The $750 is coming from statutory damages in the Copyright Act.
In the United States, statutory damages are set out in Title 17, Section 504 of the U.S. Code. The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work, at the discretion of the court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_damages_for_copyright_infringement
Specifically, the 14th Amendment makes the Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution) specifically applicable to the states and allows the federal government to create legislation that abrogates sovereign immunity of the states if, and to the extent, necessary to abolish the vestiges of slavery. Actually, not all of the first 10 Amendments have been incorporated. The Seventh Amendment has not been.
I'm actually not so sure about this. If Psystar is simply selling a PC that will run Leopard, then Psystar is not violating any license. The user would be the one violating the license but like you said, Apple will have a hell of a time finding those users.
But when there are only a few ways of organizing a certain set of facts, you won't be able to copyright it. Read the Feist case. Most subjects taught in schools really only a have a minimal number of ways of being organized.
Ok, I'll admit I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if you are one but I am a law student and I have a strong interest in copyright law and have taken courses on it. My opinion probably counts more than yours on this topic.
His lecture is most likely highly factual. Facts are not granted copyright protection. Thus, no copyright.
Something to think about...If it is a right, can it be waived in a EULA? I think the fact that you currently can waive fair use in a contract such as a EULA tends to make it lean more into the defense range. I could be wrong though.
This is a company ripping off someone's copyrighted work. Well, the first question in any copyright case is: "Is there a copyright?" There's an easy answer in this case to that question. I'll let you guess.
There can be no "ripping off" when you have no copyright.
Fair use is only a defense because it is a right. Actually there is a big debate over whether Fair Use is actually a right. On one side, you have the argument that you can't invoke fair use unless you have infringed and thus it is only a defense. On the other, you have that argument that because cases like Eldred v. Ashcroft held that fair use is the Copyright Act's way of protecting Free Speech rights, then fair use is also a right.
I unfortunately think it falls closer to the defense realm. I don't like that though.
Defense #1: The work must be fixed for this dude to claim copyright.
17 USC 102(a) - "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression . .."
17 USC 101 - ". . . A work is âoecreatedâ when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time . . .
A work is âoefixedâ in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. . . " So. . . If the professor is not either reading from a pre-prepared script or recording his lecture, he cannot claim copyright in it in the first place. This is pretty basic copyright law that students learn in the first day of a copyright course. I'm sure that his lecture is read from his notes but it is unlikely that it is read directly from it and I highly doubt he is recording it (which could be a way of fixing it that would give him copyright in it, assuming that it is copyrightable material.).
Defense #2: Dude probably owns no copyright even if it is fixed.
Facts are not copyrightable. This is even more basic shit that has been said by many courts including the Supreme Court. Assuming this guy is teaching a standard subject, the things he teaches are not owned by him. He cannot seriously try to claim copyright in the history of the United States or the Pythagorean Theorem (I haven't RTFA so I don't know what he teaches). The only possibility for a copyright here is what is called a "thin copyright" which would be in his "organization of the facts." So he's gotta prove that the notes taken by these students are organized EXACTLY as he organized them. And that may not even work. If it is some basic subject where the organization of teaching it is basic, (such as any professor teaching history would start from early then move to later, or any math professor starts at 1+1 then moves to 1+2) then the organization would be so basic as to not warrant any copyright.
Why patent, if the stuff you do is secret and of national security? You would still patent if you are a defense contractor because that would prevent other defense contractors from obtaining contracts to produce the invention for the government. This isn't a "phenomenon." It's a pretty common reality.
Patents have maintenance fees that are due every couple of years. If you fail to pay, the patent becomes abandoned and unenforceable. That is basically a tax. A policy behind it is to give the public the patented invention if the inventor doesn't want it anymore.
There's a reason why the Predator stays over the desert. Predators have crashed numerous times and do not have FAA approval to fly over populated areas in the US. Do we really think this thing from Honeywell that most definitely has less flight time than the Predator is air-worthy enough to fly over a super populated area like Miami? If this thing crashes and kills someone, I hope the city is sued into oblivion.
