Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.... The point is, Coke registered these trademarks, no matter how small the item in question, because they knew they had to if they wanted to prevent others from producing these products. They know that they can't use the "we're bigger than they are, so we own all the uses of the word 'Coke'" trademark defense. There is no such defense.
Not exactly. You've made a reasonable and partially correct argument, but the grandparent poster was not wrong.
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, even as amended in 2006, lets entities who own famous trademarks bring trademark infringement suits against others who use that mark in other classes of goods and/or services even if the owner does not market products within those classes themselves. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) The 2006 amendments narrowed the scope of famous marks because every Tom, Dick, and Harry claimed that their mark was famous or had 'niche' fame, but you're arguing about the granddaddy of all marks, "Coke."
Normally you develop a trademark by actively marketing goods and/or services, and your trademark rights are limited to uses of the mark in association with similar types of goods and/or services. However, trademarks like "Coke" have enormous recognition and value, and the Coca-Cola Corporation cannot reasonably be expected to actively market goods or license the marketing of goods in every conceivable commercial sphere, even if it wanted to. (Coke brand sex toys, anyone? I think not.)
Coke, Ford, Gucci and the like are trademarks that are so distinctive that the rights holders do have the ability to argue 'we're so big we own [most of] the brand uses of the mark' and win. Contrary to what some have suggested in their comments, the owner of a famous mark does not own all uses of the word itself, coke is still a fuel for the production of steel or slang for cocaine and Ford is still a president or a shallow crossing point in a river, but not even the Coca-Cola Corporation has to pursue every commercial opportunity or outlet in order to prevent others from doing so.
The concept of trademark dilution has limits -- you can still find other Ford businesses and marks, for example -- but if the mark is truly famouns and there is a likelihood of confusion between the famous mark and the other use of the mark, the famous mark can quite possibly overwhelm the other mark, especially if it is comparatively new.
Son, I do this for a living.
2. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/data
"factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation."
In any event, a computer program is as much a fact as a phone number. You've engaged in low-grade sophistry, and it's not worth additional discussion.
Facts within the meaning of the analysis are not copyrightable. The presentation of such facts may be copyrightable, but in this case the presentation was not original to the 'artist.' End of debate.
3. Wrong. Usually it is, but it is released into the public domain. Federal government works are not copyrightable. 17 U.S.C. 105. State and local government works are copyrightable, although much is released into the public domain. But that is not a necessary result.
4. That is a gross misunderstanding of how those four points are used, or not used.
Again, son, I do this for a living. If you care to make the argument that the use of the entire photograph outweighs all the other factors under the totality of the circumstances, then be my guest. Otherwise it's an accurate simplification of the result, and you're getting more than you've paid for. Yes, it's not a numerical analysis. No, it's not a gross misunderstanding of how the points are used.
5. even if it coulr kill your whole business? Blogger is just doing what it is mandated to do
Blogger is required to replace the content if the poster submits a counternotice. I never argued that Blogger was free to disregard the DMCA takedown notice.
Did you have anything constructive to offer, or were you just dying to take potshots at anyone who failed to post a treatise to answer a simple question? I find it telling that you couldn't even take the time to post correctly spelled English sentences.
Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. 102.
1. What is original in the driver's license?
The graphics? No. The layout? No. The selection of the fields of data? No. The photograph? Arguably. The data? Arguably.
2. What is original and protectable in the driver's license?
Are photographs protectable? Yes. Is data protectable? No. FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
3. Is the reproduction likely to infringe the protectable content?
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. 107.
The purpose and character appears to be criticism, or at least not commercial. The nature of the copyrighted work is at least allegedly a government ID, which does not favor copyrightability by someone other than the government. The amount and substantiality of the portion used is essentially all, which does favor copyrightability. However, the effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the photograph is, at least to the best of our knowledge, none, since Google is bereft of interesting content regarding Ms. Ashley Heyer.
The fair use factors balance out somewhere along the lines of 3 against, 1 in favor. There could be a more involved analysis, and there could be ancillary factors for consideration, but if I were the one being faced with this DMCA notice, I would file the counternotice and take my chances.
But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.
No. Not even if Wikipedia says so, since, of course, Wikipedia also says otherwise.[2]
"In the United States, under current patent law, for patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (See: Term of patent in the United States)."
This entry is far more accurate, but still contains errors. If the applicant filed a provisional application, and subsequently filed a regular application claiming priority from the provisional application, then the normal term of the patent might expire 21 years after the "earliest claimed filing date." Also, there are patent term extensions that have nothing to do with administrative delays. More to the point, Wikipedia is wrong, and the patent likely has not expired.
What we appear to have here is a patent troll who waited until the last minute to file, hoping to grab as much infringing money as possible.
Patent owners are not required to sue while the patent is still in force, although most do. There is a six year statute of limitations on patent damages, so that in theory the patent owner could still file suits over this patent in 2014.
I would have no problem if my ISP used them to block access to possible phishing or scam sites, in addition to combating spam.
Nice for you. I would have a problem if my ISP used them to block access to a site that I wanted to reach, including phishing or scam sites, in addition to combating spam. Why are you so willing to throw my expectation that I can browse a site that I explicitly want to browse under the proverbial bus?
If it's proper for an ISP to block email that has questionable or unwanted content (eg, spam), why is it not proper for that same ISP to block Websites that also have questionable or unwanted content (eg, phishing sites)?
Presumptively, the former is content that I did not request. Presumptively, the latter is content that I did request. Are you happy when email that you're expecting to receive is silently sent to/dev/null as a false positive by a spam filter that you do not control?
Just because AboveNet and TeleGlobe, or more accurately MAPS, went overboard and blacklisted innocent sites, doesn't mean the principle is invalid.
True. It is invalid because of a failure of imagination. I may have a legitimate need to view a scam site. I may represent a client who was scammed by the site and want to gather evidence on their behalf for a criminal complaint. I may be hired by someone co-hosted on the same server to prepare and file a civil complaint. Your problem can be solved with software installed on your computer. My problem cannot be solved by permitting content-based blocking of actively sought content that is controlled by others. Others may have other legitimate needs. The practice is not valid simply because it does not affect your limited use of the resource.
