If it looks cool, it is Good. But if someone else has something almost as cool at a lower price, they are Gooder. If someone gives you something almost as cool for no cost at all, they are Goodest.
If it looks like a turd, embraces DRM, and squirts, it is made my Microsoft and is Evil. If the RIAA supports it, it is Eviller. If Microsoft AND the RIAA support it, it is Evillest.
Glad to be of service, folks. I'm off to round up the Axes of Weevils now.
Why don't these Slashdot posts automatically have the word "rumor" in the headline? Seriously. As is, the headline is totally misleading, which leads to arguments that treat the discussion as if it is fact. Sure, Apple may incorporate these requirements into Leopard, but until then we're just putting out hot air about a rumor.
The thinking over at Google is very much like early Apple days.
Google may be following in Apple's footsteps a bit more closely than it should. Maybe Woz is forgetting what happened to Apple after those heady early days. The company went through a long, painful slide through the 1990s.
Inventors will leave the US for countries that protect them and reward them (much the same as our stem-cell and molecular biology brain drain) and in the final analysis we will trade simplicity for substance.
These biochem folks are leaving the US and landing in countries that use first to file systems. Maybe they just don't understand that they're getting screwed. The US isn't the only country innovating. How do you account for that?
As for the theft problem, criminal law doesn't get obviated by the patent system. A patent filed on the basis of theft can still be negated by a showing of bad faith. The patent law doesn't operate in a vacuum.
Regarding the Constitutional analysis, I'd say that's the strongest leg of your argument. However, the declaration that "Congress shall have power" is indicative of the Framers' intent to give Congress latitude in determining how to exercise the power granted it. Because it is not an imperative or a negative pronouncement, I think it would be difficult to get the Supreme Court to agree with your contention that a first to invent system is the only means of effectuating the Framers' intent.
There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal.
How does Shipley know this? It could just as easily have been that no mobile carrier would agree to allow the iPhone on its network (and to incorporate features like visual voice mail) unless it was under an exclusive license.
I'm not saying that's necessarily how it went down, but it's well known that Jobs cares little for the mobile carriers.
The rule: "first to invent owns the rights" is simple. First to file = "a race to the patent office" and that means that the first thief to file owns the rights - screw the inventor.
The first to invent rule is simple, but in implementation is an invitation to litigation. It becomes an argument about who "actually" invented first. Who had the idea and wrote it in their notes. Who talked about the idea to a colleague. The discovery in cases like this can take a very long time and an awful lot of money.
The first to file rule is much simpler. If you filed it, you own it. You make the assumption that thieves are lurking around every corner, ready to steal people's ideas and patent them, but in actual practice it is difficult to do that. The requirements for patentability are still present, and the patent application has to clearly lay out how the patented invention actually works.
First to file is much easier to administer and involves far less legal ambiguity. It does not encourage "theft." If you invent something and want it patented, file in a timely manner and it's yours. If you want to screw around with your idea and hem and haw and maybe someday patent it, you're out of luck.
This is where the real political confrontation is taking place. The lobbyists from these two groups are the ones duking it out in Congress. Small inventors are at best a sideshow.
Big Pharma's argument: We spends tens of millions of dollars researching new products, without any guarantee that their research will net any results. Therefore, when something does pan out from their research, they want to be able to capitalize on it for a long time in order to recoup their costs.
Silicon Valley's argument: Patents are essentially ambushes. Every time we roll out a new product, even if we make it past the gantlet of cross-licensing negotiations before product launch, there's always the possibility that some troll will wait until we start making serious money from the product, and will then sue us for infringement on the basis of a submarine patent.
That would fly in the face of free alienability of property, a bedrock of American jurisprudence. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about whether a patent constitutes "property" or not, but enactment of legislation that would render patents inalienable would in effect make them no longer property. If you can't sell something, it is questionable whether you actually own it.
... is that mainstream news outlets have become so completely brainless as to parrot statements like the ones in this story. Then they wonder why people are seeking alternative sources of information.