Were it really so valuable, the holder would litigate it themselves. The fact that they're unloading it for some sure money now is a strong indication of how weak they feel it would be in court. Uhh. This is a pretty lame argument. Patent lawsuits cost a couple million bucks on average and often take years. Not just anyone can take on that type of burden or risk. Selling a patent does not automatically mean that it is not defendable. People sell patents all the time.
Slashdot Mirror
xerox
Stipulations happen in every trial. Nothing out of the ordinary there. And if you read it, all it concerns is procedural aspects of the trial.
Seriously. My brain hurt after reading that.
Plus you have to prove damages. Most defamation suits fail miserably because of that requirement.
So is China, North Korea, Iran, and every other country.
But if Psystar does not install Leopard on the PC, then it isn't violating any license. The license isn't entered into until you install the software.
I'm actually not so sure about this. If Psystar is simply selling a PC that will run Leopard, then Psystar is not violating any license. The user would be the one violating the license but like you said, Apple will have a hell of a time finding those users.
You should use https://www.gmail.com for a secure connection
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.4355
But when there are only a few ways of organizing a certain set of facts, you won't be able to copyright it. Read the Feist case. Most subjects taught in schools really only a have a minimal number of ways of being organized.
Ok, I'll admit I'm not a lawyer and I don't know if you are one but I am a law student and I have a strong interest in copyright law and have taken courses on it. My opinion probably counts more than yours on this topic.
His lecture is most likely highly factual. Facts are not granted copyright protection. Thus, no copyright.
Something to think about...If it is a right, can it be waived in a EULA? I think the fact that you currently can waive fair use in a contract such as a EULA tends to make it lean more into the defense range. I could be wrong though.
There can be no "ripping off" when you have no copyright.
I unfortunately think it falls closer to the defense realm. I don't like that though.
Defense #1: The work must be fixed for this dude to claim copyright. 17 USC 102(a) - "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression . .
17 USC 101 - ". . . A work is âoecreatedâ when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time . . .
A work is âoefixedâ in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. . . " So. . . If the professor is not either reading from a pre-prepared script or recording his lecture, he cannot claim copyright in it in the first place. This is pretty basic copyright law that students learn in the first day of a copyright course. I'm sure that his lecture is read from his notes but it is unlikely that it is read directly from it and I highly doubt he is recording it (which could be a way of fixing it that would give him copyright in it, assuming that it is copyrightable material.).
Defense #2: Dude probably owns no copyright even if it is fixed.
Facts are not copyrightable. This is even more basic shit that has been said by many courts including the Supreme Court. Assuming this guy is teaching a standard subject, the things he teaches are not owned by him. He cannot seriously try to claim copyright in the history of the United States or the Pythagorean Theorem (I haven't RTFA so I don't know what he teaches). The only possibility for a copyright here is what is called a "thin copyright" which would be in his "organization of the facts." So he's gotta prove that the notes taken by these students are organized EXACTLY as he organized them. And that may not even work. If it is some basic subject where the organization of teaching it is basic, (such as any professor teaching history would start from early then move to later, or any math professor starts at 1+1 then moves to 1+2) then the organization would be so basic as to not warrant any copyright.
So my point is: defendant's motion for summary judgment that cites heavily to Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service is hereby granted.
No. If the invention is published in a foreign country, that document can be used as prior art in the U.S.
I believe that same process happens in the US.
Patents have maintenance fees that are due every couple of years. If you fail to pay, the patent becomes abandoned and unenforceable. That is basically a tax. A policy behind it is to give the public the patented invention if the inventor doesn't want it anymore.
There's a reason why the Predator stays over the desert. Predators have crashed numerous times and do not have FAA approval to fly over populated areas in the US. Do we really think this thing from Honeywell that most definitely has less flight time than the Predator is air-worthy enough to fly over a super populated area like Miami? If this thing crashes and kills someone, I hope the city is sued into oblivion.