I've often wondered whether patents could be subject to a type of perpetual public auction in which anyone can make a binding bid on a patent.
I've often wondered whether property could be subject to a type of perpetual public auction in which anyone can make a binding bid on anything. (No, I haven't, but it makes for an entertaining introduction)
You have a nice house. I can force you to sell it. You have a nice collectible car. I can force you to sell it. You have an original Monet. I can force you to sell it. You're under contract to work for your employer for three years. I can force it to sell you -- more specifically, your employment obligation.
It's a fine plan that ignores one of the fundamental purposes of property, that it's YOURS to use for your own purposes, and eliminates any sentimental or non-market expectation value, which gets those pesky old people who don't want to sell their houses nicely out of the way of the developers. It also gets those pesky inventors and small business owners who don't want to sell their patents nicely out of the way of their larger competitors, but those are just patentees so we can treat them worse than the homeowners.
Hint: 35 U.S.C. 261 states "patents shall have the attributes of personal property."
You can't have it both ways privacy is not a privilege that may be conferred by a newspapers whim.
Either the press has the freedom that allows it to publish anonymous sources or it doesn't. If they have the right they should have respected the bloggers rights.
You've misconstrued the ability of a newspaper to protect its sources. Most states prevent their prosecutors from compelling a newspaper to reveal its sources to the government because permitting such a power would chill free speech. Note that the federal government doesn't believe this, and the Supreme Court doesn't believe this either.
Yet nothing prevents the government or others from hunting down the anonymous source in a way that bypasses the newspaper.
Similarly, the blogger does not have to reveal himself. But the government and others, and yes even a newspaper, are free to hunt down the blogger's identity.
For some reason you appear to believe that someone's decision to protect a source means that everyone, or at least other newspapers, should also protect that source. Vegans believe that people shouldn't eat animals or animal byproducts. Both beliefs have about the same likelihood of becoming universally observed.
The people who are creating the information in the first place need to figure out how to directly charge for the act of creation, cataloging and quality assurance. A good businessman seeks out markets that are undeserved rather than trying to compete in a market that has effectively infinite supply.
You either utterly miss the point, or merely refuse to acknowledge it. There is no infinite supply of useful information because human labor is required to produce it, and there is no infinite supply of human labor. The people creating the information have figured out how to charge for it -- charge for it, with protection through copyright and misappropriation, a.k.a., the "hot news doctrine."
How you ever got modded up with a self-rationalizing argument like that is beyond me - the only reason it is rivalrous is BECAUSE of copyright law which has the sole goal of imposing artificial scarcity on a non-scarce, non-rivalrous good.
Are you arguing informational creationism? How do these products appear in the marketplace in the first place to become "non-scarce and non-rivalrous"? My time is both scarce and rivalrous, which accounts for the last comment below.
You might do well to review it yourself.
An anonymous coward mischaracterizes legal rulings to an attorney in an attempt to argue that the "hot news doctrine" does not exist. Expected. Ignored. Judges do not rule based on Slashdot posts.
No, my use of the term "rivalrous" is different from the one that you expect. I quite clearly stated that information is rivalrous based upon the ability of the consumer to make use of it. One can only "consume" so much information per unit time because of human limits. On the other hand, one can consume very large quantities of gasoline, wood, food, etc. depending upon the use. You are looking at consumption from a supplier's point of view. I quite clearly stated that I was looking at valuation of information from a consumer's point of view.
The contention that "information wants to be free" is a catchy way of saying "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural marginal cost is zero or practically indistinguishable from zero."
The contention that information wants to be free is a catchy way of ignoring that "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural startup cost is non-zero for any information which is concise, categorized, and subject to quality assurance/quality control."
You can argue about marginal costs of reproduction until the end of time, but the information that people want to acquire is scarce, costly (in the sense that finite human labor is a necessary element of its creation and rendering into a useful form), and most importantly, at least in modern economies, rivalrous. Vast stores of old information are discarded in favor of "superior" new information, at least in part because consumption of information still entails an opportunity cost to the consumer.
To those who selectively quote the marginal cost pricing aspect of economics that they learned in their survey course, I suggest that you review the vast body of literature discussing the so-called "hot news doctrine" in law and economics. You could start here.
Not the same with hardware. Any material change in the product has to be accounted for. If Apple already filed its disclosure statements indicating that its products had b/g wireless chipsets in it (which it would have), it can't go back and change that later and say "oops actually it's 802.11n." Doing so would be a "material misstatement" punishable by the PCAOB under Sarbanes-Oxley.
Your argument concerning material misstatements is self-contradictory. The original statement that it has a b/g wireless chipset is patently false, because it omits that the chipset is in fact draft-n hardware. The law has a long history of treating omissions as material misstatements.
More importantly, I don't accept the premise of the argument. Not only have you failed to justify how software is different from hardware under SOX based on the law, you have failed to justify how a clearly upgradable binary object (a.k.a firmware) is hardware rather than software. The chipset did not change. The programmed functionality did.
The upgrade mechanism does nothing to solve a rational argument concerning material misstatements. If you want to argue hardware, there was one. If you want to argue functionality, there wasn't one. Neither changes thanks to a firmware flash.
Oh, if you _do_ need them on all the time, look for something like the Western Digital Caviar special edition drives, which have a 3 year warranty, or SCSI drives, whose warranties go up to 5 years. Standard consumer drives come with a mere 1 year warranty, and there's a good reason why...
Source for the last statement?
Seagate consumer drives come with a mere 5 year warranty, and there's something that directly refutes your point.
Novel and non-obvious chemical compounds are patentable.
Naturally occurring chemical compounds may be patentable when claimed as purified forms, as pharmaceutically acceptable salts, etc. While you may argue that it is obvious to purify a compound, when the application is drafted correctly, it often discloses or is based on a qualifying disclosure of a particular compound having a particular and previously unknown utility other than its mere existence. That is sufficient to eliminate the "obviousness" of a generic purification argument.
