which has two articles on the ratcheting up of sex offender laws in the US and how they can brand consenting but underage teenagers (both parties as sex offenders). Politicians can't be seen to be "soft on paedophiles" so they legislate blanket measures, rather employing more useful measures like tagging the most dangerous sexual predators so their location can be monitored at all times.
How thw hell did this get +5 insightful - "not infringement", "its piracy". Thats bollocks. The specified legal offence is copyright infringement under the intellectual property provisions of pretty much anywhere that has IP laws, piracy is governed by maritime law.
Absolutely, and what's more its used as the fuel for the majority of cellular activities in all cells of the body, not just sperm.
However, the point of the invention appears to be coupling a sperm flagellum (powered by ATp as it happens) to nanotech machinery to provide a novel, and presumably efficient, motive means for the nanotech machinery.
Its not that simple. The general proposition is that property transfers with risk. If CD WOW would be held liable for failing to deliver the goods to you then they may be the importer up to the point it arrives on your doorstep.
In any event they are infringing by offering copyright protected goods for sale (see s. 16 and 18 of the CDPA) so inthis case its probable not been examined that closely. See SABAF and Meneghetti series of cases fro a more complete discussion of this issue.
I can remember a New Scientist article on this from when I was at school or a first year undergrad (~10 years ago). If I recall conotoxin was a promising drug candidate due to its receptor specificity (i.e. pain receptors only) and was reckoned to be approx. 200 times more potent than morphine without the side effects. Its good to see that progress is being made in this area of research.
The stem cell policy of the US is bad enough but this takes the biscuit if its anything other than a typo. Frankly, it would not surprise me if areas of the mid-west became the breeding ground for the next generation of religious extremists, assuming it isn't already, and religious extremists are hardly favour of the month at the moment.
The idea for this is hardly new, I am pretty sure this was in a late 90's film called Antitrust with Ryan Phillippe. The Bill Gates stylee character had such a system in his house, I think it showed Heironymous Bosch paintings whenever he entered the room.
It seems to make sense disposing of duplicated functionality in the work force. interesting that it took the appointment of a non-japanese CEO i.e. a Scot to implement it.
The title is broadly descriptive of the technology. The claims, especially the independent claims, tell you what Amazon are actually seeking protection for.
I also note it is pending, so any criticism of the USPTO should be withheld until it is granted and it can be determined what prior art was considered in examination and what scope of protection (if any) has been granted.
eBay aren't a communications company, I would not have thought they have any particular expertise to leverage once they have acquired Skype. I mean eBay have obviously got commercial nous which is generally applicable but in the UK they only recently intorduced a 'My messages' feature.
As an aside I can think of nothing worse than receiving a call via Skype from someone in the Far East asking whether there is a Buy-It-Now price and can they pay by Western union.
Quite so. You give an accurate, limited historical summary.
For what its worth I believe that the recent RIAA and MPAA actions against end users are counterproductive in that they engender exactly your views.
However, as you point out (c) is a monopoly right that prevents others from doing something i.e. copying. Some people e.g. creative classes may use this right to attempt to make money. Others may use it to ensure their work is not reproduced without attribution but not seek financial gain. (c) makes both these actions possible. I believe both are legitimate exercises of (c) in its current form, which by the way does not depend on having slipped QE2 a bundle.
My concern is that the heavy-handed action in the (c) arena spills over and creates a backlash aganst all IP rights, ultimately resulting in companies and individuals reverting to keeping it secret (a la Coca Cola's secret recipe). One of the drivers of the Renaissance was the increased levels of communication of ideas, which was facilitated by increased trade - IP rights were not as necessary at the time, although as I say Venice thrived partly through their use. Information should be disseminated to inspire others to innovate but that does not mean people should be able to take free advantage of the original skill labour and judgement of others. More a case of standing on the shoulders of others (be they giants or not) rather than robbing them blind.
Not releasing informationis controlling it. Ergo the dissemination of information is controllable. It is a problem for society if no one chooses to release information as good ideas do not spread. To address this issue IP rights were devised. IP rights have a long history of fostering innovation right back to their earliest implementation in Venice in the 1490's.
I would suggest that you don't draw a line but take it on a case by case basis. If the potential secondary infringer's sole purpose in providing a tool is to make money by promoting primary infringemnt (i.e. copying of (c) material by the end user) then it should be possible to obtain judgement against them by filing suit in a court. It would then be up to you the claimant to prove their bad intentions. If the courts insist on a high level of proof, e.g. on the very stiff side of the balance of probabilities, they would probably get it more or less right. In your example M$ did not devise Visual C++ for implementing tools to circumvent (c) so would not infringe - although I believe Satan has a special room reserved for the originators of Visual C++.
the basic premise of IP is I make something available to the public that I could otherwise have kept to myself and if the public wants to enjoy it they pay for the privilege through roylaties implied licence to use a patented product etc.
Artist collecting royalties are not blatent bume (well not all of them)
I would also point out that I did not suggest that copying was an infringement of civil liberties but that cases of this ilk have the potential to lead to erosion of civil liberties as the level of monitoring in society increases.
