So, if this is not a unique pose for Obama, and the shirt and tie are also common, is this not "a conventional meme/plot" or - in this case - pose which is a feature of the personality of the man, rather than the creative originality on the part of the original photographer?
Uniqueness is not required. Are you arguing that Obama always takes that body position, and is recorded from that angle, with that framing? So frequently as to be routine? At best, you might argue that the views are akin to a "scene a faire," except for the fact that the stylized poster was sourced from the photograph, rather than being coincidentially similar because of similar subject matter. Taking something from a copyrighted work is always riskier than doing it yourself or going back to a public domain source.
If this were a shot of the Capitol, would it make a difference? [other facts]
No copying, no copy infringement.
What if the artist mentioned that she saw that photo on a postcard and used it to get the perspective correct?
Maybe. Ask a jury. The angle of the shot might be almost unique and the artist might be really unsympathetic. There may be a thousand published photos like it and the artist might be comparatively famous. Could Campbell's have busted Warhol? *shrug* In your example the artist takes even less -- a line of sight.
There's no black and white answer, but there's an aspect of the golden rule - don't appropriate something just because you want it. If that pose is so common, why not take a picture yourself? Or negotiate with one of the the 100s of photographers who've taken the picture (that pesky competition thing)? Why all the post-hoc squirming to justify sourcing the material from that particular shot? If the photographer was so hard to find and so much has been removed (considering your other comments), why not a shot from a local TV station's evening news? Maybe a jury would think along those lines, and maybe it wouldn't.
It would make virtually no difference, unless you could show Fairey copied from that frame instead of the photograph (meanwhile, sourcing from the photograph has generally been acknowledged).
Copyright does not require uniqueness or novelty. It requires originality, i.e., you created the portion of the content you are claiming rights to rather than copying it or registering someone else's work, and expressiveness, i.e., the portion of the content you are claiming rights to is an expression of an idea (aliens invading earth) rather than a bare fact, an abstract idea, or a conventional meme/plot. Ex: Two photographers standing right next to each other take essentially simultaneous and virtually identical photographs of Obama at a rally. Two separate copyrights, and neither work infringes the other.
Once you get beyond registration (which is required in order to file suit for copyright infringement), the primary bone of contention in a copyright infringement lawsuit for a "derivative work" is whether the author of the later work 1. had access to the earlier work and 2. appropriated substantial expressive elements of the earlier work. If there was no access, or even with access no appropriation from that work, there should be no copyright violation. Ex: Third photographer takes photograph that is coincidentially similar to first two at later portion of rally. Third separate copyright, no infringement. Ex: Third photographer poses Obama look-alike in rally-like staging to create a third photograph like one of the first two (the only one they've seen). Probable copyright infringement of only one copyright.
The only advantage to there being another source, if in fact it was the other source, is to say "No, I didn't take it from you, I took it from them, and it was public domain/licensed/none-of-your-business-because-it-wasn't-yours. And then prove it. The public domain, of course, might be that other source. But don't expect the copyright owner to take someone's word for it unless they're a reasonably trustworthy someone.
"I cannot image Blizzard successfully developing such a code and it not immediately becoming available to anyone with a torrent stream, at which point you hit the brick wall of "The pirates get a better game than the customers".
Security within the developer's business is the developer's problem, not the end user's problem. Code and document escrow are also well established services.
I don't pretend to have extensive knowledge of how warez groups get their releases, but my impression is that the code generally leaks when it gets sent to the duplicator, packager, or shipper -- a situation where you're asking for security in a setting designed to produce nigh-uncountable copies of material and distribute them to a large number of stores or depots for a coordinated and well stocked release. That problem does not exist with a patch.
If internal code would inevitably and immediately be available due to leaks, then I think we'd have seen a lot more information concerning games like Duke Nuke'em Forever. Instead, there are only rare lapses like the latest Sims.
I think that it's odd that none of the linked articles or well-moderated comments have raised the most salient and powerful issue against this measure: that you can play the game only as long as Blizzard desires to support it or, more pertinently, for so long as Blizzard continues to exist. Blizzard is doing well, but recent events have demonstrated that that can change.
As recent shutdowns or attempted shutdowns of DRM servers have shown (Major League Baseball, MSN Music, Yahoo Music, Wal-Mart Music, Adobe ad-supported PDFs), once a revenue stream dries up, your continued enjoyment of multi-player will be subject to a simple calculation: is the PR cost of cutting off support greater or less than the expense of maintaining the servers and support. The MSN, Yahoo, Wal-Mart servers were only used sporadically in order to shift DRM authorizations from one computer to another. The MLB servers were used every time someone attempted to play a purchased video. The Battle.net servers will be used by far larger numbers of people virtually every time that they want to play (once players exhaust the single player potential). World of Warcraft is the only Battle.net game that generates a continuing revenue stream to justify the expense. Even if there is support for 15-20 years, at some point discontinuation is inevitable -- and there are surprising numbers of people who still play legally purchased 15-20 year old games.
Considering the importance of multi-player in Starcraft 2, players are justified in planning for reality and demanding some form of LAN functionality. Blizzard has legitimate concerns about piracy, but purchasers have legitimate concerns about being able to play the game long after Blizzard has lost interest in it. Blizzard should be willing to develop LAN functionality as a patch, place the code in escrow, and include a contractual provision on the box which automatically authorizes release of patch by the escrow agent if online service is terminated. If it is not, then players should browbeat them with every DRM failure that they can think of, because ultimately they are the only ones who are likely to care.
Reporter seems surprised that there is a diversity in the accuracy/quality of legal opinions. The reporter then waxes philosophical about the nature of law based on the lack of consensus from lawyers.
I'm an attorney in the U.S. This is a "common law" perspective. If the U.S. were a civil law jurisdiction, only the dispute resolution part would apply... probably.
If there have been hundreds of cases like yours, you can give your client an 'accurate' assessment of the law, an estimated likelihood of success, and your job is essentially to present the facts as persuasively as possible in order to achieve that success. Sometimes you'll be on the side that's more or less right, sometimes you really can't tell, and sometimes you're on the side that's more or less wrong but your client wants to fight it out. In this situation, you're primarily an advisor in a dispute resolution process and you must, mostly, follow your client's wishes.
If there have only been a few, or no, cases like yours, you must give your client an estimate of the law, and your job is to craft arguments for why the law should work that way, or in a more preferred way, in addition to your advisory role. 'Accuracy' only exists in hindsight, because the law (an interpretation settled by precedent) does not exist yet. The trial judge makes it, or the appellate judge remakes it, or the highest justices in the state/country make it, as they attempt to apply the preexisting precepts to the new situation.
In this instance, the 'accuracy' problem does not relate to a question concerning law: whether consequential damages are available under a copyright infringement claim (as opposed to tort claims for false light and the like). The reporter pretty much got a "no," with the tort claims being a better way to get those sorts of damages. I agree, and I might turn out to be wrong (I may already be wrong -- I'm not willing to research the issue at the moment).
