The FCC can issue warning citations and impose fines against companies violating or suspected of violating the junk fax rules, but does not award individual damages. If you have received a fax advertisement from someone who does not have an established business relationship with you or to whom you have not provided prior express permission to send fax advertisements, you can file a complaint with the FCC. You can file your complaint by completing the FCC's on-line complaint Form 1088 at: www.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints.html; e-mailing fccinfo@fcc.gov; calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.
Ahem. Congress makes laws, the President enforces them. If the President decides not to enforce the laws, there isn't a thing Congress can do, other than impeach. The President has just proposed not following a law. You do the arithmetic.
Also, the President doesn't believe in separation of powers, he believes in his absolute authority as dictator. After all, to him the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.
Sorry, educational use isn't enough. It's something to consider, and it's given a lot of weight, but it's not determinative. Please go read the law again, carefully.
I really wish people would stop complaining and start doing something about it. Here's an idea: file a prior art citation. For the lazy among you:
Any person at any time may cite to the Office in writing prior art consisting of patents or printed publications which that person believes to have a bearing on the patentability of any claim of a particular patent. If the person explains in writing the pertinency and manner of applying such prior art to at least one claim of the patent, the citation of such prior art and the explanation thereof will become a part of the official file of the patent. At the written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity will be excluded from the patent file and kept confidential. (emphasis added)
This costs nothing, and anyone can do it. Here's another idea: collect donations and file a petition to reexamine the patent. If the petition is successful, the patent owner will have to reply to your prior art, on the record. The big downside: it costs $2,520. The not-so-bad downside: if the petition is denied, you get a refund of $1,690, so you're only out $830.
Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity or other matter... mentioning or implying the name of Google;
When you properly omit the irrelevant portions, you get something really heinous and restrictive.
Re:Things like this are easy to fix.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
The parent post is legal advice without an IANAL disclaimer. Before you alter a contract that binds you legally, talk to a lawyer, or face the consequences. Of course, none of you will take this seriously, since you probably don't even read contracts before signing them...
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, overturned the decades old test for determine [sic] whether a patent is obvious.
No, the Court upheld the decades old test from Graham v. John Deere. What they did was tell the Federal Circuit "you're doing it wrong." Big difference.
The Federal Circuit had been rigidly applying the "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test, which says, clearly enough, that an invention is ONLY obvious if there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the literature to combine various known inventions. (Opinion p. 2) The Supreme Court said that even without an explicit or implied motivation, inventors are 'routinely creative' (my words) when it comes to taking known approaches and applying them to new problems. The court said, on page 17:
The idea that a designer hoping to make [a device] would ignore [a particular approach] because [that approach] was designed to solve [a different] problem makes little sense. A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.
They also said on page 17 that an invention might be obvious if it were only 'obvious to try', even though there was no way to know if it would work ahead of time, because people are routinely forced to try out different combinations of approaches in response to market pressures or design needs. The Court considers these actions to be part of the due course of business, and not particularly non-obvious. As a result, the court said, on page 15:
Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility.
I finish with a quote that's been quoted elsewhere but is worth repeating:
We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, section 8, cl. 8.
If I have the source code of Windows in my head, that's "Windows in the abstract". In order to install it on a computer, I have to make a tangible representation of that source code (i.e., I have to write it down). This is the master disc. As far as I can tell, when the court talks about copying, they mean physical copies.
The quoted language says that my 'idea' of Windows can't be a component of a patented item. A blueprint may tell how to build something, but only the piece once built may be a component. The court doesn't decide whether the master disc itself could be a component if it were used to install Windows directly, since it wasn't actually used for that in this case, but leaves open the possibility. That's the issue with 'footnote 14'.
School education has nothing to do with how skilled you are and how well you can get the job done.
School education affects how skilled you are and how well you can get the job done to varying degrees, but is not outcome-determinative. Duh. I wish people would stop taking black-and-white extremist positions just to make a point. It makes you sound like an idiot.