The logic behind this story is bogus. The $1 billion in money that these fraudulent clicks cost Google doesn't exist. If not for the bogus clicks, these clicks wouldn't exist.
I'd take issue with labeling Amazon a troll, given that they're practicing their invention.
I didn't mean to imply that Amazon is a troll. The dividing line for me is that a troll never intends to actually bring a product or service to market. I was answering the larger question and should have been more careful in the subject line. Thanks for the correction.
So tell me, is there a process in place whereby a company can recoup legal costs when a litigious patent holder turns out to be holding a pile of nothing?
The issuance of a patent by the USPTO provides a preliminary presumption of validity. So if I obtain a patent on orange trees, and sue the crap out of everyone who grows orange trees without shelling out big bucks to me, I'm not really acting in bad faith. Because the USPTO provided that presumption of validity, it's not like I'm just making wild-ass, unvalidated claims.
However, if I wield my patent too aggressively and start using it to threaten growers of apple trees and fig trees, I'm no longer acting in good faith to police my patent. I'm now acting in bad faith, and can be sued for malicious patent prosecution. Such countersuits are rare, and the odds of winning them are slim. But as this recent decision shows, it's not impossible to win.
For some time there have been proposals to change the US patent system so that the loser pays costs. Thus, even if I acted in good faith, I would still have to pay your court costs if I lost. You can imagine why litigation attorneys are opposed to this approach.
I have to agree with you about patents. Unless the Patent Reform Act gets traction (and it seems to be losing it), I think the public is going to continue to get screwed by the patent regime. It does seem that the Circuit Court of Appeals may be pulling back slightly, though. They've been the most aggressive promoters of the idea that "everything under the sun" is patentable. At least in the patent regime there are two big competing forces (the computer/internet industry v. biotech) that are duking it out. It may be that somehow we'll all benefit from this struggle, if and when a compromise is finally reached.
With copyright I think that if there is a return to some sort of sanity, it likely won't be because of Congress. You may be right that the markets are our best hope in that arena, as it seems that the Congresscritters are all pretty much beholden to Big Media. One powerful industry v. the public makes for a lopsided battle.
In general I think you're right - the war is not progressing well. I just think the problem is primarily due to Congressional, rather than judicial action. But that may be splitting hairs. The bottom line is that the public needs to speak up. Pirating content isn't the way to go. Using the law to affect change is a far better approach. But getting Congresscritters to listen isn't easy. Their ears are filled with the sound of all that soft money falling into their hands.
Don't think for a single moment the courts necessarily give a rats behind about the principle of any sort of "deal" existing between the public and content creators with respect to the concept of intellectual property and copyright law.
I'm curious why you believe this. For one thing, the courts are not uniform. Look at 9th Circuit decisions then look at 2nd Circuit decisions, and you'll see what I mean. Second, in many of the cases I've read, particularly USSC decisions, the Court has given ample evidence that it understands there is a balance of interests between holders of copyright and the public at large. The record of the courts is mixed on copyright issues. While the Copyright Cartel is flexing its powers in court, it is losing as often as it is winning. But the mere presence of all of this legal activity has the general public thinking that the courts are in the pocket of the Copyright Cartel.
If anything, blame needs to be laid at the feet of Congress, for extending the duration of copyright. Their definition of "for limited times" is obviously out of whack, but the Court can't simply overturn Congressional extensions of the copyright duration. The standard of review on cases involving Congressional action having to do with the Intellectual Property Clause is quite rigorous.
We need to turn our wrath at Congress. We need to push our Congresscritters to do what they're supposed to do, rather than relying on miraculous intervention by the courts. Our only hope is NOT letting the economy sort out the problem. Our hope is in exercising our franchise, and forcing our elected representatives to act in the interests of the public.
I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible.
I'm not really sure what this means. Do you prefer as little hard drive and RAM use as possible because you're running your life on a hacked Apple IIe? Or do you prefer hard drive and RAM efficiency because you use a honkin' desktop machine but like to keep a dozen apps open and working at once? Or is it really just an aesthetic preference, a form of minimalism ("I wear a loincloth, but I draw the line there. Sandals are for whimps.")?
