However, the Onion is doing satire, and their use of the seal is perfectly valid.
Actually, no, that's not the case:
Actually that is the case:
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States..."
Satire is, by definition, something that is not done in a manner reasonably calculated to convey sponsorship or approval.
The reason you don't charge a different price for a more expensive movie is that the cost per showing is exactly the same regardless of the cost to create it (e.g. cost of wear and tear on the print, cost to the theater for projector maintenance, etc).
That same logic suggests that software should be priced based on the number of CD's it comes on, rather than the amount of effort that went into it or the amount of value it brings.
Yeah, yeah, I know - software and music should be free:)
Another option (besides publication) is to submit a Statutory Invention Registration
From 35 U.S.C. 157: A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall have all of the attributes specified for patents in this title except those specified in section 183 and sections 271 through 289 of this title. A statutory invention registration shall not have any of the attributes specified for patents in any other provision of law other than this title. A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall give appropriate notice to the public, pursuant to regulations which the Director shall issue, of the preceding provisions of this subsection. The invention with respect to which a statutory invention certificate is published is not a patented invention for purposes of section 292 of this title.
Basically it's a patent application without the examination part (and obviously you don't get a patent). It's probably a little better than publishing because:
1) the USPTO is more likely to be aware of an SIR than a specific article in a magazine, etc... 2) the disclosure required for an SIR is more than what most people include in an average-sized article
It's probably also true that DLO can't afford to defend a challenge to the patent. What if DVForge was Microsoft? And what if Microsoft was threatening DLO with a patent lawsuit that DLO couldn't afford to defend against so DLO was forced to license their patent at a ridiculously low royalty?
You make it sound like anyone other than a big corporation suing another big corporation is abuse. In fact, I would argue that the situation of big corporations is subject to the most abuse - by patent lawyers pumping them for hours.
But DVForge is not without options. For just a few thousand dollars DVForge can ask the patent office to reexamine the patent in the light of new evidence of patent invalidity. So if DVForge really does have a good argument, and they can prove that the patent shouldn't be valid, they can ask the USPTO to revoke or modify the patent. This option is becoming more and more popular. It may take some time, but it is possible to get rid of a patent this way.
You'll find that most things that are invented are simply innovative combinations of things that currently exist. Now, you're certainly capable of arguing that this particular combination was not innovative. I won't stand in your way:)
And, yes, if no one had made a catapult before, you could certainly take a few pieces of wood, a big rubber band, and a spoon and patent a catapult. It's an innovative combination of existing technology.
On the other hand, if someone had made catapults before but had used something slightly different from spoons, your use of spoons would not be innovative.
I have not read this particular patent so I can't render any opinion on whether it is innovative or not. But the mere fact that it was a piece of technology assembled from pre-existing parts in no way means it cannot be patented.
Although I should add that a patent application usually does not become public until 18 months after it was filed. Still, that gave them the first half of 2005 to find out about this.
But now inventors are using patents to protect their profits from that item *and* to force other inventors not to try to improve the item.
Actually the opposite is often true. If DVForge has something additional to add to the DLO invention, they can get a patent on that. This is the case even though DVForge would not be able to practice their invention without violating DLO's patent. If the additonal invention is truly worthwhile, it is possible that a cross-licensing deal can be reached. This happens all the time.
Another option is for DVForge to take an entirely different tack altogether - one that doesn't violate the DLO patent. That encourages innovation of a sort, just in a different direction.
But, the bottom line is that - yes - the patent is used to protect the profits from an item. That's precisely how the patent system is supposed to encourage investment in invention and technology. Businesses and venture capitalists aren't going to chase after something if there is no money to be made at the end.
I agree. All of the major complaints about patents are missing from this story. This isn't about software. This isn't about a company patenting something and then sitting on the patent - they actually have a product that they sell (which uses the patented technology).
Actually, the thing that keeps me from using NeoOffice/J is that it tries so much to be like Office that it ends up not really being any better. Sure, it may have minor technical superiorities, but sometimes to be better you have to be radically different.
For most basic editing I am now using Nisus Writer Express. It's a great little piece of software. I don't do mail merges every day. I mostly just write, so it works just fine for me.
Have you turned off autocorrect spelling and grammar? I noticed that with any document open and those two options checked, Word v.X would take up at least 50% of the CPU. I haven't tried turning them back on in Office 2004 to see if that bug was fixed.
The company alleges that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking among the internet's largest search engines, Google and Yahoo, bumping the company from its usual spot in the first three results
Oh come on. It's not like customers are sitting at their computer thinking, "I'd like to buy some computer products, so let's type in 'Tiger' and see what computer sales sites Google recommends."
They're just desperately grasping for attention with this lawsuit.
If Master's or Doctorate degrees (which typically involve a major project that gives real programming experience) don't qualify you to do more than fix bugs, what does?
Ok, it adds a few years, but it doesn't change the bottom line. As a project manager I would take a BS with 2-years of good, real-world experience over someone with 3- to 5-years of graduate study any day of the week.