Novel and non-obvious uses of known chemical compounds may also be patentable, as you suggested, but that category represents the minority of chemical patent applications.
There's definitely something screwy going on. From the article, about 18000 votes were accepted that didn't actually vote for anything. Now, if I was designing an e-voting package, there's no way I'd mark a vote as accepted if it didn't vote for something, especially in a country like the US where voting is not mandatory. After all, if they've bothered to turn up at the voting booth, you can assume they actually intended to vote.
You're misreading the article.
"Some 18,000 Sarasota County electronic ballots did not register a vote in the race, a much higher undervote rate _ nearly 15 percent _ than in others such as those for governor or U.S. Senate. Jennings contends the machines lost the votes. Buchanan backers and the company say that if there was an unusually large undervote it was likely because of bad ballot design."
There were 18,000 people who did not vote for either Jennings or Buchanan (or another option, if any). People routinely vote for "none of the above" when they dislike each of the candidates, when they have little information about the candidates, etc. You cannot refuse to accept the voter's selections once the voter has showed up at the polls and voted in even one race, because that may very well be the voter's intent. Arguably, you cannot refuse to accept a submission that contains no selections, because that too may be the voter's intent.
You are at best arguing about the sufficiency of the selection review prior to a submission. There is not enough information in the article to discuss this information, and it does not support the candidate's allegations of fraud, so that it is essentially irrelevant to the legal case taking place after the election. You're free to argue against the ballot presentation selected/entered by the various Boards of Election, but you can hardly argue based solely on the undervote that this was a programming "feature" or design defect.
They should be restricted to practical engineering for physical objects.
They shouldn't include things like stories or tax shelters or mathmatics or software. That's just BS.
Software running on a general purpose CPU is often pratcial engineering for a physical object. Software + CPU + display can equal portable DVD player. Software + CPU + actuator can equal electronic stability control. Software + CPU + nozzle can equal ground penetrating intercontinental ballistic missile.
Often it is no longer the assemblage of parts, but the software controlling those parts that constitutes the necessary part of a manifest technological effect. There is no rational difference between inertial guidance and GPS guidance that should have made the former patentable and the latter not.
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
But hey don't let common sense get in the way. Just ignore the fact that agriculture puts water vapor into the air.
You cannot argue this point from generic observations, as you have done throughout your messages on this topic. Both forests, mixed zones, and grasslands transpire large quantities of water into the atmosphere.
"Trees planted on previously cleared land commonly use between 30-55% of annual pan evaporation, while healthy trees planted at high density can use up to about 65% of annual pan evaporation. Raper found some evidence that under ideal conditions, maximum long-term water use could be up to 75% of annual pan evaporation." Australian Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.
The benchmark, pan evaporation, is water loss from a literal gradated shallow pan, which would be even higher than from the shallow channels that you assume predominate in agriculture.
The remainder of your points are demonstrably false. First, the sun does not have a constant energy output, and I am not referring merely to "apparent annual variation" or the 11 year sunspot cycle. Second, cultivation of shallow rooted crops does not necessarily increase evaporative and transpirative losses, as is evident from the report referenced above. Third, virtually every arable inch of land on Earth is not under cultivation, which is blatantly obvious to anyone living in the Eastern United States who lives near a national park or in a new subdivision built over previously cultivated land. "This gross estimate of land with cultivation potential is twice the area that was actually in use for cultivation during 1994-96 according to FAO's statistical data." United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization statistics
But hey, don't let facts that you could Google in less than 5 minutes get in the way of your common sense.
The legal universe is the one that determines whether or not one will be compelled to pay damages for infringing upon the claims of the patent. You would do well to remember that.
As to the rest, the original poster stated "I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested" and "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier."
Both statements are absolutely valid when read as a whole. The poster did not state that the patent was valid, and did not state that prior art could only exist prior to Feb 25, 1998.
I will not waste further time arguing with an anonymous coward who constructs strawman arguments to cover his ass and claim victory. The statements that were originally made were far more correct than any of your contributions.
No, this was based on a provisional application dated February 26, 1999. Prior art need only exist on February 25, 1999 or earlier to invalidate this patent.
No, a reference needs to have existed as of February 25,1998 in order to conclusively invalidate the patent under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(b).
You are free to argue that a reference dated between between February 26, 1998 and February 25, 1899 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. sec 102(a) or other similar provisions, but then you also need to prove that the reference predates the patent owner's-inventor's date of invention, otherwise it is not prior art. The inventor is also free to argue in return that he/she/they conceived of the invention and began to diligently seek to reduce it to practice prior to the date of the reference, and thus can push back the date and show that the reference is not prior art.
Patent attorneys know that it is far easier to invalidate a patent under section 102(b) then under section 102(a), and routinely look for art that predates the patent filing by more than a year because failing to do so magnifies both the expense of invalidating a patent and the uncertainty in the likelihood of success.
The grandparent stated "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier." The grandparent is absolutely correct.
I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested.
Umm, the earlier the priority date, the smaller the universe of potential prior art in a field, and the greater the likelihood of validity? Drop the smart-ass tone. The patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. sec. 282. If you can prove that the patent is invalid, then demonstrate your skills. Those of us who contribute legal knowledge free of charge to these discussions have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the entirety of patent practice just to support an elementary point.
The GPL doesn't require you to remove infringing IP until it is confirmed to be infringing. Your statement that you have to remove IP before it is confirmed by a court is insane.
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
Please specify the exact portion of paragraph 7 that you believe is being violated.
If you are arguing that Novell has licensed IP that covers a GPLed element of a Linux distribution, and cannot redistribute that code because it cannot sublicense that right to others (besides its customers), then you have conceded that Linux embodies infringing IP and that the community is obligated to remove that IP before the community may redistribute the code. Paragraph 7, contrary to the opinions of many, does not permit you to "wait" until IP such as a patent is "validated" in a court against a distributor defendant.