The 'accuracy' problem instead relates to an interpretation of facts: will the decider (likely a jury) like my side better than the other side concerning fair use. The reporter suggests that there's no accuracy after distilling it down to a yes/no, when in reality there's there's a probably yes, two maybe yesses, a maybe no, and two probably nos (one might be a definite no, but the reporter only quotes one sentence of what was likely a longer answer). And the range of opinion on these comments is the same: some say she brought it on herself, and the treatment of the family sucks but that's the town's fault, others say the principal and editor were out of line and deserve the pike. The "average" is virtually a coin toss, and almost everyone is hedging.
So, should accuracy here be measured against a hypothetical jury, a statistical jury, an actual jury, or something else? The hypothetical jury is the one the lawyer imagines off the cuff, the statistical jury is the one the lawyer deals with when researching damages or hiring a jury consultant (tough if there aren't a lot of other cases like yours), and the actual jury is what you'll get regardless of what you thought the former two were. Only the actual jury awards the money. Pick 6-12 people, lock them in a room until they agree (if you haven't been on a jury, you're not qualified to say how things should work in the room), and *voila*. Did you guess it? Were you accurate? If you redid it 10 times, was this result unlikely? Should that count against accuracy?
I think that the reporter is seeking far more certainty than he has any right to expect. He's not asking about what the law is, he's asking about what the decision will be. His experts have tried to accommodate that, but the reality is a group of lay people will be taught the same four factors that you've read, told the story, and then make up their own minds. What factor is more important, what factor is less, and what story resonates more with their sense of fairness is on occasion estimable, but certainly not knowable.
IIRC CAN-SPAM (might as well just add some words to the name and call it the CAN-HAS-SPAM act, but whatever) makes specific exemptions for political advertisements and solicitations by nonprofits, but says nothing about whether the content is commercial or not.
Nothing?
15 U.S.C. 7703-7705 focus primarily on "commercial electronic mail messages." 15 U.S.C. 7702(2)(a) defines a "commercial electronic mail message" as (in part):
any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).
The act also regulates "transactional and relationship messages." 15 U.S.C. 7702(17) defines those in far more detail, but each portion of the definition references a commercial transaction, a commercial product or service, a commercial relationship, or an employment relationship.
In fact, CAN-SPAM uses the word "commercial" 105 times. The very title is "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing." IAAL, and I'd say it has quite a bit to say about whether the content is commercial or not.
I'm not picking on you specifically, but rather this comment, which has inexplicably been moderated up to +5 Insightful despite absolutely wrong. The theft of services argument also has significant problems -- such as the fact that you and/or your ISP have set up servers in order to accept email -- that any lawyer experienced in this area would be able to discuss.
As a practical matter, a particular act of spamming, or even non-commercial emailing, would have to be egregious before any Federal prosecutor, State prosecutor, or civil court would entertain the notion of some sort of liability. You do in fact have to accept reasonable attempts by others to communicate with you through email, postal mail, the telephone, and the like, especially if it is non-commercial communication.
The article is correct when it states that the proposals are legislative pandering. The article is incorrect when it (sarcastically, as I read it) states that a "sin tax" on violent video games is a viable compromise. That doesn't mean that these sorts of proposals couldn't be enacted into law, or cause some momentary angst. However, since there's money involved, you can be sure that any state enacting such a law wouldn't end up collecting an additional cent.
We should all recall that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution. Now, while there are those who think that the First Amendment can justify almost anything, there are also those who have a legitimate basis for thinking that the First Amendment requires most laws to be content neutral in the way in which they affect speech, even "videogame speech."
If you've been tracking the "violent videogames" issue over the last few years, you know that laws restricting the distribution of violent and sexually explicit games have been routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment due to the requirement that they pass "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny requires that the law support a "compelling interest" and be "narrowly tailored" in order to achieve that compelling interest without unreasonable adverse side-effects.
Surprise, surprise -- a tax is simply another law. Even a Reagan-era Supreme Court (excepting Rhenquist and Scalia, who only cited cases involving credits and deductions) has held that discriminatory taxes must survive strict scrutiny. Given the tenor of prior Federal Court decisions concerning selective bans on the distribution of videogames to minors, I believe that you can reasonably predict that decisions concerning selective taxes on sales of videogames to minors and adults will be struck down as well.
Where do you think the vent gets its energy? Where do you think the core gets its energy?
The Big Bang; then a few precursor stars, which exploded; then the collapse of a portion of a nebula containing radioactive elements from those precursor stars, and heating caused by the conversion of kinetic/potential energy in the incoming matter; plus the radioactive decay of the radioactive elements in the collected matter. All of which are more or less independent of the existence of our current sun.
If Sol was responsible, then Earth would not get warmer as you went deeper toward the core, but cooler. At best, the Sun slows down the rate of cooling by messing with the thermal gradient between the planet's interior and the cosmic background radiation, but that means little to organisms living 2 miles underground.
mdarksbane may be right concerning prehistoric societies, but there's organisms which, metaphorically, are thinking "That squatter? Good thing the last one isn't around to smite thee."
Since he's a reporter, using a small part of the movie, even if it's not yet published, it's a fair use of the material and is not protected under the copyright law.
That's likely correct, if you limit the scope of your inquiry to his review.
Now consider the wholesale copying of un unpublished work of fiction one month prior to release from "the internet" onto his computer. It's not even remotely a fair use of the material and is virtually guaranteed to be an act of infringement under the copyright statute.
Finally, consider the he's not being sued for copyright infringement, but is either 1a. an at-will employee terminable at his employer's will 1b. a contract employee who may be terminable under any half-way decent "for cause" clause in the contract or 1c. an employee who is subject to discipline by his employer.
It's amazing that the comments here are focusing on the copyright question, which is simple and boring - he infringed. It's scary that the comments here are ignoring the employment question, which is simple and boring, but trumps the copyright question. Fair use is not a defense to being fired or disciplined.
Speed does not kill, acceleration does. If you accelerate the "train" at 1g, it would take only one year to reach about 0.77c, more than enough to see relativistic effects.
An anonymous comment that relies upon particular assumptions that are forbidden by the nature of the scenario. Like a train traveling through a vacuum, so that the train isn't destroyed by atmospheric resistance and the external observer isn't killed by the shockwave -- but the vacuum can conduct lightning. Like a train traveling in a straight line at 0.77c, so that centriptal forces and acceleration are unnecessary -- a space train struck by lightning. Nevermind that you've missed the entire point, that the situation is hypothetical, yet assumed the existence of hypothetical technology that can accelerate at 9/8 m/s/s for a year in a vacuum.
The first example is due to speed. The second example is due to an unaccounted for acceleration. Both kill. Pick that nit. Nitwit.
Once you came near the event horizon (given current technology) you would more than likely be dead, so this is a pretty pointless video...
