Then are you telling me that, i.e., the GPL is unenforceable along with all other software licenses? Read the ProCD case and tell me if you still feel the same way.
However, the US legal system doesn't rely on prior art or its lack to judge the granting of a patent. That's only relevant to the defending of a patent.
What do you mean? Are you telling me all this time I'm spending studying patent practice and procedure at $800 per credit hour is wasted? If patent law didn't look to prior art during examination prior to granting a patent, why then did Nintendo cite numerous U.S. patents going back to 1984, a handful of EU and JP patents, and more journal articles, web pages, and patent applications than you can shake a stick at? As an inventor seeking a patent in the U.S., you have a duty to disclose all relevant prior art you are aware of until the application is granted or abandoned. Do you think they just want you to give them that information so they can find it easier if someone challenges the issuance of the patent later?
The only problem is, you never *own* any software. You *license* software, even handheld game cartridges. You are allowed to make backups and copies necessary to use a legally licensed copy under 17 U.S.C. 117, but that right terminates once the license terminates. If the license limits the use of the software to the machine it was sold for then the license may be terminated immediately upon the use of the software with an emulator.
Gentoo has defaults?!? The last Gentoo box I built used 2.6.2 from the first boot (ok, not from the liveCD, but once I built the base it never looked back).
Cartographers did introduce intentional errors to detect copying, but maps have been explicitly extended copyright protection at least since the 1909 act and, I'm pretty sure, since the 1791(?) act.
Perhaps you're right and I've misread the portion of the Statute reprinted in my Copyrights book. It still seems to me though that the Statute was designed to restrict the press, though perhaps they figured that was the only way to achieve their goals at a time when the power of publication was not as easily obtained as it is today.
Rural tried that argument in the Feist case. They had inserted a number of phony entries in order to detect wholesale copying, at least four of which appeared in Feist's publication. The problem with that approach is that courts don't look to individual creative elements, but to the originality of the work as a whole.
You're right that people should be able to protect their investment of time and resources in the creation of such collections of fact. Where you're wrong, however, is in assuming that the Copyright Act (or any other copyright-like law) is the appropriate place to provide that protection. As it stands, contract and trade secret law provides all the protection these companies need. Think Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw, they make boatloads of money dealing in uncopyrighted information (government documents) by restricting access to their databases and charging for that acess. They also have contracts to which subscribers must agree that limit the use of non-copyrightable additions made to governemnt documents as well as non-copyrightable non-governemnt documents.
Get it right, this bill does not offer any protection to facts qua facts, but only to collections of facts qua collections of facts. If it were to offer protection against the unauthorized use of facts, I could be prevented from giving anyone my phone number, e-mail address, etc. What is being sought to be protected is the massive databases of phone numbers and e-mail addresses owned by multinationals. That said, even that is probably a Bad Idea(TM).
But, also like trade secrets, you can have contractual arrangements that prohibit licensees from letting the data out into the wild or using it for purposes other than those for which they have been granted express permission. A carefully written contract would be far better than anything Congress can do.
No, actually, under current law you are entirely within your right (absent additional contractual obligations) to copy verbatim an existing database. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine to which you seem to refer was flatly rejected by the Supreme Court in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). Phone books and other collections of facts are not copyrightable because "originality is a constitutional requirement" and collections of fact do not possess the requisite originality. Certain presentations of collections of facts may be eligible for copyright protection, but the underlying facts are still in the public domain.
As for database overlap, that wouldn't be a problem if this law were implemented. Separate creations of the same set of facts are still separate.
Right, there likely will be an option to turn it off. You and I are smart enough to know to look for such an option. Then again, you and I are also smart enough to look for other options, such as vorbis, xmms, etc.
True, but vorbis is also dedicated to the public domain without patent encumbrances which would allow the extension of the format and forced acceptance of that extension on pain of license revocation. Xiph.org can do whatever they want with vorbis, but there's nothing they can do to prevent me from sticking with the version of libvorbis I currently have and improving it.