If you are arguing that Novell/SuSE itself has contributed code that is covered by IP and GPL paragraph 2(b), and further failed to cause its contribution "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties," then I invite you to identify that code and IP. Of course, since not Novell but Microsoft owns the IP allegedly covering the code, the community is obligated to remove that IP before the community may redistribute the code. Novell has no power to bind Microsoft to an implied license under paragraph 2(b).
If you are arguing that Novell is redistributing code that it did not itself contribute that is covered by IP, then I invite you to read paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in detail. Paragraphs 1 and 3 make it clear that the redistributor is not licensing anything by mere redistribution, and merely obligated to provide source, attributions, and the GPL license to a receiving party. Paragraph 2 makes it still more clear that "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties" only applies if you yourself make a contribution and "distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions..."
So long as Novell does not bind its customers to "additional obligations," Novell has satisfied the GPL. It does not matter that Microsoft retains the alleged right to sue those other than Novell/SuSE and its customers because that is a power that it, like others, has been granted under the law, and not a restriction imposed through a modification of the GPL. There is no language other than that in paragraph 2(b) that requires anyone distributing a GPLed program to convery rights that they have obtained to others, merely language that prevents those distributing a GPLed program from restricting the rights of others by purporting to modify the GPL through additional or deleted terms.
Consequently, if a piece of software is protected by a patent that you don't have the ability to freely license (and to grant others the ability to freely license, ad nauseum), you cannot fulfill the obligations that come with redistribution under Paragraph 2 of the GPL (specifically, you cannot grant, at least, the permissions in the last sentence of Paragraph 1), and therefore you are barred from redistributing the software at all by Paragraph 7.
GPL Version 2, June 1991
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
Paragraph 1 does not require that you grant the recipient any rights to do anything with the Program. Paragraph 1 simply requires that you include certain text as a condition of your ability to redistribute the Program source code under the license. If you distribute patent-encumbered code written by someone else under the GPL, then you yourself cannot be said to have violated paragraph 1. You are not sublicensing the code under paragraph 1.
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:"
Paragraph 2 only applies if you modify the Program, and hence is inapplicable in the vast majority of circumstances. As you recall, you argued that one could not fulfill the obligations of paragraph 2. If you have not modified the Program, then you have fulfilled them. You will also notice that paragraph 3 is quite similar to paragraph 1 in that it does not require that you grant the recipient any rights to do anything with the Program.
Under your interpretation of the GPL, specifically your interpretation of paragraph 2(b), essentially every version of the Linux kernel since at least version 2.4 is almost certainly being distributed in violation of the GPL. Unless you know of someone who happens to have 283 clearance opinions or royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sublicenseable license agreements, then you are merely assuming that all 283 patents do not apply. I suggest that you notify the FSF of this rampant license violation immediately.
The problem with your argument is that patent rights exist the moment that they are granted by the USPTO. There is no need for the rights to be asserted against anyone, there is no need for the patent to be "court-validated", see 35 U.S.C. 282, and there is certainly no need to you to have actual knowledge that the patent(s) exist. Yet the GPL is clearly not enforced in the manner that you are suggesting.
What you have left is the first sentence of paragraph 7:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
Which, as stated earlier, requires an action that directly implictes you as an individual or organization, and excludes a waiver of such an action that directly excludes you as an individual or organization even if it does not do so for others.
With respect to SuSE, you may be technically correct (which is the best kind of correct), since it is extremely likely that SuSE has created derivative works under the GPL, however, it is trivial to create a distribution that is both patent violative and GPL compliant by acquiring and redistributing the code under the GPL.
This means that, should MS enforce its patents on other open source companies, not even Novell can distribute GPL programs covered by the same patents.
Wrong.
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
In case you've forgotten:
Paragraph 0:... Each licensee is addressed as "you".
If Microsoft files suit against, gets a court order against, or makes an allegation of infringement against someone who is not me, then I need not be concerned because not-me is also not "you." It's there in black and white in the license.
Paragraph 6:... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
If Microsoft asserts patent infringement against everyone except SuSE, SuSE is perfectly free to distribute the program under the GPL. If Microsoft waives its ability to litigate a patent against SuSE and anyone using SuSE's distribution only, SuSE is perfectly free to distribute the program under the GPL. The current GPL does not require the distributor to warrant anything. Microsoft cannot make SuSE impose additional conditions, because those conditions would violate the GPL, but Microsoft is free to impose those conditions by operation of law itself, and create a favored class by waiving its rights with respect to that class.*
*This discussion is limited to contract and IP law, and does not attempt to reach the antitrust implications of any such action.
"[Please clarify] how a "First Amendment lawsuit" is relevant. As I understand, the First Amendment only restricts the government.
It's conceivable that the organization could file lawsuits citing the First Amendment against public schools, public libraries, or other government entities that provide public internet access through a filter.
It's far more likely that the organization would file lawsuits based on some form of defamation tort against the filtering businesses themselves, since "hate speech" does have a rather well defined meaning within the law, and if the organization's activities fall short of hate speech, it probably wouldn't be difficult to show the requisite economic and reputational injury.
Of course, the writer has noted that the SPLC has labeled the organization as a hate group, but then, VDARE would just invite trouble by suing an organization full of lawyers who's mission is to track hate groups. There's nothing like a group of activists combing through your entire business thanks to a discovery request to convince you that sometimes a lawsuit is not a solution to a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Not if it isn't registered as such, it isn't.... The point is, Coke registered these trademarks, no matter how small the item in question, because they knew they had to if they wanted to prevent others from producing these products. They know that they can't use the "we're bigger than they are, so we own all the uses of the word 'Coke'" trademark defense. There is no such defense.
Not exactly. You've made a reasonable and partially correct argument, but the grandparent poster was not wrong.
