One of the few limitations on the judiciary has traditionally the concept of standing. Basically, federal courts can only resolve 'cases and controversies.' This, in turn, means that there must be a real plaintiff and a real defendant. To be a plaintiff, you must have suffered a concrete injury, and that injury must affect you in some generally particularized way. Thus, many, many courts have thrown out cases based on merely being a federal taxpayer.
Before last year, this case would get tossed out quickly on this ground - the plaintiffs really aren't hurt more than anyone else. Their one glimmer of hope is the global warming case you mentioned. It's probably easily distinguishable, though, because there the State of Mass itself alleged its tax revenues would go down because the EPA failed to enact regulations, which would have stopped global warming(!), which would have prevented sea levels from rising, which would have caused a net loss of coastline, which would have given some taxpayer an excuse not to pay their taxes. I kid you not.
In the US at least, you get rights to a mark through use in commerce. Registration provides a number of useful procedural advantages, but is not necessary.
The DMCA doesn't forbid all circumvention - only circumvention of access control measures. Now, I can't think of any case where this distinction has mattered, so YMMV . . . but, imho, the courts should decide that CSS is a copy control measure because it doesn't place any restrictions on when or how often you access the work.
I basically like to game with a few real life friends. Unfortunately, level-based restrictions have really hurt our MMRPG experiences. For example, how do we accommodate a friend who can't play for a month or two? Or a friend who can only play in 1/2 of the 'normal' sessions? Or a friend who wants to join the group after a few months?
I appreciate that leveling is an important part of the business model . . . but is there anything like the Vanguard fellowship concept or CoH sidekick system that would give RL groups some flexibility?
That's part of patent law I've never understood. I've been told by people (who have patents) that it is in their best interest to *NOT* do a patent search before applying for a patent, since that search could be used against them later, to prove willful infringement, which carries a stiffer penalty (I guess) than mere incidental infringement.
But, why the heck is the system run this way?
They are trying to distinguish between the innocent infringer and the one who says 'I don't care, let them care.'
Obviously, that's not how patents are viewed today. No one is afraid of submitting a bogus patent. The worst thing that will happen is that it's thrown out. But shouldn't they be treated as binding legal statements? If it is discovered that you claimed something was "novel and patent worthy" and it is later determined to be "obvious and prior implementations were publicly known" then the penalty should be that for perjury. After all, you filed a legal document with the government where you made some very strong claims, and it turned out that you were very much wrong.
What is the alternative? The patentability standard is objective - 'not known by anyone, anywhere.' There are real cases where the key document is a master's thesis located in some obscure university. Even if you spent several years searching, you might never stumble across something like that.
And if you required that everyone swear the search for prior art for a week, you'd just get lots of people submitting junk (i.e., "I must not have put the magic term into Google . . . "
In the US at least, you need to give PTO any prior art of which you are aware. However, you are not under any obligation to affirmatively search for art.
That said, there are a good reasons to do a search (e.g., it's expensive to prepare a patent, ensure support for differentiation, avoid doctrine of equivalents limits).
The licensee wins either way. This case is about whether the courts have the power to render a judgment (federal courts can't issue advisory opinions; there must be a real controversy between real parties). If the license gets canceled, then this issue is moot.
The DMCA is one of the most mis-understood things in history. It's only relevance here is to provide the newspapers with a defense. The real cause of action is good, old-fashion copyright law.
I respectfully disagree. Intellectual property is the only form of property that is *not* dependent on government. That is, I only own my house because I have a government document that says it's mine. Nobody, however, can take my ideas from me unless I willingly part with them. Patent/copyrights/trade secret laws just give me different options to monetize my ideas.
The traditional rule is that parents are NOT liable for their childrens' torts. As you might guess, however, most kids are 'judgement proof' in practice. To avoid being left SOL, some plaintiffs try to sue the parents for commiting their own torts, such as negiglent supervision. To win, however, the plaintiff will need to prove that the parents knew or should have known about their kids' activities. Not the easist thing if the kid is a teenager.
I don't think the issue is with making Windows more secure. It's giving Microsoft's own security software suite a preferred position. From an antitrust pov, Microsoft is free to eliminate the need for security software. It just needs to give the 3rd party vendors access to the same rights, interfaces, etc.
You really can't sue people over the generic issue. The only thing anyone can try is advertise and educate others.
