There is a nice thread at FatWallet compiling lots of deals. While the main post hasn't been updated in a while, there are some recent posts with good deals.
The First Amendment, along with most of the rest of the Bil of Rights, are applicable to state and local governments, and indeed, any "state actor" through legislation such as 42 USC s1983. This includes state-sponsored universities. Please feel free to look up the Incorporation Doctrine.
The fact that you have presented yourself as a former patent attorney (in an appeal to authority, hoping it will give your arguments more force) is particularly damning since absolutely nothing in your argument follows from that by necessity -- except, of course, your unsupported and meaningless claim to 'personally know of dozens of "little guys" for whom the patent system has provided massive benefits.'
You mean except the claim that is both directly relevant to and directly answers the question you accuse me of ducking, namely, "Name at least one genuine inventor who put in the hard work, personally received at least 10% of license revenues and did not take advantage of other people's work by patenting vaporware and waiting for someone else to build an actual product?"
That claim, that I know of at least 1 such person? The one that follows by necessity, that I know these people because I was their Patent Attorney and helped them personally receive at least 10% of license revenues and know that they did not take advantage of other people's work by patenting vaporware and waiting for someone else to build an actual product?
If you don't believe me, that's fine. Just admit that you're trolling me simply because you have an ulterior motive, such as you despise attorneys and/or hate the patent system, and not because I declined to list the names and addresses of people satisfying the initial question.
Sorry to be blunt, but realistically as a patent attorney I imagine you're interested in cramming as many patents through the system as you can find clients to charge for them. I would definitely argue that the convenience of patent attorneys and everybody who's got an idea they just really think is great is not something the public should be overly concerned about. There are bigger issues at stake.
Well, you would be wrong about what I was interested in when I drafted and prosecuted patents, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. I turned away many people who wanted to file patent applications on ridiculously obvious inventions and inventions that were clearly anticipated by other patents. You're basically calling me a charlatan, a rip-off artist who will take anybody's money regardless of the benefit to my customer. I know lawyers are scum and all, but I never wanted to take money from somebody unless I genuinely believed they were getting good value for it.
Back to the point of the article, why these Proposed Rules are a bad thing, from a Patent Attorney perspective and the perspective of anybody who deals with the USPTO, boils down to this: they will not solve the problem they are meant to address, which is relieving the backlog of applications.
In a nutshell, they will basically take some pressure off of the Examining Corps at the USPTO and shift a greater burden onto the Appeals division. It will cost patent applicants more money, take more time, create more uncertainty, and not improve patent quality one bit (which is a goal I support).
If it is Microsoft we are talking about, I bet they could drag the case out for years without paying a dime while you're burning away my life savings paying a lawyer. You might win, but then they'll keep appealing and try to get you to settle. The point of this issue is that when you have that much money to kill you can get your way no matter what.
But that isn't limited to Patent law. It's true for all areas of the law, but I can tell you from experience that it isn't as pronounced a problem in Patent law as it is in general civil litigation.
The Proposed Rules (which are the point of the article, after all) have absolutely nothing to do with your (valid) concern.
1. The identity of my clients is protected by attorney/client privilege; and
2. I don't practice patent law in my current position, so I don't have a vested interest in it to make a living.
Any other completely asinine comments you wish to make that have no real relation whatsoever to my original post other than to serve as a pathetic attempt to discredit the messenger?
If you're genuinely curious about this, feel free to shoot me an email. The explanation is beyond the scope of a/. post, at least it is for me right now.
Can you afford not to patent your dozen inventions and watch as you release your product(s) and Microsoft simply incorporates them into their latest product(s) without paying you dime 1? The vast majority of companies will not even look at a product for potential licensing unless patent protection is at least an option. Before you even start negotiating with a company, they are going to want to see that you have either filed one or more patent applications or done a prior art search (bad idea, by the way).
What's your alternative? Should I work for free? Abolish the patent system? What are your ideas for reform? Have you ever filed a patent application?
Legal costs are simply part of doing business in a civilized society that uses courts of law to protect rights and enforce standards of conduct. You seem like a smart guy, draft your own patent applications if you can't afford my expertise.
I personally know of dozens of "little guys" for whom the patent system has provided massive benefits. I know because I drafted their patents and helped them with the sale/licensing. Ask most any patent attorney and they will have the same report.
