Hey Slashdotters, If you actually go to the patent and get passed the extremely lawyered up claims section and read the description of the invention you'll realize that things aren't as bad as they seem. The patent is for a method for allowing lay users to create rich media applications through a web interface. It doesn't cover the rich media applications themselves, so the l337 AJAX or Flex jockeys out there can go on coding in bbedit with no worries at all, their sites won't be in violation of this patent. You can read the patent yourself here
Hey All,
I was just thinking that Google has a reasonable case under the 4th amendment to block the seizure of this information.
And just to make sure everyone who's reading this is on the same page, the 4th Amendment Reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searced, and the persons or things to be seized."
My interpretation of the text is that the government can't seize your effects, which includes information, without substantial information that suggests that the information to be seized would help prosecute a crime, and after attaining the probable cause, a warrant must be issued. Now, what I don't know is how this would effect subpoenas, but this seems more like an seizure than compelling someone to appear in court.
So, if Google argues that this information is the property of the end users and only held by Google with their consent, then the Government would need a warrant for each user's search data that they want to use. If the courts agree with this argument it would essentially make it impossible to obtain such information as the Government would not have probable cause to seize the effects of a random million or so people to make their case for the COPA law. The fact that they're not attempting to prosecute any of the people would make it even more difficult.
Any real legal experts secretely trolling slashdot forums that want to comment?
Slashdot Mirror
Hey Slashdotters,
If you actually go to the patent and get passed the extremely lawyered up claims section and read the description of the invention you'll realize that things aren't as bad as they seem. The patent is for a method for allowing lay users to create rich media applications through a web interface. It doesn't cover the rich media applications themselves, so the l337 AJAX or Flex jockeys out there can go on coding in bbedit with no worries at all, their sites won't be in violation of this patent.
You can read the patent yourself here
Hey All, I was just thinking that Google has a reasonable case under the 4th amendment to block the seizure of this information. And just to make sure everyone who's reading this is on the same page, the 4th Amendment Reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searced, and the persons or things to be seized." My interpretation of the text is that the government can't seize your effects, which includes information, without substantial information that suggests that the information to be seized would help prosecute a crime, and after attaining the probable cause, a warrant must be issued. Now, what I don't know is how this would effect subpoenas, but this seems more like an seizure than compelling someone to appear in court. So, if Google argues that this information is the property of the end users and only held by Google with their consent, then the Government would need a warrant for each user's search data that they want to use. If the courts agree with this argument it would essentially make it impossible to obtain such information as the Government would not have probable cause to seize the effects of a random million or so people to make their case for the COPA law. The fact that they're not attempting to prosecute any of the people would make it even more difficult. Any real legal experts secretely trolling slashdot forums that want to comment?