Do you have any authority for this? According to the relevant clause in 28 U.S.C. 1498
(a)...the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys...
Naturally, anyone trying to claim a "crown prerogative" in the United States will be dumped into Boston Harbor like so many crates of dried Camellia sinensis leaves.
...unless the government abrogates their right to sovereign immunity by statute:
28 U.S.C.A. 1498
(a) Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States. Nothwithstanding [FN1] the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust.
If you're getting involved in any patent litigation, chances are that you already have a lot of money (or are making a huge mistake). It's not called the "Sport of Kings" for nothing, you know.
Parent means to write "eminent domain," which is the legal theory under which the government can condemn property and forcibly purchase it "for the common good."
So far, there is no such thing as eminent domain for intellectual property. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not break patents in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank (527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct. 2199)
I suspect that one of Tiger Direct's best arguments is to claim that Apple is diluting its mark. The biggest problem here will be to prove that "Tiger" is a famous mark. I think they might have a tough time with that, because while "Tiger Direct" may be famous, I'm not convinced that "Tiger" is famous as referring to that particular business.
Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C 1125(c)
(c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks.
(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such
use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used;
(C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;
(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;
(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used;
(F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;
(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and
(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
Yes. Of course you're right, and that's what the article said. However, the parent to my post seemed to be asking about the economic uses of this for the generation of useful energy. My reply was limited to that consideration.
Well if you RTFA you'll notice that the experiment cost more energy than it produced. As you "scale up", you produce a larger and larger net loss of useful energy.
So no, it's of absolutely no use in this economic driven world unless you happen to value pure science and the technologies that *might* come from this sort of research.
And if it's strictly "legal" for any random person to spoof a from address, it's just as legal for the purposes of research, whose findings may provide some level of insight on *protecting* people from malicious phishing.
I agree with you that the experiment was probably not illegal, but the logic you used doesn't stand up. It is strictly "legal" for me to use a pseudonym with my friends, family, even strangers. If, however, I use a pseudonym to the purpose of committing a fraud, my action is illegal.
The real legal question here is whether the total content of the email was tortuous or criminally fraudulent; the spoofed from address is merely an element to be considered.
Don't take it too personally. The idiomatic phrase is: "to press charges". In english, one can press charges against another, but one cannot be pressed with charges.
Compare it to:
39 percent said they found semaphore-relayed messages less credible than those transmitted by telegraph, while 32 percent said they either did not know or had no opinion
*sigh* When you group the NY Times and the Washington Post with Weekly World News and the National Enquirer, you might get skewed results.
You're a bit confused, but there's no shame in that.
They're not witnessing the "interference between two events," they've set up a situation in which there are two possible events that occurred.
Because nobody can observe which of the events occurs, the wavefunction doesn't collapse so in a wierd quantum-y sense, both events actually occurred, i.e. the electron passed through the gas during the first pulse and also during the second pulse.
What they're seeing in their detectors is the result of those two possible electrons interfering with each other (the one electron interfering with itself).
Unfortunately, you will not really "understand" this in any sort of a concrete way until you take a quantum class and do the math.
But the lay-person explanations are fun to think about:)
Please do a modicum of research before makings posts such as the parent.
The suit to which zerkon refers was initially dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs appealed to the 2nd Circuit, and that court has reversed a portion of the summary judgment. The plaintiffs haven't won at all, unless you count it as a victory that their case will get to trial.
Cox may have had a good point on Linus' methods for security patches, but fortunately the community has spawned sites such as this http://www.securityfocus.com/ to publicly announce when people find security flaws from poking through the patch code.
Even if Linus tries to keep these things secret, they'll get out quite quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
If I were CmndrTaco...
It's not the stupid lawyers you should be worried about...
Do you have any authority for this? According to the relevant clause in 28 U.S.C. 1498
...the owner's remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys...
(a)
Naturally, anyone trying to claim a "crown prerogative" in the United States will be dumped into Boston Harbor like so many crates of dried Camellia sinensis leaves.
Well that depends upon whose patient it is, and where they're "holding" her. More than a few doctors have gotten in legal trouble for exactly this.
If you're getting involved in any patent litigation, chances are that you already have a lot of money (or are making a huge mistake). It's not called the "Sport of Kings" for nothing, you know.
_ kline042804.asp?p=1
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/04/wo
*That's not to say that the policy *could not* change...