Personally I'm less interested in RAM or hard drive use per se, and much more concerned with operational efficiency. At the human interaction level, does an app let me do what I need to do easily and intuitively, without getting in my way? Does it force me to learn its intricacies, which are then not transferrable to other apps? Or does it anticipate my needs in a non-intrusive way? To me the most efficient apps are the ones where I think, "Hmm.. I wonder if it does *this*?" Sure enough, it does.
My preference is for small, sharp apps that only do a few things, but do them well. They execute quickly, are a pleasure to work in (without calling attention to themselves), and are intuitive to use.
But it's not a "message being sent". It is part of a low-level networking protocol. It contains no data other than that necessary to facilitate the communication mechanism, i.e. a TCP/IP connection
In facilitating communication, it is sending information about its source. Arguably, that's like yelling "hey!" in a theater, but throwing your voice when you do it, so it looks like the scrawny kid in the corner was the one who yelled. The content of the message may not matter much, but onlookers are still making assessments and assumptions based on who they *think* did the yelling.
Whether spoofing the source amounts to impersonation is definitely up for debate. I think it's something of a tenuous argument. But GP was implying that it was an argument that no prosecutor in his right mind would make. If you're trying to win a lawsuit, you go after every theory that has some chance of succceeding. I don't think the "impersonation" argument is completely out in left field, even if I don't think it would pass muster with a judge or jury.
I haven't read the Facebook TOS, but I would be very surprised if they put into place any sort of provision that held Facebook to any particular standards regarding taking down offensive content. The idea behind such agreements is to give Facebook protection in the event they decide to yank a Facebook account for whatever reason.
This scenario weirdly parallels the Noah v. AOL case, in which a Muslim sued AOL for failing to police a chat room that was full of anti-Muslim sentiments, in violation of AOL's user behavior policy. The case was decided in 2003 in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was pretty much an open and shut case of contract. The plaintiff also tried to bring in Title II discrimination, claiming that the AOL chat room was a "place of public accomodation." That argument didn't fly either. Note that the question of "public accomodation" in online venues hasn't been completely hashed out yet by the courts.
I realize that to the nerdish mind falsifying the sender of an IP packet is equivalent to "impersonating another", but no sane prosecutor would ever make such a case.
Many business lawsuits these days hinge on distinctions about "where" a person is when they're online, "where" a company is when it operates online, "where" the transaction is taking place, and so on. A prosecutor who didn't at least argue the "impersonating another" in the alternative might be even acting negligently. This stuff isn't new to the courts. The 9th Circuit in particular is chock full of decisions that hinge on difficult line-drawing about identity and place.
It's not much of a stretch to say that if we can say someone is impersonating a minor in a chatroom, we could also say that impersonating the location from which a message was sent is also a form of impersonation.
surely if people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be RFID'd then that's their problem?
There's always someone smarter than you. Should the sharks who run Wall Street be allowed to screw everyone just because they're smarter and more ruthless than the vast majority of the population?
Also, what if your options were getting a job and therefore getting food on the table for your family, or getting tagged? You might not like it at all, but if your options are limited, you might just go along with it. We do things like that all the time; we put up with things we don't like, in order to get things we need.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, of course. It's like The Dvorak Phenomenon. As many times as I see it in action, I still get annoyed by it.
Yet still I come back...
God, someone please help...
Just remember this mantra, and you'll be OK:
If it looks cool, it is Good. But if someone else has something almost as cool at a lower price, they are Gooder. If someone gives you something almost as cool for no cost at all, they are Goodest.
If it looks like a turd, embraces DRM, and squirts, it is made my Microsoft and is Evil. If the RIAA supports it, it is Eviller. If Microsoft AND the RIAA support it, it is Evillest.
Glad to be of service, folks. I'm off to round up the Axes of Weevils now.