You apparently failed to notice that I did not limit the appropriate tasks to fixing bugs. However, even a graduate degree just is not sufficient experience to be architecting major projects, unless you're incredibly gifted.
Companies want young guys coming in fixing bugs, not architecting major projects.
No offense, because maybe you're a genius - but most young people are really only qualified to fix bugs and work on small portions of a project. If a 22-year-old with a CS degree is qualified to architect major projects all I can say is run hard and fast to get another degree, because the party's over.
It could be argued for either side, Nikon owns a copyright of the encryption technique, and you own the copyright of the photo that's got encrypted data in it.
As I discussed (peripherally) in one of my other notes in this thread, Nikon does not get copyright protection for it's encryption technique. Well, actually it does, but as long as Adobe writes a clean implementation, they are not violating Nikon's copyright. Now, if Nikon had a patent, that would be another story....
It's not *your* copyrighted material this whole Nikon business is dealing with, it's Nikon's encryption algorithm.
All I can suggest is that you read the US Code. You'll see that the copyrighted material is a crucial requirement.
If Nikon wishes to patent it's encryption/decryption algorithm for this particular purpose, it's free to do so. But the DMCA cannot be used to replace the patent system. Unless the purpose of the measure (in this case, encryption) is to protect the copyrighted work (that belongs to me) from others (people NOT me), it isn't covered by the DMCA.
17 USC 1201 (a) states (3) As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
17 USC 1201(b) states
(1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.
But if the measure is not designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner, I do not believe any device designed to circumvent that measure falls under the DMCA. It is clear to me that encrypting white balance values is not designed to protect my rights as the photographer.
But, I can see why it's scary enough for Adobe to just walk away for the moment.
There's a difference in principle between encryption to protect content owned by the corporation and encryption simply created to extract money from third-party vendors.
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?
Slashdot Mirror
I am guessing it has something to do with this
However, the Onion is doing satire, and their use of the seal is perfectly valid.
Actually, no, that's not the case:
Actually that is the case:
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States..."
Satire is, by definition, something that is not done in a manner reasonably calculated to convey sponsorship or approval.
My favorite quote on this general issue comes from Carl Sagan in one of the Cosmos shows:
Talking about early observations of Venus...
"Observation: Couldn't see a thing.
Conclusion: DINOSAURS!!!"
That scientific methodology has not left us, I am afraid to say.
The reason you don't charge a different price for a more expensive movie is that the cost per showing is exactly the same regardless of the cost to create it (e.g. cost of wear and tear on the print, cost to the theater for projector maintenance, etc).
:)
That same logic suggests that software should be priced based on the number of CD's it comes on, rather than the amount of effort that went into it or the amount of value it brings.
Yeah, yeah, I know - software and music should be free
Sure, it has a cost. But it's still cheaper than acutally applying for a patent. And it's better "defense" than simple publication.
Another option (besides publication) is to submit a Statutory Invention Registration
From 35 U.S.C. 157:
A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall have all of the attributes specified for patents in this title except those specified in section 183 and sections 271 through 289 of this title. A statutory invention registration shall not have any of the attributes specified for patents in any other provision of law other than this title. A statutory invention registration published pursuant to this section shall give appropriate notice to the public, pursuant to regulations which the Director shall issue, of the preceding provisions of this subsection. The invention with respect to which a statutory invention certificate is published is not a patented invention for purposes of section 292 of this title.
Basically it's a patent application without the examination part (and obviously you don't get a patent). It's probably a little better than publishing because:
1) the USPTO is more likely to be aware of an SIR than a specific article in a magazine, etc...
2) the disclosure required for an SIR is more than what most people include in an average-sized article
It's not really a typo. The Patent Office is often referred to as the USPO in the profession.
It's probably also true that DLO can't afford to defend a challenge to the patent. What if DVForge was Microsoft? And what if Microsoft was threatening DLO with a patent lawsuit that DLO couldn't afford to defend against so DLO was forced to license their patent at a ridiculously low royalty?
You make it sound like anyone other than a big corporation suing another big corporation is abuse. In fact, I would argue that the situation of big corporations is subject to the most abuse - by patent lawyers pumping them for hours.
But DVForge is not without options. For just a few thousand dollars DVForge can ask the patent office to reexamine the patent in the light of new evidence of patent invalidity. So if DVForge really does have a good argument, and they can prove that the patent shouldn't be valid, they can ask the USPTO to revoke or modify the patent. This option is becoming more and more popular. It may take some time, but it is possible to get rid of a patent this way.
You'll find that most things that are invented are simply innovative combinations of things that currently exist. Now, you're certainly capable of arguing that this particular combination was not innovative. I won't stand in your way :)
And, yes, if no one had made a catapult before, you could certainly take a few pieces of wood, a big rubber band, and a spoon and patent a catapult. It's an innovative combination of existing technology.
On the other hand, if someone had made catapults before but had used something slightly different from spoons, your use of spoons would not be innovative.
I have not read this particular patent so I can't render any opinion on whether it is innovative or not. But the mere fact that it was a piece of technology assembled from pre-existing parts in no way means it cannot be patented.