Please stop believing all the/. FUD regarding patents and IP in general.
On another note, from the perspective of a patent attorney, these Proposed Rules are a nightmare. This Preliminary Injunction was a great thing, and anybody who has any thought of ever filing a patent application should be glad they've been stopped.
The judge sanctioned him $1000, payable to Smith. A pittance, I know, but this type of sanction is very rare to begin with. Also, no lawyer worth a damn wants to be officially sanctioned. Of course, this guy may not care.
It is also available on PACER, which may be more complete, but there is a per-page access fee involved.
Go to the bottom for the Order Granting Summary Judgment.
Herlong is an excellent judge, I'm had a few cases in front of him. Good for the blogger. I hate other attorneys who treat opposing parties like this. It gives us all an even worse name.
I have a MBP, so having the dock on the side makes for efficient use of the wide screen. Put it where you have the most room, especially if most of your documents are vertically oriented.
See Duke v. North Texas State Univ., 469 F.2d 829, 837 (5th Cir. 1972) ("[the] Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizen against all the creatures of the state -- universities not excepted"), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 932 (1973). The constitutional safeguards discussed in this article do not apply to private colleges and universities, since such institutions are not state actors for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 840-41 (1982) (finding no state action where private school was almost entirely supported by state funds).
You are confusing the notion of a "state actor" for Due Process purposes with a notion that private citizens forfeit their Constitutional rights because they get money from the government.
From the Supreme Court: "A state university without question is a state actor. When it decides to impose a serious disciplinary sanction upon one of its tenured employees, it must comply with the terms of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988).
"State action" defined, albeit in layman's terms.
Saying a state university is so intertwined with the "government" that they must comply with the Constitution is a far cry from saying that Nellie down at the DMV has to cook you a hot meal in her home every night.
Thanks for your thoughtful response as well. I always enjoy reading your posts.
The first amendment applies manifestly to the federal government, even if it can be extended to states.
The Constitutional issue of whether the 1st Amendment applies to the states, and state universities in particular, is absolutely black-and-white under current jurisprudence. It does.
But this isn't really a first amendment issue; under this person's press credentials and terms, he is allowed to relate the events of the game, just not live, from the event, because live or near-live coverage is covered by other licensing and costs. Other journalistic entities do essentially live textual coverage of games, and they have a license to do so.
If he is a valid member of the press, whose primary purpose is reporting on (rather than retransmitting) the event, then it becomes a First Amendment issue. You cannot license the terms by which the press utilizes their First Amendment prerogative. The issue becomes whether, by "live blogging" the event, he was engaged in an impermissible rebroadcast rather than, for lack of a better word, "journalism." As with most legal issues, it is open to interpretation, which was my overriding point: the blogger may well have a case.
The NCAA isn't even a quasi-governmental agency. It's a private association.
While the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was not a state actor in NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988), that holding is limited to the facts of that case, which are manifestly different than here. I submit that it is an open question. You may indeed be right, but I tend to fall on the other side of the argument.
The NCAA's right to control and license the live/near-live and recorded contents of its events has been tested and confirmed in the courts.
I have no doubt that it has, although I would be interested in the line of cases. This is not a retransmission, however, which carries particular legal significance. I submit it is an open question whether or not his "journalistic transformation" of the events creates a First Amendment issue.
Would your analysis be different if he had purchased a ticket and sat down to watch the game with the public, laptop in hand?
All state universities are state actors, which is the first step in any Constitutional analysis. The University of Louisville is a public, state-supported university, and therefore is a state actor.
1. Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a state university, using state property, and using state resources to enforce their policies (police, courts). The Constitutional dimension to this case is not as black-and-white as you seem to believe; however, I tend to agree with the bulk of your analysis. The key is whether state action is present. Lacking that, there is no need to continue the legal analysis.
2. The fact that he was blogging or doing it via "text" is incidental. Replace blogging with a camera or a microphone, and then try to make a free speech argument out of it.
Take it further. Replace blogging with "talking to your friend on a cellphone about the game as it's going on." Under the NCAA interpretation, this would be violating their policies. I would like to see them try to enforce that. The answer is, short of requiring everybody to turn in their cellphones at the gate, they can't.