The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, even as amended in 2006, lets entities who own famous trademarks bring trademark infringement suits against others who use that mark in other classes of goods and/or services even if the owner does not market products within those classes themselves. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) The 2006 amendments narrowed the scope of famous marks because every Tom, Dick, and Harry claimed that their mark was famous or had 'niche' fame, but you're arguing about the granddaddy of all marks, "Coke."
Normally you develop a trademark by actively marketing goods and/or services, and your trademark rights are limited to uses of the mark in association with similar types of goods and/or services. However, trademarks like "Coke" have enormous recognition and value, and the Coca-Cola Corporation cannot reasonably be expected to actively market goods or license the marketing of goods in every conceivable commercial sphere, even if it wanted to. (Coke brand sex toys, anyone? I think not.)
Coke, Ford, Gucci and the like are trademarks that are so distinctive that the rights holders do have the ability to argue 'we're so big we own [most of] the brand uses of the mark' and win. Contrary to what some have suggested in their comments, the owner of a famous mark does not own all uses of the word itself, coke is still a fuel for the production of steel or slang for cocaine and Ford is still a president or a shallow crossing point in a river, but not even the Coca-Cola Corporation has to pursue every commercial opportunity or outlet in order to prevent others from doing so.
The concept of trademark dilution has limits -- you can still find other Ford businesses and marks, for example -- but if the mark is truly famouns and there is a likelihood of confusion between the famous mark and the other use of the mark, the famous mark can quite possibly overwhelm the other mark, especially if it is comparatively new.
Son, I do this for a living. 2. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/data "factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation." In any event, a computer program is as much a fact as a phone number. You've engaged in low-grade sophistry, and it's not worth additional discussion. Facts within the meaning of the analysis are not copyrightable. The presentation of such facts may be copyrightable, but in this case the presentation was not original to the 'artist.' End of debate. 3. Wrong. Usually it is, but it is released into the public domain. Federal government works are not copyrightable. 17 U.S.C. 105. State and local government works are copyrightable, although much is released into the public domain. But that is not a necessary result. 4. That is a gross misunderstanding of how those four points are used, or not used. Again, son, I do this for a living. If you care to make the argument that the use of the entire photograph outweighs all the other factors under the totality of the circumstances, then be my guest. Otherwise it's an accurate simplification of the result, and you're getting more than you've paid for. Yes, it's not a numerical analysis. No, it's not a gross misunderstanding of how the points are used. 5. even if it coulr kill your whole business? Blogger is just doing what it is mandated to do Blogger is required to replace the content if the poster submits a counternotice. I never argued that Blogger was free to disregard the DMCA takedown notice. Did you have anything constructive to offer, or were you just dying to take potshots at anyone who failed to post a treatise to answer a simple question? I find it telling that you couldn't even take the time to post correctly spelled English sentences.
Let's analyze this problem step by step.
Copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. 17 U.S.C. 102.
1. What is original in the driver's license?
The graphics? No. The layout? No. The selection of the fields of data? No. The photograph? Arguably. The data? Arguably.
2. What is original and protectable in the driver's license?
Are photographs protectable? Yes. Is data protectable? No. FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
3. Is the reproduction likely to infringe the protectable content?
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. 107.
The purpose and character appears to be criticism, or at least not commercial. The nature of the copyrighted work is at least allegedly a government ID, which does not favor copyrightability by someone other than the government. The amount and substantiality of the portion used is essentially all, which does favor copyrightability. However, the effect of the use upon the potential market or value of the photograph is, at least to the best of our knowledge, none, since Google is bereft of interesting content regarding Ms. Ashley Heyer.
The fair use factors balance out somewhere along the lines of 3 against, 1 in favor. There could be a more involved analysis, and there could be ancillary factors for consideration, but if I were the one being faced with this DMCA notice, I would file the counternotice and take my chances.
But, the patent coverage runs for 20 years from filing date (even then).[1] The patent was filed in March, 1987, which means the patent should have expired by now.
No. Not even if Wikipedia says so, since, of course, Wikipedia also says otherwise.[2]
"In the United States, under current patent law, for patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the term of the patent is 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date. For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest claimed filing date or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may also be had for various administrative delays. (See: Term of patent in the United States)."
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent
This entry is far more accurate, but still contains errors. If the applicant filed a provisional application, and subsequently filed a regular application claiming priority from the provisional application, then the normal term of the patent might expire 21 years after the "earliest claimed filing date." Also, there are patent term extensions that have nothing to do with administrative delays. More to the point, Wikipedia is wrong, and the patent likely has not expired.
What we appear to have here is a patent troll who waited until the last minute to file, hoping to grab as much infringing money as possible.
Patent owners are not required to sue while the patent is still in force, although most do. There is a six year statute of limitations on patent damages, so that in theory the patent owner could still file suits over this patent in 2014.
*sigh*
I would have no problem if my ISP used them to block access to possible phishing or scam sites, in addition to combating spam.
/dev/null as a false positive by a spam filter that you do not control?
Nice for you. I would have a problem if my ISP used them to block access to a site that I wanted to reach, including phishing or scam sites, in addition to combating spam. Why are you so willing to throw my expectation that I can browse a site that I explicitly want to browse under the proverbial bus?
If it's proper for an ISP to block email that has questionable or unwanted content (eg, spam), why is it not proper for that same ISP to block Websites that also have questionable or unwanted content (eg, phishing sites)?
Presumptively, the former is content that I did not request. Presumptively, the latter is content that I did request. Are you happy when email that you're expecting to receive is silently sent to
Just because AboveNet and TeleGlobe, or more accurately MAPS, went overboard and blacklisted innocent sites, doesn't mean the principle is invalid.
True. It is invalid because of a failure of imagination. I may have a legitimate need to view a scam site. I may represent a client who was scammed by the site and want to gather evidence on their behalf for a criminal complaint. I may be hired by someone co-hosted on the same server to prepare and file a civil complaint. Your problem can be solved with software installed on your computer. My problem cannot be solved by permitting content-based blocking of actively sought content that is controlled by others. Others may have other legitimate needs. The practice is not valid simply because it does not affect your limited use of the resource.
