True, but it all works together. Inventors are free to publish information about their invention after (and a little bit before) the patent application has been filed. If inventors had to rely on secrecy in the absence of a patent system this kind of publication would never happen. Since the patent system requires public disclosure, there really isn't much harm to publication of technical information in other media. And while the patent disclosures may not be read by people, the technical information in other media most certainly is. So, in a way, things do become obvious because the patent system requires disclosure - even if people aren't reading the patent specifications themselves.
Apple's banners ("Hasta la vista.! Vista." and "Introducting Vista 2.0") implied that Leopard was going to have something jaw-dropping, and the keynote just didn't show it. I like the announced features, but when you put up banners like that, you'd better be able to take the heat if you don't deliver.
Netware had versioning at least as far back as 1997. I remember it saving my butt a few times when somehow I managed to delete a large amount of code I was working on (and I was able to retrieve the previously saved version). So it's been in the PC world for a while, it just hadn't made it to most desktops yet.
Microsoft would be irresponsible if they did not include a clause in the agreement giving them rights to use anything disclosed at the conference.
Imagine Microsoft was busy working on feature X. Then, along comes someone from Symantec who talks about feature X at the conference. Later, Microsoft comes out with an update to their product incorporating feature X. Symantec cries fowl and starts complaining about how Microsoft stole their confidential information.
All the clause effectively says is that the information disclosed at the conference is not confidential. If it's not a trade secret, Microsoft can use it as it sees fit anyway. The same would hold true for anyone else at the conference. The agreement just puts it down in plain English for those not up on IP law.
Somehow I don't think that "patching" a program to change the installer as an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program" is going to pass the red-face test in front of a judge. It sounds like you're taking a moral stand and throwing together as much of a legal argument as you can so you feel good about yourself. Why not just take a true moral stand and take part in some real civil disobedience instead of cobbling together some weak justification?
Copyright law is a strange and murky area as it applies to computer programs.
Patching the software has a couple of problems. First, patching the software creates a derivative work. That may be fine if you just use it yourself and don't make copies. But loading a computer program into memory makes a copy. Copying the program from the CD to your harddrive also makes a copy. A court (a long, long time ago - in computer years) ruled that this kind of copying is inherent in the purchase of the software. However, it is unclear whether that inherent right applies to derivative works of the software. This is one of those cases where you're probably breaking the law but it's not like their going to come after you for it.
Second, if the box (or website) says that the software is subject to a license agreement and/or terms of use, you're not going to be able to get around that. If you modify the terms of use and click "I agree," a court would probably find that you agreed to the original terms of use simply by keeping and using the software. This kind of license agreement or terms of use can be held unenforceable in certain circumstances. For instance, in one famous case the terms of use were not visibile on the part of the web page where the user had to click "I agree." A license agreement may also not be upheld if there is no clear way for the user to get their money back if they do not agree. Otherwise, you're going to be held to the terms.
So while your actions may help you sleep better at night, they aren't grounded in any kind of legal reality.
I am familiar with the Netscape download case (and companies changed their practices as a result). Could you provide me some citations to other cases? I'd be glad to read them.
Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.
That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement. Remember, you don't need to sign, in ink, to have a binding contract.
From the article: Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
The fact that you're buying a license in many circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of whether copying violates copyright law. A simple analogy should explain it:
When I buy a book, I am buying the book, not simply a license to read the book. However, because the book is copyrighted, I do not have a right to make copies of the book because the work is copyrighted.
It's that simple. A license for software (or music or a movie) usually takes away rights you would have had if you had just purchased outright a copy of the software. But the right to make copies is not one of those rights, because you never had that right anyway.
RTFA. He kept doing it after he'd been caught three or four times, till finally he got 5 years. That's not rational behaviour.
If you've spent any time meeting with prisoners, like several members of my family have, you'd come to understand that virtually everyone in prison is there due to irrational behavior. Should we just get rid of prisons entirely and build more hospitals?
OED says that a mental illness is "a condition which causes serious abnormality in a person's thinking or behaviour."
I think maybe we need to re-evaluate what "serious" is? I remember reading that 90% of families are dysfunctional. Would it really be useful to say that all the people in those 90% of families have a mental illness of some sort? I don't think so.