Pointless unless you've studied relativistic physics, in which case the video is a modernized version of the classic thought experiment "Einstein's Train.". Everyone involved would be pretty dead if the train was moving at speeds fast enough to introduce relativistic effects perceptable by the ordinary senses, yet the illustration aids in an understanding of the physics.
The article is quite clear:
That's where visualisations like this might just help. "Close to the singularity, it appears that the entire three-dimensional universe is being crushed into a two-dimensional surface," says Hamilton (see Our world may be a giant hologram). But whether it hints that a 2D view is more fundamental is not yet clear. "Does it have any profound significance? I don't know..."
The death of the hypothetical observer is irrelevant to the usefulness of the video.
That means you find the main ones (1, 96, and 129) and look for holes there in what they claim. The other claims depend on those so they don't matter if you can break the parent.
Wrong. Utterly wrong.
Each claim must be evaluated on its own merits, especially if you intent to "break" the patent by arguing that the claims are invalid.
The only time that you can focus only on the independent claims is when when you are arguing that a device does not infringe the patent, and that the device lacks one of the required elements in each of the independent claims. Because the dependent claims "depend" from an independent claim and require all the elements of that independent claim, under those circumstances, you can logically argue that the device lacks an element of every such dependent claim as well. Even then, you may only have considered so-called "literal infringement," and will need to consider infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
This isn't the first time that you've made this mistake in your comments. Either learn about the topic or knock it off.
By its very definition, libel is always untruthful.
Only if you limit the definition to the legal claim that you can make in the United States. If you attempt "truthful libel" in many English law countries, you're going to be rather surprised.
See this discussion of defamation/slander/libel. While this is still written from a U.S. perspective, you'll notice that Black's Law Dictionary (rather better authority than Wikipedia) defines defamation without regard to truth or falsehood. Slander and libel are merely oral and written forms of defamation, although the elements of the torts can differ and be more restrictive.
Most importantly, in English law countries truth is a defense to these torts, rather than falsehood being an element of the torts, so that "turthful libel" is still libel, but you may not not "liable for libel."
(a)... defendant... (b)... defendant... (c)...defendant... or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor.
Or, otherwise translated, you must sue the defendant in their home jurisdiction, and multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, unless we think that you're a sympathetic plaintiff, in which case you can sue in your home jurisdiction like every other Federal plaintiff bringing a claim against private party (assuming that there is personal jurisdiction).
One of many reasons why this legislation is going to require substantial changes before it will pass. No large patent owner is going to want to be forced into giving up the "home field advantage" in the name of patent reform, or to be forced to pursue multiple suits against multiple defendants in front of multiple judges where formerly they could pursue them as one.
Alan Cox does assure us that Linux is now working on 64-bit time, and the UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out."
This is just the sort of short-sighted thinking that lead to our recent Y2K hysteria, except this time our poor beleaguered descendents will be in the middle of an exodus from the solar system when all their legacy systems throw simultaneous exceptions. This will of course cause their engine and guidance systems to fail, so that the last dying gasps of humanity will consist of:
[Captain]Captain's log, stardate 1704.4. Ship out of control, spiraling down towards Sol; we have 19 minutes of life left, without engine power or helm control.
[Engineer interrupting] I'll be damned. The clocks on every piece of technology in existence have failed because that damned Brit used a 64 bit counter...
[Captain]COOOOOOOOOOOOOX!!!"
Additionally, all the pages Wikipedia deals with are modified versions of prior GFDL'd documents, so Section 4 of the GFDL (Modifications) and all of its attribution requirements apply.
I think that there's a reasonable argument that the requirements of Section 4 of the GFDL do not apply to the mirror. At the very least, if you argue that the mirror has violated the GFDL then you're arguing that Wikipedia has violated the GFDL. If I had to defend the mirror in court, I can virtually guarantee that I would argue that the copyright holder had waived the requirements of the GFDL that were not being followed by Wikipedia, and that the mirror lacked any obligation to affirmatively comply with the requirements of Section 4 versus Section 2 of the GFDL.
My essential point in replying to the article is that Wikipedia is the one responsible for any violations of the GFDL. It would be essentially impossible for it to assert that the mirror had violated whatever copyright it might hold in that material.
This does nothing to resolve the trademark problem that the 'mirror' creates, but it is instructive to look at the actual text of the license.
"2. Verbatim Copying [] You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."
The pages do appear to be verbatim copies of the Wikipedia pages, despite the lack of some images (note: verbatim - in precisely the same words used by a writer or speaker). You'll also note that the license does not require attribution (found in other words in Section 4), just a requirement for reproduction. Wikipedia is the one that must resolve its failure to include a copyright notice on the pages, not the mirror.
Because the history books would get too large if you included everybody? Julius Braunsdorf had invented an electric light long before Edison, but he is mostly forgotten, and people are taught that the electric light was thought impossible before Edison invented it.
No. History books tend to include enough information concerning major inventions to show that "invention" is an incremental process. People's oral summaries of the history books or history itself tends grossly oversimplify issues because, at a minimum, they have to match the level of detail to the level of interest in order to hold the listener(s).
"When he announced that he intended to produce an electric light that would compete with gaslight, the stock prices of gaslight companies tumbled as their executives panicked. Many people, most notably Sir Joseph Swan, had tried to invent an electric light using an incandescent filament, or wire, enclosed in a glass bulb, but had not been able to create a filament that could withstand intense heat over long enough periods oftime to be practical. Even Edison had a tough time of it, going through a long, trial-and-error process in which he tested thousands of materials. Undaunted by failures, Edison finally found that a scorched cotton thread would work best. When heated in a vacuum, it produced a white glow without melting, evaporating, or breaking. Although Swan came up with a similar light bulb around the same time, Edison patented his idea more aggressively, promoted his product more effectively, and sketched out a practical system of power supply which could support its use on a large scale. On New Year's Eve of 1879, Edisongave a public demonstration of the new bulb, lighting up his laboratory anda half mile of streets in Menlo Park before of thousands of spectators. Edison had not only invented an economical light source, but developed an entire system for generating and distributing electricity from a central power station." "History book"
Humphry Davy is cursing your name in the afterlife because you've fixated on this Braunsdorf character who merely improved upon pre-existing arc lights. There's another horde of people who likely long before that overloaded a wire, but didn't run off to tell the world how to make a short lived flash of light by screwing up in an impractical manner.
Do you want to know what Thomas Edison invented? Read U.S. Patent No. 223,898.. Most importantly, look at claim 1:
1. An electric lamp for giving light by incandescence, consisting of a filiment of carbon of high resistance, made as described, and secured to metallic wires, as set forth.
My public school taught that Edison invented the first practical incandecent bulb by trying several thousand types of materials, not that Edison invented the first electric light. I'm very willing to bet that yours taught something similar as well, but you've oversimplified the information, whether you ment to or not.