As to your final point that copying somehow exist above government (i.e. all four estates including the law), I must respectfully suggest it is whimsical poppycock.
Mildly off-topic, but if judges and juries 'comprise' human beings what are the other permitted constituent beings. Under IP law (which this topic is about) 'comprise' is generally interpreted as being inclusive whilst 'consist' is exlusive. Thus as judges and juries can only be human beings, consist should be used.
BUT WAIT -this is a discussion of Australian IP law - the one major territory where comprise and consist are considered to mean the same thing so its OK
The anonymous coward makes a valid point, It may be limited but in the absence of further details it is as complete as can be.
For those who have or are inclined to comment further, I recommend the following:
Google LES (licensing executive society).
Read information.
Understand. If understood goto 10. If not understood goto 20.
10 refrain from posting uninsightful comment on slashdot.
20 read again or obtain IP qualification
I have IP qualifications and licensing terms can be a mystery to me. However, I can say that they do not condone the acts of the licensor as they fall outside the licence, and are often entered into to obtain the commercial certainty that one will not be sued.
The current laws are not necessarily being unjustly enforced. The people being sued have explicitly broken the letter of the law or in the case of Sharman Networks etc are indulging in sharp practice by ignoring the practical use their networks are put to.
The issue that these types of action raise is the future prospect (not the actual) erosion of civil liberties. Ignorance has never been a defence under the law, and the sooner blatant freeloaders are pulled up, the sooner a sensible discussion on the scope of IP protection, such that our traditional liberties are preserved, may be had.
Perhaps these judgements against P2P operataors who are most cogent of the infringing uses to which their software is being put are not such a bad thing.
1) They harm businesses that are making money by closing their eyes and then suggesting with wide eyed astonishment 'Me sir, no sir, I never realised that was the main use of my network'
2) They promote research of more robust P2P software (i.e. freenet etc.), which has more legitimate intentions for the networks use.
Unfortunately the present composition of the 9th circuit lacks many judges with an intellectual property background. As a consequence judges without an IP background fall back on viewing patents and other IP as a contract between the patentee and the public. This has lead to a number of anachronous decisions when viewed in light of the jurisprudence for IP (as opposed to contact law)These decisiona have been both to the patentee's favour and at times to their distinct disadvantage.
Slashdot Mirror
which has two articles on the ratcheting up of sex offender laws in the US and how they can brand consenting but underage teenagers (both parties as sex offenders). Politicians can't be seen to be "soft on paedophiles" so they legislate blanket measures, rather employing more useful measures like tagging the most dangerous sexual predators so their location can be monitored at all times.
How thw hell did this get +5 insightful - "not infringement", "its piracy". Thats bollocks. The specified legal offence is copyright infringement under the intellectual property provisions of pretty much anywhere that has IP laws, piracy is governed by maritime law.
Absolutely, and what's more its used as the fuel for the majority of cellular activities in all cells of the body, not just sperm. However, the point of the invention appears to be coupling a sperm flagellum (powered by ATp as it happens) to nanotech machinery to provide a novel, and presumably efficient, motive means for the nanotech machinery.
Its called buying commercial certainty.
Its not that simple. The general proposition is that property transfers with risk. If CD WOW would be held liable for failing to deliver the goods to you then they may be the importer up to the point it arrives on your doorstep. In any event they are infringing by offering copyright protected goods for sale (see s. 16 and 18 of the CDPA) so inthis case its probable not been examined that closely. See SABAF and Meneghetti series of cases fro a more complete discussion of this issue.
I can remember a New Scientist article on this from when I was at school or a first year undergrad (~10 years ago). If I recall conotoxin was a promising drug candidate due to its receptor specificity (i.e. pain receptors only) and was reckoned to be approx. 200 times more potent than morphine without the side effects. Its good to see that progress is being made in this area of research.
The stem cell policy of the US is bad enough but this takes the biscuit if its anything other than a typo. Frankly, it would not surprise me if areas of the mid-west became the breeding ground for the next generation of religious extremists, assuming it isn't already, and religious extremists are hardly favour of the month at the moment.
The idea for this is hardly new, I am pretty sure this was in a late 90's film called Antitrust with Ryan Phillippe. The Bill Gates stylee character had such a system in his house, I think it showed Heironymous Bosch paintings whenever he entered the room.
I could have bet this was going to be first post.
It seems to make sense disposing of duplicated functionality in the work force. interesting that it took the appointment of a non-japanese CEO i.e. a Scot to implement it.
I see it provides valet services. How long before some lonely Linux geek programmes it to provide 'maid' services?
and 'reappearce' should be reappearance.
The title is broadly descriptive of the technology. The claims, especially the independent claims, tell you what Amazon are actually seeking protection for.
I also note it is pending, so any criticism of the USPTO should be withheld until it is granted and it can be determined what prior art was considered in examination and what scope of protection (if any) has been granted.
eBay aren't a communications company, I would not have thought they have any particular expertise to leverage once they have acquired Skype. I mean eBay have obviously got commercial nous which is generally applicable but in the UK they only recently intorduced a 'My messages' feature.
