I bought a macbook pro with the ipod deal and got my check in about 2 weeks. I even got an email from apple when they received the rebate form and when they sent out the check.
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job... unless it's tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that it qualifies for patent protection. The non-functional issue came about in a case wherein a sign manufacturer had a patent on a sign and, once the patent had expired, tried to claim trade dress protection on the sign. The court ruled that sign, being functional (the sign had a particular way of withstanding wind), was more aptly protected by patent protection than trademark law. But that doesn't mean that a functional design can automatically get a patent.
Plus, I'm not sure how a layout of a store is functional in the legal sense. The fact that a layout may be more asthetically pleasing does not satisfy the functional requirement.
I don't understand how the USPTO can give out this patent. The design of a store is typically protected by trade dress. The Supreme Court has explicity stated that you're not supposed to be able patent protection if something is normally covered by trademark law. Whomever approved this needs to be canned.
However, the Supreme Court has made exceptions to the general price fixing rules - and has even do so specifically in the music industry. In BMI v. CBS, the Court said that a "middleman... was an obvious necessity if the thousands of individual negotiations, a virtual impossibility, were to be avoided." 441 U.S. 1 (1979). The Court then got around the legal precedent by stating that the blanket license, the issue in this case, was a new product and greater than the sum of its parts. Even though price fixing is called a per se rule, the Court said that "[n]ot all arrangements among actual or potential competitors that have an impact on price are per se violations of the Sherman Act or even unreasonable restraints."
Whether or not you agree with this rationale, it is what allows the RIAA to engage in these practices.
I'm not writing a paper trying to prove that there was collusion between the two companies. Instead, I'm trying to establish a new cause of action - that funding sham litigation against your competitors should be an anti-trust violation. For this, I don't need to prove it as if it were a trial, I just need to establish that if the DOJ was inclined to bring such a suit (ha ha), they wouldn't get dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
As such, I only need information from a credible source that says M$ has no need to engage in a licensing agreement with SCO. I.e., something that shows M$ has no reason to believe that they would be sued by SCO for infringement.
Thanks for the input.
Need SCO Info - This may be off topic.
on
Darl Goes to Harvard
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
As I said, this may be off-topic, but I need some help and am willing to burn the karma to get the information I need.
I am a law student looking to write a paper on M$'s licensing of SCO's "code." I am looking for information about M$'s licensing agreement - particularly any credible sources that suggest it was unnecessary for them to do so. In other words, are there any credible sources out there that state there was no other purpose for M$ to license the code other than to help fund SCO's litigation?
I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me - I was just wonder whether anyone had such information bookmarked or easily available. I'd really appreciate any help, as the point of my paper is to attack both SCO and M$ in the same breath.
Is there anything preventing other companies from making an mp3 player that would play iTMS files? I realize that other companies can make players that play the AAC format, but is Apple preventing them from accessing the DRM?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/asteroid-03k.html Orbital Development reports that it has received an official response from the United States Department of State in regard to that company's "Eros Project" which was initiated to establish official respect for property rights in Space.
Orbital Development, in the course of its Eros Project, has claimed and owns Asteroid 433 Eros since 03 March, 2000. On 12 February, 2001 the United States landed the NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft on the privately owned planetoid, prompting OrbDev to send an invoice to NASA for parking & storage fees totaling $20.00 for one hundred years storage. After a lengthy exchange of letters with NASA's chief lawyer, its General Counsel, NASA refused to pay OrbDev's invoice.
On 13 Feb 03, OrbDev sent an official and legal Notice to the United States Department of State stating that NASA had exceeded it authority in this matter and the Department of State should clarify the United States' Executive Branch position on the critical issue of individual property rights in Space.
In a letter dated 15 Aug 03, Ralph L. Braibanti, the Director of Space and Advanced Technology in the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, wrote, "We have reviewed the "Notice" dated February 13, 2003, that you sent to the U.S. Department of State. In the view of the Department, private ownership of an asteroid is precluded by Article II of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Accordingly, we have concluded that your claim is without legal basis."
It's because these are civil matters. The gov't for the most part doesn't get involved in contract disputes or IP issues between two entities (there are always exceptions). When this is all over the SEC might have some claims against SCO, but I imagine/hope they are either (1) waiting to see how this plays out or (2) gathering evidence.
