I think you're the one who needs to buy a clue. Microsoft's bundling is not comparable to Ford putting carriage makers out of business. Killing the market for a competing product by producing a better, more efficient product is not a problem. What is a problem is killing the market for a competing product by using a monopoly product as a platform for distributing a knock-off of the competing product. It would be more like Ford, being the only maker of automobiles, including an in-dash navigation system using their own GPS satelite network in order to kill the market for aftermarket navigation systems. Add to that Ford taking measures to ensure that you can't remove the navigation system to replace it with another without rendering the entire vehicle useless even though the navigation system isn't strictly necessary to operate the vehicle and you've got a much better approximation of Microsoft's anti-competitive activities.
Will you people buy a fucking clue?!? There is no way that this patent could be thought to read on "the basics of XML" or even an exceptionally broad application of XML. The only thing this patent reads on is a method and system for using XML as a database to store scripts in a language agnositc manner with various metadata attached. Read the patent very carefully, not the Abstract, not the Specification, but read the Claims, the only parts that mean anything when it comes to infringement analysis. Particularly, read the first two independent claims, one and nine. There's nothing there other than a method for using XML to store scripts, give a user data about stored scripts, and allow the user to run stored scripts. I dislike the monster in Redmond as much as the next guy, but there's no reason to get bent out of shape over this patent. There's really not much to it.
Read 17 U.S.C. 106. Copyright holders are granted six exclusive rights: reproduction, making derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display, and digital audio transmission. Obviously, some of those only apply to certain media (more fully detailed in 106) but it is clear that to even obtain a copy via the internet you must make a copy. Now, if someone were to hand you a CD with the code, you might not be infringing, but you would as soon as you stuck the CD in your computer and did anything with it since the courts have this stupid view that copying an executable into RAM to run it is a reproduction and copyright infringment if you are not properly licensed to do so. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
And, just as a point of clarification, the RIAA could have nailed people for downloading music or for uploading. The only thing we know from their press releases is that they were targeting people who were sharing, but since things haven't proceeded to trial in any case we don't know what was really going on.
Sounds like the last line of the article covered that. They're going to provide a "clear upgrade path" to XP Home and Pro. Sure, "we clear your bank account and you get to upgrade."
Didn't the DMCA add an exemption from copyright infringement for ISPs providing a caching service? Isn't that why Google can cache to the HTML of pages they link to? Why shouldn't they add images to their cache (other than the ridiculously huge storage requirements)?
Now, don't get me wrong, I like my guns as much as the next guy (or gal). I've even got a nifty little NRA keychain. But the second amendment does have that preamble about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State." There is nothing "well-regulated" about the current state of firearms laws. There should be education and licensing requirements for all gunowners and gunowners should be required to immediately report the theft or sale of a firearm. We do the same for automobiles, which are only potentially deadly, not designed to be so. And don't give me any of that crap about there being no constitutional right to an automobile, read the Ninth Amendment. The government doesn't have any power to prevent us from owning an automobile any more than they have the power to prevent us from owning guns. The situation would be absolutely no different if there were no second amendment. The government does, however, have a right and an obligation to protect its citizens. That is the whole point of having a government. If licensing and registration will make even one person safer, it is an appropriate course of action to take.
The problem is, that's part of the reason there aren't any Linux worms circulating either. If, as we all hope, Tux finds his way onto the desktop in mass numbers MyDoom will quickly become LinDoom.
Oh, yeah, I got my first copy of MyDoom today. I was so proud. I'm a bad parent though and I threw it promptly in the nearest dumpster.
That said, this is an interesting article even if it does read like it's from the FBI PR department. Interesting to see the bit about them having trouble working with Macs for forensic data recovery.
If Kevin Smith isn't using Lucas' trademarks in commerce (i.e., to promote his own movies) that's true. But if Pixar were to use trademarks owned by Disney without a license to advertise other products, there could be trouble. Check the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114. That said, I seem to recall a case recently regarding a former Playmate using the Playboy trademark on her homepage and the court said it was an acceptable and non-infringing use if she was accurately describing her status as a former Playmate.