Simply accepting a license to attend a sporting event does not strip you of all rights. As an example, there is a line of 4th Amendment cases regarding the propriety of, and limits to, searching sporting event attendees.
So if you watched CNN you did not see the accident live but a recording. Granted the difference is only a few minutes but Live is Live and not a recording.
So the original story is right and you fail for being unable to read.
Wrong. "[C]NN was indeed carrying the launch when the shuttle was destroyed, all major broadcast stations had cut away...."
You obviously do not know the difference between "broadcast" and "cable."
So my original post is right and you fail for being not only a moron, but also an asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a nice thread at FatWallet compiling lots of deals. While the main post hasn't been updated in a while, there are some recent posts with good deals.
The First Amendment, along with most of the rest of the Bil of Rights, are applicable to state and local governments, and indeed, any "state actor" through legislation such as 42 USC s1983. This includes state-sponsored universities. Please feel free to look up the Incorporation Doctrine.
www.newsgroups-download.com offers a $2.95/month plan: 500MB/day, 8 connections.
You mean except the claim that is both directly relevant to and directly answers the question you accuse me of ducking, namely, "Name at least one genuine inventor who put in the hard work, personally received at least 10% of license revenues and did not take advantage of other people's work by patenting vaporware and waiting for someone else to build an actual product?"
That claim, that I know of at least 1 such person? The one that follows by necessity, that I know these people because I was their Patent Attorney and helped them personally receive at least 10% of license revenues and know that they did not take advantage of other people's work by patenting vaporware and waiting for someone else to build an actual product?
If you don't believe me, that's fine. Just admit that you're trolling me simply because you have an ulterior motive, such as you despise attorneys and/or hate the patent system, and not because I declined to list the names and addresses of people satisfying the initial question.
Well, you would be wrong about what I was interested in when I drafted and prosecuted patents, but I don't expect you to take my word for it. I turned away many people who wanted to file patent applications on ridiculously obvious inventions and inventions that were clearly anticipated by other patents. You're basically calling me a charlatan, a rip-off artist who will take anybody's money regardless of the benefit to my customer. I know lawyers are scum and all, but I never wanted to take money from somebody unless I genuinely believed they were getting good value for it.
Back to the point of the article, why these Proposed Rules are a bad thing, from a Patent Attorney perspective and the perspective of anybody who deals with the USPTO, boils down to this: they will not solve the problem they are meant to address, which is relieving the backlog of applications.
In a nutshell, they will basically take some pressure off of the Examining Corps at the USPTO and shift a greater burden onto the Appeals division. It will cost patent applicants more money, take more time, create more uncertainty, and not improve patent quality one bit (which is a goal I support).
But that isn't limited to Patent law. It's true for all areas of the law, but I can tell you from experience that it isn't as pronounced a problem in Patent law as it is in general civil litigation.
The Proposed Rules (which are the point of the article, after all) have absolutely nothing to do with your (valid) concern.
1. The identity of my clients is protected by attorney/client privilege; and
2. I don't practice patent law in my current position, so I don't have a vested interest in it to make a living.
Any other completely asinine comments you wish to make that have no real relation whatsoever to my original post other than to serve as a pathetic attempt to discredit the messenger?
If you're genuinely curious about this, feel free to shoot me an email. The explanation is beyond the scope of a /. post, at least it is for me right now.
What's your alternative? Should I work for free? Abolish the patent system? What are your ideas for reform? Have you ever filed a patent application?
Legal costs are simply part of doing business in a civilized society that uses courts of law to protect rights and enforce standards of conduct. You seem like a smart guy, draft your own patent applications if you can't afford my expertise.
Please stop believing all the /. FUD regarding patents and IP in general.
On another note, from the perspective of a patent attorney, these Proposed Rules are a nightmare. This Preliminary Injunction was a great thing, and anybody who has any thought of ever filing a patent application should be glad they've been stopped.
The judge sanctioned him $1000, payable to Smith. A pittance, I know, but this type of sanction is very rare to begin with. Also, no lawyer worth a damn wants to be officially sanctioned. Of course, this guy may not care.
I'VE had a few cases in front of him.... Arrrrrggghhh. Even with preview, I manage to screw up.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-6:2006cv00109/case_id-138245/
It is also available on PACER, which may be more complete, but there is a per-page access fee involved.