Some people have a mental illness. There is something seriously wrong with their brains. Other people simply have issues they need to deal with. To my mind, anything that can be dealt with through counseling is not a metnal illness. Sometimes it requires a lot of counseling because people have very strong, instinctual emotional reactions that they need to overcome. But, just because someone happens to get pissed off quickly sometimes and wants to lash out, that doesn't mean they have a mental illness. It just means they need to learn (through lots of practice) a new way of reacting to situations.
But that's just my opinion. Who knows, I could be wrong on account of having some kind of mental illness.
a patent also gives the owner the right to prevent others from importing the patented invention
Yes, I know - but the substantive rights are what I described. I'd have to do some research on this (which, unfortunately, I do not have time for) - but I wonder if it is possible to stop someone from importing a patented article if the article is not then used or sold in the US. What if I want to import patented item and just stack them up to see how many I could get, but I never actually used or sold them? I wonder if such a case has ever even arisen. For instance, the Creative suit against Apple at the ITC is happening because Apple is selling the ipods. If Apple simply left the ipods in boxes, I doubt Creative would have been able to sue.
Simply put, a patent in the US gives the owner the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the patented invention in the US. This is generally accomplished through litigation (although threats of litigation sometimes suffice:). A US patent has no effect outside the US.
If you RTFA, that's not the business model. It's something they may have to do when patents of theirs (they apply for their own patents as well as buy some up) get infringed and the other party won't agree to license it, but that's no different than any other firm protecting its assets.
Keep in mind that most patent trolls would rather have a license than go to court. This is particularly true in areas where there are many players. Why spend 2-3 years in litigation when you can hit up 5-10 companies for a couple million each?
So I still don't see the difference. The big question is, do the investors / licensees get anything out of IV other than avoiding a lawsuit? By that I mean, do they get ideas and technical information that are actually valuable to their businesses? If they don't, then it doesn't really matter what IV claims their business model is - they really won't be substantively different from a patent troll.
Spam wars just hit too many innocent bystanders. We're trying to run a business. A small one, to be sure, but communication with clients is still very important. First we were using Comcast for email. But then Comcast got into a blacklist war with mail.ru and no mail was going through either way. So we switched the email over to the mail we have through our hosting account - run by GoDaddy. Now mails have started to be rejected in Russia, probably because of GoDaddy's tactics. I care about spam. But when ISPs start pushing too hard, lots of hardworking people can be affected. This kind of crap has to stop.
Collusion is not illegal if it works in favor of consumers. I think a lot of people fail to realize that antirust laws and the like exist to protect consumers, not protect businesses from competition (which is why a government entity is the one who generally prosecutes antitrust cases "for the people")
I think this is generally true. But you have to remember that the assumption is that reducing competition (by, for instance, driving a competitor out of business to create a monopoly or de facto monopoly in the form of a cartel) is presumed to harm consumers. Even if it means lower prices initially, the assumption is that once competition is reduced, prices will go up and innovation will go down. Of course, the only way to prevent this from happening is to create rules that keep companies from using certain tactics (like price fixing) to drive other companies out of business.
The fact that the article is on the Chicago Sun-Times website should have been the first clue. A little research into the Joliet, IL police department backed up my suspicions. This story is actually happening in Illinois, not New Jersey.
Apple buys Adobe. Apple implements Windows API in Leopard. Apple kills off OS X versions of Adobe products. Apple fires OS X developers from Adobe (they can hang with the Aperture team). Profit!
Is it just me, or is Cringley starting to enter Dvorak territory?
I think if Microsoft included it for free they could make the argument that "these are essential features of an operating system and we would be doing a disservice to our customers if we did not include them." Essentially, Microsoft would be saying that there is no separate anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall because those products really are just features of an operating system. Result: no anti-trust liability.
By charging for anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall, Microsoft runs the risk of using its monopoly position to help it compete in another market. I think Symantec and McAfee stand a much better chance of succeeding with a lawsuit in this environment.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but it all works together. Inventors are free to publish information about their invention after (and a little bit before) the patent application has been filed. If inventors had to rely on secrecy in the absence of a patent system this kind of publication would never happen. Since the patent system requires public disclosure, there really isn't much harm to publication of technical information in other media. And while the patent disclosures may not be read by people, the technical information in other media most certainly is. So, in a way, things do become obvious because the patent system requires disclosure - even if people aren't reading the patent specifications themselves.
Apple's banners ("Hasta la vista.! Vista." and "Introducting Vista 2.0") implied that Leopard was going to have something jaw-dropping, and the keynote just didn't show it. I like the announced features, but when you put up banners like that, you'd better be able to take the heat if you don't deliver.