The real issue here is how close others can come to the iPod mark, both in terms of visual similarity (e.g., an iBod mp3 player) and in terms of product similarity (e.g., an iPod clothing line). If Apple lets one company encroach, the next company can argue that their mark is weak. The courts do not give weak marks as much protection as they do against strong marks.
And trying to protect words that are used in everyday life is ridiculous, and I can't believe anyone in their right mind is arguing for that. First "Windows" and now "Pod" what next, "Mouse"? "Can"? "Pen"?
Anyone and everyone could get rights to "Pen" for any good except a writing intrument. Multiple people could even do so simultaneously as long as they sell different goods. For example, Delta Faucets and Delta Airlines both use the Delta mark (even though delta also a word commonly used in everyday life).
Moreover, this is good for the little guy. I'd hate to shell out $250 and not get an actual iPod from Apple Corporationl.
Science for some is just another flavor of religion. Once mankind gets involved with something that involves any kind of faith, even educated faith, then he will have a tendency toward irrational behavior when his faith is challenged.
Taken one step further . . . I suppose scientific progress depends on having a few crackpots around. We should all be celebrating these creationists.
This is a weird subject where normally rational scientists seem to want to venture into matters "T"ruth. Even taking your descriptions at face value, the observed facts still wouldn't prove that man evolved from other primates. At best, they would show that god wasn't necessary for it to happen.
As a practical matter, the 4th A does not apply to electronic communication because you voluntarily gave all of the information to 3rd part(ies). The warrant requirement you mention comes from the federal wiretap statute, not the Constitution. It's also important to note that we are not talking about "wiretaps," we are talking about call records. The police don't need probable cause to get call records.
As an aside, the 'contraversial' parts of the Patriot Act actually give the average guy additional rights in this area:-0
I always figure the excess electricty gets converted to heat, which reduces my natural gas bill. Yea, electricity is expensive per btu, but it's for a good cause.
I think you are misreading Kelo. The ScT didn't say governments cannot regulate the practice. It just said that the courts will only apply a rational basis test to practice (basically, the government unit needs to be able to articulate a public use that passes the so-called laugh test). Federal/state/local governments are still free to pass laws forbidding the practice or raising the public-use required. The Feds can even forbid the states from seizing property via the supremecy clause. All that would be consistent with Kelo.
The problem with the AHRA is that it defines digital recording machines too narrowly. A general purpose computer doesn't qualify, nor do normal CD-R disks (IIRC, there are CD-audio disks that do, but nobody buys or stocks them).
I think you are misreading the patent-market. . . Big IT is the victim of crappy patents. Who to you think the patent trolls go after? It's not the one man IT shop with $450 in its bank account. It's Microsoft with $40 billion in cash.
Wasn't windows 98 the first edition bundled the browser with the OS - for the benefit of the consumer of course? Bit ironic that it's now cited at the reason to drop support.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the few limitations on the judiciary has traditionally the concept of standing. Basically, federal courts can only resolve 'cases and controversies.' This, in turn, means that there must be a real plaintiff and a real defendant. To be a plaintiff, you must have suffered a concrete injury, and that injury must affect you in some generally particularized way. Thus, many, many courts have thrown out cases based on merely being a federal taxpayer.
Before last year, this case would get tossed out quickly on this ground - the plaintiffs really aren't hurt more than anyone else. Their one glimmer of hope is the global warming case you mentioned. It's probably easily distinguishable, though, because there the State of Mass itself alleged its tax revenues would go down because the EPA failed to enact regulations, which would have stopped global warming(!), which would have prevented sea levels from rising, which would have caused a net loss of coastline, which would have given some taxpayer an excuse not to pay their taxes. I kid you not.
Of course he knew . . it was a joke given at a charity event where the speakers traditionally give lighthearted speeches.
The DMCA doesn't forbid all circumvention - only circumvention of access control measures. Now, I can't think of any case where this distinction has mattered, so YMMV . . . but, imho, the courts should decide that CSS is a copy control measure because it doesn't place any restrictions on when or how often you access the work.
I basically like to game with a few real life friends. Unfortunately, level-based restrictions have really hurt our MMRPG experiences. For example, how do we accommodate a friend who can't play for a month or two? Or a friend who can only play in 1/2 of the 'normal' sessions? Or a friend who wants to join the group after a few months?
