Jury nullification is more of a criminal law concept than a civil law concept, imho. Judges frequently grant (using old terminology for clarity) a 'judgment notwithstanding verdict' in civil cases.
but there is nothing now to stop amazon lawers to use this patent as a reason to sue PriceGrabber or any website to allows the users to review something.
I'd call Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a preaty big "something," both to w.r.t. your blog and PriceGrabber. Also, even if your blog did infringe, the $10,000 license fee is pure FUD. The patent owner is only entitled to an injunction and a reasonable royalty.
"Copying" is not illegal. Never has been. You can take a book of your shelf, rip it apart, create 5000 copies. All perfectly legal as long as you don't give/sell those copies.
I think this statement is a bit broad. Copyright law gives authors a bundle of rights, including the right to authorize reproductions and the right to distribute copies. These rights are separable - having authorization to do one does not imply you can do the other (as an aside, this is one of the reasons why online music catelogues suck. The RIAA doesn't own the 'online distribution' copyright). Personal copies often/usually qualify as fair use, but not always. There is a famous case involving a major corporation bought one copy of an expensive technical journal, made a few dozen photocopies, then distributed those copies its research staff. The courts held that this was not a fair use, even though the copies were not distributed externally.
Your point must be too insightful for me;-) Even assuming everything in the two blurbs was true, there is no inconsistency in having multiple patents that cover an aspect of XML. Virtually any significant item of human manufacture will incorporate dozens of inventions. For example, there are tens-of-thousands of patents on automobiles, thousands of patents on transmissions, hundreds of patents on planetary gears, etc. Software is no different than anything else (in fact, software patents are probably less problematic than mechanical ones. The inherent flexibility of software makes it hard to get meaningful claims).
Incorrect, fortunately. You can't patent something you didn't invent (i.e., independently conceive). 35 USC 102(f). Moreover, even assuming your hypothetical patentee did independently invent the same thing, they would need to prove they conceived that invention before the publication date of the draft specification or magazine. 35 USC 102(a). They may also need to prove they conceived the invention before the author of the publication. 35 USC 102(e) and 102(g).
With respect, I think you are missing the parent's point. . . there is nothing forcing you to buy from the major labels, other than your strong desire for the product they produce. If you think you can get as good a product from others, buy from them.
In most places, a trademark owner can get an injuction to project their mark. The injunction makes it "worth" the greater of (whatever goodwill junior user looses as a result of the name change) and (whatever goodwill the senior user looses as a result of customer confusion).
The first one example (counterfeiting) is different than the others - its sensitivity is based on the act of producing the document itself, as opposed to the content of the document. Accordingly, it seems like you can cover libertarian concerns by limiting this to "printers and photocopiers that are good enough to produce a realistic fakes," perhaps even "and only when those devices are using the high quality settings." The very few documents that would matter for examples 2-4 can be easily cleansed by making a photocopy at the local gas station before mailing and/or printing with low quality settings.
The EFF document is, characteristically, a bit heavy on hysteria and thin on details, but at least suggests that this is limited to "color laser printers."
It's not unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment doesn't prevent censorship by individuals, small companies, or big companies. The relevant clauses are "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" and (less obvious) "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
And you can't tell me that Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Laura Ingram and Anne Coulter are proper, non-biased political analysts?
I'll bite. There is a big difference between "editorial content" and "bias." The key is whether you admit that the content is slanted. Thus, for example, Rush Limbaugh is not "biased." He frequently and loudly admits that he is giving the right-wing editorial content. Talk radio, more broadly, is also not "biased." It almost always uses has a different hosts present their news content and editiorial content, and separates those two anouncers with commerical breaks.
Fox News does a decent job, imho - it doesn't pretend that Anne Coulter et al are doing anything other than editorializing. NPR is a different story, however. I find it very hard to tell when they are playing news content and playing editorial content.
Ultimately, there is a specific, 4-factor balancing test for deciding whether something is or is not a fair use. The ScT held that timeshifting commercial tv broadcasts could be a fair use -- largely because the timeshifting did not harm the copyright owners. It's at least possible that the balancing test could come differently when the copyright's owner is harmed by the recording.