[PJ] Here's what the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 page says about it, and go by this, not by my guess as to what they mean:
* In regard to the September 2, 2007 JTC 1 ballot on the fast track DIS 29500 based on Ecma 376, the ballot resolution meeting (BRM) was held in the week of February 25-29, 2008 at the International Conference Centre Geneva http://www.cicg.ch/en/index.php. Within 30 days after the BRM, national bodies voted in the 2 September ballot may change their vote from any of "approve", "disapprove" or "abstain" to any of "approve", "disapprove" or "abstain". Any NB wishing to change its vote must inform ITTF of this intention in writing by 29th March, 2008.
Vote change shall be communicated by email addressed to Keith Brannon (brannon@iso.org) as well as Maho Takahashi (takahashi@iso.org), Martine Gaillen (gaillen@iso.org) and yourself on copy.
The following shall be indicated in the subject. "Modification to the vote on DIS 29500 - Country (National Body/e.g. JISC)"
The name of sender shall be mentioned in the email. * In accordance with the JTC 1 Directives, the progress of the specification will depend on the revised status of all previously-received votes after the BRM.
Please see SC 34 N 932: Frequently Asked Questions regarding DIS-29500 Ballot Resolution Meeting for more details.
[PJ] I don't know if that [omitted] means you have to do more than just email, or who exactly you'd write to if there is a separate requirement. We get to guess.
No, we don't, and PJ and the rest of you ought to know better.
If it originated as letters and is perceived as letters, it's writing. The law and the rest of the world have long since abandoned the idea that a photocopy or a facsimile or an email are somehow not writing.
Any ambiguity as to the meaning of "must be in writing" is resolved by the requirement that the vote change shall be communicated by email. Not may be communicated by email. Not shall be communicated by email and something they forgot to mention.
Any semblance of ambiguity in the last point is resolved by the lack of a street address, facsimile number, telex identifier, or literally any other means of communicating with the three individuals other than their email addresses. So much detail concerning the email, but they forgot to mention the rest.
As for the actual requirements:
Sending a message to three people. Unconscionable - Never 'cc' anyone. Having an identifiable subject line. Evil - Short messages from an unknown email addresses are never identified as spam. Copying yourself. Unnecessary - Messages never get left in draft form in mail programs, and people happily accept the consequences of their incompetence. Including the name of the sender. Completely unnecessary - SMTP is unspoofable and contact@yourco.org can easily be verified as having the authority to change the vote of a national body.
This is either an elaborate joke, or PJ has partaken of far too much of the Kool-Aid.
You critique the plant-in-a-garage idea as if transferring fuel into the fuel tank in the car is the only issue, so that any other advantages are non-existent or irrelevant. Converting fuel stations to hydrogen is a classic chicken and the egg problem. Installing small scale and perhaps modular plants in something like a garage in which you intend to park your hydrogen fuel cell vehicle does not.
As for the nebulous "other issues," I handle flammable gasses in my residential building all the time. Even if you ignore the natural gas supply because it virtually exclusively uses semi-permanent connections, I've managed to use portable propane tanks for a few decades without incident. Why should hydrogen be any different?.
Instead of using a really good conductor to make the electrodes used for electrolysis, these people propose increasing the electrode's surface area 8,000 times by coating an ordinary steel electrode with butt loads of nanoparticles that are optimized for surface area and conductivity.
Replace "conductor" with catalyst. The issue isn't the conductivity of the anode and/or cathode, but the rate at which water is split into hydrogen and oxygen compared to the rate at which energy is conducted through the cell -- recognizing that excess energy conducted through the cell is ending up as waste heat somewhere or other.
The nanoparticles provide a good catalyst with a very high catalytic surface area, which apparently improves upon a excellent catalyst having a good surface area. Probably more to the point, the nanomaterials are presumptively much cheaper than the excellent catalyst (platinum, currently at >$2100/oz).
They mention in TFA that this process is so efficient that cars could do the electrolysis on the go with a tank of distilled water, but unless it's efficient enough to be self sustaining that won't work.
You're overreading the article, which includes an unfortunate quote from an executive.
"Instead of switching 170,000 gas stations over to hydrogen, using our electrodes could enable consumers to make their own hydrogen, either in the garage or right on the vehicle," said Kevin Maloney, president, chief executive officer and co-founder of QuantumSphere. "Our nanoparticle-coated electrodes make electrolysers efficient enough to provide hydrogen on demand from a tank of distilled water in your car."
The fundamental requirement here is a source of electricity to generate the hydrogen that will be used as an input for a hydrogen fuel cell. That electricity will not be available in a vehicle that is "on the go" because any conversion from potential energy -> electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity is inherently less efficient that using that potential energy via fewer steps, i.e., potential energy to electricity or mechanical force such as in electric (battery or carbonaceously fuelled fuel cell) or internal combustion powered vehicles.
The point of the claim, although overstated by the executive, is that the hydrogen could be generated from electricity in a plant in a garage, or even from electricity delivered to a plant in the car when it is parked rather than requiring a trip to the hydrogen station down the block. Think of the plug-in-hybrid concept, but using hydrogen as the energy store instead of battery packs.
I also suspect that an unstated part of the argument, which they assume would be known by their target audience, is that you could have a 50% efficient plant using a cheap nickel powder or a 70% efficient plant using a very expensive platinum powder, but that the 70% efficient plant would be impractical for mass distribution due to the gob of capital that an individual would have to sink into the platinum catalyst. Instead, they claim to have developed an 80% efficient not-as-cheap nanomaterial that an individual (supposedly) could afford to purchase as part of an in-garage or in-vehicle generation system. Whitepaper.
You'd still have to store the hydrogen in the vehicle, at least for the short term, or, being the pessimist that I am, run down to the local hydrogen station, but if you take their claims at face value you would not need to have hydrogen delivered from the refinery-scale hydrogen electrolysis plant located halfway into the next state.
"After the court issued its claim construction rulings, Medtronic's counsel proceeded cavalierly, with reckless indifference to the merits of Medtronic's infringement claims," Matsch wrote."
"Matsch said the McDermott lawyers willfully ignored his rulings on claim construction in their arguments before a Colorado jury in 2005. In patent cases, those orders define the scope of the patents and, therefore, what the plaintiff's lawyers can argue for infringement."
"The judge said in his Tuesday ruling that while McDermott paid lip service to the orders, the lawyers improperly pointed the jury toward Medtronic's broad reading of the patents. McMahon also made comparisons of the two companies' products, the StealthStation and VectorVision, instead of comparing Medtronic's patents to BrainLAB's product, "contrary to established law," Matsch wrote."
In the anatomy of the typical patent case, there is
1. The filing of a suit 2. Discovery 3. A so-called "Markman hearing" to resolve disputes between the litigants as to the meaning of disputed terms or phrases within the patent claims 4. Summary judgment motions 5. A trial (bench or jury) 6. Post-verdict motions 7. Appeal
If you read through the judge's ruling, or even the law.com article, it's apparent that the judge believed that the trial was unnecessary, and that the case could and should have been resolved by summary judgment (and any subsequent appeal). If the case had ended at this point, there would likely be no talk of sanctions or the like. Therefore the answer to the question at the end of the summary is no.
