Hint: lawyers who file copyright lawsuits usually don't own the copyrights they are suing on. Stop blaming the lawyers, blame the people who hire them.
You seem to have missed the parent's post. There are two kinds of legal systems in the US: state and federal. If the federal prosecutor doesn't prosecute based on federal laws, the state prosecutor can still prosecute based on violations of state law.
Justice is not about fairness. It's "did you break the law, and if so what's the stated punishment?"
You seem to have confused justice with the rule of law. Justice is all about fairness and morality. Laws provide an imperfect, mechanistic approach to obtaining justice. There are plenty of unjust laws, and have been throughout history.
These are application publications, not issued patents. In fact, the patent office hasn't even assigned an examiner to look at these applications, much less actually judged them on their merits.
I mean really, it's not even tagged "Funny". Probably because people trolling what appears to be a legitimate attempt by an oppressive government to actually be, you know, less oppressive, really isn't funny to begin with.
Same goes for the previous "story", whose title is not just grossly misleading, but plain wrong. Curiously, these two stories have the same editor. And yes, I'm willing to risk my karma to point this out.
This tax adds no value whatsoever to the economy. Like all taxes, it merely redistributes money (from the taxpayer to the public coffers), and is therefore a pure transaction cost. In theory, allocation of the tax proceeds to increase the efficiency of the overall economy (for example, by addressing externalities) can offset its cost, thereby justifying the tax. However, until we know the purpose to which the proposed tax revenues will be put, we won't know whether the overall economy will be improved, now do we?
To be less theoretical and more practical, I think this is simple a money grab by state politicians, trying to prop up their failed spending models. Only four states aren't running a deficit in 2010 (source). The current tax-and-spend model will leave us ending up like Greece, with 15% of the people working for the public sector, which accounts for 40% of the GDP (source). That leaves only 60% of the GDP coming from, you know, actually building things and creating value, as opposed to merely administering it. And look where that led them...
To the extent that current public programs (police, fire, emergency, schools, health care, etc) are over budget, the solution is not more taxes, it's less spending and more self-reliance. That doesn't mean anarchy, like some knee-jerk overreactionaries would tell you, it means bringing back common sense. Buy a fire extinguisher and know how to use it. Eat healthy foods and exercise more. Take a self-defense class. Actually raise your kids. Take responsibility for your actions. All of these things will help reduce government spending, and bring back a sense of community and self-respect that seems to be missing these days.
The application was filed in 2008, true. But look! Here's another patent with essentially the same disclosure (different claims) that was filed in 1997! Magic!!
Amazon went back and looked at their old technology, thought about it a bit, and realized that they had already all the core components of Facebook, they just hadn't realized it as such. And in the US system, even if you didn't realize it at the time, as long as you disclosed it you win.
This kind of nonsense can be stopped if you tell applicants that they have to claim everything they're going to claim in their first application (keep divisionals based on restriction requirements but otherwise curtail continuation and CIP practice, to be technical). This is not a theoretical argument, either: Europe has just recently adopted a system like this, major pieces go into effect on October 1. See this PDF for more information. Executive summary of the European system: your invention is locked down two years after the first time the patent office sends you a letter. You don't get to go back 10 years later claiming you invented Google or something.
Since the practice relies on fair use (creating a single digital copy, usually from a resource already paid for, for educational purposes)
Please stop acting as if there's a hard and fast rule for what is and what is not fair use. There isn't, and pretending otherwise is deliberate ignorance. Fair use is determined by putting all the facts in a pot and stirring them around, and the facts are different every single time. Here's the actual law: link, which says you can't know whether the use is fair until you stir at least four mandatory ingredients into the stew.
Creating a single copy of a work is not fair use by itself. Making a back-up is not a fair use by itself. Educational use is not fair use by itself (why do you think schools still buy textbooks?). Even the combination of these doesn't take into account potential market impact.
For the love of all that's holy, please please please put this misconception to bed.
One indication of possibly hasty reporting is the note that Google "employs more than 10,000 workers internationally," whereas it's easy enough to find official word that the total exceeds 20,000.
With what evidence do you support your "probably more likely" argument? As far as I know, we're on the only inhabited rock in the universe -- I fail to see the source of your probability estimate.