No, it's modded insightful because it offers *insight* into the dangers posed by technology when our own software can be used against us. The same could be said of Apple or Real or WinAMP any of the other closed-source media player providers. If we don't know what our software is doing there's nothing preventing it from appropriating our own content from us. To extend the GP's fear, what happens when I play an MP3 of my own music and a media player wants to add DRM to it? Who gets the right to tell me where and how I can use my own creation?
"I use Gentoo because it's more like the BSDs." "Last month I tried to install FreeBSD on a well-supported machine, but the text-based installer scared me off. I've never used a BSD, but the guys on Slashdot say that it's l33t though, so surely I must be for using Gentoo."
Have you ever installed Gentoo? Installing FreeBSD was a breeze compared to my first Gentoo install. At least FreeBSD gives you purty menus to play with and automates all kinds of things. Gentoo requires everything to be done by hand.
NOTE: I seem to remember reading that 2004.0 was supposed to add some degree of automation, but I'd still wager it's no walk in the park.
My GPS unit sits right on my dash or attaches to the windshield. Also, just get your Ford without the navigation option. No biggie.
And what do you do when Ford won't sell you a car without the navigation crap and there aren't any aftermarket options because nobody wants to spend money on something they're getting for "free"?
And, thus, we're back to my previous statement that Microsoft may not be a classic absolute monopoly, but they most certainly do have a monopoly in the desktop PC OS market under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Take that up with Congress and Judge Penfield Jackson. A company can have a monopoly in a market where they have a hundred competitors but the competitors have a cumulative market share of, say one percent, especially if the monopolist has engaged in anticompetitive behavior (such as onerous licensing schemes, etc.) in order to preserve their monopoly in the face of such budding competition.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The problem I have with Microsoft tying everything to their OS is that they are using a monopoly product to atempt to gain a monopoly in another market where there is already active competition. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly. There is nothing wrong (inherently) with seeking a monopoly in another product. Every company that makes a product wants a monopoly. What is a problem is using a monopoly to kill competition and gain another monopoly.
Microsoft may not be an absolute monopoly in the classic sense, but they most certainly are a monopoly for the purposes of the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to the desktop PC OS market. The Linux market presents a different case because, while there is only one source for the kernel, that is only part of the entire OS and there are a multitude of sources for a complete system, including firewalls, anti-virus and anti-spam tools, browsers, media players, etc. Even if the positions were to be reversed and Linux was in a monopoly position, the mere fact that the source is available and anyone can fork or modify it for their own purposes makes anti-competitive behavior very difficult.
One small problem with your critique. My analogy assumed a monopoly in the automobile market. Activities that are perfectly acceptable responses to market forces in a competitive market can become anti-competitive if practiced by a monopolist. *THAT* is the problem with Microsoft tying everything under the sun to their OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Then are you telling me that, i.e., the GPL is unenforceable along with all other software licenses? Read the ProCD case and tell me if you still feel the same way.
The only problem is, you never *own* any software. You *license* software, even handheld game cartridges. You are allowed to make backups and copies necessary to use a legally licensed copy under 17 U.S.C. 117, but that right terminates once the license terminates. If the license limits the use of the software to the machine it was sold for then the license may be terminated immediately upon the use of the software with an emulator.
Gentoo has defaults?!? The last Gentoo box I built used 2.6.2 from the first boot (ok, not from the liveCD, but once I built the base it never looked back).
Cartographers did introduce intentional errors to detect copying, but maps have been explicitly extended copyright protection at least since the 1909 act and, I'm pretty sure, since the 1791(?) act.
Perhaps you're right and I've misread the portion of the Statute reprinted in my Copyrights book. It still seems to me though that the Statute was designed to restrict the press, though perhaps they figured that was the only way to achieve their goals at a time when the power of publication was not as easily obtained as it is today.
Rural tried that argument in the Feist case. They had inserted a number of phony entries in order to detect wholesale copying, at least four of which appeared in Feist's publication. The problem with that approach is that courts don't look to individual creative elements, but to the originality of the work as a whole.