All the rest relates to the judge's determination that 1. the platintiff's attorneys misrepresented the state of the case in their briefs opposing the motions for summary judgment that would have ended the trial phase and 2. the plaintiff's attorneys disregarded both his rulings in case and unequivocable legal standards for what does and does not constitute patent infringement.
To use bad sports analogies, this ruling is the red card or the technical foul called on the field, not a warning that the team should never have attempted to play the game.
In that case, it's unfortunate for you that the U.S. government passed a law that encouraged universities to patent the products of their research.
Imagine the gall. A university conducts research that results a useful, novel, and hopefully non-obvious technology, and they have the nerve to patent that technology. Then they have the nerve to ask for licensing revenue, and use the revenue to fund the university so that it can educate more students, and conduct more research, and maintain its facilities. Of course, the university should give the research product away for free, because you're perfectly willing to pay higher tuition and higher taxes to make up for this revenue that makes the university marginally more self-supporting. Aren't you?
If they're thinking of using their discoveries for profit, maybe they also should use the proceeds to fund their research as well without taxpayer money?
Because the money goes... where? And it's an all-or-nothing proposition, eh? You appear to have neglected to think this all the way through.
If this is true, then it effectively means that the world can be AIDS free in a generation. I'm willing to bet it's not going to happen, though. The drug companies have no interest in this.
I've been seeing this argument more and more frequently on Slashdot, although not specifically with regard to AIDS.
None of the conspiracy theorists ever posts any information that leads me to believe that competition has suddenly been suspended in the pharmaceuticals industry, that there's a drug research cabal, or that the international generic manufacturers, who are not limited to manufacturing generics, wouldn't leap at the opportunity to complete a proprietary drug or vaccine and introduce it into less rigorously regulated markets.
The implicit argument is that drug companies are placing an emphasis on lifestyle drugs, which they likely are, and that they are withholding "cures," which especially in the case of lifestyle diseases is very doubtful. This argument is very hard to mesh with those of pharmaceutical industry critics who argue that the drugs are actually developed by academia and the NIH, but only commercialized by big pharma.
Frankly I don't believe it. It doesn't explain the development of Gardasil, and it doesn't account for the incredible price that could be charged for a vaccine in comparison to existing therapies while still providing a cost savings.
Slashdot Mirror
Uniqueness is not required. Are you arguing that Obama always takes that body position, and is recorded from that angle, with that framing? So frequently as to be routine? At best, you might argue that the views are akin to a "scene a faire," except for the fact that the stylized poster was sourced from the photograph, rather than being coincidentially similar because of similar subject matter. Taking something from a copyrighted work is always riskier than doing it yourself or going back to a public domain source.
No copying, no copy infringement.
Maybe. Ask a jury. The angle of the shot might be almost unique and the artist might be really unsympathetic. There may be a thousand published photos like it and the artist might be comparatively famous. Could Campbell's have busted Warhol? *shrug* In your example the artist takes even less -- a line of sight.
There's no black and white answer, but there's an aspect of the golden rule - don't appropriate something just because you want it. If that pose is so common, why not take a picture yourself? Or negotiate with one of the the 100s of photographers who've taken the picture (that pesky competition thing)? Why all the post-hoc squirming to justify sourcing the material from that particular shot? If the photographer was so hard to find and so much has been removed (considering your other comments), why not a shot from a local TV station's evening news? Maybe a jury would think along those lines, and maybe it wouldn't.
It would make virtually no difference, unless you could show Fairey copied from that frame instead of the photograph (meanwhile, sourcing from the photograph has generally been acknowledged).
Copyright does not require uniqueness or novelty. It requires originality, i.e., you created the portion of the content you are claiming rights to rather than copying it or registering someone else's work, and expressiveness, i.e., the portion of the content you are claiming rights to is an expression of an idea (aliens invading earth) rather than a bare fact, an abstract idea, or a conventional meme/plot. Ex: Two photographers standing right next to each other take essentially simultaneous and virtually identical photographs of Obama at a rally. Two separate copyrights, and neither work infringes the other.
Once you get beyond registration (which is required in order to file suit for copyright infringement), the primary bone of contention in a copyright infringement lawsuit for a "derivative work" is whether the author of the later work 1. had access to the earlier work and 2. appropriated substantial expressive elements of the earlier work. If there was no access, or even with access no appropriation from that work, there should be no copyright violation. Ex: Third photographer takes photograph that is coincidentially similar to first two at later portion of rally. Third separate copyright, no infringement. Ex: Third photographer poses Obama look-alike in rally-like staging to create a third photograph like one of the first two (the only one they've seen). Probable copyright infringement of only one copyright.
The only advantage to there being another source, if in fact it was the other source, is to say "No, I didn't take it from you, I took it from them, and it was public domain/licensed/none-of-your-business-because-it-wasn't-yours. And then prove it. The public domain, of course, might be that other source. But don't expect the copyright owner to take someone's word for it unless they're a reasonably trustworthy someone.
"I cannot image Blizzard successfully developing such a code and it not immediately becoming available to anyone with a torrent stream, at which point you hit the brick wall of "The pirates get a better game than the customers".
Security within the developer's business is the developer's problem, not the end user's problem. Code and document escrow are also well established services.
I don't pretend to have extensive knowledge of how warez groups get their releases, but my impression is that the code generally leaks when it gets sent to the duplicator, packager, or shipper -- a situation where you're asking for security in a setting designed to produce nigh-uncountable copies of material and distribute them to a large number of stores or depots for a coordinated and well stocked release. That problem does not exist with a patch.
If internal code would inevitably and immediately be available due to leaks, then I think we'd have seen a lot more information concerning games like Duke Nuke'em Forever. Instead, there are only rare lapses like the latest Sims.
I think that it's odd that none of the linked articles or well-moderated comments have raised the most salient and powerful issue against this measure: that you can play the game only as long as Blizzard desires to support it or, more pertinently, for so long as Blizzard continues to exist. Blizzard is doing well, but recent events have demonstrated that that can change.
As recent shutdowns or attempted shutdowns of DRM servers have shown (Major League Baseball, MSN Music, Yahoo Music, Wal-Mart Music, Adobe ad-supported PDFs), once a revenue stream dries up, your continued enjoyment of multi-player will be subject to a simple calculation: is the PR cost of cutting off support greater or less than the expense of maintaining the servers and support. The MSN, Yahoo, Wal-Mart servers were only used sporadically in order to shift DRM authorizations from one computer to another. The MLB servers were used every time someone attempted to play a purchased video. The Battle.net servers will be used by far larger numbers of people virtually every time that they want to play (once players exhaust the single player potential). World of Warcraft is the only Battle.net game that generates a continuing revenue stream to justify the expense. Even if there is support for 15-20 years, at some point discontinuation is inevitable -- and there are surprising numbers of people who still play legally purchased 15-20 year old games.
