Copyright simply does not protect facts, only expression, so no luck there. Trade secrets are probably out b/c you freely gave up the info. Probably have a plain old negligence suit, though, if you can show you were damaged.
Why would anyone claim that . . . everyone knows that this administration caused the solar flares in order to pay back his buddies in the sunscreen industry;-)
Sorta. There is an equitable doctrine called latches that basically says one can loose their right to past damages if they unreasonably delay enforcing your rights. IIRC, they can still get an injunction, which may or may not be significant depending on how tough it would be to rewrite the code in a noninfringing manner.
I wouldn't put too much faith in statements made during a hearing. Judges are supposed to challenge the attorneys' positions. We'll all find out what they really think in a few months. . .
Believe it or not, I actually liked the 'razor blade business model.' I normally print a page or two a month, but want it to look good when I do. The rasor blade model let me get a high quality printer for cost and didn't care about the ink charges due to my lower number of prints.
I suspect I'm in the minority - many or even most people pay more over the long run. The key, imho, is that you can choose which business model works best for you.
Not to mention that the generators will spoil the views from all those million-dollar oceanfront homes. "They" are already holding up a similar plan to build wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod.
Still not quite comparing apples to apples, imho. Federal criminal copyright infringement requires that you reproduce or distribute at least $1000 worth of copyrighted works. 'Physically stealing' the same amount of goods often triggers a 5 year max (e.g., http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/52.ht ml)
The cases you give are not really analogous. Police service is clearly a public good. Fire (to the extent that a fire in one building threatens others) and the road network (as opposed to a toll-expressway) are too. WiFI is not - it is trivial to only provide the service to those who want it.
The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA are completely separate from copyright law. Thus, it is possible to violate the DMCA without infringing any copyrights, and to infringe a copyright without violating the DMCA.
Personally, I doubt this would be a DMCA violation. Its anticircumvention provisions makes 3 things illegal: trafficing an access control circumvention device, trafficing a copy control circumvention device, and circumventing an access control. The first 2 don't apply b/c he is doing the circumvention himself. The last 1 *probably* doesn't apply either b/c CSS isn't really intended to prevent access (as opposed to copying).
The reason why the junk fax / do-not-call laws work today is that it has prohibitively expensive to call the US from offshore havens. Perhaps I don't fully understand VoIP, but I can't think of a great entity whom a US based victim or attorney general could sue in my evil business plan. The only real canidates are:
1) the telemarketer (not located in USA)
2) the telemarketer's IP provider (not located in USA)
3) the telemarketer's bank (not located in USA)
4) victim's telephone provider (a bit unfair - it can't tell whether whether an incomming call is from a telemarketer and doesn't have any money to withhold even if it did)
5) victim's credit card provider (maybe, but can't withhold money already dispursed). Assuming the offshore haven refuses to enforce US laws, what could they do?
As for why, someone must buy from telemarketers / junk faxers or we wouldn't have needed the laws in the first place.
I keep expecting someone to setup a telemarketing and/or junk fax operation in India, then use Skype to call U.S. or European numbers. As long as they don't have a physical presence/assets in those areas, they should be able to laugh at attempts to stop them.
Unfortunately, we don't tax "the wealthy." We tax people with high incomes. Personally, 60% of the money I spend goes to the government. I'm also one of the poorest people around (a negative net worth actually:-( due to those darn student loans).
Or even "indemnify" their customers. At the risk of loosing karma for agreeing with Balmer, knowing there is a $60 billion deep pocket between me and the patent holder provides some comfort.
It depends on what the claims say. A patent gives the patent owner the exclusive right to "make, use and sell" the invention. Most patents will contain a set of claims infringed when the manufacturer "sells" the invention and a set of claims infringed when the end user "uses" the invention.
In theory, the patent owner can sue using either theory and would choose the party with the deeper pockets (see the Lemelson saga for a case where the patent owner sued end users). Fortunatley, the ability to sue end users is limited as a practical matter. Manufacturer can usually file a declaratory judgment suit if the patent holder threatens their customers.
