Slashdot is not bound by the ruling. Only the subjects of the injunction are.
As long as new sites keep popping up, they'll never be able to hale all of them into court to be subjected to such orders. Or, at least, it will be prohibitively expensive.
Dude, try *steganography*. Stenography means shorthand, like a court reporter uses.
In any case, I think this is not steganography -- or at least in might not be, if the intention is other than to hide the existence of the communication (for example, to comply with a legal loophole). I think the problem here is different, and pervasive to attempts to regulate the dissemination of information: the notion of joint information.
Suppose that some string X is illegal -- DeCSS, child pornography, nuclear secrets, whatever. I xor it with a random string Y and get Z. Now, there is zero information content in Y and Z, but their joint information content is that of X.
I believe that this sort of issue is an unsurmoutable hurdle to laws making some facts illegal to talk about.
For more on joint information, see the work of, e.g., Gregory Chaitin
The SEC most certainly *does* have the power to insist that copyright in S-1's filed with it is either waived or surrendered to the SEC. It effectively does so, at least for the purposes of subsequent filings.
Secondly, making an official filing, including with the SEC, is a form of fair use. Similarly, I can't preclude you from making a particular legal argument by copyrighting it before you sue.
Unrelatedly, common-law copyright is not the same thing as not having to register. Since the '76 Act went into effect 22 year ago, common law copyright has not existed in the U.S.
No, taking too long to sue can indeed cost a patent holder his case, though it's harder than with trademarks. This can happen directly, under the doctrine of laches. More frequently, some form of estoppel applies because the plaintiff's conduct would lead the defendant to believe he wouldn't sue.
That's what happened to Wang: they invented and patented SIMMs, but couldn't enforce the patent because they had actively encouraged other companies to produce them.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Xerox waited too long (by patent standards) here. But I'd be willing to bet that 3Com's answer at least pleads laches.
Nonsense. You don't need anything nearly that Baroque.
Have a single CA with a well-known public key. A valid RDS message will have to be signed and accompanied by a certificate. Optionally, we can have CRLs and so on.
No timestamps. No time signal. No mutual authentication.
Such a disclaimer does indeed protect them from liability (under most circumstances) for forward-looking statements. Most of the press release was not forward-looking, though. It's sounding pretty likely that they are guilty of securities fraud.
Method patents are not especially difficult to uphold. (I have no idea why this would be a "sad fact," if true.) It is really quite hard for a defendant to prove invalidity: he needs "clear and convincing" evidence; juries tend to take the PTO's word for almost everything; decisions of law are reviewed by the Federal Circuit, which clearly has no problem with business method patents.
Method patents are not "supposed to be nullified" by subsequent patents.
No kind of U.S. patent is limited to small companies.
None of our patent laws predate the automobile. They were entirely rewritten, in roughly their present form, in 1952. Some doctrines survived, others did not, but Congress made a very deliberate decision to make the statute what it is.
"Insightful" posts are great; I just happen to dislike those which are also, err, less clueful.
It is also, inter alia, and subject to some geographic restrictions, things which were: (a) "known or used" (b) in "public use" or on sale (c) abandoned by the inventor (e) described in a secret, pending patent application (f) derived from the work of another (g) invented by another (who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it).
In fact, being "published" is not even sufficient! It must be "described in a printed publication." (Yes, the Web is a "printed publication." Don't ask.)
First-to-file does not mean that prior art does not invalidate; it just means that a first inventor doesn't get the patent. We and the Phillipines are the only countries that still have to do interferences.
In fact, it's slightly *easier* to invalidate most European patents for prior art than American ones. America does not have an "absolute novelty" rule, which means that certain kinds of prior art sometimes don't count. For example, in the U.S., you can publish first and apply for a patent up to a year later, and "public use" of an invention only counts as prior art if it is in this country. Either would invalidate a European patent.
Where in the world did you get that idea? Some of the most important patent cases have been against the federal government! See, e.g., U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), one of the most important cases on obviousness.
OK, true, you go to the Court of Claims rather than a District Court for trial (and don't get a jury), but the same substantive law applies (except certain damages issues) and appeals still go to the Federal Circuit.