Actually, it's not clear from your facts whether the DMCA would make that illegal. The DMCA only makes it illegal to circumvent access control measures. It does not make it illegal to circumvent copy control measures.
Just because the USPTO reissues the patent doesn't mean that it has the same scope as the original. The new art may have forced Eolas to narrow the claims so much that they are not relevant anymore (or maybe not). My point is that we still don't know anything important.
The biggest 'exception' is going to be voip calls/faxes originating from overseas (in the past, international telemarketing was impractical due to the high cost of int'l calling). Call from the right jurisdiction and laugh at those puny do-not-call lists . . .
Not exactly . . . in your quoted section, the the court discussing your rights under Louisiana's Software License Enforcement Act, not the DMCA. The DMCA discussion comes a few pages later. In that section, the court basically says that the DMCA's interoperability exeption would not apply even if all factual disputes were resolved in Bnetd's favor.
I suppose this is more of a post about CNET than AOL, but what does "make it unduly difficult, to cancel their service" mean? Is AOL getting fined because they offered a free months of service to angry customers'? If so, every business in existance is in trouble; offering discounts to angry customers is standard operating procedure. Or did AOL do something more?
I haven't had AOL service for 8-10 years. IIRC, they asked why I wanted to leave, then offered (another) free month, then did-the-deed. Canceling my Qwest phone service was far, far more difficult.
I think you're right, but some folks may incorrectly generalize the rule. Most other countries also lack a '1 year grace period,' so the earlier Apple sale would constitute prior art. The hypothetical European MS patent would be invalid too.
To me, it sounds like the USPTO rejected the Apple application as unpatentable in view of the MS application. The most likely next steps for Apple are: (i) amend their application; or (ii) try to prove they conceived their invention before MS. Interestingly, even if Apple cannot show they conceived before MS, they probably will not need to pay MS any money - it sounds like the MS application is on a feature not used in iPod. Put more simply, patent applications obviate far more than they can disclose and claim.
Slashdot Mirror
Jury nullification is more of a criminal law concept than a civil law concept, imho. Judges frequently grant (using old terminology for clarity) a 'judgment notwithstanding verdict' in civil cases.
but there is nothing now to stop amazon lawers to use this patent as a reason to sue PriceGrabber or any website to allows the users to review something.
I'd call Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure a preaty big "something," both to w.r.t. your blog and PriceGrabber. Also, even if your blog did infringe, the $10,000 license fee is pure FUD. The patent owner is only entitled to an injunction and a reasonable royalty.
Amen.
I think this statement is a bit broad. Copyright law gives authors a bundle of rights, including the right to authorize reproductions and the right to distribute copies. These rights are separable - having authorization to do one does not imply you can do the other (as an aside, this is one of the reasons why online music catelogues suck. The RIAA doesn't own the 'online distribution' copyright). Personal copies often/usually qualify as fair use, but not always. There is a famous case involving a major corporation bought one copy of an expensive technical journal, made a few dozen photocopies, then distributed those copies its research staff. The courts held that this was not a fair use, even though the copies were not distributed externally.
Your point must be too insightful for me ;-) Even assuming everything in the two blurbs was true, there is no inconsistency in having multiple patents that cover an aspect of XML. Virtually any significant item of human manufacture will incorporate dozens of inventions. For example, there are tens-of-thousands of patents on automobiles, thousands of patents on transmissions, hundreds of patents on planetary gears, etc. Software is no different than anything else (in fact, software patents are probably less problematic than mechanical ones. The inherent flexibility of software makes it hard to get meaningful claims).
Incorrect, fortunately. You can't patent something you didn't invent (i.e., independently conceive). 35 USC 102(f). Moreover, even assuming your hypothetical patentee did independently invent the same thing, they would need to prove they conceived that invention before the publication date of the draft specification or magazine. 35 USC 102(a). They may also need to prove they conceived the invention before the author of the publication. 35 USC 102(e) and 102(g).
With respect, I think you are missing the parent's point. . . there is nothing forcing you to buy from the major labels, other than your strong desire for the product they produce. If you think you can get as good a product from others, buy from them.