The gov't can't issue a ruling on the merits of SCO's claims - that is what the courts are for. And as such, any intervention by another branch would be premature.
Well, I guess we just have a semantic disagreement then. I wouldn't classify work-for-hire agreements as taking someone else's work and patenting it. Instead, that is a contractual agreement between two people for a particular outcome. Yes, the company will receive the patent, however you were compensated for your work on that invention (or method). That, to me, is not "just taking someone else's work."
Besides, my response was particular to the point that someone else would not be able to take the information from VT and then patent it. Such an action has nothing to do with a work-for-hire and would therefore have no bearing on this case.
Completely wrong. You can't take the work of someone else and patent it. Further, if the university releases the information to the public it serves as prior art and therefore invalidates any patent application that is just a copy of the work.
You're thinking of equitable estoppel. There is also collateral and judicial estoppel. Collateral estoppel means that once a court has come to a decision, that decision affects other similarly related facts. Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting one thing in one instance and then the opposite in another instance.
Not only do I play Medieval Times, I'm an "imm" there, too (so you'll excuse me if I am a bit biased). It's a circle code that has been highly modified and all stock areas have been removed a long time ago - we currently have over 10,000 original rooms. We offer interesting classes such as Necromancer and Psionist and other neat details like elemental damage and resistance. It would be hard to describe all the features of our mud, but if what you have read here intrigues you enough to want to find out more about us, you can go to our website at http://www.lordtrox.com or connect to us at mud.lordtrox.com: 8500
Slashdot Mirror
I bought a macbook pro with the ipod deal and got my check in about 2 weeks. I even got an email from apple when they received the rebate form and when they sent out the check.
President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job ... unless it's tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.
I need your email address so I can send you the invite.
I, too, have six invites. The first six that reply with their email address can get them.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that it qualifies for patent protection. The non-functional issue came about in a case wherein a sign manufacturer had a patent on a sign and, once the patent had expired, tried to claim trade dress protection on the sign. The court ruled that sign, being functional (the sign had a particular way of withstanding wind), was more aptly protected by patent protection than trademark law. But that doesn't mean that a functional design can automatically get a patent.
Plus, I'm not sure how a layout of a store is functional in the legal sense. The fact that a layout may be more asthetically pleasing does not satisfy the functional requirement.
I don't understand how the USPTO can give out this patent. The design of a store is typically protected by trade dress. The Supreme Court has explicity stated that you're not supposed to be able patent protection if something is normally covered by trademark law. Whomever approved this needs to be canned.
Lowest number: 4 Highest Number: 19812 Closest number: 1332 Numbers that temprorarily fooled you: 137 13937 1997 What are yours?
If anyone has an invite to donate, I'd appreciate it greatly. I can be reached at c-m-a-s-o-n-3-2@yahoo.com (remove the dashes).
:)
Thank you.
me too. :)
My understanding is that Wind Waker 2 will also be cel-shaded.
However, the Supreme Court has made exceptions to the general price fixing rules - and has even do so specifically in the music industry. In BMI v. CBS, the Court said that a "middleman ... was an obvious necessity if the thousands of individual negotiations, a virtual impossibility, were to be avoided." 441 U.S. 1 (1979). The Court then got around the legal precedent by stating that the blanket license, the issue in this case, was a new product and greater than the sum of its parts. Even though price fixing is called a per se rule, the Court said that "[n]ot all arrangements among actual or potential competitors that have an impact on price are per se violations of the Sherman Act or even unreasonable restraints."
Whether or not you agree with this rationale, it is what allows the RIAA to engage in these practices.
Fair use is not a right; it is a defense against an infringement claim.
I'm not writing a paper trying to prove that there was collusion between the two companies. Instead, I'm trying to establish a new cause of action - that funding sham litigation against your competitors should be an anti-trust violation. For this, I don't need to prove it as if it were a trial, I just need to establish that if the DOJ was inclined to bring such a suit (ha ha), they wouldn't get dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
As such, I only need information from a credible source that says M$ has no need to engage in a licensing agreement with SCO. I.e., something that shows M$ has no reason to believe that they would be sued by SCO for infringement.
