That's a really good point. The problem comes up with who sets the price for the patented part. The court? The bad-faith infringer who has an incentive to discount its worth? The inventor set a price higher than the infringer, or else there would some agreement. Taking away someone's ability to sell, or not sell, their property has some issues, at least in the US. Same issues that come up under the Takings Clause.
Ideally, if these two people actually invented the technology, then they should get paid for it. If people get paid for inventions, then they are more likely to continue to invent, as are others. A patent allows them to shop the technology around and sell it. Without patents, large companies could steal the technology and there would be no monetary reward for small inventors. I'm not sure that's what happened in this case, and the patent system has swung too far in one direction. But that's why there were three SCOTUS cases on patents last term, a few this term, and a bill in the Senate to overhaul the system. Hopefully it will move the system back in the other direction.
After the eBay v. Mercexchange case, injunctions are not automatic. The ITC could just award damages if it finds infringement, and not stop the flow of harddrives.
Thank you for your clarification. I would submit that a person involved in hate speech is an asshat in either jurisdiction. Whether he is punished under the law does not affect his asshatiness.
Wow- flinging insults to a reply that was pretty even-keel. Nice. However, labeling someone an asshat isn't really an argument. And taking complex problems, ignoring the complexity so that it meets your definition of simple- that seems like the mental process of someone who should be insulting others. Nice way to insult a legal tradition without looking at any of the justifications- just call everyone who lives under it an asshat. Brilliant.
Actually, that's not true. A judge decides questions of law, and a jury decides questions of fact. That's what summary judgment does- if there is no question of fact, then a judge can decide the issue. Also, on appeal, its relatively easy to overturn a question of law since it is just a judge, whereas it is much harder to turn over a question of fact, as it must rise to a level that no reasonable person could possibly come to. The law is complex for the simple reason that common sense often does not apply. This is a perfect example. Theo claims that two incompatible licenses apply. That isn't common sense, but it could be a potentially successful argument. However, which opinion is worth more? A programmer who hasn't really studied the law, or someone who studies it for a living, integrity issues aside? Of course, the opposite is true- its much better to take Theo's opinion on say, schedulers than a lawyer's.
Just as another example that shows that law isn't just common sense, look at hate speech. In Europe, its illegal as a human rights' violation. In the US, its protected under the 1st Amendment. There are strong arguments for both sides that conform to common sense. How do you choose between the two?
Summary Judgment just means there are no facts in dispute for the particular areas disputed. If that's true, then its in everyone's best interest to grant summary judgment. However, if there is a question about the registration, then the judge can grant summary motions for the other areas, and try that part before a jury. However, the defendant needs some proof to fight it. I hope that she has some. It shouldn't be that hard to trace the registration.
Actually, long term, most law school grads end up being something besides lawyers. Its this trend that is leading to the record salaries for people who remain.
I'm going to guess the one who has to work to put himself through school, because he realizes the cost of the education, and is more willing to dedicate himself to it. The rich kid who has his school handed to him generally looks at the education as a given, and doesn't put in the effort. In both my undergraduate and graduate studies, that was often the case. Of course, there are rich, smart, dedicated students, but your assertion that the rich kids who don't have to work do better in school has been very false in my experience.
Re:This is also the Pirate Party's stance
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 1
I don't know. It seems that if a drug company makes enough money to subsidize it, they would pursue research into AIDs, because the ability to say we cured AIDS would work wonders for their marketing. Also, if the government funds drug research, who pays when those drugs don't work out? The universities? The government itself? Before you say Pharma makes too much money, look at their risk. Vioxx, anyone?
Is the privacy policy posted? So anyone who uses Google has the ability to find out how their information will be retained? And they use it anyway? What's the problem? Google doesn't provide an essential service. If you don't like the policy, don't use it. If enough people stop using it, they'll change their policy. Google isn't the government. Once you provide them with information, they have every right to retain it. Personally, I don't think their privacy policy is bad, so I use Google. However, there are other options out there.
Actually, you can kick people out of private events based on the grounds or race, religion, sex, etc. You get in trouble if you are an employer and discriminate on those grounds. That's why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against homosexuals; they are a private organization and the 1st Amend protects a right to association (NAACP v. Alabama), and that's been extended to exclude those from your private organization for any reason at all. As with all 1st Amend law, there are exceptions, such as the previously mentioned employment discrimination and anyone involved in commerce, but that's the general rule.
Actually, Gateway won litigation over just that. They had a EULA on the box, the couple who purchased the computer ignored it, and a judge ruled if they didn't like the EULA, they could have shipped the computer back. If I had my casebook with me, I'd give you a cite. But EULA's printed on the outside of computer boxes are legal. For software, see the ProCD case, which held the same thing.