As for the Boy Scouts, just keep in mind that lots of other people, from Girl scouts to football players, can wear uniforms, and don't need Congress to tell them that. As for the Mass. resident lists, other states do similar things for their own (state) courts; why did Congress mention only Massachusetts?
The legend of the onion futures is: in the '50s, when people were very suspicious of the financial world, a bunch of onion farmers decided that the existence of futures trading in onions caused volatility in the prices they were getting, to their detriment. (Of course, modern economic theory tells us this is nonsense.) They called their U.S. representative, one Gerald Ford, to put an end to it. In 1955, Congress first regulated onion futures trading (other futures were already regulated); and, after severe price swings in 1957, decided to ban the futures outright.
In the case of _Chicago Mercantile Exchange v. Tieken_, 178 F.Supp. 779 (N.D.Ill.1959) (three-judge court), a court rejected Constitutional challenges to the Onion Futures Act, finding that it did not "lack a rational basis." I don't think many people would agree with this conclusion today.
Indeed. I'd bet the majority of the "laws" here are simply made up, and many of the rest aren't very meaningful. For example, surely it's illegal in every state to simultaneously commit murder and read Slashdot, but that's not a very interesting fact.
OTOH, they left out some very real, and very stupid, laws. They didn't even bother with federal laws, as far as I can tell. For example, all of the following are funny without any distortion:
* Under 7 U.S.C. sec. 13-1, the Onion Futures Act, you can be convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $5000 for trading futures on onions.
* Under 50 U.S.C. sec. 407, anyone who has, in the past, contracted to conduct any study of under what circumstances the United States should surrender is ineligible for any federal job.
* 50 U.S.C. sec. 843, still in force, punishes membership in the Communist party.
* 10 U.S.C. sec. 772(j)(1) specifically makes it legal for members of the Boy Scouts of America to wear the Boy Scout uniform.
* 28 U.S.C. sec. 1863 provides for a different method of selecting jurors in Massachusetts federal courts than in every other federal district.
* 35 U.S.C. provides for--get this--patents! How dumb.
Nonsense. If you invented it first, you are not only protected from suit, but *you get the patent.* This is true *only* in the U.S. (and the Philippines). The change proposed in the law would give you a defense if you invented it *second*, but before the patent issued.
First of all, it is *absolutely* the case that many competent patent lawyers tell engineers not to read any patents. I have worked under such instructions myself (including at corporations frequently discussed around here). Of course, managers or lawyers will eventually check the patents, but the engineers will be isolated from them.
Second, the doctrine of equivalents does *not* threaten the "innocent" infringer. It threatens a person who knows about a patent and tries to "design around" it, by copying the essential aspects of an invention while just missing the coverage of any of the claims. (Note that Mr. Young was also wrong to say that intentional copying is "irrelevant" in patent law: if you don't know about the prior invention, then you can might infringe literally but not by the DOE.)
Not true. Only the U.S. and the Phillipines follow the "first-to-invent" rule: if I invent something a day before you invent it independently, but wait until a day after you apply for a patent to apply for mine, then I get the patent. _All_ other countries follow the "first-to-apply" rule and would give the patent to you.
Also, most (but not all) countries follow the so-called "absolute novelty" rule under which publishing the details of an invention makes it unpatentable. Here, you can apply up to 1 year after disclosure. A few countries, such as Canada and Brazil, and Australia's "petty patent" system, agree with us on this one.
Finally, the U.S. system is much more receptive to non-traditional subject matter, including software patents, than most countries'. You can't blame the Patent and Trademark Office for this: it's mostly the fault of the courts, especially the rabidly pro-patent Federal Circuit. After the _State Street Bank_ case of last year, which basically allowed the patenting of a method of accounting, it seems like just about any idea is now patentable in this country.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot is not bound by the ruling. Only the subjects of the injunction are.
As long as new sites keep popping up, they'll never be able to hale all of them into court to be subjected to such orders. Or, at least, it will be prohibitively expensive.
Dude, try *steganography*. Stenography means shorthand, like a court reporter uses.
In any case, I think this is not steganography -- or at least in might not be, if the intention is other than to hide the existence of the communication (for example, to comply with a legal loophole). I think the problem here is different, and pervasive to attempts to regulate the dissemination of information: the notion of joint information.