I've often wondered whether patents could be subject to a type of perpetual public auction in which anyone can make a binding bid on a patent.
I've often wondered whether property could be subject to a type of perpetual public auction in which anyone can make a binding bid on anything. (No, I haven't, but it makes for an entertaining introduction)
You have a nice house. I can force you to sell it. You have a nice collectible car. I can force you to sell it. You have an original Monet. I can force you to sell it. You're under contract to work for your employer for three years. I can force it to sell you -- more specifically, your employment obligation.
It's a fine plan that ignores one of the fundamental purposes of property, that it's YOURS to use for your own purposes, and eliminates any sentimental or non-market expectation value, which gets those pesky old people who don't want to sell their houses nicely out of the way of the developers. It also gets those pesky inventors and small business owners who don't want to sell their patents nicely out of the way of their larger competitors, but those are just patentees so we can treat them worse than the homeowners.
Hint:
35 U.S.C. 261 states "patents shall have the attributes of personal property."
You can't have it both ways privacy is not a privilege that may be conferred by a newspapers whim.
Either the press has the freedom that allows it to publish anonymous sources or it doesn't. If they have the right they should have respected the bloggers rights.
You've misconstrued the ability of a newspaper to protect its sources. Most states prevent their prosecutors from compelling a newspaper to reveal its sources to the government because permitting such a power would chill free speech. Note that the federal government doesn't believe this, and the Supreme Court doesn't believe this either.
Yet nothing prevents the government or others from hunting down the anonymous source in a way that bypasses the newspaper.
Similarly, the blogger does not have to reveal himself. But the government and others, and yes even a newspaper, are free to hunt down the blogger's identity.
For some reason you appear to believe that someone's decision to protect a source means that everyone, or at least other newspapers, should also protect that source. Vegans believe that people shouldn't eat animals or animal byproducts. Both beliefs have about the same likelihood of becoming universally observed.
The people who are creating the information in the first place need to figure out how to directly charge for the act of creation, cataloging and quality assurance. A good businessman seeks out markets that are undeserved rather than trying to compete in a market that has effectively infinite supply.
You either utterly miss the point, or merely refuse to acknowledge it. There is no infinite supply of useful information because human labor is required to produce it, and there is no infinite supply of human labor. The people creating the information have figured out how to charge for it -- charge for it, with protection through copyright and misappropriation, a.k.a., the "hot news doctrine."
How you ever got modded up with a self-rationalizing argument like that is beyond me - the only reason it is rivalrous is BECAUSE of copyright law which has the sole goal of imposing artificial scarcity on a non-scarce, non-rivalrous good.
Are you arguing informational creationism? How do these products appear in the marketplace in the first place to become "non-scarce and non-rivalrous"? My time is both scarce and rivalrous, which accounts for the last comment below.
You might do well to review it yourself.
An anonymous coward mischaracterizes legal rulings to an attorney in an attempt to argue that the "hot news doctrine" does not exist. Expected. Ignored. Judges do not rule based on Slashdot posts.
No, my use of the term "rivalrous" is different from the one that you expect. I quite clearly stated that information is rivalrous based upon the ability of the consumer to make use of it. One can only "consume" so much information per unit time because of human limits. On the other hand, one can consume very large quantities of gasoline, wood, food, etc. depending upon the use. You are looking at consumption from a supplier's point of view. I quite clearly stated that I was looking at valuation of information from a consumer's point of view.
The contention that "information wants to be free" is a catchy way of saying "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural marginal cost is zero or practically indistinguishable from zero."
The contention that information wants to be free is a catchy way of ignoring that "the properties of digital goods are such that their natural startup cost is non-zero for any information which is concise, categorized, and subject to quality assurance/quality control."
You can argue about marginal costs of reproduction until the end of time, but the information that people want to acquire is scarce, costly (in the sense that finite human labor is a necessary element of its creation and rendering into a useful form), and most importantly, at least in modern economies, rivalrous. Vast stores of old information are discarded in favor of "superior" new information, at least in part because consumption of information still entails an opportunity cost to the consumer.
To those who selectively quote the marginal cost pricing aspect of economics that they learned in their survey course, I suggest that you review the vast body of literature discussing the so-called "hot news doctrine" in law and economics. You could start here.
Not the same with hardware. Any material change in the product has to be accounted for. If Apple already filed its disclosure statements indicating that its products had b/g wireless chipsets in it (which it would have), it can't go back and change that later and say "oops actually it's 802.11n." Doing so would be a "material misstatement" punishable by the PCAOB under Sarbanes-Oxley.
Your argument concerning material misstatements is self-contradictory. The original statement that it has a b/g wireless chipset is patently false, because it omits that the chipset is in fact draft-n hardware. The law has a long history of treating omissions as material misstatements.
More importantly, I don't accept the premise of the argument. Not only have you failed to justify how software is different from hardware under SOX based on the law, you have failed to justify how a clearly upgradable binary object (a.k.a firmware) is hardware rather than software. The chipset did not change. The programmed functionality did.
The upgrade mechanism does nothing to solve a rational argument concerning material misstatements. If you want to argue hardware, there was one. If you want to argue functionality, there wasn't one. Neither changes thanks to a firmware flash.
Oh, if you _do_ need them on all the time, look for something like the Western Digital Caviar special edition drives, which have a 3 year warranty, or SCSI drives, whose warranties go up to 5 years. Standard consumer drives come with a mere 1 year warranty, and there's a good reason why...
Source for the last statement?
Seagate consumer drives come with a mere 5 year warranty, and there's something that directly refutes your point.
Chemical compounds as such are not patentable.
Absolutely wrong.
Novel and non-obvious chemical compounds are patentable.
Naturally occurring chemical compounds may be patentable when claimed as purified forms, as pharmaceutically acceptable salts, etc. While you may argue that it is obvious to purify a compound, when the application is drafted correctly, it often discloses or is based on a qualifying disclosure of a particular compound having a particular and previously unknown utility other than its mere existence. That is sufficient to eliminate the "obviousness" of a generic purification argument.
