>It's nice to rely on the fact that most people >have this installed.
You mean it's nice to be able to rely on a standard. However, there is a huge difference between an official Standard and a de-facto standard. One allows for competition and innovation, the other protects an entrenched monopoly.
Do you think the internet would be as vibrant if MS owned the http 'format'?
Right now, we have a federal district court saying the patent is valid and the USPTO saying it's invalid. Presumably, both decisions are based on the same art. Normally, the federal court's opinion trumps the USPTO's.
So, does this decision have any legal effect? Or does MS still have to win an appeal/reconsideration (which is presumably made easier by this decision)?
They are not trying to make db's copyrightable. They are trying to create a new form of IP to protect the sweat of the brow necessary to create a database. The headline and Wired article are misleading
Huh? This bill does not extend copyright protection to databases. It creates a new class of intellectual property designed to protect the 'sweat of the brow' that created the database.
As the parent pointed out, Wired got it wrong too. The only thing this bill does is outlaw spidering a database. You can still create your own and/or use any non-copyrigted material in it.
Assuming that Microsoft found whatever art the PTO is considering and presented it to court, what happens if the PTO reexamination invalidiates the relevant claims? We would have a court saying it's valid and the PTO saying it's invalid. Traditionally, the court's opinion wins, but I've never heard of the PTO reexamining a patent involved in litigation.
Anyone know?
I presume that you will be able to buy ad-free phones, but they (or the service) will cost more. It's all a matter of what your privacy is worth to you.
Microsoft: Our software is so easy, any 2nd world programmer 1/2 a world away can manage it . ..
In the end, there is only so much value in a solution. Decision makers can give that value to M$ or to the integrators. As long as the IT staff makes the decision and there are no "check box" features missing, Linux will win.
I'm not an system admininstrator, so this is an honest question. . . Is spam a significant portion of total network traffic? Assuming I'm a typical internet user, I get about 50 spams/day x 2 accounts x 4 kb/spam, then round up to account for dictionary attacks, equals about 500 Kb/day. Assuming I'm not missing something huge here (storage costs?), that seems to only be equivalent to about 1 minute of surfing or 2-3 mp3s.
Why don't they pt all their music on mp3s? Because it's their property, they can market it any way they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or lobby Congress. Stealing it it not the morally correct response.
On a semi-related note, seems like every local group has their own CD out nowdays. Most are non-RIAA and some are very good. Buy from them.
Maybe my memory is slipping, but I seem to recall that the 55 mph speed limit was created/justified back in the 70's as a gasoline saving measure. Even then, it had nothing to do with safety.
I don't think you have this one quite right - IF the codes were copyrighted (currently not possible per the 5th Circuit's en banc decision, but under SCOTUS review), then you would not be able to copy or distribute the codes w/o permission. The db law would not change anything in this imaginary world - it would be a straight forward application of copyright law.
The proposed db bill only comes into play if someone compiles non-copyrighted/non-exclusively licensed material into a convenient form. The db law would prevent you from copying the database, but you could still create new db using the origional sources. Basically, this bill is designed to prevent people from leaching off someone else's hard work.
I agree - this bill is much less scary than people seem to think. The basic idea is not "corporate ownership of the facts," its "protect investment in compiling the facts in a user-friendly form." In other words, you can't leach off someone else's work, but can create your own identical database.
Either way, the basic idea has been kicked around for about 20 years, but never gets a lot of support. Not much reason to expect a different result this time.
It sounds like GameSpy backed down eventually, but here is senario #1 from early November . ..
>chowbok writes "Luigi Auriemma has found several >security holes GameSpy software over the past few >months. He has reported them all to GameSpy but >never got a response... until today, when he got >a threatening letter from their lawyers. It says >he's violating the DMCA, he needs to >cease-and-desist, yadda yadda yadda." Update: >11/12 21:09 GMT by S: GameSpy has now posted an >official response from the company's >founder, Mark Surfas.
Slashdot Mirror
>It's nice to rely on the fact that most people
>have this installed.
You mean it's nice to be able to rely on a standard. However, there is a huge difference between an official Standard and a de-facto standard. One allows for competition and innovation, the other protects an entrenched monopoly.
Do you think the internet would be as vibrant if MS owned the http 'format'?
Right now, we have a federal district court saying the patent is valid and the USPTO saying it's invalid. Presumably, both decisions are based on the same art. Normally, the federal court's opinion trumps the USPTO's.
So, does this decision have any legal effect? Or does MS still have to win an appeal/reconsideration (which is presumably made easier by this decision)?
You show that you went down to the libarary, did the research, and entered the data. Case over - even if they are identical.