Knock yourself out:
http://harnly.net/software/letterbox/
(note: I am not affiliated with this site or software in any way)
Netware had versioning at least as far back as 1997. I remember it saving my butt a few times when somehow I managed to delete a large amount of code I was working on (and I was able to retrieve the previously saved version). So it's been in the PC world for a while, it just hadn't made it to most desktops yet.
Microsoft would be irresponsible if they did not include a clause in the agreement giving them rights to use anything disclosed at the conference.
Imagine Microsoft was busy working on feature X. Then, along comes someone from Symantec who talks about feature X at the conference. Later, Microsoft comes out with an update to their product incorporating feature X. Symantec cries fowl and starts complaining about how Microsoft stole their confidential information.
All the clause effectively says is that the information disclosed at the conference is not confidential. If it's not a trade secret, Microsoft can use it as it sees fit anyway. The same would hold true for anyone else at the conference. The agreement just puts it down in plain English for those not up on IP law.
Somehow I don't think that "patching" a program to change the installer as an "essential step in the utilization of the computer program" is going to pass the red-face test in front of a judge. It sounds like you're taking a moral stand and throwing together as much of a legal argument as you can so you feel good about yourself. Why not just take a true moral stand and take part in some real civil disobedience instead of cobbling together some weak justification?
Copyright law is a strange and murky area as it applies to computer programs.
Patching the software has a couple of problems. First, patching the software creates a derivative work. That may be fine if you just use it yourself and don't make copies. But loading a computer program into memory makes a copy. Copying the program from the CD to your harddrive also makes a copy. A court (a long, long time ago - in computer years) ruled that this kind of copying is inherent in the purchase of the software. However, it is unclear whether that inherent right applies to derivative works of the software. This is one of those cases where you're probably breaking the law but it's not like their going to come after you for it.
Second, if the box (or website) says that the software is subject to a license agreement and/or terms of use, you're not going to be able to get around that. If you modify the terms of use and click "I agree," a court would probably find that you agreed to the original terms of use simply by keeping and using the software. This kind of license agreement or terms of use can be held unenforceable in certain circumstances. For instance, in one famous case the terms of use were not visibile on the part of the web page where the user had to click "I agree." A license agreement may also not be upheld if there is no clear way for the user to get their money back if they do not agree. Otherwise, you're going to be held to the terms.
So while your actions may help you sleep better at night, they aren't grounded in any kind of legal reality.
I am familiar with the Netscape download case (and companies changed their practices as a result). Could you provide me some citations to other cases? I'd be glad to read them.
So you believe that it's possible to agree to a contract you can't see?
Having read court cases where such contracts were upheld.....yes.
Yeah, I already paid for the software - the right to use it is implicit in the thing.
Not if it says on the side of the box: Subject to License Agreement (or some such phrase).
Until such time as I am required to sign (in ink) something to the effect that I agree not to sell, give or otherwise transfer the item in question to a third party, I can do whatever the hell I want with it, short of making infringing copies.
That may be true for most things, but it is not true for software that includes an end user license agreement. Remember, you don't need to sign, in ink, to have a binding contract.
From the article:
Few people realize that when they buy software or music or movies, they are actually buying a license to use, watch or listen. That's why it violates copyright laws for people to sell copies of their music collection.
The fact that you're buying a license in many circumstances is irrelevant to the issue of whether copying violates copyright law. A simple analogy should explain it:
When I buy a book, I am buying the book, not simply a license to read the book. However, because the book is copyrighted, I do not have a right to make copies of the book because the work is copyrighted.
It's that simple. A license for software (or music or a movie) usually takes away rights you would have had if you had just purchased outright a copy of the software. But the right to make copies is not one of those rights, because you never had that right anyway.
RTFA. He kept doing it after he'd been caught three or four times, till finally he got 5 years. That's not rational behaviour.
If you've spent any time meeting with prisoners, like several members of my family have, you'd come to understand that virtually everyone in prison is there due to irrational behavior. Should we just get rid of prisons entirely and build more hospitals?
OED says that a mental illness is "a condition which causes serious abnormality in a person's thinking or behaviour."
I think maybe we need to re-evaluate what "serious" is? I remember reading that 90% of families are dysfunctional. Would it really be useful to say that all the people in those 90% of families have a mental illness of some sort? I don't think so.