Except to be a suicide bomber, you need to get close enough to detonate the bomb, and the size of a man portable bomb that isn't immediately obvious is rather small. I'm sure there will be plenty of physical security, as well as a broad spectrum of frequency blocking devices. They merely announced one small portion of security because it was important for the public to know about it.
I am sure that this isn't the only countermeasure that they are taking. Its good to publish this one, though, so people know in advance their cell phones won't work. The other counter measures probably don't affect personal electronic devices in the same manner.
You can always sue them on a common law claim. After Erie, there isn't federal common law, but federal courts can apply the state common law that has jurisdiction. Also, courts can create new common law to deal with technology. That's why you have to study case law as well as the relevant statutes.
With consoles becoming multi-core, won't the video game industry have to learn how to better write games that take that into account? Before, most of their audience was single CPU computers (with a GPU of course) and consoles. However, now that most computers are multi, as are consoles, it seems like they have to better use that power. Of course, it may take a few years before they figure out the best way to do so, and apply it consistently.
An amendment to the Constitution is not a statute. Also, you must cite case law to see how the amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court. For instance, the amendment you cited only requires an affadavit, which is little more than an assertion under oath. And, under a mutual legal assistance treaty, of which we have signed several, we are obligated to provide assistance to foreign governments in pursuit of criminals with small exceptions laid out in the respective treaty. Although an accussed criminal could file a writ of habeaus corpus, the hearing requirement for such a writ is not extensive, and a court would likely only need probably cause to allow an extradition, especially to a country like the UK or Australia, which both have well established judicial systems similar to ours.
Please cite caselaw. Its most certainly not. See, for instance, Dog the Bounty Hunter to Mexico for a pop-culture example. I thought you were asking for references under the COE Cybercrime Conventions.
Or laziness. Those examples were on/. sometime today, and were getting the press, so I cited them. I am sure there are others, but as my study tends to be of American laws and their enforcement, I don't look for other countries enforcing their laws in the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a really good point. The problem comes up with who sets the price for the patented part. The court? The bad-faith infringer who has an incentive to discount its worth? The inventor set a price higher than the infringer, or else there would some agreement. Taking away someone's ability to sell, or not sell, their property has some issues, at least in the US. Same issues that come up under the Takings Clause.
Ideally, if these two people actually invented the technology, then they should get paid for it. If people get paid for inventions, then they are more likely to continue to invent, as are others. A patent allows them to shop the technology around and sell it. Without patents, large companies could steal the technology and there would be no monetary reward for small inventors. I'm not sure that's what happened in this case, and the patent system has swung too far in one direction. But that's why there were three SCOTUS cases on patents last term, a few this term, and a bill in the Senate to overhaul the system. Hopefully it will move the system back in the other direction.
After the eBay v. Mercexchange case, injunctions are not automatic. The ITC could just award damages if it finds infringement, and not stop the flow of harddrives.
Thank you for your clarification. I would submit that a person involved in hate speech is an asshat in either jurisdiction. Whether he is punished under the law does not affect his asshatiness.
Wow- flinging insults to a reply that was pretty even-keel. Nice. However, labeling someone an asshat isn't really an argument. And taking complex problems, ignoring the complexity so that it meets your definition of simple- that seems like the mental process of someone who should be insulting others. Nice way to insult a legal tradition without looking at any of the justifications- just call everyone who lives under it an asshat. Brilliant.
Actually, that's not true. A judge decides questions of law, and a jury decides questions of fact. That's what summary judgment does- if there is no question of fact, then a judge can decide the issue. Also, on appeal, its relatively easy to overturn a question of law since it is just a judge, whereas it is much harder to turn over a question of fact, as it must rise to a level that no reasonable person could possibly come to. The law is complex for the simple reason that common sense often does not apply. This is a perfect example. Theo claims that two incompatible licenses apply. That isn't common sense, but it could be a potentially successful argument. However, which opinion is worth more? A programmer who hasn't really studied the law, or someone who studies it for a living, integrity issues aside? Of course, the opposite is true- its much better to take Theo's opinion on say, schedulers than a lawyer's. Just as another example that shows that law isn't just common sense, look at hate speech. In Europe, its illegal as a human rights' violation. In the US, its protected under the 1st Amendment. There are strong arguments for both sides that conform to common sense. How do you choose between the two?