As an aside I can think of nothing worse than receiving a call via Skype from someone in the Far East asking whether there is a Buy-It-Now price and can they pay by Western union.
He buys 2. Hard drivesprice per GB really is hard to argue with, although two 250GB drives may be more economical thinking about it.
Quite so. You give an accurate, limited historical summary.
For what its worth I believe that the recent RIAA and MPAA actions against end users are counterproductive in that they engender exactly your views.
However, as you point out (c) is a monopoly right that prevents others from doing something i.e. copying. Some people e.g. creative classes may use this right to attempt to make money. Others may use it to ensure their work is not reproduced without attribution but not seek financial gain. (c) makes both these actions possible. I believe both are legitimate exercises of (c) in its current form, which by the way does not depend on having slipped QE2 a bundle.
My concern is that the heavy-handed action in the (c) arena spills over and creates a backlash aganst all IP rights, ultimately resulting in companies and individuals reverting to keeping it secret (a la Coca Cola's secret recipe). One of the drivers of the Renaissance was the increased levels of communication of ideas, which was facilitated by increased trade - IP rights were not as necessary at the time, although as I say Venice thrived partly through their use. Information should be disseminated to inspire others to innovate but that does not mean people should be able to take free advantage of the original skill labour and judgement of others. More a case of standing on the shoulders of others (be they giants or not) rather than robbing them blind.
Not releasing informationis controlling it. Ergo the dissemination of information is controllable. It is a problem for society if no one chooses to release information as good ideas do not spread. To address this issue IP rights were devised. IP rights have a long history of fostering innovation right back to their earliest implementation in Venice in the 1490's.
I would suggest that you don't draw a line but take it on a case by case basis. If the potential secondary infringer's sole purpose in providing a tool is to make money by promoting primary infringemnt (i.e. copying of (c) material by the end user) then it should be possible to obtain judgement against them by filing suit in a court. It would then be up to you the claimant to prove their bad intentions. If the courts insist on a high level of proof, e.g. on the very stiff side of the balance of probabilities, they would probably get it more or less right. In your example M$ did not devise Visual C++ for implementing tools to circumvent (c) so would not infringe - although I believe Satan has a special room reserved for the originators of Visual C++.
the basic premise of IP is I make something available to the public that I could otherwise have kept to myself and if the public wants to enjoy it they pay for the privilege through roylaties implied licence to use a patented product etc.
Artist collecting royalties are not blatent bume (well not all of them)
I would also point out that I did not suggest that copying was an infringement of civil liberties but that cases of this ilk have the potential to lead to erosion of civil liberties as the level of monitoring in society increases.
As to your final point that copying somehow exist above government (i.e. all four estates including the law), I must respectfully suggest it is whimsical poppycock.
Mildly off-topic, but if judges and juries 'comprise' human beings what are the other permitted constituent beings. Under IP law (which this topic is about) 'comprise' is generally interpreted as being inclusive whilst 'consist' is exlusive. Thus as judges and juries can only be human beings, consist should be used.
BUT WAIT -this is a discussion of Australian IP law - the one major territory where comprise and consist are considered to mean the same thing so its OK
The anonymous coward makes a valid point, It may be limited but in the absence of further details it is as complete as can be.
For those who have or are inclined to comment further, I recommend the following:
Google LES (licensing executive society).
Read information.
Understand. If understood goto 10. If not understood goto 20.
10 refrain from posting uninsightful comment on slashdot.
20 read again or obtain IP qualification
I have IP qualifications and licensing terms can be a mystery to me. However, I can say that they do not condone the acts of the licensor as they fall outside the licence, and are often entered into to obtain the commercial certainty that one will not be sued.
So speaks another Slashdot anarchist. Hurrah!
The current laws are not necessarily being unjustly enforced. The people being sued have explicitly broken the letter of the law or in the case of Sharman Networks etc are indulging in sharp practice by ignoring the practical use their networks are put to.
The issue that these types of action raise is the future prospect (not the actual) erosion of civil liberties. Ignorance has never been a defence under the law, and the sooner blatant freeloaders are pulled up, the sooner a sensible discussion on the scope of IP protection, such that our traditional liberties are preserved, may be had.
Perhaps these judgements against P2P operataors who are most cogent of the infringing uses to which their software is being put are not such a bad thing. 1) They harm businesses that are making money by closing their eyes and then suggesting with wide eyed astonishment 'Me sir, no sir, I never realised that was the main use of my network' 2) They promote research of more robust P2P software (i.e. freenet etc.), which has more legitimate intentions for the networks use.
Unfortunately the present composition of the 9th circuit lacks many judges with an intellectual property background. As a consequence judges without an IP background fall back on viewing patents and other IP as a contract between the patentee and the public. This has lead to a number of anachronous decisions when viewed in light of the jurisprudence for IP (as opposed to contact law)These decisiona have been both to the patentee's favour and at times to their distinct disadvantage.