Disclaimer: I'm a patent attorney. I'm not your patent attorney, and this is not legal advice, yadda yadda.
To get the protection of the DPL, a new member has to give up all of their own patents for free use by the group, right? So who stands to gain the most from joining? Businesses with no patents at all, or those with the most worthless patents (in case you need at least one patent as a membership requirement).
Say I want to be protected from being sued and I have a single, worthless patent (this one for swinging on a swing comes to mind). Let's go through the list of requirements in TFA:
1. Members of the DPL would make a business decision that they are obtaining patents strictly for defensive purposes and not because they want to sell licenses or go on the offensive with lawsuits.
I'm not looking to sue anyone for having fun, but I do want access to lots of free and actually useful ideas, and to be protected from a lawsuit for ripping off those ideas.
2. Members of the DPL contribute all of their patents in their patent portfolio - they don't pick and choose (and this is what differentiates it from other defensive patent pools).
Awesome, the DPL can have my useless patent. Have fun enforcing it!
3. Members of the DPL allow all other members to use its patents without royalty and without fear of patent infringement lawsuits from other members as long as a member does not file offensive lawsuits or remove their patents from the DPL.
I always wanted to get some of $BIG_PLAYER's market share, but to do that I needed access to their patented technology. Now they are contractually obligated to let me use it, royalty-free, and they can't sue me for starting a competing business. Sweet!
4. Members may choose to leave the DPL but cannot revoke the royalty-free license from members who used it during the time the company was a member.
Damn, I can't start charging people for swinging on swings. Well, at least those DPL guys at any rate. I'll be crying all the way to the bank.
5. Members that join after a company leaves would not have royalty-free access to a former member's patent portfolio.
I better hurry and join up before the big players figure out what's going on!
6. The royalty-free cross licensing applies only to members of the DPL. Members are free to pursue royalties or lawsuits with companies outside the DPL.
I don't want to sue anyone based on my patent. If you want to sue me, I'm now protected. DPL guys (and especially my competitors): U Can't Touch This.
The DPL will be a race to the bottom, with the companies that contribute the most worthless patents "winning", and the big boys laughing because the DPL is soaking up all the patents that don't matter. The obvious problem is that there's no gatekeeper of value. The big players will avoid this like the plague, since it provides them very little upside.
The only way any big players will go near this is if everyone puts some real skin in the game. For example, the DPL could add a mechanism for denying an applicant based on the market value of its patent portfolio, or require a minimum applicant market cap, or a large application fee that gets spread around, etc. In that case, prepare for the inevitable "old boy's club" mentality to set in, and the epic nerdrage (and Slashdot outcry) when a small applicant is denied because their ideas aren't "valuable" enough or they are too small and can't afford the application fee.
In the meantime, it stratifies the patent owners into the haves, the have-nots (i.e. the DPL), and the undecideds. If you were undecided on joining the DPL, would you want the stigma of being associated with, say, me and my patent for swinging on a swing? Or would you rather risk the status quo?
Keep trying guys. It's a good thought, but it needs a lot more work.
If you might have broken a law, even if it's a stupid law, you can't hide behind freedom of speech to keep from being sued. Maybe the First Amendment or fair use will be a valid defense, but you will only know that if they get the chance to sue you in the first place.
According to the DA, children who do not learn how to use condoms are sexually assaulted less often and in lesser degree. I mean, that's obvious, right?
The Supreme Court fairly well nixed "Internet patents" with its (unanimous) decision in KSR. Specifically:
The subject matter of the patent before the Court [in one case] was a device combining two pre-existing elements: a radiant-heat burner and a paving machine. The device, the Court concluded, did not create some new synergy: The radiant-heat burner functioned just as a burner was expected to
function; and the paving machine did the same. The two in combination did no more than they would in separate, sequential operation. In those circumstances, "while the combination of old elements performed a useful function, it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented," and the patent failed...
Finally, in [a later case], the Court derived from the precedents the conclusion that when a patent "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform" and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.
If the combination of some technology with the Internet yields more than the sum of the parts, or if new tech solves a known, fundamental problem with the Internet, then perhaps you have non-obvious subject matter. But that's not true in the vast majority of software and/or Internet patent applications these days.
Slashdot Mirror
Hint: lawyers who file copyright lawsuits usually don't own the copyrights they are suing on. Stop blaming the lawyers, blame the people who hire them.