I appreciate that leveling is an important part of the business model . . . but is there anything like the Vanguard fellowship concept or CoH sidekick system that would give RL groups some flexibility?
In the US at least, you need to give PTO any prior art of which you are aware. However, you are not under any obligation to affirmatively search for art.
That said, there are a good reasons to do a search (e.g., it's expensive to prepare a patent, ensure support for differentiation, avoid doctrine of equivalents limits).
LOL. Universities are the biggest patent trolls out there, nowadays.
The licensee wins either way. This case is about whether the courts have the power to render a judgment (federal courts can't issue advisory opinions; there must be a real controversy between real parties). If the license gets canceled, then this issue is moot.
The DMCA is one of the most mis-understood things in history. It's only relevance here is to provide the newspapers with a defense. The real cause of action is good, old-fashion copyright law.
I respectfully disagree. Intellectual property is the only form of property that is *not* dependent on government. That is, I only own my house because I have a government document that says it's mine. Nobody, however, can take my ideas from me unless I willingly part with them. Patent/copyrights/trade secret laws just give me different options to monetize my ideas.
The traditional rule is that parents are NOT liable for their childrens' torts. As you might guess, however, most kids are 'judgement proof' in practice. To avoid being left SOL, some plaintiffs try to sue the parents for commiting their own torts, such as negiglent supervision. To win, however, the plaintiff will need to prove that the parents knew or should have known about their kids' activities. Not the easist thing if the kid is a teenager.
I don't think the issue is with making Windows more secure. It's giving Microsoft's own security software suite a preferred position. From an antitrust pov, Microsoft is free to eliminate the need for security software. It just needs to give the 3rd party vendors access to the same rights, interfaces, etc.
You really can't sue people over the generic issue. The only thing anyone can try is advertise and educate others.
The real issue here is how close others can come to the iPod mark, both in terms of visual similarity (e.g., an iBod mp3 player) and in terms of product similarity (e.g., an iPod clothing line). If Apple lets one company encroach, the next company can argue that their mark is weak. The courts do not give weak marks as much protection as they do against strong marks.
Anyone and everyone could get rights to "Pen" for any good except a writing intrument. Multiple people could even do so simultaneously as long as they sell different goods. For example, Delta Faucets and Delta Airlines both use the Delta mark (even though delta also a word commonly used in everyday life).
Moreover, this is good for the little guy. I'd hate to shell out $250 and not get an actual iPod from Apple Corporationl.
This is a weird subject where normally rational scientists seem to want to venture into matters "T"ruth. Even taking your descriptions at face value, the observed facts still wouldn't prove that man evolved from other primates. At best, they would show that god wasn't necessary for it to happen.
As a practical matter, the 4th A does not apply to electronic communication because you voluntarily gave all of the information to 3rd part(ies). The warrant requirement you mention comes from the federal wiretap statute, not the Constitution. It's also important to note that we are not talking about "wiretaps," we are talking about call records. The police don't need probable cause to get call records.
:-0
As an aside, the 'contraversial' parts of the Patriot Act actually give the average guy additional rights in this area
I always figure the excess electricty gets converted to heat, which reduces my natural gas bill. Yea, electricity is expensive per btu, but it's for a good cause.
YMMV in warmer climates.
I think you are misreading Kelo. The ScT didn't say governments cannot regulate the practice. It just said that the courts will only apply a rational basis test to practice (basically, the government unit needs to be able to articulate a public use that passes the so-called laugh test). Federal/state/local governments are still free to pass laws forbidding the practice or raising the public-use required. The Feds can even forbid the states from seizing property via the supremecy clause. All that would be consistent with Kelo.
The problem with the AHRA is that it defines digital recording machines too narrowly. A general purpose computer doesn't qualify, nor do normal CD-R disks (IIRC, there are CD-audio disks that do, but nobody buys or stocks them).
I think you are misreading the patent-market. . . Big IT is the victim of crappy patents. Who to you think the patent trolls go after? It's not the one man IT shop with $450 in its bank account. It's Microsoft with $40 billion in cash.
What happens when the water in the glass rises above 39F (or what ever temp the max density is)?
Wasn't windows 98 the first edition bundled the browser with the OS - for the benefit of the consumer of course? Bit ironic that it's now cited at the reason to drop support.