The witch has been gasping her last "I'm melting" for some time now. And the "news" about SCOG ginning up the IBM lawsuit to avoid bankruptcy isn't really that new. Company insiders have been saying the same thing for quite a while.
Of course it is. You must understand the distinction between patents and copyrights, though, to understand why. Patents cover the idea underlying an invention whereas copyright explicitly excludes ideas and only covers particular expressions of ideas. Therefore, you can have a patent covering the methods underlying your software and a copyright covering your particular implementation of those methods. That said, anyone copying your code during the patent protection will per force be infringing your patent as well, but clean room implementations during the patent period would only be protected by patents. IANAL, blah blah blah...
The novelty requirement is taken extremely lightly these days. I've been working on a patentability opinion for a large paper company (who will remain nameless) regarding antistatic laminates. It seems that the only differences in the patents that have already been granted are in which layer the antistatic materials are placed and in what amounts. There's nothing really novel about moving some carbon from a layer between decor and base and to the base, but there are separate patents for each.
Remember, you can only infringe a patent if you practice all of the elements of a claim in the patent. If you actually read the patent, and not the spin from non-lawyers with a bone to pick, you will see that this in no way would hamper open source development. It only covers a particular method of developing software (not necessarily OSS) and providing for payment to outside developers. As I noted someone mention earlier, the patent requires that two intent-to-submit notices be received to prevent re-organization of the software. It would seem that an easy way to get around the patent would be to require only one.*
*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (even if I hand disclaimers out like candy like one) and nothing I say is intended to be, and should not be, taken as legal advice. If you are concerned about infringing a patent, contact a patent attorney.
Hell, in my patent practice and procedure class we reviewed a patent that IBM obtained (and later abandoned) for a system and method for obtaining reservation requests for airline restrooms and notifying passengers when their number is up. IBM *will* patent anything, but that doesn't mean they have any intention of preventing others from using the invention or even using it themselves.
Not necessarily true. The public domain refers to any intellectual property not protected by copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, etc., law. As someone else previously said, obtaining a patent and then placing the patented invention in the public domain would have the effect of creating registered prior art that would prevent someone else from attempting to patent and appropriate the invention. That said, I'm not a lawyer, just a law student studying patent and copyright law.
Re:You are so mistaken . . .
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 2, Informative
It's good to see that some people around here actually do have a clue as to how lawsuits work. Both parties in a civil suit are entitled to very broad discovery under the FRCP. It's also instructive to remember that IBM has made several affirmative defenses and counterclaims, on which they bear the burdens of production and persuasion, placing them in the same position as a plaintiff in a simple suit. That said, SCO would only be entitled to a directed verdict on IBM's counterclaims were IBM to not provide discovery. IBM has no burden with respect to SCO's claims until SCO has met their burden of production and presented a prima facie case. That's why it's called a burden, IBM doesn't have to do a damn thing until the burden is met and they can still win.
Copyright in the US is not based on "sweat of the brow" as it is in other countries, but on creative content.
You're absolutely right, American copyright law isn't based on the "sweat of the brow" doctrine. That, however, is absolutely irrelevant to discussion of this bill since, after a cursory inspection of the text, the bill is predicated on the commerce clause and not the copyright clause. Speaking of my cursory inspection, it seems troubling that the language doesn't speak of copying data but of making data available. It would seem then that anyone who, through separate expenditure of financial resources and time, creates a database substantially similar to one already in existence would be liable for damages.