Considering the importance of multi-player in Starcraft 2, players are justified in planning for reality and demanding some form of LAN functionality. Blizzard has legitimate concerns about piracy, but purchasers have legitimate concerns about being able to play the game long after Blizzard has lost interest in it. Blizzard should be willing to develop LAN functionality as a patch, place the code in escrow, and include a contractual provision on the box which automatically authorizes release of patch by the escrow agent if online service is terminated. If it is not, then players should browbeat them with every DRM failure that they can think of, because ultimately they are the only ones who are likely to care.
I'm an attorney in the U.S. This is a "common law" perspective. If the U.S. were a civil law jurisdiction, only the dispute resolution part would apply... probably.
If there have been hundreds of cases like yours, you can give your client an 'accurate' assessment of the law, an estimated likelihood of success, and your job is essentially to present the facts as persuasively as possible in order to achieve that success. Sometimes you'll be on the side that's more or less right, sometimes you really can't tell, and sometimes you're on the side that's more or less wrong but your client wants to fight it out. In this situation, you're primarily an advisor in a dispute resolution process and you must, mostly, follow your client's wishes.
If there have only been a few, or no, cases like yours, you must give your client an estimate of the law, and your job is to craft arguments for why the law should work that way, or in a more preferred way, in addition to your advisory role. 'Accuracy' only exists in hindsight, because the law (an interpretation settled by precedent) does not exist yet. The trial judge makes it, or the appellate judge remakes it, or the highest justices in the state/country make it, as they attempt to apply the preexisting precepts to the new situation.
In this instance, the 'accuracy' problem does not relate to a question concerning law: whether consequential damages are available under a copyright infringement claim (as opposed to tort claims for false light and the like). The reporter pretty much got a "no," with the tort claims being a better way to get those sorts of damages. I agree, and I might turn out to be wrong (I may already be wrong -- I'm not willing to research the issue at the moment).
The 'accuracy' problem instead relates to an interpretation of facts: will the decider (likely a jury) like my side better than the other side concerning fair use. The reporter suggests that there's no accuracy after distilling it down to a yes/no, when in reality there's there's a probably yes, two maybe yesses, a maybe no, and two probably nos (one might be a definite no, but the reporter only quotes one sentence of what was likely a longer answer). And the range of opinion on these comments is the same: some say she brought it on herself, and the treatment of the family sucks but that's the town's fault, others say the principal and editor were out of line and deserve the pike. The "average" is virtually a coin toss, and almost everyone is hedging.
So, should accuracy here be measured against a hypothetical jury, a statistical jury, an actual jury, or something else? The hypothetical jury is the one the lawyer imagines off the cuff, the statistical jury is the one the lawyer deals with when researching damages or hiring a jury consultant (tough if there aren't a lot of other cases like yours), and the actual jury is what you'll get regardless of what you thought the former two were. Only the actual jury awards the money. Pick 6-12 people, lock them in a room until they agree (if you haven't been on a jury, you're not qualified to say how things should work in the room), and *voila*. Did you guess it? Were you accurate? If you redid it 10 times, was this result unlikely? Should that count against accuracy?
I think that the reporter is seeking far more certainty than he has any right to expect. He's not asking about what the law is, he's asking about what the decision will be. His experts have tried to accommodate that, but the reality is a group of lay people will be taught the same four factors that you've read, told the story, and then make up their own minds. What factor is more important, what factor is less, and what story resonates more with their sense of fairness is on occasion estimable, but certainly not knowable.
Nothing?
15 U.S.C. 7703-7705 focus primarily on "commercial electronic mail messages." 15 U.S.C. 7702(2)(a) defines a "commercial electronic mail message" as (in part):
The act also regulates "transactional and relationship messages." 15 U.S.C. 7702(17) defines those in far more detail, but each portion of the definition references a commercial transaction, a commercial product or service, a commercial relationship, or an employment relationship.
In fact, CAN-SPAM uses the word "commercial" 105 times. The very title is "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing." IAAL, and I'd say it has quite a bit to say about whether the content is commercial or not.
I'm not picking on you specifically, but rather this comment, which has inexplicably been moderated up to +5 Insightful despite absolutely wrong. The theft of services argument also has significant problems -- such as the fact that you and/or your ISP have set up servers in order to accept email -- that any lawyer experienced in this area would be able to discuss.
As a practical matter, a particular act of spamming, or even non-commercial emailing, would have to be egregious before any Federal prosecutor, State prosecutor, or civil court would entertain the notion of some sort of liability. You do in fact have to accept reasonable attempts by others to communicate with you through email, postal mail, the telephone, and the like, especially if it is non-commercial communication.
The article is correct when it states that the proposals are legislative pandering. The article is incorrect when it (sarcastically, as I read it) states that a "sin tax" on violent video games is a viable compromise. That doesn't mean that these sorts of proposals couldn't be enacted into law, or cause some momentary angst. However, since there's money involved, you can be sure that any state enacting such a law wouldn't end up collecting an additional cent.
We should all recall that pesky First Amendment to the Constitution. Now, while there are those who think that the First Amendment can justify almost anything, there are also those who have a legitimate basis for thinking that the First Amendment requires most laws to be content neutral in the way in which they affect speech, even "videogame speech."
If you've been tracking the "violent videogames" issue over the last few years, you know that laws restricting the distribution of violent and sexually explicit games have been routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment due to the requirement that they pass "strict scrutiny." Strict scrutiny requires that the law support a "compelling interest" and be "narrowly tailored" in order to achieve that compelling interest without unreasonable adverse side-effects.
Surprise, surprise -- a tax is simply another law. Even a Reagan-era Supreme Court (excepting Rhenquist and Scalia, who only cited cases involving credits and deductions) has held that discriminatory taxes must survive strict scrutiny. Given the tenor of prior Federal Court decisions concerning selective bans on the distribution of videogames to minors, I believe that you can reasonably predict that decisions concerning selective taxes on sales of videogames to minors and adults will be struck down as well.
The Big Bang; then a few precursor stars, which exploded; then the collapse of a portion of a nebula containing radioactive elements from those precursor stars, and heating caused by the conversion of kinetic/potential energy in the incoming matter; plus the radioactive decay of the radioactive elements in the collected matter. All of which are more or less independent of the existence of our current sun.
If Sol was responsible, then Earth would not get warmer as you went deeper toward the core, but cooler. At best, the Sun slows down the rate of cooling by messing with the thermal gradient between the planet's interior and the cosmic background radiation, but that means little to organisms living 2 miles underground.
mdarksbane may be right concerning prehistoric societies, but there's organisms which, metaphorically, are thinking "That squatter? Good thing the last one isn't around to smite thee."
That's likely correct, if you limit the scope of your inquiry to his review.