Suppose that some string X is illegal -- DeCSS, child pornography, nuclear secrets, whatever. I xor it with a random string Y and get Z. Now, there is zero information content in Y and Z, but their joint information content is that of X.
I believe that this sort of issue is an unsurmoutable hurdle to laws making some facts illegal to talk about.
For more on joint information, see the work of, e.g., Gregory Chaitin
Well, like you said, you're not a lawyer.
The SEC most certainly *does* have the power to insist that copyright in S-1's filed with it is either waived or surrendered to the SEC. It effectively does so, at least for the purposes of subsequent filings.
Secondly, making an official filing, including with the SEC, is a form of fair use. Similarly, I can't preclude you from making a particular legal argument by copyrighting it before you sue.
Unrelatedly, common-law copyright is not the same thing as not having to register. Since the '76 Act went into effect 22 year ago, common law copyright has not existed in the U.S.
No, taking too long to sue can indeed cost a patent holder his case, though it's harder than with trademarks. This can happen directly, under the doctrine of laches. More frequently, some form of estoppel applies because the plaintiff's conduct would lead the defendant to believe he wouldn't sue.
That's what happened to Wang: they invented and patented SIMMs, but couldn't enforce the patent because they had actively encouraged other companies to produce them.
Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Xerox waited too long (by patent standards) here. But I'd be willing to bet that 3Com's answer at least pleads laches.
Dude, that's 10^23, not 1023.
Nonsense. You don't need anything nearly that Baroque.
Have a single CA with a well-known public key. A valid RDS message will have to be signed and accompanied by a certificate. Optionally, we can have CRLs and so on.
No timestamps. No time signal. No mutual authentication.
Such a disclaimer does indeed protect them from liability (under most circumstances) for forward-looking statements. Most of the press release was not forward-looking, though. It's sounding pretty likely that they are guilty of securities fraud.
I don't follow you. Shouldn't that mean that markets will be more liquid if prices are higher?
Post-2-1-split, the company is exactly the same if you trade stocks in pairs, except that the minimum price move is now twice as much.
Whoa, there.
Method patents are not especially difficult to uphold. (I have no idea why this would be a "sad fact," if true.) It is really quite hard for a defendant to prove invalidity: he needs "clear and convincing" evidence; juries tend to take the PTO's word for almost everything; decisions of law are reviewed by the Federal Circuit, which clearly has no problem with business method patents.
Method patents are not "supposed to be nullified" by subsequent patents.
No kind of U.S. patent is limited to small companies.
None of our patent laws predate the automobile. They were entirely rewritten, in roughly their present form, in 1952. Some doctrines survived, others did not, but Congress made a very deliberate decision to make the statute what it is.
"Insightful" posts are great; I just happen to dislike those which are also, err, less clueful.
What, did you just read one patent case? Or is this a troll?
Willful infringement leads to damage enhancement anywhere from none up to trebling. 2.5x is not particularly common.
Maybe it's not just 99% that use the term incorrectly.
"Prior art" is *not* only what has been published. See 35 U.S.C. sec. 102 :
It is also, inter alia, and subject to some geographic restrictions, things which were:
(a) "known or used"
(b) in "public use" or on sale
(c) abandoned by the inventor
(e) described in a secret, pending patent application
(f) derived from the work of another
(g) invented by another (who did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it).
In fact, being "published" is not even sufficient! It must be "described in a printed publication." (Yes, the Web is a "printed publication." Don't ask.)
First-to-file does not mean that prior art does not invalidate; it just means that a first inventor doesn't get the patent. We and the Phillipines are the only countries that still have to do interferences.
In fact, it's slightly *easier* to invalidate most European patents for prior art than American ones. America does not have an "absolute novelty" rule, which means that certain kinds of prior art sometimes don't count. For example, in the U.S., you can publish first and apply for a patent up to a year later, and "public use" of an invention only counts as prior art if it is in this country. Either would invalidate a European patent.
Where in the world did you get that idea? Some of the most important patent cases have been against the federal government! See, e.g., U.S. v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966), one of the most important cases on obviousness.