Wi-Fi without a radio? Sounds kinda like a soundcard without a DAC or a videocard without a RAMDAC. What's the point of including functionality while not including necessary pieces except, perhaps, to rachet up the marketingspeek and pressure out other manufacturers?
there's also an explicit exemption for surveilance and law enforcement purposes. The good ol' boys in the OSL had to make sure they covered their rear.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're the one who needs to buy a clue. Microsoft's bundling is not comparable to Ford putting carriage makers out of business. Killing the market for a competing product by producing a better, more efficient product is not a problem. What is a problem is killing the market for a competing product by using a monopoly product as a platform for distributing a knock-off of the competing product. It would be more like Ford, being the only maker of automobiles, including an in-dash navigation system using their own GPS satelite network in order to kill the market for aftermarket navigation systems. Add to that Ford taking measures to ensure that you can't remove the navigation system to replace it with another without rendering the entire vehicle useless even though the navigation system isn't strictly necessary to operate the vehicle and you've got a much better approximation of Microsoft's anti-competitive activities.
Will you people buy a fucking clue?!? There is no way that this patent could be thought to read on "the basics of XML" or even an exceptionally broad application of XML. The only thing this patent reads on is a method and system for using XML as a database to store scripts in a language agnositc manner with various metadata attached. Read the patent very carefully, not the Abstract, not the Specification, but read the Claims, the only parts that mean anything when it comes to infringement analysis. Particularly, read the first two independent claims, one and nine. There's nothing there other than a method for using XML to store scripts, give a user data about stored scripts, and allow the user to run stored scripts. I dislike the monster in Redmond as much as the next guy, but there's no reason to get bent out of shape over this patent. There's really not much to it.
Read 17 U.S.C. 106. Copyright holders are granted six exclusive rights: reproduction, making derivative works, distribution, public performance, public display, and digital audio transmission. Obviously, some of those only apply to certain media (more fully detailed in 106) but it is clear that to even obtain a copy via the internet you must make a copy. Now, if someone were to hand you a CD with the code, you might not be infringing, but you would as soon as you stuck the CD in your computer and did anything with it since the courts have this stupid view that copying an executable into RAM to run it is a reproduction and copyright infringment if you are not properly licensed to do so. See MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
And, just as a point of clarification, the RIAA could have nailed people for downloading music or for uploading. The only thing we know from their press releases is that they were targeting people who were sharing, but since things haven't proceeded to trial in any case we don't know what was really going on.
Sounds like the last line of the article covered that. They're going to provide a "clear upgrade path" to XP Home and Pro. Sure, "we clear your bank account and you get to upgrade."
Didn't the DMCA add an exemption from copyright infringement for ISPs providing a caching service? Isn't that why Google can cache to the HTML of pages they link to? Why shouldn't they add images to their cache (other than the ridiculously huge storage requirements)?
Hmm, MythTV anyone? It's been working great for me for months now. And no monthly fees!
Now, don't get me wrong, I like my guns as much as the next guy (or gal). I've even got a nifty little NRA keychain. But the second amendment does have that preamble about a "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State." There is nothing "well-regulated" about the current state of firearms laws. There should be education and licensing requirements for all gunowners and gunowners should be required to immediately report the theft or sale of a firearm. We do the same for automobiles, which are only potentially deadly, not designed to be so. And don't give me any of that crap about there being no constitutional right to an automobile, read the Ninth Amendment. The government doesn't have any power to prevent us from owning an automobile any more than they have the power to prevent us from owning guns. The situation would be absolutely no different if there were no second amendment. The government does, however, have a right and an obligation to protect its citizens. That is the whole point of having a government. If licensing and registration will make even one person safer, it is an appropriate course of action to take.
The difference between guns and swimming pools is that swimming pools aren't designed to leave a .45 calibre hole in someone/something.
The problem is, that's part of the reason there aren't any Linux worms circulating either. If, as we all hope, Tux finds his way onto the desktop in mass numbers MyDoom will quickly become LinDoom.
Oh, yeah, I got my first copy of MyDoom today. I was so proud. I'm a bad parent though and I threw it promptly in the nearest dumpster.