I saw a pitch on this about a year ago. One of their design goals was the ability to handle a major sporting events. IIRC, they could adjust the cars' circulation paterns so that an unusually large amount of cars would arrive at the 'stadium stations' shortly after the game ends. The end time of these events is fairly predictable.
Unfortunately, the patent was filed in 1996, so 5 year old art doesn't help. Even if Amazon.com was prior art, I'm not sure if they did everything necessary (e.g., did Amazon use local currency or price everything in USD).
1. A computer implemented process for carrying out an international commercial transaction comprising:
* running a transaction program on a computer system so as to integrate processes including:
o (a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
o (b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;
o (c) selecting a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping such product to be purchased;
o (d) accessing at least one local or remote database for obtaining
+ (i) price information for the product to be purchased; and
+ (ii) a product code for an international goods clasification system pertinent to such product; and
+ (iii) international shipping information related to an origination point of such product and said destination;
o (e) calculating costs involved in moving such product to said destination based upon said destination and such product;
o (f) determining a total cost of the transaction that includes a price of the product;
o (g) receiving an order for such product thereby triggering an electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and
o (h) upon confirmation of availability of said funds, accepting said order, generating an electronic record, such record including the content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product to said destination.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but this whole thing seems overblown. My state has a so called "motor votor" law. This allows anyone to both register and vote at the polling place without *any* form of picture ID. IMHO, the chance of problems from this seems many orders of magnitude higher than that from somone hacking an electronic voting machine.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that the RIAA is doing this to directly profit is absurd. Their lawyer fees alone are probably 10x that amount.
Copyright simply does not protect facts, only expression, so no luck there. Trade secrets are probably out b/c you freely gave up the info. Probably have a plain old negligence suit, though, if you can show you were damaged.
Why would anyone claim that . . . everyone knows that this administration caused the solar flares in order to pay back his buddies in the sunscreen industry ;-)
Sorta. There is an equitable doctrine called latches that basically says one can loose their right to past damages if they unreasonably delay enforcing your rights. IIRC, they can still get an injunction, which may or may not be significant depending on how tough it would be to rewrite the code in a noninfringing manner.
I wouldn't put too much faith in statements made during a hearing. Judges are supposed to challenge the attorneys' positions. We'll all find out what they really think in a few months. . .
Simple solution, then. Anyone can submit prior art to the USPTO.
It all boils down to how often you print stuff. Infrequent printers benefit, frequent printers suffer.
Believe it or not, I actually liked the 'razor blade business model.' I normally print a page or two a month, but want it to look good when I do. The rasor blade model let me get a high quality printer for cost and didn't care about the ink charges due to my lower number of prints.
I suspect I'm in the minority - many or even most people pay more over the long run. The key, imho, is that you can choose which business model works best for you.
Not to mention that the generators will spoil the views from all those million-dollar oceanfront homes. "They" are already holding up a similar plan to build wind turbines off the coast of Cape Cod.
Still not quite comparing apples to apples, imho. Federal criminal copyright infringement requires that you reproduce or distribute at least $1000 worth of copyrighted works. 'Physically stealing' the same amount of goods often triggers a 5 year max (e.g., http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/609/52.ht ml)
The cases you give are not really analogous. Police service is clearly a public good. Fire (to the extent that a fire in one building threatens others) and the road network (as opposed to a toll-expressway) are too. WiFI is not - it is trivial to only provide the service to those who want it.
I thought we learned a few weeks ago that the Patriot act is a pro-privacy bill.
/ 14 32217&tid=158&tid=103&tid=17
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/19
The anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA are completely separate from copyright law. Thus, it is possible to violate the DMCA without infringing any copyrights, and to infringe a copyright without violating the DMCA.
