One poster here says that it's clear you cannot sell personal replicas for profit. Is it? I thought the "right of publicity" rules were somewhat less powerful, and that there were public figures exceptions of some sort. Do Bill, George and Barack get a few cents of royalties from each of the little President Bobbleheads on sale at DC tourist traps and airports? IAAL, but haven't looked into this law recently. If the little Zuckerberg was holding a cardboard "Will Sell Sekrets for $$$" sign, would that make it First-Amendment-protected parody in the US? Or, as a US law thing, does that explain the use of Chinese law to issue the cease-&-desist?
Lots of US laws already prohibit or limit SSN use: http://epic.org/privacy/ssn/ http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm If it's illegal to collect and use in whole, is it illegal to cadge in part, and then reassemble and use? Or does the law have holes? As rwa2 points out above, deriving the whole SSN ID number from a partial one might be within the reach of a lot of people, not just huge datafarms.
Great question. I went over the wall, from big law firms to open standards work, a decade ago and have loved every minute of it. (I'm the general counsel of a standards org; my definition of virtuous projects probably is broader than some.)
Lots of great project suggestions already in the comments, here. Might also want to consider the "start-up" side, hooking up with a newer or smaller project, and helping to grow it.
-- Shop around. Look for something that ignites your passion. Be aware that the threshold for declaring an organization or "project" is pretty low. Not every SourceForge page is going to be the next Apache. Invest your volunteer time in something which might have legs. The more active a community of contributors, the more likely you'd be useful.
-- Open, collaborative projects generally have accessible archives. You can read up on the issues and personalities, assess possible gigs with somee advance insight. Many also have face-to-face gatherings, in this sector, sometimes on multiple continents. They tend to be friendly and accessible. Go see the tribe live.
-- FYI, some people do make a living at it. There are a bunch of orgs where the lawyer help followed this path: started as a volunteer thing, but then evolved into full-time, self-invented, cool careers.
-- Yes, these projects often need fairly simple, non-patent-prosecutor, lawyer help. Like basic contracts, organizational (company/entity) formation, work-for-hire arrangements, basic licensing, website hosting contract review, etc.
-- There are boobytraps, though. If you act as someone's lawyer, obviously you're likely liable for them and yourself within the defined scope of your work, pay or no pay. So get the scope limits, expectations and any conflicts issues written down and crystal clear, in a few short pithy sentences, up front.
-- A word about being "general counsel": that title often is taken as a broad duty to represent the org. Be careful what you promise. Still, there are some great people having a spectacular, intellectually rewarding time being the volunteer or part-time general counsel for worthy dot.orgs like ID Commons (@DanielPerry), Linux Foundation, OpenID, FSF, IETF and other groups.
Good luck!
Totally agree. Thought of him, then found his name in the list already. Show your son the bio. Spaceships, cool cars, saving the world, and an internet gazillionaire in his 20s. What's not to like?
"State procurement laws don't prescribe the degree of openness or standardization within the government." Well, yeah, some do, in the US and elsewhere. Netherlands is a strong example. And at the US federal level, look at OMB's Circular A-119.
Hmm. If you changed the vendor name here... a hospital CTO who says "we will use only RedHat (or) only Dell (or) only Novell Linux (whatever), and I don't want to see anything else"... would you have the same problem? Is it generically a bad idea for CTOs to pick sole platforms for an enterprise? You'd have to oppose virtualization, too, then, right?
Spectactular. Well done all. And yes, this is a pull medium, you can have curated geeky videos along with the curated geeky YRO.
But, just curious, what's with the dogcam? Cheers, JamieXML
What you need is people. WoW has that; so does SL. Weave's right, the sheer number of concurrents and accounts on SL proves no "quest" is required. Note that WoW and SL both took *years* to get up to impressive critical mass. The "Arden" guys are complaining that they can't replicate that in... what? Weeks? Sigh. An attention span > gnat, maybe even > VC, is required to succeed in an virtual online space.
G'wan. You mean you think other games don't? In the EU or other civilized countries there are privacy laws, and gratuitous collection or personal data wihtout protectiosn might violate those laws. But in the US, where so many of the game hosts/creators reside? Not bloody likely -- in fact, Second Life, for example, seems to be stepping UP the degree to which they collect ID data -- so they can pass it along to the cops more effectively when asked.