Go to the bottom for the Order Granting Summary Judgment.
Herlong is an excellent judge, I'm had a few cases in front of him. Good for the blogger. I hate other attorneys who treat opposing parties like this. It gives us all an even worse name.
I have found SpyMe (http://www.readpixel.com/spyme/index.html) to be an excellent OS X monitoring/remote support tool. It's very reasonably priced.
I have a MBP, so having the dock on the side makes for efficient use of the wide screen. Put it where you have the most room, especially if most of your documents are vertically oriented.
See Duke v. North Texas State Univ., 469 F.2d 829, 837 (5th Cir. 1972) ("[the] Fourteenth Amendment protects the citizen against all the creatures of the state -- universities not excepted"), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 932 (1973). The constitutional safeguards discussed in this article do not apply to private colleges and universities, since such institutions are not state actors for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 840-41 (1982) (finding no state action where private school was almost entirely supported by state funds).
From the Supreme Court: "A state university without question is a state actor. When it decides to impose a serious disciplinary sanction upon one of its tenured employees, it must comply with the terms of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution." NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988).
"State action" defined, albeit in layman's terms. Saying a state university is so intertwined with the "government" that they must comply with the Constitution is a far cry from saying that Nellie down at the DMV has to cook you a hot meal in her home every night.
The first amendment applies manifestly to the federal government, even if it can be extended to states.
The Constitutional issue of whether the 1st Amendment applies to the states, and state universities in particular, is absolutely black-and-white under current jurisprudence. It does.
But this isn't really a first amendment issue; under this person's press credentials and terms, he is allowed to relate the events of the game, just not live, from the event, because live or near-live coverage is covered by other licensing and costs. Other journalistic entities do essentially live textual coverage of games, and they have a license to do so.
If he is a valid member of the press, whose primary purpose is reporting on (rather than retransmitting) the event, then it becomes a First Amendment issue. You cannot license the terms by which the press utilizes their First Amendment prerogative. The issue becomes whether, by "live blogging" the event, he was engaged in an impermissible rebroadcast rather than, for lack of a better word, "journalism." As with most legal issues, it is open to interpretation, which was my overriding point: the blogger may well have a case.
The NCAA isn't even a quasi-governmental agency. It's a private association.
While the Supreme Court held that the NCAA was not a state actor in NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988), that holding is limited to the facts of that case, which are manifestly different than here. I submit that it is an open question. You may indeed be right, but I tend to fall on the other side of the argument.
The NCAA's right to control and license the live/near-live and recorded contents of its events has been tested and confirmed in the courts.
I have no doubt that it has, although I would be interested in the line of cases. This is not a retransmission, however, which carries particular legal significance. I submit it is an open question whether or not his "journalistic transformation" of the events creates a First Amendment issue. Would your analysis be different if he had purchased a ticket and sat down to watch the game with the public, laptop in hand?
All state universities are state actors, which is the first step in any Constitutional analysis. The University of Louisville is a public, state-supported university, and therefore is a state actor.
1. Federal or state does not matter when it comes to First Amendment issues. The First Amendment applies to the states via the Substantive Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is a quasi-governmental agency (NCAA) and a state university, using state property, and using state resources to enforce their policies (police, courts). The Constitutional dimension to this case is not as black-and-white as you seem to believe; however, I tend to agree with the bulk of your analysis. The key is whether state action is present. Lacking that, there is no need to continue the legal analysis.
2. The fact that he was blogging or doing it via "text" is incidental. Replace blogging with a camera or a microphone, and then try to make a free speech argument out of it.
Take it further. Replace blogging with "talking to your friend on a cellphone about the game as it's going on." Under the NCAA interpretation, this would be violating their policies. I would like to see them try to enforce that. The answer is, short of requiring everybody to turn in their cellphones at the gate, they can't.
Simply accepting a license to attend a sporting event does not strip you of all rights. As an example, there is a line of 4th Amendment cases regarding the propriety of, and limits to, searching sporting event attendees.
Adventure was a massively addictive game, once you stopped wondering why the dragons looked like ducks.
America to switch to the metric system and soccer is now America's favorite sport.
You obviously do not know the difference between "broadcast" and "cable."
So my original post is right and you fail for being not only a moron, but also an asshole.