Disclaimer: IANAL yet, but I will be in September (God and the Board of Bar Examiners willing).
I have generally tried to educate/. on legal issues. It does not prevent the sort of karma-whoring, fly-in-the-face-of-logic arguments that get made around here, which get modded up because they bash someone it's easy to hate, or because the poster thinks "the system is broken" while painting "the system" with some sort of ignorant straw-man brush which everyone is blindly willing to agree with instead of doing research for themselves. It's really discouraging. People with real power and information will never take/.ers as a whole seriously, as long as this kind of lack of depth continues.
That it is a political news event is irrelevant...
From a copyright point of view, maybe, but that's not the end of the story. Preventing others from using footage of politicians for legitimate purposes, such as criticism, crosses a line. Imagine if no one had video of George Bush standing on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln declaring "Mission Accomplished!" Sure, you could write about it in newspapers, but the impact is lost. IMHO, the public interest in having this footage available, given the fact that MSNBC is excluding all other media organizations from news gathering, outweighs the copyright exclusion interest here. I make similar arguments about C-SPAN footage from the floor of the House and Senate -- the speech is just too valuable to give any one person or organization the right to exclude others. The answer is compulsory licensing, but that's an argument for another time.
Agreed. The State's interest in preventing people from 'feeling disturbed' doesn't outweigh the chilling effects of the threat of criminal sanctions for speaking out. Heck, the State's interest isn't even compelling. If charges are filed on this basis, the statute should be held unconstitutional, not on its face, but as applied.
In New Contested Cases in Brooklyn Federal Court, Defendants Challenge Status of RIAA Cases as "Related"
Wolfpack Stands Up to the RIAA; NC State Students to Fight Back (Corrected article)
RIAA Subpoenas High School Student for Deposition; Demands He Miss Class; Gives Only 1-Day Notice; in Houston, Texas, case
RIAA Drops Case in Which it Pursued High School Student on 24-hours' notice
Judge Denies RIAA "Reconsideration" Motion in Capitol v. Foster, Calls Plaintiffs' Counsel "Disingenuous", Motives "Questionable"
Battle Rages Over Counterclaims in Atlantic v. Andersen
RIAA Goes Into Court "Ex Parte" in Denver, Colorado, Tries to Get Ruling that it Doesn't Need Court Order to Get Subscriber Info from ISP's
SONY v. Merchant Heats Up in Fresno; Defendants' Lawyer Attacks RIAA "Ex parte" procedures
Defendant Opposes RIAA Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in Corpus Christi case, Atlantic v. Boggs
Ms. Lindor Moves to Exclude RIAA Expert Testimony For Failure to Meet Reliability Standards Under Daubert
I know the record labels were hoping that people they sued would just "roll over" and settle. However, here are the two words that describe the real situation: "game on."
Physical: The Internet is a collection of computers that send each other messages, along with the equipment that carries the messages.
Social: The Internet is a virtual community where people can get together, do business, and share ideas and culture.
Functional: The Internet is a way you can use computers to send family, friends, and co-workers letters, pictures, and movies.
Technical: The Internet is a collection of computers following protocols conforming to the OSI model that enable computers to communicate with each other....
"Universal Medicine"? The U.S. government spends more per capita on public health and health care than any country in the world.
Universality has nothing to do with per-capita. $10,000 per capita (made-up number) in a country of 300 million looks like a lot, until you learn that all three trillion dollars was spent on a small subset of the people. Give me a Lorenz curve on how health care funds are spent based on income, and a Gini coefficient, then we'll start talking.
[It's not a crime to lie] to Congress, unless it's under oath... It's also not a crime to break a solemn promise, like the oath of office an elected official takes.
Well which is it? Is breaking a solemn oath a crime, or isn't it? If it isn't, then what's the point of having the oath at all?
The whole point of constitutional impeachment is that a government official broke their solemn oath, but Congress can't pass a law to make it a crime because Congress doesn't have the authority. Separation of powers and all that noise. And last I checked, Cheney took an oath to obey the Constitution and the treaties.
