Confusing article, and I'm too lazy to google for more. It sounds like the USPTO rejected Apple's application as being obvious in view of the Microsoft art. This does not (necessarily) mean that Microsoft can get the patent on whatever is in the Apple application. Some of the more likely next steps: (1) US patents go to the first one to conceive the invention. This means that Apple can submit evidence that they conceived the invention before the Microsoft guys and diligently reduced it to practice. If this was a "final" rejection, it just means that Apple needs to pay additional fees to file the evidence. (2) The Microsoft art "obviates" the invention but does not "disclose" it (a common occurance). This means that nobody will be able to patent the stuff in the Apple application (3) Both groups independently invented the same thing and both filed a patent on claiming it - the USPTO will declare an "interference." As a practical matter, this almost never happens outside the drug industry. (4) Nobody cares because they are cross-licensed or because the patent(s) claim features that are not actually used.
I'm not so sure about your "manually highlighting the numbers would infringe" assertion. . . even working with the as-filed claims, the human editor would not "determin[e] whether a request to emphasize all of the numerical data in the electronic document has been received."
The Wired article and Slashdot summary are a bit troll-ish, imho. The relevant portion of the DMCA appears to be the notice-and-takedown provision. That provisions basically says that if an ISP promptly takes down disputed material, that ISP cannot be sued. That is, the DMCA provides gives the ISP a DEFENSE to infringement if the ISP chooses to use it. Significantly, however, there is nothing in the DMCA that provides the underlying cause of action - that job belongs to old-fashion copyright law.
Fortunatley, phrases like attempting, aiding and abetting, and inciting are legal terms of art and have excepted, predictable meanings when used in laws (at least in the US). The general "x merely makes something that hypothetically could be used to to Y" fact situation wouldn't qualify, imo.
I've never quite understood this argument. In a hyper-technical sense, you're right. The crime is called "infringement." However, 'breaking into someone's house and taking their stereo' isn't "theft" either, it's "burglary." Neither is 'walking into a convenience store, pointing a gun at the clerk, and demanding the money in the cash register' (it's "robbery") or 'deposit cash meant for employer into your own account' (it's "embezzlement" or "larceny"). Yet, I believe everyone would call these acts "theft."
Imho, it does not make much more sense from a moral perspective. Physical possession has never been particularly relevant to property ownership. I own many things I don't physically possess and physically possess many things I don't own. Property is about the right to control, and copyright infringement impairs that right just as much as any physical harm.
I admit I'm a 1st Amendment extremist and a bit of a black-helecopter wacko, but I've always had a trouble with DNC lists because they are not content neutral. Basically, they say it's OK to telemarket political contributions, telemarket nonprofit contributions, and telemarket beads 'n' trinkets (from nonprofits), but not legal items from individuals or corporations. I could live with these laws if they banned all telemarketing other than between 7-9:00, but not if they only ban telmarketing from politically-unfavored groups.
Typically, the patentee narrows their formal description of the invention (i.e., the claims) until the invention is novel and nonobvious. However, each 'narrowing' makes it less likely that anyone will infringe the patent.
It's a good thing for people who already pay for broadband. It's a bad thing for people who have no particular interest in it b/c they will be forced to subsidize everyone else. Broadband is not a public good. You can charge only those who want it . . .
Which are paid 150% by user fees (aka the gas tax) in most areas in the US. The difference the parent is pointing out is that one group of people (automobile users) are being forced to subsidize another group (transit users).
I respectively disagree. Terrorism is done partly for personal gain (control territory), partly to intimidate those who would oppose them (e.g., Spain), and part because they're at war with the world and can.
I generally agree, but want to further point out that this decision is based on federal common law (rather than on the Constitution or federal statutes). By design, common law is revealed on a case-by-case basis and evolves over time.
It's also worth noting that common law-based decisions can be 'overturned' by statute. Constitution-based decisions, obviously, cannot be overturned by statute. This distinction makes it more defensible to 'legislate,' 'use foreign law,' etc when basing decisons on the common-law than when using the Constitution.