Novel and non-obvious uses of known chemical compounds may also be patentable, as you suggested, but that category represents the minority of chemical patent applications.
There's definitely something screwy going on. From the article, about 18000 votes were accepted that didn't actually vote for anything. Now, if I was designing an e-voting package, there's no way I'd mark a vote as accepted if it didn't vote for something, especially in a country like the US where voting is not mandatory. After all, if they've bothered to turn up at the voting booth, you can assume they actually intended to vote.
You're misreading the article.
"Some 18,000 Sarasota County electronic ballots did not register a vote in the race, a much higher undervote rate _ nearly 15 percent _ than in others such as those for governor or U.S. Senate. Jennings contends the machines lost the votes. Buchanan backers and the company say that if there was an unusually large undervote it was likely because of bad ballot design."
There were 18,000 people who did not vote for either Jennings or Buchanan (or another option, if any). People routinely vote for "none of the above" when they dislike each of the candidates, when they have little information about the candidates, etc. You cannot refuse to accept the voter's selections once the voter has showed up at the polls and voted in even one race, because that may very well be the voter's intent. Arguably, you cannot refuse to accept a submission that contains no selections, because that too may be the voter's intent.
You are at best arguing about the sufficiency of the selection review prior to a submission. There is not enough information in the article to discuss this information, and it does not support the candidate's allegations of fraud, so that it is essentially irrelevant to the legal case taking place after the election. You're free to argue against the ballot presentation selected/entered by the various Boards of Election, but you can hardly argue based solely on the undervote that this was a programming "feature" or design defect.
They should be restricted to practical engineering for physical objects.
Software running on a general purpose CPU is often pratcial engineering for a physical object. Software + CPU + display can equal portable DVD player. Software + CPU + actuator can equal electronic stability control. Software + CPU + nozzle can equal ground penetrating intercontinental ballistic missile.They shouldn't include things like stories or tax shelters or mathmatics or software. That's just BS.
Often it is no longer the assemblage of parts, but the software controlling those parts that constitutes the necessary part of a manifest technological effect. There is no rational difference between inertial guidance and GPS guidance that should have made the former patentable and the latter not.
In fact the US will allow imports of such goods.
In fact, the US will not.
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
35 U.S.C. 271(a)
But hey don't let common sense get in the way. Just ignore the fact that agriculture puts water vapor into the air.
You cannot argue this point from generic observations, as you have done throughout your messages on this topic. Both forests, mixed zones, and grasslands transpire large quantities of water into the atmosphere.
"Trees planted on previously cleared land commonly use between 30-55% of annual pan evaporation, while healthy trees planted at high density can use up to about 65% of annual pan evaporation. Raper found some evidence that under ideal conditions, maximum long-term water use could be up to 75% of annual pan evaporation." Australian Rural Industries Research & Development Corporation.
The benchmark, pan evaporation, is water loss from a literal gradated shallow pan, which would be even higher than from the shallow channels that you assume predominate in agriculture.
The remainder of your points are demonstrably false. First, the sun does not have a constant energy output, and I am not referring merely to "apparent annual variation" or the 11 year sunspot cycle. Second, cultivation of shallow rooted crops does not necessarily increase evaporative and transpirative losses, as is evident from the report referenced above. Third, virtually every arable inch of land on Earth is not under cultivation, which is blatantly obvious to anyone living in the Eastern United States who lives near a national park or in a new subdivision built over previously cultivated land. "This gross estimate of land with cultivation potential is twice the area that was actually in use for cultivation during 1994-96 according to FAO's statistical data." United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization statistics
But hey, don't let facts that you could Google in less than 5 minutes get in the way of your common sense.
The legal universe is the one that determines whether or not one will be compelled to pay damages for infringing upon the claims of the patent. You would do well to remember that.
As to the rest, the original poster stated "I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested" and "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier." Both statements are absolutely valid when read as a whole. The poster did not state that the patent was valid, and did not state that prior art could only exist prior to Feb 25, 1998.
I will not waste further time arguing with an anonymous coward who constructs strawman arguments to cover his ass and claim victory. The statements that were originally made were far more correct than any of your contributions.
No, this was based on a provisional application dated February 26, 1999. Prior art need only exist on February 25, 1999 or earlier to invalidate this patent.
No, a reference needs to have existed as of February 25,1998 in order to conclusively invalidate the patent under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(b).
You are free to argue that a reference dated between between February 26, 1998 and February 25, 1899 is prior art under 35 U.S.C. sec 102(a) or other similar provisions, but then you also need to prove that the reference predates the patent owner's-inventor's date of invention, otherwise it is not prior art. The inventor is also free to argue in return that he/she/they conceived of the invention and began to diligently seek to reduce it to practice prior to the date of the reference, and thus can push back the date and show that the reference is not prior art.
Patent attorneys know that it is far easier to invalidate a patent under section 102(b) then under section 102(a), and routinely look for art that predates the patent filing by more than a year because failing to do so magnifies both the expense of invalidating a patent and the uncertainty in the likelihood of success.
The grandparent stated "For most purposes, the date against which to shoot with any invalidating prior art would have to be Feb. 25, 1998 or earlier." The grandparent is absolutely correct.
I don't know if the patent is valid or not, but it certainly has a lot more merit than suggested.
Umm, the earlier the priority date, the smaller the universe of potential prior art in a field, and the greater the likelihood of validity? Drop the smart-ass tone. The patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. sec. 282. If you can prove that the patent is invalid, then demonstrate your skills. Those of us who contribute legal knowledge free of charge to these discussions have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you the entirety of patent practice just to support an elementary point.
The GPL doesn't require you to remove infringing IP until it is confirmed to be infringing. Your statement that you have to remove IP before it is confirmed by a court is insane.
"7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
The GPL explicitly disagrees with you.
Please specify the exact portion of paragraph 7 that you believe is being violated.