Personally, I doubt this would be a DMCA violation. Its anticircumvention provisions makes 3 things illegal: trafficing an access control circumvention device, trafficing a copy control circumvention device, and circumventing an access control. The first 2 don't apply b/c he is doing the circumvention himself. The last 1 *probably* doesn't apply either b/c CSS isn't really intended to prevent access (as opposed to copying).
The reason why the junk fax / do-not-call laws work today is that it has prohibitively expensive to call the US from offshore havens. Perhaps I don't fully understand VoIP, but I can't think of a great entity whom a US based victim or attorney general could sue in my evil business plan. The only real canidates are:
1) the telemarketer (not located in USA)
2) the telemarketer's IP provider (not located in USA)
3) the telemarketer's bank (not located in USA)
4) victim's telephone provider (a bit unfair - it can't tell whether whether an incomming call is from a telemarketer and doesn't have any money to withhold even if it did)
5) victim's credit card provider (maybe, but can't withhold money already dispursed).
Assuming the offshore haven refuses to enforce US laws, what could they do?
As for why, someone must buy from telemarketers / junk faxers or we wouldn't have needed the laws in the first place.
Why would you want to discourage settlements? Trials consume far more judicial resources.
I keep expecting someone to setup a telemarketing and/or junk fax operation in India, then use Skype to call U.S. or European numbers. As long as they don't have a physical presence/assets in those areas, they should be able to laugh at attempts to stop them.
Unfortunately, we don't tax "the wealthy." We tax people with high incomes. Personally, 60% of the money I spend goes to the government. I'm also one of the poorest people around (a negative net worth actually :-( due to those darn student loans).
Or even "indemnify" their customers. At the risk of loosing karma for agreeing with Balmer, knowing there is a $60 billion deep pocket between me and the patent holder provides some comfort.
It depends on what the claims say. A patent gives the patent owner the exclusive right to "make, use and sell" the invention. Most patents will contain a set of claims infringed when the manufacturer "sells" the invention and a set of claims infringed when the end user "uses" the invention.
In theory, the patent owner can sue using either theory and would choose the party with the deeper pockets (see the Lemelson saga for a case where the patent owner sued end users). Fortunatley, the ability to sue end users is limited as a practical matter. Manufacturer can usually file a declaratory judgment suit if the patent holder threatens their customers.
I saw a pitch on this about a year ago. One of their design goals was the ability to handle a major sporting events. IIRC, they could adjust the cars' circulation paterns so that an unusually large amount of cars would arrive at the 'stadium stations' shortly after the game ends. The end time of these events is fairly predictable.
Unfortunately, the patent was filed in 1996, so 5 year old art doesn't help. Even if Amazon.com was prior art, I'm not sure if they did everything necessary (e.g., did Amazon use local currency or price everything in USD).
1. A computer implemented process for carrying out an international commercial transaction comprising:
* running a transaction program on a computer system so as to integrate processes including:
o (a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;
o (b) selecting a currency from amenu in which to obtain price information;
o (c) selecting a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping such product to be purchased;
o (d) accessing at least one local or remote database for obtaining
+ (i) price information for the product to be purchased; and
+ (ii) a product code for an international goods clasification system pertinent to such product; and
+ (iii) international shipping information related to an origination point of such product and said destination;
o (e) calculating costs involved in moving such product to said destination based upon said destination and such product;
o (f) determining a total cost of the transaction that includes a price of the product;
o (g) receiving an order for such product thereby triggering an electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and
o (h) upon confirmation of availability of said funds, accepting said order, generating an electronic record, such record including the content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product to said destination.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but this whole thing seems overblown. My state has a so called "motor votor" law. This allows anyone to both register and vote at the polling place without *any* form of picture ID. IMHO, the chance of problems from this seems many orders of magnitude higher than that from somone hacking an electronic voting machine.
Personally, I print about 1-2 pages per week. The "give us the razor and sell us the blades" business model is *great* for people like me.
Do you seriously think Kerry will go against the wishes of his Hollywood overlords?
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court overturned the 1st amendment last year.6 74.pdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03pdf/02-1