Now consider the wholesale copying of un unpublished work of fiction one month prior to release from "the internet" onto his computer. It's not even remotely a fair use of the material and is virtually guaranteed to be an act of infringement under the copyright statute.
Finally, consider the he's not being sued for copyright infringement, but is either 1a. an at-will employee terminable at his employer's will 1b. a contract employee who may be terminable under any half-way decent "for cause" clause in the contract or 1c. an employee who is subject to discipline by his employer.
It's amazing that the comments here are focusing on the copyright question, which is simple and boring - he infringed. It's scary that the comments here are ignoring the employment question, which is simple and boring, but trumps the copyright question. Fair use is not a defense to being fired or disciplined.
An anonymous comment that relies upon particular assumptions that are forbidden by the nature of the scenario. Like a train traveling through a vacuum, so that the train isn't destroyed by atmospheric resistance and the external observer isn't killed by the shockwave -- but the vacuum can conduct lightning. Like a train traveling in a straight line at 0.77c, so that centriptal forces and acceleration are unnecessary -- a space train struck by lightning. Nevermind that you've missed the entire point, that the situation is hypothetical, yet assumed the existence of hypothetical technology that can accelerate at 9/8 m/s/s for a year in a vacuum. The first example is due to speed. The second example is due to an unaccounted for acceleration. Both kill. Pick that nit. Nitwit.
Pointless unless you've studied relativistic physics, in which case the video is a modernized version of the classic thought experiment "Einstein's Train.". Everyone involved would be pretty dead if the train was moving at speeds fast enough to introduce relativistic effects perceptable by the ordinary senses, yet the illustration aids in an understanding of the physics.
The article is quite clear:
The death of the hypothetical observer is irrelevant to the usefulness of the video.
Wrong. Utterly wrong.
Each claim must be evaluated on its own merits, especially if you intent to "break" the patent by arguing that the claims are invalid.
The only time that you can focus only on the independent claims is when when you are arguing that a device does not infringe the patent, and that the device lacks one of the required elements in each of the independent claims. Because the dependent claims "depend" from an independent claim and require all the elements of that independent claim, under those circumstances, you can logically argue that the device lacks an element of every such dependent claim as well. Even then, you may only have considered so-called "literal infringement," and will need to consider infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
This isn't the first time that you've made this mistake in your comments. Either learn about the topic or knock it off.
Only if you limit the definition to the legal claim that you can make in the United States. If you attempt "truthful libel" in many English law countries, you're going to be rather surprised.
See this discussion of defamation/slander/libel. While this is still written from a U.S. perspective, you'll notice that Black's Law Dictionary (rather better authority than Wikipedia) defines defamation without regard to truth or falsehood. Slander and libel are merely oral and written forms of defamation, although the elements of the torts can differ and be more restrictive.
Most importantly, in English law countries truth is a defense to these torts, rather than falsehood being an element of the torts, so that "turthful libel" is still libel, but you may not not "liable for libel."
(a) ... defendant... (b) ... defendant... (c) ...defendant... or (d) where the plaintiff resides if the plaintiff is a nonprofit or individual inventor.
Or, otherwise translated, you must sue the defendant in their home jurisdiction, and multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, unless we think that you're a sympathetic plaintiff, in which case you can sue in your home jurisdiction like every other Federal plaintiff bringing a claim against private party (assuming that there is personal jurisdiction).
One of many reasons why this legislation is going to require substantial changes before it will pass. No large patent owner is going to want to be forced into giving up the "home field advantage" in the name of patent reform, or to be forced to pursue multiple suits against multiple defendants in front of multiple judges where formerly they could pursue them as one.
Alan Cox does assure us that Linux is now working on 64-bit time, and the UNIX epoch 'roll-over' would happen about the time that the sun burnt out."
This is just the sort of short-sighted thinking that lead to our recent Y2K hysteria, except this time our poor beleaguered descendents will be in the middle of an exodus from the solar system when all their legacy systems throw simultaneous exceptions. This will of course cause their engine and guidance systems to fail, so that the last dying gasps of humanity will consist of:
I think that there's a reasonable argument that the requirements of Section 4 of the GFDL do not apply to the mirror. At the very least, if you argue that the mirror has violated the GFDL then you're arguing that Wikipedia has violated the GFDL. If I had to defend the mirror in court, I can virtually guarantee that I would argue that the copyright holder had waived the requirements of the GFDL that were not being followed by Wikipedia, and that the mirror lacked any obligation to affirmatively comply with the requirements of Section 4 versus Section 2 of the GFDL.
My essential point in replying to the article is that Wikipedia is the one responsible for any violations of the GFDL. It would be essentially impossible for it to assert that the mirror had violated whatever copyright it might hold in that material.
This does nothing to resolve the trademark problem that the 'mirror' creates, but it is instructive to look at the actual text of the license.
"2. Verbatim Copying [] You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License."
The pages do appear to be verbatim copies of the Wikipedia pages, despite the lack of some images (note: verbatim - in precisely the same words used by a writer or speaker). You'll also note that the license does not require attribution (found in other words in Section 4), just a requirement for reproduction. Wikipedia is the one that must resolve its failure to include a copyright notice on the pages, not the mirror.
No. History books tend to include enough information concerning major inventions to show that "invention" is an incremental process. People's oral summaries of the history books or history itself tends grossly oversimplify issues because, at a minimum, they have to match the level of detail to the level of interest in order to hold the listener(s).
Humphry Davy is cursing your name in the afterlife because you've fixated on this Braunsdorf character who merely improved upon pre-existing arc lights. There's another horde of people who likely long before that overloaded a wire, but didn't run off to tell the world how to make a short lived flash of light by screwing up in an impractical manner.
Do you want to know what Thomas Edison invented? Read U.S. Patent No. 223,898.. Most importantly, look at claim 1:
1. An electric lamp for giving light by incandescence, consisting of a filiment of carbon of high resistance, made as described, and secured to metallic wires, as set forth.
My public school taught that Edison invented the first practical incandecent bulb by trying several thousand types of materials, not that Edison invented the first electric light. I'm very willing to bet that yours taught something similar as well, but you've oversimplified the information, whether you ment to or not.
No, we don't, and PJ and the rest of you ought to know better.
If it originated as letters and is perceived as letters, it's writing. The law and the rest of the world have long since abandoned the idea that a photocopy or a facsimile or an email are somehow not writing.
Any ambiguity as to the meaning of "must be in writing" is resolved by the requirement that the vote change shall be communicated by email. Not may be communicated by email. Not shall be communicated by email and something they forgot to mention.
Any semblance of ambiguity in the last point is resolved by the lack of a street address, facsimile number, telex identifier, or literally any other means of communicating with the three individuals other than their email addresses. So much detail concerning the email, but they forgot to mention the rest.