They are not trying to make db's copyrightable. They are trying to create a new form of IP to protect the sweat of the brow necessary to create a database. The headline and Wired article are misleading
Huh? This bill does not extend copyright protection to databases. It creates a new class of intellectual property designed to protect the 'sweat of the brow' that created the database. As the parent pointed out, Wired got it wrong too. The only thing this bill does is outlaw spidering a database. You can still create your own and/or use any non-copyrigted material in it.
You need "make, use, and sell" the patented invention in Europe, and avoid "importing" it into the U.S.
>Or it could be that DVDCCA is admitting that their
_ co mplaint.pdf
>earlier suit was wrong.
Had to go back and check . . . the origional 321 Studios case is about copyright infringement, not trade secrets.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20021220_321_studios
Assuming that Microsoft found whatever art the PTO is considering and presented it to court, what happens if the PTO reexamination invalidiates the relevant claims? We would have a court saying it's valid and the PTO saying it's invalid. Traditionally, the court's opinion wins, but I've never heard of the PTO reexamining a patent involved in litigation. Anyone know?
According to the article, Lemelson managed to extort $1.5 Billion. Maybe the litigation-companies are onto something?
Probably no - invalidity is always a risk and Lemelson demanded fully paid up licenses.
There is a procedure called 'inter partes reexamination.' One of the requirements is that you show a substantial new question of patentability.
It a heck of an incentive to write the first one, though.
I suspect that the RIAA would sue all six of you. The five 'innocent' people would file a cross-claim against the real pirate.
I presume that you will be able to buy ad-free phones, but they (or the service) will cost more. It's all a matter of what your privacy is worth to you.
One obvious difference is that it's my choice to visit espn, etc and consume their content.
My guess is the service would argue this is fair use. To me, this sounds similar to the use of thumbnails in search engines.
0 55 521opp.pdf
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0
Microsoft: Our software is so easy, any 2nd world programmer 1/2 a world away can manage it . . .
In the end, there is only so much value in a solution. Decision makers can give that value to M$ or to the integrators. As long as the IT staff makes the decision and there are no "check box" features missing, Linux will win.
I'm not an system admininstrator, so this is an honest question. . . Is spam a significant portion of total network traffic? Assuming I'm a typical internet user, I get about 50 spams/day x 2 accounts x 4 kb/spam, then round up to account for dictionary attacks, equals about 500 Kb/day. Assuming I'm not missing something huge here (storage costs?), that seems to only be equivalent to about 1 minute of surfing or 2-3 mp3s.
Why don't they pt all their music on mp3s? Because it's their property, they can market it any way they want. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or lobby Congress. Stealing it it not the morally correct response.
On a semi-related note, seems like every local group has their own CD out nowdays. Most are non-RIAA and some are very good. Buy from them.
Maybe my memory is slipping, but I seem to recall that the 55 mph speed limit was created/justified back in the 70's as a gasoline saving measure. Even then, it had nothing to do with safety.
I don't think you have this one quite right - IF the codes were copyrighted (currently not possible per the 5th Circuit's en banc decision, but under SCOTUS review), then you would not be able to copy or distribute the codes w/o permission. The db law would not change anything in this imaginary world - it would be a straight forward application of copyright law. The proposed db bill only comes into play if someone compiles non-copyrighted/non-exclusively licensed material into a convenient form. The db law would prevent you from copying the database, but you could still create new db using the origional sources. Basically, this bill is designed to prevent people from leaching off someone else's hard work.
I agree - this bill is much less scary than people seem to think. The basic idea is not "corporate ownership of the facts," its "protect investment in compiling the facts in a user-friendly form." In other words, you can't leach off someone else's work, but can create your own identical database.
Either way, the basic idea has been kicked around for about 20 years, but never gets a lot of support. Not much reason to expect a different result this time.
It sounds like GameSpy backed down eventually, but here is senario #1 from early November . . .
/ 17 35212&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=127&tid=153&tid=172& tid=186&tid=99
>chowbok writes "Luigi Auriemma has found several
>security holes GameSpy software over the past few
>months. He has reported them all to GameSpy but
>never got a response... until today, when he got
>a threatening letter from their lawyers. It says
>he's violating the DMCA, he needs to
>cease-and-desist, yadda yadda yadda." Update:
>11/12 21:09 GMT by S: GameSpy has now posted an >official response from the company's
>founder, Mark Surfas.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/12
Other reasons I've heard cited are that it is tough to accomodate blind people and multiple languages.
It's probably theft at this level - see 17 U.S.C. 506 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17 /chapters/5/sections/section_506.html)