Thanks for the input.
As I said, this may be off-topic, but I need some help and am willing to burn the karma to get the information I need.
I am a law student looking to write a paper on M$'s licensing of SCO's "code." I am looking for information about M$'s licensing agreement - particularly any credible sources that suggest it was unnecessary for them to do so. In other words, are there any credible sources out there that state there was no other purpose for M$ to license the code other than to help fund SCO's litigation?
I'm not asking anyone to do the research for me - I was just wonder whether anyone had such information bookmarked or easily available. I'd really appreciate any help, as the point of my paper is to attack both SCO and M$ in the same breath.
Thanks.
... even if IGN are "somewhat excited by it."
So they're "sorta chubby"?
Is there anything preventing other companies from making an mp3 player that would play iTMS files? I realize that other companies can make players that play the AAC format, but is Apple preventing them from accessing the DRM?
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/asteroid-03k.html
Orbital Development reports that it has received an official response from the United States Department of State in regard to that company's "Eros Project" which was initiated to establish official respect for property rights in Space.
Orbital Development, in the course of its Eros Project, has claimed and owns Asteroid 433 Eros since 03 March, 2000. On 12 February, 2001 the United States landed the NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft on the privately owned planetoid, prompting OrbDev to send an invoice to NASA for parking & storage fees totaling $20.00 for one hundred years storage. After a lengthy exchange of letters with NASA's chief lawyer, its General Counsel, NASA refused to pay OrbDev's invoice.
On 13 Feb 03, OrbDev sent an official and legal Notice to the United States Department of State stating that NASA had exceeded it authority in this matter and the Department of State should clarify the United States' Executive Branch position on the critical issue of individual property rights in Space.
In a letter dated 15 Aug 03, Ralph L. Braibanti, the Director of Space and Advanced Technology in the Department of State's Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, wrote, "We have reviewed the "Notice" dated February 13, 2003, that you sent to the U.S. Department of State. In the view of the Department, private ownership of an asteroid is precluded by Article II of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. Accordingly, we have concluded that your claim is without legal basis."
It's because these are civil matters. The gov't for the most part doesn't get involved in contract disputes or IP issues between two entities (there are always exceptions). When this is all over the SEC might have some claims against SCO, but I imagine/hope they are either (1) waiting to see how this plays out or (2) gathering evidence.
The gov't can't issue a ruling on the merits of SCO's claims - that is what the courts are for. And as such, any intervention by another branch would be premature.
Wherein The Simpsons serves as prior art.
Well, I guess we just have a semantic disagreement then. I wouldn't classify work-for-hire agreements as taking someone else's work and patenting it. Instead, that is a contractual agreement between two people for a particular outcome. Yes, the company will receive the patent, however you were compensated for your work on that invention (or method). That, to me, is not "just taking someone else's work." Besides, my response was particular to the point that someone else would not be able to take the information from VT and then patent it. Such an action has nothing to do with a work-for-hire and would therefore have no bearing on this case.
Completely wrong. You can't take the work of someone else and patent it. Further, if the university releases the information to the public it serves as prior art and therefore invalidates any patent application that is just a copy of the work.
You're thinking of equitable estoppel. There is also collateral and judicial estoppel. Collateral estoppel means that once a court has come to a decision, that decision affects other similarly related facts. Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting one thing in one instance and then the opposite in another instance.
If it's less than ten days you can return it and get the new ibook.
..So while the absence of non-Apple support for the AAC format may be a pain initially, odds are other MP3 players and player software will start to recognize such files.'If it gets any kind of traction, we'll support it,' says MusicMatch CEO Dennis Mudd.
[Shameless plug]
Not only do I play Medieval Times, I'm an "imm" there, too (so you'll excuse me if I am a bit biased). It's a circle code that has been highly modified and all stock areas have been removed a long time ago - we currently have over 10,000 original rooms. We offer interesting classes such as Necromancer and Psionist and other neat details like elemental damage and resistance. It would be hard to describe all the features of our mud, but if what you have read here intrigues you enough to want to find out more about us, you can go to our website at http://www.lordtrox.com or connect to us at mud.lordtrox.com: 8500
I hope some of you come by and check us out!
[/shameless plug]