I suspect the parent may be right. A 'copyright' is actually a bundle of individually assignable rights. The courts have generally held that the original author owns each right unless they specifically assign that right. The problem this leads to is that the contracts before the mid-90's didn't address the 'transmission over the internet' rights, which means the RIAA doesn't have that particular copyright. However, the author did assign the 'reproduce' and 'distribution' rights. The end result of all this is that the RIAA can't license an online music store b/c they don't have the internet retransmission right and the artist can't license it because they don't have the duplication right.
I've been thinking along the same lines. It would seem to me that the 'condemned person' should at the very least get market value + expenses related to the switch. By expenses, I mean the cost to get a moving company to move their junk, the origination fee + misc fees for their new mortgage, compensation for the time involved in finding a new house, money to get the miscellaneous junk you always need at a new place. I'd say something like 125% of market would be a good starting place.
Purely playing devil's advocate, who would you rather have make this decision. An elected body or an unelected judge. I think the ScT majority decided it was better to defer to the elected body when deciding what was 'in the public interest.'
Judicial conservatism is *very* different than political conservatism. For example, a 'judicial consevative' like Scalia would overturn Roe but uphold a state law saying that everyone has a right to abortion at taxpayer expense. A political conservative obviously would hate both. With this in mind, I'd tend to characterize it as:
Judicial conservative: the Constitution is a contract that means whatever the signers believe it meant
Judicial liberal: the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that can be interpreted to fit contemporary values
There are (fairly obvious) bugs that give unfair advantages and would be cheating. For example, using map bug that allows you to shoot from 'under the world' without being subject to return fire.
Not intended as justification or rebuttel, but this type of thing is hardly unusual - it seems like I get an "emergency email" from special interest group or another every other week. It must be how they drive donations. . .
Slashdot Mirror
Confusing article, and I'm too lazy to google for more. It sounds like the USPTO rejected Apple's application as being obvious in view of the Microsoft art. This does not (necessarily) mean that Microsoft can get the patent on whatever is in the Apple application. Some of the more likely next steps:
(1) US patents go to the first one to conceive the invention. This means that Apple can submit evidence that they conceived the invention before the Microsoft guys and diligently reduced it to practice. If this was a "final" rejection, it just means that Apple needs to pay additional fees to file the evidence.
(2) The Microsoft art "obviates" the invention but does not "disclose" it (a common occurance). This means that nobody will be able to patent the stuff in the Apple application
(3) Both groups independently invented the same thing and both filed a patent on claiming it - the USPTO will declare an "interference." As a practical matter, this almost never happens outside the drug industry.
(4) Nobody cares because they are cross-licensed or because the patent(s) claim features that are not actually used.
I'm not so sure about your "manually highlighting the numbers would infringe" assertion. . . even working with the as-filed claims, the human editor would not "determin[e] whether a request to emphasize all of the numerical data in the electronic document has been received."
The Wired article and Slashdot summary are a bit troll-ish, imho. The relevant portion of the DMCA appears to be the notice-and-takedown provision. That provisions basically says that if an ISP promptly takes down disputed material, that ISP cannot be sued. That is, the DMCA provides gives the ISP a DEFENSE to infringement if the ISP chooses to use it. Significantly, however, there is nothing in the DMCA that provides the underlying cause of action - that job belongs to old-fashion copyright law.
Fortunatley, phrases like attempting, aiding and abetting, and inciting are legal terms of art and have excepted, predictable meanings when used in laws (at least in the US). The general "x merely makes something that hypothetically could be used to to Y" fact situation wouldn't qualify, imo.
Easy. I only want other peoples' information to be free.
I've never quite understood this argument. In a hyper-technical sense, you're right. The crime is called "infringement." However, 'breaking into someone's house and taking their stereo' isn't "theft" either, it's "burglary." Neither is 'walking into a convenience store, pointing a gun at the clerk, and demanding the money in the cash register' (it's "robbery") or 'deposit cash meant for employer into your own account' (it's "embezzlement" or "larceny"). Yet, I believe everyone would call these acts "theft."
Imho, it does not make much more sense from a moral perspective. Physical possession has never been particularly relevant to property ownership. I own many things I don't physically possess and physically possess many things I don't own. Property is about the right to control, and copyright infringement impairs that right just as much as any physical harm.