Why don't these Slashdot posts automatically have the word "rumor" in the headline? Seriously. As is, the headline is totally misleading, which leads to arguments that treat the discussion as if it is fact. Sure, Apple may incorporate these requirements into Leopard, but until then we're just putting out hot air about a rumor.
The thinking over at Google is very much like early Apple days.
Google may be following in Apple's footsteps a bit more closely than it should. Maybe Woz is forgetting what happened to Apple after those heady early days. The company went through a long, painful slide through the 1990s.
Inventors will leave the US for countries that protect them and reward them (much the same as our stem-cell and molecular biology brain drain) and in the final analysis we will trade simplicity for substance.
These biochem folks are leaving the US and landing in countries that use first to file systems. Maybe they just don't understand that they're getting screwed. The US isn't the only country innovating. How do you account for that?
As for the theft problem, criminal law doesn't get obviated by the patent system. A patent filed on the basis of theft can still be negated by a showing of bad faith. The patent law doesn't operate in a vacuum.
Regarding the Constitutional analysis, I'd say that's the strongest leg of your argument. However, the declaration that "Congress shall have power" is indicative of the Framers' intent to give Congress latitude in determining how to exercise the power granted it. Because it is not an imperative or a negative pronouncement, I think it would be difficult to get the Supreme Court to agree with your contention that a first to invent system is the only means of effectuating the Framers' intent.
There's really only one viable reason: Apple wanted a share of the carrier's profits, which meant giving AT&T an exclusive deal.
How does Shipley know this? It could just as easily have been that no mobile carrier would agree to allow the iPhone on its network (and to incorporate features like visual voice mail) unless it was under an exclusive license.
I'm not saying that's necessarily how it went down, but it's well known that Jobs cares little for the mobile carriers.
The rule: "first to invent owns the rights" is simple. First to file = "a race to the patent office" and that means that the first thief to file owns the rights - screw the inventor.
The first to invent rule is simple, but in implementation is an invitation to litigation. It becomes an argument about who "actually" invented first. Who had the idea and wrote it in their notes. Who talked about the idea to a colleague. The discovery in cases like this can take a very long time and an awful lot of money.
The first to file rule is much simpler. If you filed it, you own it. You make the assumption that thieves are lurking around every corner, ready to steal people's ideas and patent them, but in actual practice it is difficult to do that. The requirements for patentability are still present, and the patent application has to clearly lay out how the patented invention actually works.
First to file is much easier to administer and involves far less legal ambiguity. It does not encourage "theft." If you invent something and want it patented, file in a timely manner and it's yours. If you want to screw around with your idea and hem and haw and maybe someday patent it, you're out of luck.
This is where the real political confrontation is taking place. The lobbyists from these two groups are the ones duking it out in Congress. Small inventors are at best a sideshow.
Big Pharma's argument: We spends tens of millions of dollars researching new products, without any guarantee that their research will net any results. Therefore, when something does pan out from their research, they want to be able to capitalize on it for a long time in order to recoup their costs.
Silicon Valley's argument: Patents are essentially ambushes. Every time we roll out a new product, even if we make it past the gantlet of cross-licensing negotiations before product launch, there's always the possibility that some troll will wait until we start making serious money from the product, and will then sue us for infringement on the basis of a submarine patent.
Patents can not be transferred.
That would fly in the face of free alienability of property, a bedrock of American jurisprudence. We can all argue until we're blue in the face about whether a patent constitutes "property" or not, but enactment of legislation that would render patents inalienable would in effect make them no longer property. If you can't sell something, it is questionable whether you actually own it.
... is that mainstream news outlets have become so completely brainless as to parrot statements like the ones in this story. Then they wonder why people are seeking alternative sources of information.
The logic behind this story is bogus. The $1 billion in money that these fraudulent clicks cost Google doesn't exist. If not for the bogus clicks, these clicks wouldn't exist.
I fail to see the part of law where he's guaranteed to have a business model that works no matter what may compete with him.
The folks in the music and movie industries have done a pretty good job of making the law work that way.
