But does this mean that (in this case,) Toyota doesn't hold the copyright on the raw shape, either? No. The reason the wireframe wasn't copyrightable was because it was an exact copy of Toyota's vehicle. The ruling does not mean that every wire frame is not copyrightable. The summary is misleading and incorrect.
There's an implied license to make a copy of it on their computer, as well as any backup systems, and to fix it in more permanent form, such as printing a copy. This is probably correct, yes. I say probably cause you never know what a court will say.
I'm free to publish my copy, in the legal sense of the term (to make it known to others) by printing it up and posting it in a window for the public to see, . . . If I have a valid copy, I can do what I want with it, including showing it to others, or fixing it in permanent form and pasting it on a bulletin board. This is very incorrect. Please read 17 USC 106, especially section 5, which gives the copyright owner the sole right of displaying the work.
Uh, no. This is required and done by many patent attorneys. If you have ANY information that may be helpful to the examiner you have to send it in. Otherwise the patent later could be found unenforceable because of the attorney's misconduct in concealing information -- even if the patent is found to be actually valid. Many attorneys will dump boxes of stuff on the examiner.
This is another reason why some attorneys just don't bother searching before filing for a patent. They often believe that the less they know about a topic, the better.
You are automatically granted a license to copy email by the sender, since that is the ONLY way for you to actually read the email. Sure, but that is far far different from a license to forward that email to whomever you want or a license to print copies of it and hand it out to everyone you see.
I can do with the email as I wish. I can post it all over usenet if I so desire if I am not bound by a civil contract like an NDA or something. Wrong. Copyright is not a contract. It is a federal law. Furthermore, the copyright notification requirement was dropped years ago (1989 to be exact). The email writer does not have to notify you of any intent to enforce or not to enforce the copyright. Without a license, you can't reproduce it (outside of fair uses).
Now, there is another question about whether what is in the email is copyrightable but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
Because forum shopping isn't illegal.
And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues. Sure but they are limited to only those courts that have personal jurisdiction over the defendants, which should be only one or two courts.
The only thing that can really throw the federal bench out of whack is if you had a president and justice department who was pressuring federal judges and prosecutors to bring (or not bring) cases based upon a political agenda. Somehow, the system had been pretty good about that until Bush and the Gonzalez Justice Department came along. Can you please link me to something that shows Gonzalez was pressuring judges? He was well within his rights and power to fire the U.S. Attorneys that he fired. The executive branch does have the right to push its own agenda and appointing U.S. Attorneys is one way it does that. If the attorneys aren't working towards that agenda, they get fired. Pretty simple. All that talk in Congress was just that, talk.
The judges, however, are not under his control...so please if you have something, link me to it.
This week, in Federal Court, the Bush Administration has asserted that the AUMF (the bill congress passed to give him permission to invade Iraq) also gives him the right to have the military (that's military, not police) have the right to arrest a US citizen on US soil and hold him indefinitely as an enemy combatant. And has the court ruled on this yet? Making an argument is not not the same as actually doing it.
It might crash
(not saying it's more likely to do so than a manned one) A lot of Predators have crashed in both the US and Iraq and Afghanistan. This is probably the main reason these "watchdogs" spoke up. I've heard a big problem with the Predator is that the pilot station likes to randomly reboot during flight. You really feel comfortable with that flying over your house?
More than half of the 90 Predators fielded have been lost, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley said this month. Another Predator crashed Friday in Afghanistan. http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/01/AFpredcrash070126/
For copyright cases, there is no state court involvement. So the path would be: 1. Federal District Court (trial); 2. Appeal to the Federal Circuit Court; 3. Appeal to the Supreme Court.