My high school had a system of grades from 0 to 4, with.6 added to each 'honors' course. The valedictorian ended up with about a 4.4 I think, which is really fscking hard to do if you think about it. You basically have to sign up for all honors courses and then ace them.
We need a reform whereby when litigants have dramatically unequal net worth, the plaintiff is required to reimburse defendant's lawyers up to the amount that they themselves spend on legal services.
This won't work, and here's why:
Most cases, say 98% or so, never make it to trial. Why? If the lawyers figure out that one side or the other had a clear advantage, they will settle, because it's in their clients' respective best interests. So going to trial is (usually, roughly) a coin flip. Which is how it should be: you go to trial because both sides have good arguments and you need a neutral third party to analyze (judge) the relative merits of both sides and render a decision. (And don't forget, the overwhelmingly vast majority of the RIAA cases settle. Why? Because the defendants really did violate the copyright law, and they know it.)
Now on top of that you want to impose a system-wide penalty, where if you lose the coin flip you're out twice as much? That's going to act as a disincentive for people with legitimate problems to seek help in the courts. People will only sue if they think they have such an overwhelming advantage that they must win (and the case will likely settle anyway). This keeps close cases out of courts, which is exactly contrary to a primary purpose of the court system (namely, to decide close cases).
The plaintiff can then argue for whatever damages they can convince jury the defendant can pay based on their income level.
Plaintiffs do this already.
The same should hold true in criminal cases.
Criminal cases are about more than the harm the defendant allegedly did against the victim, they're about the harm to everyone else. If you are robbed, that sucks for you, but it also sucks for your neighbors who are now scared about being robbed, property prices fall, more cops are needed to patrol your area, etc. etc. Which is why criminal cases are brought by the State, not the victim. The public policies behind crime have little to do with the defendant's ability to pay.
When prosecutor feels the crime is grave enough to justify calling dozens of expensive expert witnesses, surely the suspect should be given a chance to prove themselves innocent.
Go down to your local District Attorney's office some day. Really, call up and schedule an appointment. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know that a random member of the public is taking personal interest in what they do. Ask them how many cases they've called dozens of expensive expert witnesses on. Heck, ask them how many cases they've called more than three witnesses on, where two were at the scene and one was the cop who wrote up the report. They just don't have the money.
Seriously, more people should do this. Courts are open to the public, but the public doesn't show up. Then people say the system is all wrong and needs to change.
Justice shouldn't depend on your bank account, especially since we all know how many rich guys are crooks.
Leaving aside the argumentum ad lazarum implication, I ask you this question: would you rather have a justice system where everyone can afford quick-and-dirty justice, where complex issues are resolved by each side getting 5 or 10 minutes to talk, where judges take a few minutes and rule from the bench? Or do you want a system where people take the time and energy and money to do things fairly, where both sides have the chance to address all of the issues, where everyone has a chance to be heard?
Being fair and impartial is HARD. For the most minuscule example, read the Federal Rules of Evidence. An example: hearsay. In order to avoid the problem of "he said-she said", the rules are that witnesses can't generally talk about what someone el
Assuming that picture isn't shopped, the Mayor of Boston was implicated. If he doesn't know about it, then the ISP is using his name and official seal improperly, and should be fined. Something is fishy here...
I don't know about untested and/or unacknowledged scientific theories. I do know about the law, and under the law, software IS patentable.
Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Page 24 of the PDF. I quote:
Without question, software code alone qualifies as an invention eligible for patenting under these categories, at least as processes. See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994); AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2106.IV.B.1.a. (8th ed., rev. 2 2001).
The section of the MPEP cited has been moved in the latest edition to 2106.01, which is where the link points.
