into the court records as evidence" for each one? That would be a long trial, even if only 107 were admitted!
Typically yes. The attorney will also have to lay foundation for the exhibit, asking questions of the witness to establish what the exhibit is and why the witness would know something about it. Putting an exhibit into evidence might only take a minute or two. For 107 exhibits would probably be as little as 2-3 hours total. Not a short amount of time, but since patent trials can last weeks, it's really not that much.
Pretend we're talking a year from now and MS is trying to roll out Vista and the 40% of the population that will be using FF by then balks because FF won't run properly.
It may not be a representative sample, but all of the big corporations I have worked at or visited seem wedded to IE. Since corporations are going to be the slow movers on the Vista transition I think it's unlikely to be the explanation. Keep in mind, consumers are going to get Vista shoved down their throats because that's what will come installed on new machines.
The more likely reason is anti-trust. Microsoft is finally getting some serious competition again in the browser arena. Microsoft will have a tough time explaining things if Vista comes out and Firefox, the arch-rival to IE, doesn't work. Microsoft long ago lost the benefit of the doubt with respect to anti-trust regulators.
The benefits far outweigh the costs of helping the Firefox team out for a few days. In other words: CYA.
I would take the term "patentable inventions" to mean that there exist "unpatentable inventions" (otherwise the term "patentable" is redundant). But maybe that's just me :)
I still believe that what is patentable is simply based on a cost-benefit analysis that results in a social contract. Or maybe I should say "was" since we seem to be forgetting that rationale and moving away from it.
This is a common mistake. You dont have to patent with first to file, you just need to publish it. Once it's been published, it's unpatentable as prior art, both by you yourself or anyone else.
That's a good point. But, if publication can ruin patentability so easily, it would put a much greater burden on researchers and inventors to carefully screen the information they release. Currently, they have up to a year to file for a patent application even after publication of their invention. If the new system would work as you suggest I think that could be a major drawback.
Is this how other (first to file) countries handle publication? If so, how do researchers and inventors handle the publication bar?
What Sony proposes here is no INVENTION. So no surprise that it is not patentable.
But according to the article, the application was not rejected for lack of novelty (ie. inventiveness), but rather due to subject matter. The subject matter which is patentable has nothing to do with invention and everything to do with the kind of social contract the citizens of a country want to make with inventors.
A few comments:
In the US, a prior inventor only gets priority over a later inventor (the later inventor filing the patent application first) IF the prior inventor worked diligently toward making the invention work and filing a patent application AND did not abandon the invention. So any kind of "waiting" is likely to ruin the patent claim of the earlier inventor.
First to file makes things simpler for the patent office and the courts, but I wouldn't say that the current US system is easy to abuse. Instead, first to file basically forces someone to file for a patent. Under the US system, if I invent something before you, I can use that invention even if I don't file for a patent application and you do. Why? Because I invented it first and that denies you a patent on it. With first to file, I would have to file for a patent.
There's a difference between the outside counsel's opinion that a defendant parades before the world (and the judge) and the defendant's own privileged discussions with its main trial counsel about what outcome they should really expect.
Well, bear in mind one of the reasons the Judge felt that way was because of evidence that Echostar hasn't actually been allowed to present. Specifically, it received outside legal advice that said that the DVRs it was about to, (and subsequently did), deploy did not violate TiVo's patents.
I have two things to say about that. First, the reason that evidence is submitted is to avoid the trebling of damages for willful infringement. It probably won't have an impact on the injunction decision (although, after the eBay case one never knows). Second, it's possible to find outside counsel to render an opinion supporting almost any non-infringement position. Defendants routinely get this kind of "opinion" for the reason mentioned above.
Disabling all those PVRs is I guess one way to see justice, but in the end it seems that the customers will wear the brunt of the impact.
Keep in mind that it is the customers who are actually infringing the patent (as well as possibly Echostar depending on the nature of the claims).