Not to side with the RIAA and similar, but wouldn't you figure, if they have the power to use a copyright of a given item to sue you, that they also have the legal right to "distribute" said copyrighted material? You're absolutely correct that they also have the right to distribute the work. However, for you to violate that right, the RIAA must prove that you actually distributed the work. Simply having a file in your shared folder is not proof of distribution.
so a man that thinks the RIAA is honest and right is now a judge in the United States Courts. No. He's a Colorado State judge. That is not a United States court.
Re:New sympathetic venue for RIAA cases
on
RIAA Lawyer Jumps Ship
·
· Score: 4, Informative
No need to worry about this. The summary says he's going to be a state court judge. State courts are not allowed to hear copyright cases. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
That case didn't decide the "current criteria by which an EULA can be held unenforceable." It held that the arbitration clause in that contract was unconscionable for several reasons. PayPal tried to prevent its users from bringing a class action suit against it. It also had a clause that allowed it to change the EULA's terms at any time without notice.
Any contract, EULA or not, would be held unconscionable for those reasons. The fact that it was a EULA was merely coincidence. The standard argument around here is that EULAs are unenforceable simply because they are EULAs. That is not the case in the U.S. The principle case on this issue is ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg. I suggest you read it. Furthermore, the Combs case was a district court in California. It was interpreting California law. It is also not binding anywhere, not even on the court that decided it.
The U.S. has a very limited version of moral rights. I can't recall exactly but I believe it is to be something of "fine art" and limited to less than 100 copies and each copy must be signed by the author. Nothing else has this right. And also, if you ever assign the work to someone else, you lose the right.
since they're quite aware of how flimsy a contract the EULA really is. I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from. EULAs are not flimsy at all in the US. Multiple appellate courts have upheld them. As long as the user has an opportunity to read the EULA before clicking "I Agree," the EULA is like any other contract.
Slashdot Mirror
You have such a convincing argument!
Do you have any citations to your ridiculous claim that Amazon is trying to harass the PTO?
Uh, no. This is required and done by many patent attorneys. If you have ANY information that may be helpful to the examiner you have to send it in. Otherwise the patent later could be found unenforceable because of the attorney's misconduct in concealing information -- even if the patent is found to be actually valid. Many attorneys will dump boxes of stuff on the examiner.
This is another reason why some attorneys just don't bother searching before filing for a patent. They often believe that the less they know about a topic, the better.
You seem to know very little about this topic so I'd suggest you just stop talking about it.
Now, there is another question about whether what is in the email is copyrightable but that's beyond the scope of this discussion.
The judges, however, are not under his control...so please if you have something, link me to it.
I don't think putting pornography in court documents is normal strategy.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/01/AFpredcrash070126/
For copyright cases, there is no state court involvement. So the path would be: 1. Federal District Court (trial); 2. Appeal to the Federal Circuit Court; 3. Appeal to the Supreme Court.
The article says that it is the only program that offers a certificate in space law. It does not say that it is the only center for space law.
No need to worry about this. The summary says he's going to be a state court judge. State courts are not allowed to hear copyright cases. See 28 U.S.C. 1338(a).
Just want to point out that the "copyright clause" is also the "patent clause."
Hmm, wasn't this a civil case?
That case didn't decide the "current criteria by which an EULA can be held unenforceable." It held that the arbitration clause in that contract was unconscionable for several reasons. PayPal tried to prevent its users from bringing a class action suit against it. It also had a clause that allowed it to change the EULA's terms at any time without notice. Any contract, EULA or not, would be held unconscionable for those reasons. The fact that it was a EULA was merely coincidence. The standard argument around here is that EULAs are unenforceable simply because they are EULAs. That is not the case in the U.S. The principle case on this issue is ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg . I suggest you read it. Furthermore, the Combs case was a district court in California. It was interpreting California law. It is also not binding anywhere, not even on the court that decided it.
The U.S. has a very limited version of moral rights. I can't recall exactly but I believe it is to be something of "fine art" and limited to less than 100 copies and each copy must be signed by the author. Nothing else has this right. And also, if you ever assign the work to someone else, you lose the right.