The Supreme Court hasn't directly said software alone is patentable, but they've explicitly said they're not ruling it out (until they get a case where they have to decide it to reach a conclusion). In other words, the Federal Circuit's law is correct (for now). Here's the quote from Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981):
Our earlier opinions lend support to our present conclusion that a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. In Gottschalk v. Benson we noted: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." 409 U.S., at 71. Similarly, in Parker v. Flook we stated that "a process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm." 437 U.S., at 590. It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection. See, e. g., Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948); Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780 (1877); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156 (1853).
Until and unless Congress changes their mind or the Supreme Court says otherwise, software IS patentable.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the President doesn't believe in separation of powers, he believes in his absolute authority as dictator. After all, to him the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.
Sorry, educational use isn't enough. It's something to consider, and it's given a lot of weight, but it's not determinative. Please go read the law again, carefully.
The parent post is legal advice without an IANAL disclaimer. Before you alter a contract that binds you legally, talk to a lawyer, or face the consequences. Of course, none of you will take this seriously, since you probably don't even read contracts before signing them...
The Federal Circuit had been rigidly applying the "teaching, suggestion, motivation" test, which says, clearly enough, that an invention is ONLY obvious if there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the literature to combine various known inventions. (Opinion p. 2) The Supreme Court said that even without an explicit or implied motivation, inventors are 'routinely creative' (my words) when it comes to taking known approaches and applying them to new problems. The court said, on page 17:
They also said on page 17 that an invention might be obvious if it were only 'obvious to try', even though there was no way to know if it would work ahead of time, because people are routinely forced to try out different combinations of approaches in response to market pressures or design needs. The Court considers these actions to be part of the due course of business, and not particularly non-obvious. As a result, the court said, on page 15: I finish with a quote that's been quoted elsewhere but is worth repeating:The quoted language says that my 'idea' of Windows can't be a component of a patented item. A blueprint may tell how to build something, but only the piece once built may be a component. The court doesn't decide whether the master disc itself could be a component if it were used to install Windows directly, since it wasn't actually used for that in this case, but leaves open the possibility. That's the issue with 'footnote 14'.
I have generally tried to educate /. on legal issues. It does not prevent the sort of karma-whoring, fly-in-the-face-of-logic arguments that get made around here, which get modded up because they bash someone it's easy to hate, or because the poster thinks "the system is broken" while painting "the system" with some sort of ignorant straw-man brush which everyone is blindly willing to agree with instead of doing research for themselves. It's really discouraging. People with real power and information will never take /.ers as a whole seriously, as long as this kind of lack of depth continues.
Agreed. The State's interest in preventing people from 'feeling disturbed' doesn't outweigh the chilling effects of the threat of criminal sanctions for speaking out. Heck, the State's interest isn't even compelling. If charges are filed on this basis, the statute should be held unconstitutional, not on its face, but as applied.
- In New Contested Cases in Brooklyn Federal Court, Defendants Challenge Status of RIAA Cases as "Related"
- Wolfpack Stands Up to the RIAA; NC State Students to Fight Back (Corrected article)
- RIAA Subpoenas High School Student for Deposition; Demands He Miss Class; Gives Only 1-Day Notice; in Houston, Texas, case
- RIAA Drops Case in Which it Pursued High School Student on 24-hours' notice
- Judge Denies RIAA "Reconsideration" Motion in Capitol v. Foster, Calls Plaintiffs' Counsel "Disingenuous", Motives "Questionable"
- Battle Rages Over Counterclaims in Atlantic v. Andersen
- RIAA Goes Into Court "Ex Parte" in Denver, Colorado, Tries to Get Ruling that it Doesn't Need Court Order to Get Subscriber Info from ISP's
- SONY v. Merchant Heats Up in Fresno; Defendants' Lawyer Attacks RIAA "Ex parte" procedures
- Defendant Opposes RIAA Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in Corpus Christi case, Atlantic v. Boggs
- Ms. Lindor Moves to Exclude RIAA Expert Testimony For Failure to Meet Reliability Standards Under Daubert
I know the record labels were hoping that people they sued would just "roll over" and settle. However, here are the two words that describe the real situation: "game on."Physical: The Internet is a collection of computers that send each other messages, along with the equipment that carries the messages. Social: The Internet is a virtual community where people can get together, do business, and share ideas and culture. Functional: The Internet is a way you can use computers to send family, friends, and co-workers letters, pictures, and movies. Technical: The Internet is a collection of computers following protocols conforming to the OSI model that enable computers to communicate with each other. ...