+1 to "flamebait". How is eBay any different -- morally -- from a pawnshop in Compton? Hate to see/. descending to the Arledge/tabloids level here. Efficient open markets have risks -- but closed is worse. Those poor kids and professors lost their lives because of a loonball, and a system and family who did not deal with him effectively; maybe because of lax handgun laws; but not because something happened over the Internet.
GCal especially, The web interface to Google Calendar, I could ask for more; but the SMS interface is an *extremely* convenient way to get out-of-band reminders and pings via cel. It has saved my butt, to remind me of key appointments, a couple of times when other calendaring methods failed (web downtime, no IP, forgetful PEBKAC).
I put a lot of time into open standards. So I want to believe they're a key influencing factor in purchases. But where's the data? I am not sure the HBS study's "demand-side learning" kludgememe addresses this well.
Maybe we need some smart people to further parse out the concept of switching costs in the software environment. "If I convert all my docs I lose formatting" cost is different from "retraining staff on a new GUI" cost... and "risk of a big price increase to which I'm hostage because the format of my docs is patented" cost. Different tactics hit those distinct risks differently.
Disappointed here that the top/. blurb misreads the HSB article. Watzinaneihm's blurb as quoted says "Linux likely to remain second best." But the cited article says:
In the base model we assume that the cost structures of Windows and Linux for the development, distribution, and support of software coincide.
(Got that? It assumed that TCO Linux = TCO Windows. Its other conclusions depend on this. As the authors go on to point out:)
A natural question is then whether the central result that Windows survives in the long-run equilibrium regardless of the speed of Linux's demand-side learning persists if there are cost asymmetries. We find that because OSS implies lower profits for Microsoft, the larger the cost differences are between Linux and Windows, the less able Microsoft is to guarantee the survival of Windows.
Also I'm interested in the (lack of) value attributed to lock-in avoidance, noted by 140Mandak262Jamuna, below. More on that there.
+1 to the good references from Bain (on being a lawyer), Shenkerian (on Allapat), servoled (on State Street) and inana (on the Berkeley syllabus). Reading cases alone may not provide much context though. You might get a better understanding of the collision of the software & patent tribes from commentary, like Glieck and Lessig, below [1].
The difference of values between these two cultures and rulesets is profound. Glieck's piece led off: "Once the province of a nuts-and-bolts world, patents are now being applied to thoughts and ideas in cyberspace. It's a ridiculous phenomenon, and it could kill e-commerce." This is tough, frustrating turf. And if you wander into the coliseum, you need to think about who pays, and which side you will be on, and what role you will take. But it is terrifically interesting, and fun. IAAL, and an IP guy, and I like it. JBC
[1] James Glieck, Patently Absurd, in the New York Times Magazine, March 12, 2000 [http://www.nyt.com/library/magazine/home/ 200000312mag-patents.html].
Professor Larry Lessig, The Problem with Patents, The Industry Standard, April 1999
[http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/ 0,1151,4296,00.html] and Patent Problems, The Industry Standard, January 2000 [http://www.thestanddard.com/article/display/ 0,1151,8999,00.html].
I don't know anything about this specific patent assertion, but here's a general picture.
1. Patents are granted in most places based on a mostly-untested *assertion* of uniqueness and invention.
2. At that point the gov't will give you a big advantage in any later attempts to enforce your "invention". After which anyone you sue must prove either that he's not using your stuff, or that it was never patentable in the first place. In other words the considerable economic risk of *proving* that tough proposition is put mostly on the guy who doesn't file, regardless of how specious the accepted filing.
3. The patent authorities of some countries, e.g. the US, are aggressively proud of their unwillingness to filter applications for uniqueness or invention in any meaningful way. Most of them characterise this as a policy decision. Another possible explanation is that their expertise is strained (or nonexistent) in some areas, and they're calling the bug a feature. Opinions genuinely vary on which is true.
4. National law also differs on what's patentable. In some countries, software and math algorithms generally are deemed too 'universal' to be patentable. But not in in others. In the US, law and practice in this regard seems to have changed in about 1998. (Again, opinions differ on how much changed, and its significance.)
So in some regions the potential for confusion and info arbitrage (para 2) vary, or are at different states of development depending on the state of local patent law (para 4).
Many good articles on this can be found by web search including the "Patently Absurd" series.
> Or is it just one of those marketing things, > like saying "Oxi-Clean is backed by a patented > process..." Just so they look good?
Could be that too. The immediate utility of patents to press-release-writing companies, venture capital seekers, and the large patent-application industry obviously does *not* depend on whether the patented tech is valid, unique or useful.