As for the actual requirements:
Sending a message to three people. Unconscionable - Never 'cc' anyone. Having an identifiable subject line. Evil - Short messages from an unknown email addresses are never identified as spam. Copying yourself. Unnecessary - Messages never get left in draft form in mail programs, and people happily accept the consequences of their incompetence. Including the name of the sender. Completely unnecessary - SMTP is unspoofable and contact@yourco.org can easily be verified as having the authority to change the vote of a national body.
This is either an elaborate joke, or PJ has partaken of far too much of the Kool-Aid.
You critique the plant-in-a-garage idea as if transferring fuel into the fuel tank in the car is the only issue, so that any other advantages are non-existent or irrelevant. Converting fuel stations to hydrogen is a classic chicken and the egg problem. Installing small scale and perhaps modular plants in something like a garage in which you intend to park your hydrogen fuel cell vehicle does not.
As for the nebulous "other issues," I handle flammable gasses in my residential building all the time. Even if you ignore the natural gas supply because it virtually exclusively uses semi-permanent connections, I've managed to use portable propane tanks for a few decades without incident. Why should hydrogen be any different?.
Instead of using a really good conductor to make the electrodes used for electrolysis, these people propose increasing the electrode's surface area 8,000 times by coating an ordinary steel electrode with butt loads of nanoparticles that are optimized for surface area and conductivity.
Replace "conductor" with catalyst. The issue isn't the conductivity of the anode and/or cathode, but the rate at which water is split into hydrogen and oxygen compared to the rate at which energy is conducted through the cell -- recognizing that excess energy conducted through the cell is ending up as waste heat somewhere or other.
The nanoparticles provide a good catalyst with a very high catalytic surface area, which apparently improves upon a excellent catalyst having a good surface area. Probably more to the point, the nanomaterials are presumptively much cheaper than the excellent catalyst (platinum, currently at >$2100/oz).
You're overreading the article, which includes an unfortunate quote from an executive.
The fundamental requirement here is a source of electricity to generate the hydrogen that will be used as an input for a hydrogen fuel cell. That electricity will not be available in a vehicle that is "on the go" because any conversion from potential energy -> electricity -> hydrogen -> electricity is inherently less efficient that using that potential energy via fewer steps, i.e., potential energy to electricity or mechanical force such as in electric (battery or carbonaceously fuelled fuel cell) or internal combustion powered vehicles.
The point of the claim, although overstated by the executive, is that the hydrogen could be generated from electricity in a plant in a garage, or even from electricity delivered to a plant in the car when it is parked rather than requiring a trip to the hydrogen station down the block. Think of the plug-in-hybrid concept, but using hydrogen as the energy store instead of battery packs.
I also suspect that an unstated part of the argument, which they assume would be known by their target audience, is that you could have a 50% efficient plant using a cheap nickel powder or a 70% efficient plant using a very expensive platinum powder, but that the 70% efficient plant would be impractical for mass distribution due to the gob of capital that an individual would have to sink into the platinum catalyst. Instead, they claim to have developed an 80% efficient not-as-cheap nanomaterial that an individual (supposedly) could afford to purchase as part of an in-garage or in-vehicle generation system. Whitepaper.
You'd still have to store the hydrogen in the vehicle, at least for the short term, or, being the pessimist that I am, run down to the local hydrogen station, but if you take their claims at face value you would not need to have hydrogen delivered from the refinery-scale hydrogen electrolysis plant located halfway into the next state.
Simply put, no.
"After the court issued its claim construction rulings, Medtronic's counsel proceeded cavalierly, with reckless indifference to the merits of Medtronic's infringement claims," Matsch wrote."
"Matsch said the McDermott lawyers willfully ignored his rulings on claim construction in their arguments before a Colorado jury in 2005. In patent cases, those orders define the scope of the patents and, therefore, what the plaintiff's lawyers can argue for infringement."
"The judge said in his Tuesday ruling that while McDermott paid lip service to the orders, the lawyers improperly pointed the jury toward Medtronic's broad reading of the patents. McMahon also made comparisons of the two companies' products, the StealthStation and VectorVision, instead of comparing Medtronic's patents to BrainLAB's product, "contrary to established law," Matsch wrote."
Summary for lawyers
In the anatomy of the typical patent case, there is
1. The filing of a suit
2. Discovery
3. A so-called "Markman hearing" to resolve disputes between the litigants as to the meaning of disputed terms or phrases within the patent claims
4. Summary judgment motions
5. A trial (bench or jury)
6. Post-verdict motions
7. Appeal
If you read through the judge's ruling, or even the law.com article, it's apparent that the judge believed that the trial was unnecessary, and that the case could and should have been resolved by summary judgment (and any subsequent appeal). If the case had ended at this point, there would likely be no talk of sanctions or the like. Therefore the answer to the question at the end of the summary is no.
All the rest relates to the judge's determination that 1. the platintiff's attorneys misrepresented the state of the case in their briefs opposing the motions for summary judgment that would have ended the trial phase and 2. the plaintiff's attorneys disregarded both his rulings in case and unequivocable legal standards for what does and does not constitute patent infringement.
To use bad sports analogies, this ruling is the red card or the technical foul called on the field, not a warning that the team should never have attempted to play the game.
In that case, it's unfortunate for you that the U.S. government passed a law that encouraged universities to patent the products of their research.
Imagine the gall. A university conducts research that results a useful, novel, and hopefully non-obvious technology, and they have the nerve to patent that technology. Then they have the nerve to ask for licensing revenue, and use the revenue to fund the university so that it can educate more students, and conduct more research, and maintain its facilities. Of course, the university should give the research product away for free, because you're perfectly willing to pay higher tuition and higher taxes to make up for this revenue that makes the university marginally more self-supporting. Aren't you?
If they're thinking of using their discoveries for profit, maybe they also should use the proceeds to fund their research as well without taxpayer money?
Because the money goes... where? And it's an all-or-nothing proposition, eh? You appear to have neglected to think this all the way through.
If this is true, then it effectively means that the world can be AIDS free in a generation. I'm willing to bet it's not going to happen, though. The drug companies have no interest in this.
I've been seeing this argument more and more frequently on Slashdot, although not specifically with regard to AIDS.
None of the conspiracy theorists ever posts any information that leads me to believe that competition has suddenly been suspended in the pharmaceuticals industry, that there's a drug research cabal, or that the international generic manufacturers, who are not limited to manufacturing generics, wouldn't leap at the opportunity to complete a proprietary drug or vaccine and introduce it into less rigorously regulated markets.
The implicit argument is that drug companies are placing an emphasis on lifestyle drugs, which they likely are, and that they are withholding "cures," which especially in the case of lifestyle diseases is very doubtful. This argument is very hard to mesh with those of pharmaceutical industry critics who argue that the drugs are actually developed by academia and the NIH, but only commercialized by big pharma.
Frankly I don't believe it. It doesn't explain the development of Gardasil, and it doesn't account for the incredible price that could be charged for a vaccine in comparison to existing therapies while still providing a cost savings.