The whole point of constitutional impeachment is that a government official broke their solemn oath, but Congress can't pass a law to make it a crime because Congress doesn't have the authority. Separation of powers and all that noise. And last I checked, Cheney took an oath to obey the Constitution and the treaties.
My high school had a system of grades from 0 to 4, with .6 added to each 'honors' course. The valedictorian ended up with about a 4.4 I think, which is really fscking hard to do if you think about it. You basically have to sign up for all honors courses and then ace them.
This won't work, and here's why:
Most cases, say 98% or so, never make it to trial. Why? If the lawyers figure out that one side or the other had a clear advantage, they will settle, because it's in their clients' respective best interests. So going to trial is (usually, roughly) a coin flip. Which is how it should be: you go to trial because both sides have good arguments and you need a neutral third party to analyze (judge) the relative merits of both sides and render a decision. (And don't forget, the overwhelmingly vast majority of the RIAA cases settle. Why? Because the defendants really did violate the copyright law, and they know it.)
Now on top of that you want to impose a system-wide penalty, where if you lose the coin flip you're out twice as much? That's going to act as a disincentive for people with legitimate problems to seek help in the courts. People will only sue if they think they have such an overwhelming advantage that they must win (and the case will likely settle anyway). This keeps close cases out of courts, which is exactly contrary to a primary purpose of the court system (namely, to decide close cases).
Plaintiffs do this already.
Criminal cases are about more than the harm the defendant allegedly did against the victim, they're about the harm to everyone else. If you are robbed, that sucks for you, but it also sucks for your neighbors who are now scared about being robbed, property prices fall, more cops are needed to patrol your area, etc. etc. Which is why criminal cases are brought by the State, not the victim. The public policies behind crime have little to do with the defendant's ability to pay.
Go down to your local District Attorney's office some day. Really, call up and schedule an appointment. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to know that a random member of the public is taking personal interest in what they do. Ask them how many cases they've called dozens of expensive expert witnesses on. Heck, ask them how many cases they've called more than three witnesses on, where two were at the scene and one was the cop who wrote up the report. They just don't have the money.
Seriously, more people should do this. Courts are open to the public, but the public doesn't show up. Then people say the system is all wrong and needs to change.
Leaving aside the argumentum ad lazarum implication, I ask you this question: would you rather have a justice system where everyone can afford quick-and-dirty justice, where complex issues are resolved by each side getting 5 or 10 minutes to talk, where judges take a few minutes and rule from the bench? Or do you want a system where people take the time and energy and money to do things fairly, where both sides have the chance to address all of the issues, where everyone has a chance to be heard?
Being fair and impartial is HARD. For the most minuscule example, read the Federal Rules of Evidence. An example: hearsay. In order to avoid the problem of "he said-she said", the rules are that witnesses can't generally talk about what someone el
Assuming that picture isn't shopped, the Mayor of Boston was implicated. If he doesn't know about it, then the ISP is using his name and official seal improperly, and should be fined. Something is fishy here...
You can't ship electricity in boats.
Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Page 24 of the PDF. I quote:
The section of the MPEP cited has been moved in the latest edition to 2106.01, which is where the link points.The Supreme Court hasn't directly said software alone is patentable, but they've explicitly said they're not ruling it out (until they get a case where they have to decide it to reach a conclusion). In other words, the Federal Circuit's law is correct (for now). Here's the quote from Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981):
Until and unless Congress changes their mind or the Supreme Court says otherwise, software IS patentable.
No, some scientists have said they intend to build one. I intend to do a lot of things, it doesn't mean they get done.
What, it's not genuine? I mean, it's got two MICKEY MOUSES on the package...