There *are* some industries where patents have been proven economically essential to innovation -- pharmacology, perhaps. Jury's still out on software & business processes.
These are just informal opinions. Standard disclaimers apply - not legal advice, an official view, or even a complete statement of the issues. Cheers JBC
Slashdot Mirror
One poster here says that it's clear you cannot sell personal replicas for profit. Is it? I thought the "right of publicity" rules were somewhat less powerful, and that there were public figures exceptions of some sort. Do Bill, George and Barack get a few cents of royalties from each of the little President Bobbleheads on sale at DC tourist traps and airports? IAAL, but haven't looked into this law recently.
If the little Zuckerberg was holding a cardboard "Will Sell Sekrets for $$$" sign, would that make it First-Amendment-protected parody in the US?
Or, as a US law thing, does that explain the use of Chinese law to issue the cease-&-desist?
Lots of US laws already prohibit or limit SSN use:
http://epic.org/privacy/ssn/
http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs10-ssn.htm
If it's illegal to collect and use in whole, is it illegal to cadge in part, and then reassemble and use?
Or does the law have holes?
As rwa2 points out above, deriving the whole SSN ID number from a partial one might be within the reach of a lot of people, not just huge datafarms.
Hats off to the classy approach to being swamped by /. linkage: http://twitpic.com/3tmjo6 Grace under pressure. Cheers!
Great question. I went over the wall, from big law firms to open standards work, a decade ago and have loved every minute of it. (I'm the general counsel of a standards org; my definition of virtuous projects probably is broader than some.)
Lots of great project suggestions already in the comments, here. Might also want to consider the "start-up" side, hooking up with a newer or smaller project, and helping to grow it.
-- Shop around. Look for something that ignites your passion. Be aware that the threshold for declaring an organization or "project" is pretty low. Not every SourceForge page is going to be the next Apache. Invest your volunteer time in something which might have legs. The more active a community of contributors, the more likely you'd be useful.
-- Open, collaborative projects generally have accessible archives. You can read up on the issues and personalities, assess possible gigs with somee advance insight. Many also have face-to-face gatherings, in this sector, sometimes on multiple continents. They tend to be friendly and accessible. Go see the tribe live.
-- FYI, some people do make a living at it. There are a bunch of orgs where the lawyer help followed this path: started as a volunteer thing, but then evolved into full-time, self-invented, cool careers.
-- Yes, these projects often need fairly simple, non-patent-prosecutor, lawyer help. Like basic contracts, organizational (company/entity) formation, work-for-hire arrangements, basic licensing, website hosting contract review, etc.
-- There are boobytraps, though. If you act as someone's lawyer, obviously you're likely liable for them and yourself within the defined scope of your work, pay or no pay. So get the scope limits, expectations and any conflicts issues written down and crystal clear, in a few short pithy sentences, up front.
-- A word about being "general counsel": that title often is taken as a broad duty to represent the org. Be careful what you promise. Still, there are some great people having a spectacular, intellectually rewarding time being the volunteer or part-time general counsel for worthy dot.orgs like ID Commons (@DanielPerry), Linux Foundation, OpenID, FSF, IETF and other groups.
Good luck!
Totally agree. Thought of him, then found his name in the list already. Show your son the bio. Spaceships, cool cars, saving the world, and an internet gazillionaire in his 20s. What's not to like?
"State procurement laws don't prescribe the degree of openness or standardization within the government." Well, yeah, some do, in the US and elsewhere. Netherlands is a strong example. And at the US federal level, look at OMB's Circular A-119. Hmm. If you changed the vendor name here ... a hospital CTO who says "we will use only RedHat (or) only Dell (or) only Novell Linux (whatever), and I don't want to see anything else" ... would you have the same problem? Is it generically a bad idea for CTOs to pick sole platforms for an enterprise? You'd have to oppose virtualization, too, then, right?
Spectactular. Well done all. And yes, this is a pull medium, you can have curated geeky videos along with the curated geeky YRO. But, just curious, what's with the dogcam? Cheers, JamieXML
What you need is people. WoW has that; so does SL. Weave's right, the sheer number of concurrents and accounts on SL proves no "quest" is required. Note that WoW and SL both took *years* to get up to impressive critical mass. The "Arden" guys are complaining that they can't replicate that in... what? Weeks? Sigh. An attention span > gnat, maybe even > VC, is required to succeed in an virtual online space.