Some people have a mental illness. There is something seriously wrong with their brains. Other people simply have issues they need to deal with. To my mind, anything that can be dealt with through counseling is not a metnal illness. Sometimes it requires a lot of counseling because people have very strong, instinctual emotional reactions that they need to overcome. But, just because someone happens to get pissed off quickly sometimes and wants to lash out, that doesn't mean they have a mental illness. It just means they need to learn (through lots of practice) a new way of reacting to situations.
But that's just my opinion. Who knows, I could be wrong on account of having some kind of mental illness.
Any first-year law student can tell you that laws are created to keep the engines of commerce running, if not smoothly, then at least profitably.
:)
Well, this is certainly true on the federal level, since most legislation is passed by Congress under the authority granted by the Commerce Clause!
a patent also gives the owner the right to prevent others from importing the patented invention
Yes, I know - but the substantive rights are what I described. I'd have to do some research on this (which, unfortunately, I do not have time for) - but I wonder if it is possible to stop someone from importing a patented article if the article is not then used or sold in the US. What if I want to import patented item and just stack them up to see how many I could get, but I never actually used or sold them? I wonder if such a case has ever even arisen. For instance, the Creative suit against Apple at the ITC is happening because Apple is selling the ipods. If Apple simply left the ipods in boxes, I doubt Creative would have been able to sue.
Simply put, a patent in the US gives the owner the right to prevent others from making, using, or selling the patented invention in the US. This is generally accomplished through litigation (although threats of litigation sometimes suffice :). A US patent has no effect outside the US.
If you RTFA, that's not the business model. It's something they may have to do when patents of theirs (they apply for their own patents as well as buy some up) get infringed and the other party won't agree to license it, but that's no different than any other firm protecting its assets.
Keep in mind that most patent trolls would rather have a license than go to court. This is particularly true in areas where there are many players. Why spend 2-3 years in litigation when you can hit up 5-10 companies for a couple million each?
So I still don't see the difference. The big question is, do the investors / licensees get anything out of IV other than avoiding a lawsuit? By that I mean, do they get ideas and technical information that are actually valuable to their businesses? If they don't, then it doesn't really matter what IV claims their business model is - they really won't be substantively different from a patent troll.
Spam wars just hit too many innocent bystanders. We're trying to run a business. A small one, to be sure, but communication with clients is still very important. First we were using Comcast for email. But then Comcast got into a blacklist war with mail.ru and no mail was going through either way. So we switched the email over to the mail we have through our hosting account - run by GoDaddy. Now mails have started to be rejected in Russia, probably because of GoDaddy's tactics. I care about spam. But when ISPs start pushing too hard, lots of hardworking people can be affected. This kind of crap has to stop.
Collusion is not illegal if it works in favor of consumers. I think a lot of people fail to realize that antirust laws and the like exist to protect consumers, not protect businesses from competition (which is why a government entity is the one who generally prosecutes antitrust cases "for the people")
I think this is generally true. But you have to remember that the assumption is that reducing competition (by, for instance, driving a competitor out of business to create a monopoly or de facto monopoly in the form of a cartel) is presumed to harm consumers. Even if it means lower prices initially, the assumption is that once competition is reduced, prices will go up and innovation will go down. Of course, the only way to prevent this from happening is to create rules that keep companies from using certain tactics (like price fixing) to drive other companies out of business.
The fact that the article is on the Chicago Sun-Times website should have been the first clue. A little research into the Joliet, IL police department backed up my suspicions. This story is actually happening in Illinois, not New Jersey.
I am starting to see how the plan goes. Witness:
Apple buys Adobe.
Apple implements Windows API in Leopard.
Apple kills off OS X versions of Adobe products.
Apple fires OS X developers from Adobe (they can hang with the Aperture team).
Profit!
Is it just me, or is Cringley starting to enter Dvorak territory?
I think if Microsoft included it for free they could make the argument that "these are essential features of an operating system and we would be doing a disservice to our customers if we did not include them." Essentially, Microsoft would be saying that there is no separate anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall because those products really are just features of an operating system. Result: no anti-trust liability.
By charging for anti-virus/anti-spyware/firewall, Microsoft runs the risk of using its monopoly position to help it compete in another market. I think Symantec and McAfee stand a much better chance of succeeding with a lawsuit in this environment.
I like how you quote something without saying whereit is from
I thought it would be clear from context since the parent cited the relevant law. I guess clicking that "parent" link was a little too hard eh?
Or even more likely, this :P