Controversy leads to page hits. Page hits lead to advertisers. Advertisers lead to income. Income leads to StarCraft II.
Fixed that for ya. You must be new around here.
You seem to have missed the parent's post. There are two kinds of legal systems in the US: state and federal. If the federal prosecutor doesn't prosecute based on federal laws, the state prosecutor can still prosecute based on violations of state law.
Justice is not about fairness. It's "did you break the law, and if so what's the stated punishment?"
You seem to have confused justice with the rule of law. Justice is all about fairness and morality. Laws provide an imperfect, mechanistic approach to obtaining justice. There are plenty of unjust laws, and have been throughout history.
These are application publications, not issued patents. In fact, the patent office hasn't even assigned an examiner to look at these applications, much less actually judged them on their merits.
I mean really, it's not even tagged "Funny". Probably because people trolling what appears to be a legitimate attempt by an oppressive government to actually be, you know, less oppressive, really isn't funny to begin with.
Same goes for the previous "story", whose title is not just grossly misleading, but plain wrong. Curiously, these two stories have the same editor. And yes, I'm willing to risk my karma to point this out.
This tax adds no value whatsoever to the economy. Like all taxes, it merely redistributes money (from the taxpayer to the public coffers), and is therefore a pure transaction cost. In theory, allocation of the tax proceeds to increase the efficiency of the overall economy (for example, by addressing externalities) can offset its cost, thereby justifying the tax. However, until we know the purpose to which the proposed tax revenues will be put, we won't know whether the overall economy will be improved, now do we?
To be less theoretical and more practical, I think this is simple a money grab by state politicians, trying to prop up their failed spending models. Only four states aren't running a deficit in 2010 (source). The current tax-and-spend model will leave us ending up like Greece, with 15% of the people working for the public sector, which accounts for 40% of the GDP (source). That leaves only 60% of the GDP coming from, you know, actually building things and creating value, as opposed to merely administering it. And look where that led them...
To the extent that current public programs (police, fire, emergency, schools, health care, etc) are over budget, the solution is not more taxes, it's less spending and more self-reliance. That doesn't mean anarchy, like some knee-jerk overreactionaries would tell you, it means bringing back common sense. Buy a fire extinguisher and know how to use it. Eat healthy foods and exercise more. Take a self-defense class. Actually raise your kids. Take responsibility for your actions. All of these things will help reduce government spending, and bring back a sense of community and self-respect that seems to be missing these days.
The application was filed in 2008, true. But look! Here's another patent with essentially the same disclosure (different claims) that was filed in 1997! Magic!!
Amazon went back and looked at their old technology, thought about it a bit, and realized that they had already all the core components of Facebook, they just hadn't realized it as such. And in the US system, even if you didn't realize it at the time, as long as you disclosed it you win.
This kind of nonsense can be stopped if you tell applicants that they have to claim everything they're going to claim in their first application (keep divisionals based on restriction requirements but otherwise curtail continuation and CIP practice, to be technical). This is not a theoretical argument, either: Europe has just recently adopted a system like this, major pieces go into effect on October 1. See this PDF for more information. Executive summary of the European system: your invention is locked down two years after the first time the patent office sends you a letter. You don't get to go back 10 years later claiming you invented Google or something.
Since the practice relies on fair use (creating a single digital copy, usually from a resource already paid for, for educational purposes)
Please stop acting as if there's a hard and fast rule for what is and what is not fair use. There isn't, and pretending otherwise is deliberate ignorance. Fair use is determined by putting all the facts in a pot and stirring them around, and the facts are different every single time. Here's the actual law: link, which says you can't know whether the use is fair until you stir at least four mandatory ingredients into the stew.
Creating a single copy of a work is not fair use by itself. Making a back-up is not a fair use by itself. Educational use is not fair use by itself (why do you think schools still buy textbooks?). Even the combination of these doesn't take into account potential market impact.
For the love of all that's holy, please please please put this misconception to bed.
I believe this is what you are looking for.
One indication of possibly hasty reporting is the note that Google "employs more than 10,000 workers internationally," whereas it's easy enough to find official word that the total exceeds 20,000.
Why yes, 20,000 is more than 10,000.