... when one of the soggy Cheerios in my bowl bounced out and landed on the table. Later, when I noticed it, I picked it up.
But not before it left a ringle on the table. :-|
If either "liberal" or "conservative" meant a goddamn thing, this study might actually mean something.
Amen, brother!
I'd take issue with labeling Amazon a troll, given that they're practicing their invention.
I didn't mean to imply that Amazon is a troll. The dividing line for me is that a troll never intends to actually bring a product or service to market. I was answering the larger question and should have been more careful in the subject line. Thanks for the correction.
I think there's two categories in this survey.
Nicely put. I like that definition.
So tell me, is there a process in place whereby a company can recoup legal costs when a litigious patent holder turns out to be holding a pile of nothing?
The issuance of a patent by the USPTO provides a preliminary presumption of validity. So if I obtain a patent on orange trees, and sue the crap out of everyone who grows orange trees without shelling out big bucks to me, I'm not really acting in bad faith. Because the USPTO provided that presumption of validity, it's not like I'm just making wild-ass, unvalidated claims.
However, if I wield my patent too aggressively and start using it to threaten growers of apple trees and fig trees, I'm no longer acting in good faith to police my patent. I'm now acting in bad faith, and can be sued for malicious patent prosecution. Such countersuits are rare, and the odds of winning them are slim. But as this recent decision shows, it's not impossible to win.
For some time there have been proposals to change the US patent system so that the loser pays costs. Thus, even if I acted in good faith, I would still have to pay your court costs if I lost. You can imagine why litigation attorneys are opposed to this approach.
I have to agree with you about patents. Unless the Patent Reform Act gets traction (and it seems to be losing it), I think the public is going to continue to get screwed by the patent regime. It does seem that the Circuit Court of Appeals may be pulling back slightly, though. They've been the most aggressive promoters of the idea that "everything under the sun" is patentable. At least in the patent regime there are two big competing forces (the computer/internet industry v. biotech) that are duking it out. It may be that somehow we'll all benefit from this struggle, if and when a compromise is finally reached.
With copyright I think that if there is a return to some sort of sanity, it likely won't be because of Congress. You may be right that the markets are our best hope in that arena, as it seems that the Congresscritters are all pretty much beholden to Big Media. One powerful industry v. the public makes for a lopsided battle.
In general I think you're right - the war is not progressing well. I just think the problem is primarily due to Congressional, rather than judicial action. But that may be splitting hairs. The bottom line is that the public needs to speak up. Pirating content isn't the way to go. Using the law to affect change is a far better approach. But getting Congresscritters to listen isn't easy. Their ears are filled with the sound of all that soft money falling into their hands.
Don't think for a single moment the courts necessarily give a rats behind about the principle of any sort of "deal" existing between the public and content creators with respect to the concept of intellectual property and copyright law.
I'm curious why you believe this. For one thing, the courts are not uniform. Look at 9th Circuit decisions then look at 2nd Circuit decisions, and you'll see what I mean. Second, in many of the cases I've read, particularly USSC decisions, the Court has given ample evidence that it understands there is a balance of interests between holders of copyright and the public at large. The record of the courts is mixed on copyright issues. While the Copyright Cartel is flexing its powers in court, it is losing as often as it is winning. But the mere presence of all of this legal activity has the general public thinking that the courts are in the pocket of the Copyright Cartel.
If anything, blame needs to be laid at the feet of Congress, for extending the duration of copyright. Their definition of "for limited times" is obviously out of whack, but the Court can't simply overturn Congressional extensions of the copyright duration. The standard of review on cases involving Congressional action having to do with the Intellectual Property Clause is quite rigorous.
We need to turn our wrath at Congress. We need to push our Congresscritters to do what they're supposed to do, rather than relying on miraculous intervention by the courts. Our only hope is NOT letting the economy sort out the problem. Our hope is in exercising our franchise, and forcing our elected representatives to act in the interests of the public.
I prefer software that takes as little hard drive space and RAM as possible.