In most places, a trademark owner can get an injuction to project their mark. The injunction makes it "worth" the greater of (whatever goodwill junior user looses as a result of the name change) and (whatever goodwill the senior user looses as a result of customer confusion).
The first one example (counterfeiting) is different than the others - its sensitivity is based on the act of producing the document itself, as opposed to the content of the document. Accordingly, it seems like you can cover libertarian concerns by limiting this to "printers and photocopiers that are good enough to produce a realistic fakes," perhaps even "and only when those devices are using the high quality settings." The very few documents that would matter for examples 2-4 can be easily cleansed by making a photocopy at the local gas station before mailing and/or printing with low quality settings.
The EFF document is, characteristically, a bit heavy on hysteria and thin on details, but at least suggests that this is limited to "color laser printers."
It's not unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment doesn't prevent censorship by individuals, small companies, or big companies. The relevant clauses are "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech" and (less obvious) "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
I'll bite. There is a big difference between "editorial content" and "bias." The key is whether you admit that the content is slanted. Thus, for example, Rush Limbaugh is not "biased." He frequently and loudly admits that he is giving the right-wing editorial content. Talk radio, more broadly, is also not "biased." It almost always uses has a different hosts present their news content and editiorial content, and separates those two anouncers with commerical breaks.
Fox News does a decent job, imho - it doesn't pretend that Anne Coulter et al are doing anything other than editorializing. NPR is a different story, however. I find it very hard to tell when they are playing news content and playing editorial content.
Really, really long lines.
Ultimately, there is a specific, 4-factor balancing test for deciding whether something is or is not a fair use. The ScT held that timeshifting commercial tv broadcasts could be a fair use -- largely because the timeshifting did not harm the copyright owners. It's at least possible that the balancing test could come differently when the copyright's owner is harmed by the recording.
Actually, it's not clear from your facts whether the DMCA would make that illegal. The DMCA only makes it illegal to circumvent access control measures. It does not make it illegal to circumvent copy control measures.
Just because the USPTO reissues the patent doesn't mean that it has the same scope as the original. The new art may have forced Eolas to narrow the claims so much that they are not relevant anymore (or maybe not). My point is that we still don't know anything important.
The biggest 'exception' is going to be voip calls/faxes originating from overseas (in the past, international telemarketing was impractical due to the high cost of int'l calling). Call from the right jurisdiction and laugh at those puny do-not-call lists . . .
I'm definately not the most technical person on these boards, but I thought Battlenet was a matchmaker, not a host.
Not exactly . . . in your quoted section, the the court discussing your rights under Louisiana's Software License Enforcement Act, not the DMCA. The DMCA discussion comes a few pages later. In that section, the court basically says that the DMCA's interoperability exeption would not apply even if all factual disputes were resolved in Bnetd's favor.
Sigh. . . trying to stop organized crime and bittorrent users are not mutually exclusive acts.
It's hard to be too impressed. The AS/400 had this 20 years ago.
I suppose this is more of a post about CNET than AOL, but what does "make it unduly difficult, to cancel their service" mean? Is AOL getting fined because they offered a free months of service to angry customers'? If so, every business in existance is in trouble; offering discounts to angry customers is standard operating procedure. Or did AOL do something more?
I haven't had AOL service for 8-10 years. IIRC, they asked why I wanted to leave, then offered (another) free month, then did-the-deed. Canceling my Qwest phone service was far, far more difficult.
Didn't yahoo do the same thing a year ago?
r ted_nl (and yea, they don't support Linux either)
http://gamesondemand.yahoo.com/play/error/unsuppo
Ummmm, better read that article again. Nobody is claiming a *copyrights* on the use of of these terms.
I think you're right, but some folks may incorrectly generalize the rule. Most other countries also lack a '1 year grace period,' so the earlier Apple sale would constitute prior art. The hypothetical European MS patent would be invalid too.
To me, it sounds like the USPTO rejected the Apple application as unpatentable in view of the MS application. The most likely next steps for Apple are: (i) amend their application; or (ii) try to prove they conceived their invention before MS. Interestingly, even if Apple cannot show they conceived before MS, they probably will not need to pay MS any money - it sounds like the MS application is on a feature not used in iPod. Put more simply, patent applications obviate far more than they can disclose and claim.