With what evidence do you support your "probably more likely" argument? As far as I know, we're on the only inhabited rock in the universe -- I fail to see the source of your probability estimate.
Disclaimer: I'm a patent attorney. I'm not your patent attorney, and this is not legal advice, yadda yadda.
To get the protection of the DPL, a new member has to give up all of their own patents for free use by the group, right? So who stands to gain the most from joining? Businesses with no patents at all, or those with the most worthless patents (in case you need at least one patent as a membership requirement).
Say I want to be protected from being sued and I have a single, worthless patent (this one for swinging on a swing comes to mind). Let's go through the list of requirements in TFA:
1. Members of the DPL would make a business decision that they are obtaining patents strictly for defensive purposes and not because they want to sell licenses or go on the offensive with lawsuits.
I'm not looking to sue anyone for having fun, but I do want access to lots of free and actually useful ideas, and to be protected from a lawsuit for ripping off those ideas.
2. Members of the DPL contribute all of their patents in their patent portfolio - they don't pick and choose (and this is what differentiates it from other defensive patent pools).
Awesome, the DPL can have my useless patent. Have fun enforcing it!
3. Members of the DPL allow all other members to use its patents without royalty and without fear of patent infringement lawsuits from other members as long as a member does not file offensive lawsuits or remove their patents from the DPL.
I always wanted to get some of $BIG_PLAYER's market share, but to do that I needed access to their patented technology. Now they are contractually obligated to let me use it, royalty-free, and they can't sue me for starting a competing business. Sweet!
4. Members may choose to leave the DPL but cannot revoke the royalty-free license from members who used it during the time the company was a member.
Damn, I can't start charging people for swinging on swings. Well, at least those DPL guys at any rate. I'll be crying all the way to the bank.
5. Members that join after a company leaves would not have royalty-free access to a former member's patent portfolio.
I better hurry and join up before the big players figure out what's going on!
6. The royalty-free cross licensing applies only to members of the DPL. Members are free to pursue royalties or lawsuits with companies outside the DPL.
I don't want to sue anyone based on my patent. If you want to sue me, I'm now protected. DPL guys (and especially my competitors): U Can't Touch This.
The DPL will be a race to the bottom, with the companies that contribute the most worthless patents "winning", and the big boys laughing because the DPL is soaking up all the patents that don't matter. The obvious problem is that there's no gatekeeper of value. The big players will avoid this like the plague, since it provides them very little upside.
The only way any big players will go near this is if everyone puts some real skin in the game. For example, the DPL could add a mechanism for denying an applicant based on the market value of its patent portfolio, or require a minimum applicant market cap, or a large application fee that gets spread around, etc. In that case, prepare for the inevitable "old boy's club" mentality to set in, and the epic nerdrage (and Slashdot outcry) when a small applicant is denied because their ideas aren't "valuable" enough or they are too small and can't afford the application fee.
In the meantime, it stratifies the patent owners into the haves, the have-nots (i.e. the DPL), and the undecideds. If you were undecided on joining the DPL, would you want the stigma of being associated with, say, me and my patent for swinging on a swing? Or would you rather risk the status quo?
Keep trying guys. It's a good thought, but it needs a lot more work.
If you might have broken a law, even if it's a stupid law, you can't hide behind freedom of speech to keep from being sued. Maybe the First Amendment or fair use will be a valid defense, but you will only know that if they get the chance to sue you in the first place.
Please provide a citation to the appropriate law, thanks.
According to the DA, children who do not learn how to use condoms are sexually assaulted less often and in lesser degree. I mean, that's obvious, right?
Perl has bytecode. Yes, it's experimental, but I've played with it and it works.
Move out of New York City.
Seems to me that most laws regulating human behavior haven't been properly tested for failure modes.
http://web.archive.org/web/19991128041233/http://muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/software/tiny/teensy.html
November 1999. Slow news day much?
If you ponder this question for long enough, the answer will come to you.
Apple "condemned" and "threatened". Big deal. Wake me up when they actually fire someone.
Only if you never move... lazy bones.
http://www.gratisoft.us/sudo/man/sudoers.html
If the combination of some technology with the Internet yields more than the sum of the parts, or if new tech solves a known, fundamental problem with the Internet, then perhaps you have non-obvious subject matter. But that's not true in the vast majority of software and/or Internet patent applications these days.