That said, this is an interesting article even if it does read like it's from the FBI PR department. Interesting to see the bit about them having trouble working with Macs for forensic data recovery.
I had to do it. FIRST POST!
If Kevin Smith isn't using Lucas' trademarks in commerce (i.e., to promote his own movies) that's true. But if Pixar were to use trademarks owned by Disney without a license to advertise other products, there could be trouble. Check the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1114. That said, I seem to recall a case recently regarding a former Playmate using the Playboy trademark on her homepage and the court said it was an acceptable and non-infringing use if she was accurately describing her status as a former Playmate.
The witch has been gasping her last "I'm melting" for some time now. And the "news" about SCOG ginning up the IBM lawsuit to avoid bankruptcy isn't really that new. Company insiders have been saying the same thing for quite a while.
Of course it is. You must understand the distinction between patents and copyrights, though, to understand why. Patents cover the idea underlying an invention whereas copyright explicitly excludes ideas and only covers particular expressions of ideas. Therefore, you can have a patent covering the methods underlying your software and a copyright covering your particular implementation of those methods. That said, anyone copying your code during the patent protection will per force be infringing your patent as well, but clean room implementations during the patent period would only be protected by patents. IANAL, blah blah blah...
The novelty requirement is taken extremely lightly these days. I've been working on a patentability opinion for a large paper company (who will remain nameless) regarding antistatic laminates. It seems that the only differences in the patents that have already been granted are in which layer the antistatic materials are placed and in what amounts. There's nothing really novel about moving some carbon from a layer between decor and base and to the base, but there are separate patents for each.
Remember, you can only infringe a patent if you practice all of the elements of a claim in the patent. If you actually read the patent, and not the spin from non-lawyers with a bone to pick, you will see that this in no way would hamper open source development. It only covers a particular method of developing software (not necessarily OSS) and providing for payment to outside developers. As I noted someone mention earlier, the patent requires that two intent-to-submit notices be received to prevent re-organization of the software. It would seem that an easy way to get around the patent would be to require only one.* *Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer (even if I hand disclaimers out like candy like one) and nothing I say is intended to be, and should not be, taken as legal advice. If you are concerned about infringing a patent, contact a patent attorney.
Hell, in my patent practice and procedure class we reviewed a patent that IBM obtained (and later abandoned) for a system and method for obtaining reservation requests for airline restrooms and notifying passengers when their number is up. IBM *will* patent anything, but that doesn't mean they have any intention of preventing others from using the invention or even using it themselves.
Not necessarily true. The public domain refers to any intellectual property not protected by copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, etc., law. As someone else previously said, obtaining a patent and then placing the patented invention in the public domain would have the effect of creating registered prior art that would prevent someone else from attempting to patent and appropriate the invention. That said, I'm not a lawyer, just a law student studying patent and copyright law.
It's good to see that some people around here actually do have a clue as to how lawsuits work. Both parties in a civil suit are entitled to very broad discovery under the FRCP. It's also instructive to remember that IBM has made several affirmative defenses and counterclaims, on which they bear the burdens of production and persuasion, placing them in the same position as a plaintiff in a simple suit. That said, SCO would only be entitled to a directed verdict on IBM's counterclaims were IBM to not provide discovery. IBM has no burden with respect to SCO's claims until SCO has met their burden of production and presented a prima facie case. That's why it's called a burden, IBM doesn't have to do a damn thing until the burden is met and they can still win.
It's just an asshole and I was just being facetious. Perhaps someone needs a bayesian humor-detector.
But there should be a law prohibiting hyperlinking to goatse!
Wi-Fi without a radio? Sounds kinda like a soundcard without a DAC or a videocard without a RAMDAC. What's the point of including functionality while not including necessary pieces except, perhaps, to rachet up the marketingspeek and pressure out other manufacturers?
there's also an explicit exemption for surveilance and law enforcement purposes. The good ol' boys in the OSL had to make sure they covered their rear.