Please, the Statute of Anne claimed to be about the public interest, but it was really all about censorship and restricting the press.
That case is FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
You're right that people should be able to protect their investment of time and resources in the creation of such collections of fact. Where you're wrong, however, is in assuming that the Copyright Act (or any other copyright-like law) is the appropriate place to provide that protection. As it stands, contract and trade secret law provides all the protection these companies need. Think Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw, they make boatloads of money dealing in uncopyrighted information (government documents) by restricting access to their databases and charging for that acess. They also have contracts to which subscribers must agree that limit the use of non-copyrightable additions made to governemnt documents as well as non-copyrightable non-governemnt documents.
Get it right, this bill does not offer any protection to facts qua facts, but only to collections of facts qua collections of facts. If it were to offer protection against the unauthorized use of facts, I could be prevented from giving anyone my phone number, e-mail address, etc. What is being sought to be protected is the massive databases of phone numbers and e-mail addresses owned by multinationals. That said, even that is probably a Bad Idea(TM).
But, also like trade secrets, you can have contractual arrangements that prohibit licensees from letting the data out into the wild or using it for purposes other than those for which they have been granted express permission. A carefully written contract would be far better than anything Congress can do.
As for database overlap, that wouldn't be a problem if this law were implemented. Separate creations of the same set of facts are still separate.
Right, there likely will be an option to turn it off. You and I are smart enough to know to look for such an option. Then again, you and I are also smart enough to look for other options, such as vorbis, xmms, etc.
True, but vorbis is also dedicated to the public domain without patent encumbrances which would allow the extension of the format and forced acceptance of that extension on pain of license revocation. Xiph.org can do whatever they want with vorbis, but there's nothing they can do to prevent me from sticking with the version of libvorbis I currently have and improving it.
No, it's modded insightful because it offers *insight* into the dangers posed by technology when our own software can be used against us. The same could be said of Apple or Real or WinAMP any of the other closed-source media player providers. If we don't know what our software is doing there's nothing preventing it from appropriating our own content from us. To extend the GP's fear, what happens when I play an MP3 of my own music and a media player wants to add DRM to it? Who gets the right to tell me where and how I can use my own creation?
NOTE: I seem to remember reading that 2004.0 was supposed to add some degree of automation, but I'd still wager it's no walk in the park.
would you be so kind as to post your scripts? I'm always worried that I'm missing something that isn't in my world profile.
And, thus, we're back to my previous statement that Microsoft may not be a classic absolute monopoly, but they most certainly do have a monopoly in the desktop PC OS market under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Take that up with Congress and Judge Penfield Jackson. A company can have a monopoly in a market where they have a hundred competitors but the competitors have a cumulative market share of, say one percent, especially if the monopolist has engaged in anticompetitive behavior (such as onerous licensing schemes, etc.) in order to preserve their monopoly in the face of such budding competition.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The problem I have with Microsoft tying everything to their OS is that they are using a monopoly product to atempt to gain a monopoly in another market where there is already active competition. There is nothing wrong with having a monopoly. There is nothing wrong (inherently) with seeking a monopoly in another product. Every company that makes a product wants a monopoly. What is a problem is using a monopoly to kill competition and gain another monopoly.
Microsoft may not be an absolute monopoly in the classic sense, but they most certainly are a monopoly for the purposes of the Sherman Antitrust Act with respect to the desktop PC OS market. The Linux market presents a different case because, while there is only one source for the kernel, that is only part of the entire OS and there are a multitude of sources for a complete system, including firewalls, anti-virus and anti-spam tools, browsers, media players, etc. Even if the positions were to be reversed and Linux was in a monopoly position, the mere fact that the source is available and anyone can fork or modify it for their own purposes makes anti-competitive behavior very difficult.
One small problem with your critique. My analogy assumed a monopoly in the automobile market. Activities that are perfectly acceptable responses to market forces in a competitive market can become anti-competitive if practiced by a monopolist. *THAT* is the problem with Microsoft tying everything under the sun to their OS.
why do I have this sneaking suspicion you're not referring to groceries?