I admit I'm a 1st Amendment extremist and a bit of a black-helecopter wacko, but I've always had a trouble with DNC lists because they are not content neutral. Basically, they say it's OK to telemarket political contributions, telemarket nonprofit contributions, and telemarket beads 'n' trinkets (from nonprofits), but not legal items from individuals or corporations. I could live with these laws if they banned all telemarketing other than between 7-9:00, but not if they only ban telmarketing from politically-unfavored groups.
Typically, the patentee narrows their formal description of the invention (i.e., the claims) until the invention is novel and nonobvious. However, each 'narrowing' makes it less likely that anyone will infringe the patent.
I think the parent is referring ASCAP and BMI . .
It's a good thing for people who already pay for broadband. It's a bad thing for people who have no particular interest in it b/c they will be forced to subsidize everyone else. Broadband is not a public good. You can charge only those who want it . . .
Which are paid 150% by user fees (aka the gas tax) in most areas in the US. The difference the parent is pointing out is that one group of people (automobile users) are being forced to subsidize another group (transit users).
I respectively disagree. Terrorism is done partly for personal gain (control territory), partly to intimidate those who would oppose them (e.g., Spain), and part because they're at war with the world and can.
Not to mention paying for suicide bombings (around $20K, IIRC). Preaty clear 'support of terrorism' if you ask me.
Carrying out the attack *while pretending to be non-combatants* would also make it terrorism, regardless of a formal state of war.
I doubt this will affect the DMCA. This decision is based on federal common law. A federal statute will have precedence.
I generally agree, but want to further point out that this decision is based on federal common law (rather than on the Constitution or federal statutes). By design, common law is revealed on a case-by-case basis and evolves over time.
It's also worth noting that common law-based decisions can be 'overturned' by statute. Constitution-based decisions, obviously, cannot be overturned by statute. This distinction makes it more defensible to 'legislate,' 'use foreign law,' etc when basing decisons on the common-law than when using the Constitution.
I suspect the parent may be right. A 'copyright' is actually a bundle of individually assignable rights. The courts have generally held that the original author owns each right unless they specifically assign that right. The problem this leads to is that the contracts before the mid-90's didn't address the 'transmission over the internet' rights, which means the RIAA doesn't have that particular copyright. However, the author did assign the 'reproduce' and 'distribution' rights. The end result of all this is that the RIAA can't license an online music store b/c they don't have the internet retransmission right and the artist can't license it because they don't have the duplication right.
I've been thinking along the same lines. It would seem to me that the 'condemned person' should at the very least get market value + expenses related to the switch. By expenses, I mean the cost to get a moving company to move their junk, the origination fee + misc fees for their new mortgage, compensation for the time involved in finding a new house, money to get the miscellaneous junk you always need at a new place. I'd say something like 125% of market would be a good starting place.
I disagree. Bush is a liberal (at least when compared to Clinton). Compare:
Clinton:
GATT/NAFTA trade agreements
'tough love' welfare bill
block grants to states
Bush
Protectionist terrifs on steel
massive new drug entitlement for rich seniors
federalize the education system
Yes, but as long as it's at the local level, I can 'vote' by moving somewhere else. It's national policies you need to worry about. . .
Purely playing devil's advocate, who would you rather have make this decision. An elected body or an unelected judge. I think the ScT majority decided it was better to defer to the elected body when deciding what was 'in the public interest.'
Or it's the liberals who want to take property away from the politically unpowerful and give it to the politically powerful.
You're probably right on the second point, though.
Judicial conservatism is *very* different than political conservatism. For example, a 'judicial consevative' like Scalia would overturn Roe but uphold a state law saying that everyone has a right to abortion at taxpayer expense. A political conservative obviously would hate both. With this in mind, I'd tend to characterize it as:
Judicial conservative: the Constitution is a contract that means whatever the signers believe it meant
Judicial liberal: the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that can be interpreted to fit contemporary values
There are (fairly obvious) bugs that give unfair advantages and would be cheating. For example, using map bug that allows you to shoot from 'under the world' without being subject to return fire.
Not intended as justification or rebuttel, but this type of thing is hardly unusual - it seems like I get an "emergency email" from special interest group or another every other week. It must be how they drive donations. . .