I'm not really sure what this means. Do you prefer as little hard drive and RAM use as possible because you're running your life on a hacked Apple IIe? Or do you prefer hard drive and RAM efficiency because you use a honkin' desktop machine but like to keep a dozen apps open and working at once? Or is it really just an aesthetic preference, a form of minimalism ("I wear a loincloth, but I draw the line there. Sandals are for whimps.")?
Personally I'm less interested in RAM or hard drive use per se, and much more concerned with operational efficiency. At the human interaction level, does an app let me do what I need to do easily and intuitively, without getting in my way? Does it force me to learn its intricacies, which are then not transferrable to other apps? Or does it anticipate my needs in a non-intrusive way? To me the most efficient apps are the ones where I think, "Hmm.. I wonder if it does *this*?" Sure enough, it does.
My preference is for small, sharp apps that only do a few things, but do them well. They execute quickly, are a pleasure to work in (without calling attention to themselves), and are intuitive to use.
An item will sell for exactly what both parties (seller and buyer) believe is a fair price at the time of sale.
Please refrain from introducing basic economic concepts into this discussion. You could start a dangerous trend.
But seriously, for priding ourselves on our supposedly rational behavior, geeks can often be just as irrational as anyone else.
Would it be a troll to say anyone who is in favor of patents is really in favor of oligarchy?
Yes.
But it's not a "message being sent". It is part of a low-level networking protocol. It contains no data other than that necessary to facilitate the communication mechanism, i.e. a TCP/IP connection
In facilitating communication, it is sending information about its source. Arguably, that's like yelling "hey!" in a theater, but throwing your voice when you do it, so it looks like the scrawny kid in the corner was the one who yelled. The content of the message may not matter much, but onlookers are still making assessments and assumptions based on who they *think* did the yelling.
Whether spoofing the source amounts to impersonation is definitely up for debate. I think it's something of a tenuous argument. But GP was implying that it was an argument that no prosecutor in his right mind would make. If you're trying to win a lawsuit, you go after every theory that has some chance of succceeding. I don't think the "impersonation" argument is completely out in left field, even if I don't think it would pass muster with a judge or jury.
I haven't read the Facebook TOS, but I would be very surprised if they put into place any sort of provision that held Facebook to any particular standards regarding taking down offensive content. The idea behind such agreements is to give Facebook protection in the event they decide to yank a Facebook account for whatever reason.
This scenario weirdly parallels the Noah v. AOL case, in which a Muslim sued AOL for failing to police a chat room that was full of anti-Muslim sentiments, in violation of AOL's user behavior policy. The case was decided in 2003 in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and was pretty much an open and shut case of contract. The plaintiff also tried to bring in Title II discrimination, claiming that the AOL chat room was a "place of public accomodation." That argument didn't fly either. Note that the question of "public accomodation" in online venues hasn't been completely hashed out yet by the courts.
I realize that to the nerdish mind falsifying the sender of an IP packet is equivalent to "impersonating another", but no sane prosecutor would ever make such a case.
Many business lawsuits these days hinge on distinctions about "where" a person is when they're online, "where" a company is when it operates online, "where" the transaction is taking place, and so on. A prosecutor who didn't at least argue the "impersonating another" in the alternative might be even acting negligently. This stuff isn't new to the courts. The 9th Circuit in particular is chock full of decisions that hinge on difficult line-drawing about identity and place.
It's not much of a stretch to say that if we can say someone is impersonating a minor in a chatroom, we could also say that impersonating the location from which a message was sent is also a form of impersonation.
surely if people are stupid enough to allow themselves to be RFID'd then that's their problem?
There's always someone smarter than you. Should the sharks who run Wall Street be allowed to screw everyone just because they're smarter and more ruthless than the vast majority of the population?
Also, what if your options were getting a job and therefore getting food on the table for your family, or getting tagged? You might not like it at all, but if your options are limited, you might just go along with it. We do things like that all the time; we put up with things we don't like, in order to get things we need.