Parent means to write "eminent domain," which is the legal theory under which the government can condemn property and forcibly purchase it "for the common good."
n ame=ViewWeb&articleId=9237
So far, there is no such thing as eminent domain for intellectual property. In fact, the Supreme Court ruled that a state may not break patents in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank (527 U.S. 627, 119 S.Ct. 2199)
That's not to say that that policy could change, however. This article explains: http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&
I suspect that one of Tiger Direct's best arguments is to claim that Apple is diluting its mark. The biggest problem here will be to prove that "Tiger" is a famous mark. I think they might have a tough time with that, because while "Tiger Direct" may be famous, I'm not convinced that "Tiger" is famous as referring to that particular business.
Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C 1125(c)
(c) Remedies for dilution of famous marks.
(1) The owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark, and to obtain such other relief as is provided in this subsection. In determining whether a mark is distinctive and famous, a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(A) the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark;
(B) the duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods or services with which the mark is used;
(C) the duration and extent of advertising and publicity of the mark;
(D) the geographical extent of the trading area in which the mark is used;
(E) the channels of trade for the goods or services with which the mark is used;
(F) the degree of recognition of the mark in the trading areas and channels of trade used by the marks' owner and the person against whom the injunction is sought;
(G) the nature and extent of use of the same or similar marks by third parties; and
(H) whether the mark was registered under the Act of March 3, 1881, or the Act of February 20, 1905, or on the principal register.
Yes. Of course you're right, and that's what the article said. However, the parent to my post seemed to be asking about the economic uses of this for the generation of useful energy. My reply was limited to that consideration.
CNN: News for non-nerds. News without big words.
o p.fusion.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/27/tablet
Well if you RTFA you'll notice that the experiment cost more energy than it produced. As you "scale up", you produce a larger and larger net loss of useful energy.
So no, it's of absolutely no use in this economic driven world unless you happen to value pure science and the technologies that *might* come from this sort of research.
electric characteristics of chrystals
:-D
Did you mean to type "chrysales"? I'd bet that an electric chrysalis would yield a badass butterfly.
That's easy:
http://www.warhol.org/
And if it's strictly "legal" for any random person to spoof a from address, it's just as legal for the purposes of research, whose findings may provide some level of insight on *protecting* people from malicious phishing.
I agree with you that the experiment was probably not illegal, but the logic you used doesn't stand up. It is strictly "legal" for me to use a pseudonym with my friends, family, even strangers. If, however, I use a pseudonym to the purpose of committing a fraud, my action is illegal.
The real legal question here is whether the total content of the email was tortuous or criminally fraudulent; the spoofed from address is merely an element to be considered.
Don't take it too personally. The idiomatic phrase is: "to press charges". In english, one can press charges against another, but one cannot be pressed with charges.
Compare it to: 39 percent said they found semaphore-relayed messages less credible than those transmitted by telegraph, while 32 percent said they either did not know or had no opinion *sigh* When you group the NY Times and the Washington Post with Weekly World News and the National Enquirer, you might get skewed results.
Oh, cassettes. Thank god; i was imagining a phone big enough to read my EP's
You're a bit confused, but there's no shame in that.
:)
They're not witnessing the "interference between two events," they've set up a situation in which there are two possible events that occurred.
Because nobody can observe which of the events occurs, the wavefunction doesn't collapse so in a wierd quantum-y sense, both events actually occurred, i.e. the electron passed through the gas during the first pulse and also during the second pulse.
What they're seeing in their detectors is the result of those two possible electrons interfering with each other (the one electron interfering with itself).
Unfortunately, you will not really "understand" this in any sort of a concrete way until you take a quantum class and do the math.
But the lay-person explanations are fun to think about
Yes, thank the good lord for lobbies. Without these noble institutions who would look out for the common good?
Please do a modicum of research before makings posts such as the parent.
The suit to which zerkon refers was initially dismissed by the district court for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The plaintiffs appealed to the 2nd Circuit, and that court has reversed a portion of the summary judgment. The plaintiffs haven't won at all, unless you count it as a victory that their case will get to trial.
But don't take my (or zerkon's) word for it: http://www.newstarget.com/003994.html
And in the future, this is a pretty useful site http://news.google.com/
Cox may have had a good point on Linus' methods for security patches, but fortunately the community has spawned sites such as this http://www.securityfocus.com/ to publicly announce when people find security flaws from poking through the patch code.
Even if Linus tries to keep these things secret, they'll get out quite quickly.