OK, true, you go to the Court of Claims rather than a District Court for trial (and don't get a jury), but the same substantive law applies (except certain damages issues) and appeals still go to the Federal Circuit.
As for the Boy Scouts, just keep in mind that lots of other people, from Girl scouts to football players, can wear uniforms, and don't need Congress to tell them that. As for the Mass. resident lists, other states do similar things for their own (state) courts; why did Congress mention only Massachusetts?
The legend of the onion futures is: in the '50s, when people were very suspicious of the financial world, a bunch of onion farmers decided that the existence of futures trading in onions caused volatility in the prices they were getting, to their detriment. (Of course, modern economic theory tells us this is nonsense.) They called their U.S. representative, one Gerald Ford, to put an end to it. In 1955, Congress first regulated onion futures trading (other futures were already regulated); and, after severe price swings in 1957, decided to ban the futures outright.
In the case of _Chicago Mercantile Exchange v. Tieken_, 178 F.Supp. 779 (N.D.Ill.1959) (three-judge court), a court rejected Constitutional challenges to the Onion Futures Act, finding that it did not "lack a rational basis." I don't think many people would agree with this conclusion today.
Indeed. I'd bet the majority of the "laws" here are simply made up, and many of the rest aren't very meaningful. For example, surely it's illegal in every state to simultaneously commit murder and read Slashdot, but that's not a very interesting fact.
OTOH, they left out some very real, and very stupid, laws. They didn't even bother with federal laws, as far as I can tell. For example, all of the following are funny without any distortion:
* Under 7 U.S.C. sec. 13-1, the Onion Futures Act, you can be convicted of a misdemeanor and fined $5000 for trading futures on onions.
* Under 50 U.S.C. sec. 407, anyone who has, in the past, contracted to conduct any study of under what circumstances the United States should surrender is ineligible for any federal job.
* 50 U.S.C. sec. 843, still in force, punishes membership in the Communist party.
* 10 U.S.C. sec. 772(j)(1) specifically makes it legal for members of the Boy Scouts of America to wear the Boy Scout uniform.
* 28 U.S.C. sec. 1863 provides for a different method of selecting jurors in Massachusetts federal courts than in every other federal district.
* 35 U.S.C. provides for--get this--patents! How dumb.
I should certainly hope that it had nothing to do with breach of promise. "Breach of promise" is shorthand for "breach of promise of marriage."
Nonsense. If you invented it first, you are not only protected from suit, but *you get the patent.* This is true *only* in the U.S. (and the Philippines). The change proposed in the law would give you a defense if you invented it *second*, but before the patent issued.
There are several misunderstandings here.
First of all, it is *absolutely* the case that many competent patent lawyers tell engineers not to read any patents. I have worked under such instructions myself (including at corporations frequently discussed around here). Of course, managers or lawyers will eventually check the patents, but the engineers will be isolated from them.
Second, the doctrine of equivalents does *not* threaten the "innocent" infringer. It threatens a person who knows about a patent and tries to "design around" it, by copying the essential aspects of an invention while just missing the coverage of any of the claims. (Note that Mr. Young was also wrong to say that intentional copying is "irrelevant" in patent law: if you don't know about the prior invention, then you can might infringe literally but not by the DOE.)
Please, folks: NP-*complete*. Even, say, integer addition is "an NP problem."
Not true. Only the U.S. and the Phillipines follow the "first-to-invent" rule: if I invent something a day before you invent it independently, but wait until a day after you apply for a patent to apply for mine, then I get the patent. _All_ other countries follow the "first-to-apply" rule and would give the patent to you.
Also, most (but not all) countries follow the so-called "absolute novelty" rule under which publishing the details of an invention makes it unpatentable. Here, you can apply up to 1 year after disclosure. A few countries, such as Canada and Brazil, and Australia's "petty patent" system, agree with us on this one.
Finally, the U.S. system is much more receptive to non-traditional subject matter, including software patents, than most countries'. You can't blame the Patent and Trademark Office for this: it's mostly the fault of the courts, especially the rabidly pro-patent Federal Circuit. After the _State Street Bank_ case of last year, which basically allowed the patenting of a method of accounting, it seems like just about any idea is now patentable in this country.