G'wan. You mean you think other games don't? In the EU or other civilized countries there are privacy laws, and gratuitous collection or personal data wihtout protectiosn might violate those laws. But in the US, where so many of the game hosts/creators reside? Not bloody likely -- in fact, Second Life, for example, seems to be stepping UP the degree to which they collect ID data -- so they can pass it along to the cops more effectively when asked.
+1 to "flamebait". How is eBay any different -- morally -- from a pawnshop in Compton? Hate to see /. descending to the Arledge/tabloids level here. Efficient open markets have risks -- but closed is worse. Those poor kids and professors lost their lives because of a loonball, and a system and family who did not deal with him effectively; maybe because of lax handgun laws; but not because something happened over the Internet.
GCal especially, The web interface to Google Calendar, I could ask for more; but the SMS interface is an *extremely* convenient way to get out-of-band reminders and pings via cel. It has saved my butt, to remind me of key appointments, a couple of times when other calendaring methods failed (web downtime, no IP, forgetful PEBKAC).
+1. Well said.
I put a lot of time into open standards. So I want to believe they're a key influencing factor in purchases. But where's the data? I am not sure the HBS study's "demand-side learning" kludgememe addresses this well.
Maybe we need some smart people to further parse out the concept of switching costs in the software environment. "If I convert all my docs I lose formatting" cost is different from "retraining staff on a new GUI" cost ... and "risk of a big price increase to which I'm hostage because the format of my docs is patented" cost. Different tactics hit those distinct risks differently.
+1 to the good references from Bain (on being a lawyer), Shenkerian (on Allapat), servoled (on State Street) and inana (on the Berkeley syllabus). Reading cases alone may not provide much context though. You might get a better understanding of the collision of the software & patent tribes from commentary, like Glieck and Lessig, below [1].
The difference of values between these two cultures and rulesets is profound. Glieck's piece led off: "Once the province of a nuts-and-bolts world, patents are now being applied to thoughts and ideas in cyberspace. It's a ridiculous phenomenon, and it could kill e-commerce." This is tough, frustrating turf. And if you wander into the coliseum, you need to think about who pays, and which side you will be on, and what role you will take. But it is terrifically interesting, and fun. IAAL, and an IP guy, and I like it. JBC
[1] James Glieck, Patently Absurd, in the New York Times Magazine, March 12, 2000
[http://www.nyt.com/library/magazine/home/ 200000312mag-patents.html].
Professor Larry Lessig, The Problem with Patents, The Industry Standard, April 1999
[http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/ 0,1151,4296,00.html]
and Patent Problems, The Industry Standard, January 2000
[http://www.thestanddard.com/article/display/ 0,1151,8999,00.html].
>Can someone explain this to me honestly?
>
I don't know anything about this specific patent assertion, but here's a general picture.
1. Patents are granted in most places based on a mostly-untested *assertion* of uniqueness and invention.
2. At that point the gov't will give you a big advantage in any later attempts to enforce your "invention". After which anyone you sue must prove either that he's not using your stuff, or that it was never patentable in the first place. In other words the considerable economic risk of *proving* that tough proposition is put mostly on the guy who doesn't file, regardless of how specious the accepted filing.
3. The patent authorities of some countries, e.g. the US, are aggressively proud of their unwillingness to filter applications for uniqueness or invention in any meaningful way. Most of them characterise this as a policy decision. Another possible explanation is that their expertise is strained (or nonexistent) in some areas, and they're calling the bug a feature. Opinions genuinely vary on which is true.
4. National law also differs on what's patentable. In some countries, software and math algorithms generally are deemed too 'universal' to be patentable. But not in in others. In the US, law and practice in this regard seems to have changed in about 1998. (Again, opinions differ on how much changed, and its significance.)
So in some regions the potential for confusion and info arbitrage (para 2) vary, or are at different states of development depending on the state of local patent law (para 4).
Many good articles on this can be found by web search including the "Patently Absurd" series.
> Or is it just one of those marketing things,
> like saying "Oxi-Clean is backed by a patented
> process..." Just so they look good?
Could be that too. The immediate utility of patents to press-release-writing companies, venture capital seekers, and the large patent-application industry obviously does *not* depend on whether the patented tech is valid, unique or useful.
There *are* some industries where patents have been proven economically essential to innovation -- pharmacology, perhaps. Jury's still out on software & business processes.
These are just informal opinions. Standard disclaimers apply - not legal advice, an official view, or even a complete statement of the issues. Cheers JBC