If you are arguing that Novell has licensed IP that covers a GPLed element of a Linux distribution, and cannot redistribute that code because it cannot sublicense that right to others (besides its customers), then you have conceded that Linux embodies infringing IP and that the community is obligated to remove that IP before the community may redistribute the code. Paragraph 7, contrary to the opinions of many, does not permit you to "wait" until IP such as a patent is "validated" in a court against a distributor defendant.
If you are arguing that Novell/SuSE itself has contributed code that is covered by IP and GPL paragraph 2(b), and further failed to cause its contribution "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties," then I invite you to identify that code and IP. Of course, since not Novell but Microsoft owns the IP allegedly covering the code, the community is obligated to remove that IP before the community may redistribute the code. Novell has no power to bind Microsoft to an implied license under paragraph 2(b).
If you are arguing that Novell is redistributing code that it did not itself contribute that is covered by IP, then I invite you to read paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 in detail. Paragraphs 1 and 3 make it clear that the redistributor is not licensing anything by mere redistribution, and merely obligated to provide source, attributions, and the GPL license to a receiving party. Paragraph 2 makes it still more clear that "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties" only applies if you yourself make a contribution and "distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions..."
So long as Novell does not bind its customers to "additional obligations," Novell has satisfied the GPL. It does not matter that Microsoft retains the alleged right to sue those other than Novell/SuSE and its customers because that is a power that it, like others, has been granted under the law, and not a restriction imposed through a modification of the GPL. There is no language other than that in paragraph 2(b) that requires anyone distributing a GPLed program to convery rights that they have obtained to others, merely language that prevents those distributing a GPLed program from restricting the rights of others by purporting to modify the GPL through additional or deleted terms.
Consequently, if a piece of software is protected by a patent that you don't have the ability to freely license (and to grant others the ability to freely license, ad nauseum), you cannot fulfill the obligations that come with redistribution under Paragraph 2 of the GPL (specifically, you cannot grant, at least, the permissions in the last sentence of Paragraph 1), and therefore you are barred from redistributing the software at all by Paragraph 7.
GPL Version 2, June 1991
"1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."
Paragraph 1 does not require that you grant the recipient any rights to do anything with the Program. Paragraph 1 simply requires that you include certain text as a condition of your ability to redistribute the Program source code under the license. If you distribute patent-encumbered code written by someone else under the GPL, then you yourself cannot be said to have violated paragraph 1. You are not sublicensing the code under paragraph 1.
"2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:"
Paragraph 2 only applies if you modify the Program, and hence is inapplicable in the vast majority of circumstances. As you recall, you argued that one could not fulfill the obligations of paragraph 2. If you have not modified the Program, then you have fulfilled them. You will also notice that paragraph 3 is quite similar to paragraph 1 in that it does not require that you grant the recipient any rights to do anything with the Program.
More interestingly, see Linux's Patent Risk
Under your interpretation of the GPL, specifically your interpretation of paragraph 2(b), essentially every version of the Linux kernel since at least version 2.4 is almost certainly being distributed in violation of the GPL. Unless you know of someone who happens to have 283 clearance opinions or royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sublicenseable license agreements, then you are merely assuming that all 283 patents do not apply. I suggest that you notify the FSF of this rampant license violation immediately.
The problem with your argument is that patent rights exist the moment that they are granted by the USPTO. There is no need for the rights to be asserted against anyone, there is no need for the patent to be "court-validated", see 35 U.S.C. 282, and there is certainly no need to you to have actual knowledge that the patent(s) exist. Yet the GPL is clearly not enforced in the manner that you are suggesting.
What you have left is the first sentence of paragraph 7:
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
Which, as stated earlier, requires an action that directly implictes you as an individual or organization, and excludes a waiver of such an action that directly excludes you as an individual or organization even if it does not do so for others.
With respect to SuSE, you may be technically correct (which is the best kind of correct), since it is extremely likely that SuSE has created derivative works under the GPL, however, it is trivial to create a distribution that is both patent violative and GPL compliant by acquiring and redistributing the code under the GPL.
Paragraph 7 makes it quite clear that Novell cannot distribute patent encumbered code under the GPL, even if it is free to distribute it.
No it doesn't. I would provide further explanation, but you appear to deem such things to be mere triviality.
This means that, should MS enforce its patents on other open source companies, not even Novell can distribute GPL programs covered by the same patents.
... Each licensee is addressed as "you".
... You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
Wrong.
"If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License."
In case you've forgotten:
Paragraph 0:
If Microsoft files suit against, gets a court order against, or makes an allegation of infringement against someone who is not me, then I need not be concerned because not-me is also not "you." It's there in black and white in the license.
Paragraph 6:
If Microsoft asserts patent infringement against everyone except SuSE, SuSE is perfectly free to distribute the program under the GPL. If Microsoft waives its ability to litigate a patent against SuSE and anyone using SuSE's distribution only, SuSE is perfectly free to distribute the program under the GPL. The current GPL does not require the distributor to warrant anything. Microsoft cannot make SuSE impose additional conditions, because those conditions would violate the GPL, but Microsoft is free to impose those conditions by operation of law itself, and create a favored class by waiving its rights with respect to that class.*
*This discussion is limited to contract and IP law, and does not attempt to reach the antitrust implications of any such action.
"[Please clarify] how a "First Amendment lawsuit" is relevant. As I understand, the First Amendment only restricts the government.
It's conceivable that the organization could file lawsuits citing the First Amendment against public schools, public libraries, or other government entities that provide public internet access through a filter.
It's far more likely that the organization would file lawsuits based on some form of defamation tort against the filtering businesses themselves, since "hate speech" does have a rather well defined meaning within the law, and if the organization's activities fall short of hate speech, it probably wouldn't be difficult to show the requisite economic and reputational injury.
Of course, the writer has noted that the SPLC has labeled the organization as a hate group, but then, VDARE would just invite trouble by suing an organization full of lawyers who's mission is to track hate groups. There's nothing like a group of activists combing through your entire business thanks to a discovery request to convince you that sometimes a lawsuit is not a solution to a problem.