Although I should add that a patent application usually does not become public until 18 months after it was filed. Still, that gave them the first half of 2005 to find out about this.
But now inventors are using patents to protect their profits from that item *and* to force other inventors not to try to improve the item.
Actually the opposite is often true. If DVForge has something additional to add to the DLO invention, they can get a patent on that. This is the case even though DVForge would not be able to practice their invention without violating DLO's patent. If the additonal invention is truly worthwhile, it is possible that a cross-licensing deal can be reached. This happens all the time.
Another option is for DVForge to take an entirely different tack altogether - one that doesn't violate the DLO patent. That encourages innovation of a sort, just in a different direction.
But, the bottom line is that - yes - the patent is used to protect the profits from an item. That's precisely how the patent system is supposed to encourage investment in invention and technology. Businesses and venture capitalists aren't going to chase after something if there is no money to be made at the end.
I agree. All of the major complaints about patents are missing from this story. This isn't about software. This isn't about a company patenting something and then sitting on the patent - they actually have a product that they sell (which uses the patented technology).
Where's the problem?
Actually, the thing that keeps me from using NeoOffice/J is that it tries so much to be like Office that it ends up not really being any better. Sure, it may have minor technical superiorities, but sometimes to be better you have to be radically different.
For most basic editing I am now using Nisus Writer Express. It's a great little piece of software. I don't do mail merges every day. I mostly just write, so it works just fine for me.
Oh, I forgot to mention word count - you should turn off automatic word count too I believe.
Have you turned off autocorrect spelling and grammar? I noticed that with any document open and those two options checked, Word v.X would take up at least 50% of the CPU. I haven't tried turning them back on in Office 2004 to see if that bug was fixed.
Oh come on....
"I thought I recognized your *foul* stench when I was brought on board."
We'd be hammering lines like that if they had appeared in Ep I-III and the delivery wasn't any better either.
The company alleges that Apple's use of the name has adversely affected its ranking among the internet's largest search engines, Google and Yahoo, bumping the company from its usual spot in the first three results
Oh come on. It's not like customers are sitting at their computer thinking, "I'd like to buy some computer products, so let's type in 'Tiger' and see what computer sales sites Google recommends."
They're just desperately grasping for attention with this lawsuit.
LOL
If that doesn't qualify for a -1 Troll, I don't know what does.
ps. You can have my programming job. I've moved on to greener pastures.
If Master's or Doctorate degrees (which typically involve a major project that gives real programming experience) don't qualify you to do more than fix bugs, what does?
Ok, it adds a few years, but it doesn't change the bottom line. As a project manager I would take a BS with 2-years of good, real-world experience over someone with 3- to 5-years of graduate study any day of the week.
You apparently failed to notice that I did not limit the appropriate tasks to fixing bugs. However, even a graduate degree just is not sufficient experience to be architecting major projects, unless you're incredibly gifted.
Companies want young guys coming in fixing bugs, not architecting major projects.
No offense, because maybe you're a genius - but most young people are really only qualified to fix bugs and work on small portions of a project. If a 22-year-old with a CS degree is qualified to architect major projects all I can say is run hard and fast to get another degree, because the party's over.
It could be argued for either side, Nikon owns a copyright of the encryption technique, and you own the copyright of the photo that's got encrypted data in it.
As I discussed (peripherally) in one of my other notes in this thread, Nikon does not get copyright protection for it's encryption technique. Well, actually it does, but as long as Adobe writes a clean implementation, they are not violating Nikon's copyright. Now, if Nikon had a patent, that would be another story....
It's not *your* copyrighted material this whole Nikon business is dealing with, it's Nikon's encryption algorithm.
All I can suggest is that you read the US Code. You'll see that the copyrighted material is a crucial requirement.
If Nikon wishes to patent it's encryption/decryption algorithm for this particular purpose, it's free to do so. But the DMCA cannot be used to replace the patent system. Unless the purpose of the measure (in this case, encryption) is to protect the copyrighted work (that belongs to me) from others (people NOT me), it isn't covered by the DMCA.
Not true.
17 USC 1201 (a) states
(3) As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
17 USC 1201(b) states
(1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
It's all about the copyright owners.....
As for the last part, Nikon could sue Adobe under the DCMA, which states that you can crack encryption for personal use - but you can't tell anyone else how to do it. If Adobe releases a tool that cracks Nikon's encryption algorithm, then Nikon could go after them for some imagined damages.
But if the measure is not designed to protect the rights of a copyright owner, I do not believe any device designed to circumvent that measure falls under the DMCA. It is clear to me that encrypting white balance values is not designed to protect my rights as the photographer.
But, I can see why it's scary enough for Adobe to just walk away for the moment.
There's a difference in principle between encryption to protect content owned by the corporation and encryption simply created to extract money from third-party vendors.
If I take a picture with a Nikon camera, I own the content. Shouldn't I be able to do what I want with it?
Furthermore, what grounds would Nikon have for suing Adobe based on Adobe's violation of encryption that is protecting my copyrighted works? IANALY, but isn't there a "standing" issue here?