Summary Judgment just means there are no facts in dispute for the particular areas disputed. If that's true, then its in everyone's best interest to grant summary judgment. However, if there is a question about the registration, then the judge can grant summary motions for the other areas, and try that part before a jury. However, the defendant needs some proof to fight it. I hope that she has some. It shouldn't be that hard to trace the registration.
That was filed in 2004, and has a different assignee. Although, I wonder how that patent interacts with the one that is the subject of the story.
Editors, for these stories, please include a link to the patent, not just the news release and a general description.
If I remember correctly, the 9th circle consisted of Lucifer being frozen in a block of ice....
Actually, through vicarious liability, the employer could be liable, depending on the type of misuse.
Actually, long term, most law school grads end up being something besides lawyers. Its this trend that is leading to the record salaries for people who remain.
I'm going to guess the one who has to work to put himself through school, because he realizes the cost of the education, and is more willing to dedicate himself to it. The rich kid who has his school handed to him generally looks at the education as a given, and doesn't put in the effort. In both my undergraduate and graduate studies, that was often the case. Of course, there are rich, smart, dedicated students, but your assertion that the rich kids who don't have to work do better in school has been very false in my experience.
I don't know. It seems that if a drug company makes enough money to subsidize it, they would pursue research into AIDs, because the ability to say we cured AIDS would work wonders for their marketing. Also, if the government funds drug research, who pays when those drugs don't work out? The universities? The government itself? Before you say Pharma makes too much money, look at their risk. Vioxx, anyone?
Is the privacy policy posted? So anyone who uses Google has the ability to find out how their information will be retained? And they use it anyway? What's the problem? Google doesn't provide an essential service. If you don't like the policy, don't use it. If enough people stop using it, they'll change their policy. Google isn't the government. Once you provide them with information, they have every right to retain it. Personally, I don't think their privacy policy is bad, so I use Google. However, there are other options out there.
Actually, once you break a certain dollar amount, it becomes criminal, at least on the federal level.
Actually, you can kick people out of private events based on the grounds or race, religion, sex, etc. You get in trouble if you are an employer and discriminate on those grounds. That's why the Boy Scouts can discriminate against homosexuals; they are a private organization and the 1st Amend protects a right to association (NAACP v. Alabama), and that's been extended to exclude those from your private organization for any reason at all. As with all 1st Amend law, there are exceptions, such as the previously mentioned employment discrimination and anyone involved in commerce, but that's the general rule.
Actually, Gateway won litigation over just that. They had a EULA on the box, the couple who purchased the computer ignored it, and a judge ruled if they didn't like the EULA, they could have shipped the computer back. If I had my casebook with me, I'd give you a cite. But EULA's printed on the outside of computer boxes are legal. For software, see the ProCD case, which held the same thing.
Except to be a suicide bomber, you need to get close enough to detonate the bomb, and the size of a man portable bomb that isn't immediately obvious is rather small. I'm sure there will be plenty of physical security, as well as a broad spectrum of frequency blocking devices. They merely announced one small portion of security because it was important for the public to know about it.
I am sure that this isn't the only countermeasure that they are taking. Its good to publish this one, though, so people know in advance their cell phones won't work. The other counter measures probably don't affect personal electronic devices in the same manner.
You can always sue them on a common law claim. After Erie, there isn't federal common law, but federal courts can apply the state common law that has jurisdiction. Also, courts can create new common law to deal with technology. That's why you have to study case law as well as the relevant statutes.
With consoles becoming multi-core, won't the video game industry have to learn how to better write games that take that into account? Before, most of their audience was single CPU computers (with a GPU of course) and consoles. However, now that most computers are multi, as are consoles, it seems like they have to better use that power. Of course, it may take a few years before they figure out the best way to do so, and apply it consistently.
An amendment to the Constitution is not a statute. Also, you must cite case law to see how the amendment is interpreted by the Supreme Court. For instance, the amendment you cited only requires an affadavit, which is little more than an assertion under oath. And, under a mutual legal assistance treaty, of which we have signed several, we are obligated to provide assistance to foreign governments in pursuit of criminals with small exceptions laid out in the respective treaty. Although an accussed criminal could file a writ of habeaus corpus, the hearing requirement for such a writ is not extensive, and a court would likely only need probably cause to allow an extradition, especially to a country like the UK or Australia, which both have well established judicial systems similar to ours.
Please cite caselaw. Its most certainly not. See, for instance, Dog the Bounty Hunter to Mexico for a pop-culture example. I thought you were asking for references under the COE Cybercrime Conventions.
Or laziness. Those examples were on /. sometime today, and were getting the press, so I cited them. I am sure there are others, but as my study tends to be of American laws and their enforcement, I don't look for other countries enforcing their laws in the United States.