What if the patent office did not review any patents until they were asserted? Couple this with the request from B&N to "Require Losing Patentees to Pay Costs and Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees" and you might have a solution.
If the patent were strong and likely to stand up to scrutiny, it would be worth litigating over it. Otherwise, you take the chance that it is invalidated (and you pay fees). In the meantime, after submission, but before assertion and review, the patent is nothing more than a claim staked (similar to a scientific paper) for credit.
Just to be clear, we agree that the statement "Basically, there's no amount of changing that makes it original work." is bogus right? You're just explaining what those in the video think, yes?
Except everything you just said is also bullshit. He made the argument, plenty of people think it is valid, so...
AJ, you of all people know that legal matters aren't true or not true--its what you can get a court or a jury to accept. That's the issue here.
So by definition he isn't lying. The question is whether or not what they did is an example of something two people could do and run a greater than normal risk of being prosecuted.
And exactly how is what he's doing any different than you or anyone else? Are you saying your arguments are not meant to manipulate? Really?
Is it really that hard? You disagree, so you must have already done the analysis yourself.
1030 (A),(4) or (5)(C).
And then...
(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer—
[snip]; or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
Knowingly is the important word, because that's where the TOS becomes important. If you agreed to the TOS, then you cannot claim you breached unknowingly.
And, remember the important part here (the nuance that seems beyond you), is not whether they would be found guilty, but whether someone taking the same actions (as SC and BC) are at risk for PROSECUTION.
Yeah, and I can tell that subtlety and nuance isn't your strong suit. It's becoming clear to me that where you've gone wrong is that you cannot comprehend or find value in a discussion that doesn't include black or white statements or conclusions. I bet you were a hoot in college.
What Mike is pointing out is that the law is being abused and has the potential for abuse by using both real and speculative examples. You can dismiss them by saying a) they are outliers or b) fantasy, but I think that would be foolish. I don't think it is speculative to assert that as the government gains more of an ability to observe, control, or punish us our individual risk of government intervention in our lives goes up.
I for one, find those discussions very useful in forming my own opinions about these regulations. I'm sorry that you do not.
Ok, fine, although I believe there is a difference, I'll grant that you do not. My point still stands:
a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
President Clinton had knowledge of the actions of Stephen Colbert (impersonating Clinton) via Twitter. And if the next thing you tell me is that having tacit knowledge of someone impersonating you along with your implied or explicit approval would not be something a prosecutor would use against you (if you were not Bill Clinton) or does not violate TOS then we have nothing more to say because you live in a world of complete fantasy.
And what you are failing to understand--and I guess we'll just agree to disagree is that the statement was collective not individual. Your entire argument is a STRAWMAN. He never shows how President Clinton violated the CFAA BECAUSE HE NEVER SAID HE DID. He asked, "Did Stephen Colbert and President Clinton violate the CFAA" SEE THE DIFFERENCE? COLLECTIVE versus individual.
The rest of the article adequately shows how the COLLABORATIVE actions of those two individuals could be seen as a violation:
a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
Also, I really shouldn't bother, but I'll say it anyway. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I can't think critically, but I understand you'll saying it because it's important for you to believe that no one else understands things except you.
I suspected that's what you were referring to, which is why I worded my request the way I did. I think it is more than a stretch to call that an accusation. I also believe that you are trying so hard to show how Mike is... we'll say, "wrong-headed" that you are convinced the article is about "accusing the president" and not an exploration of whether the actions of two public individuals rose to the level of violating the CFAA.
See the difference? For example, when you say, "Mike accused the president," that is an accusation of Mike. If you had said, "Did Mike accuse the president of violating the CFAA?" we would be able to start a reasoned discussion of how his approach to the topic was or was not an accusation.
I don't know how else to explain it other than I think the majority of people reading the article understand that it is a discussion about how a meaningless public interaction could run afoul of the law. I believe a very small minority would interpret it the way you do, because to do so requires completely ignoring the context and intent of the forum in which it appears. I suppose you'll use the same thing (forum context and intent) to explain your view, but I would submit that maybe you should consider that it is your own personal context that is preventing you from understanding what is presented here.
Personally, I walked away from the article thinking that it was a good example of how any of us could violate laws such as that by doing everyday things.
First, it would be equally valid for me to say, "I know you will dispute Mike"--but how does that advance the debate? The point is to back your assertions or point out HOW someone else's assertions are flawed.
Second, still not playing your game. Wake me when you cite the specific passage(s) where he "accused" the president of something as opposed to asked a question about the collective actions of two individuals.
No, we're not playing your game. If you want detailed analysis, you need to demonstrate to us how its done. You see how that works, where the accuser gets to explain how something is "wrong" in their view, in detail with quotations and citations?
Instead, here is your debate process:
1) Say something controversial without evidence, usually with some direct or indirect ad hominem
2) Claim that anyone responding and the OP never provide any evidence or analysis
3) Act like a victim when you are rebutted or ad hom'd yourself.
I can tell you enjoy it, but let's not pretend it's actually reasoned debate.
That falls under the plain sight doctrine during inventory search. And intent is very important to understand the difference.
If you uncover plain-sight evidence in the act of an inventory search (intent = making certain there are no hidden weapons and making sure the detainee can recover his/her belongings later), you can act on it, because it was found in a reasonable manner.
If you conduct an investigatory search on someone's phone (intent = finding incriminating evidence) you need a warrant because you need to show cause for invading someone's privacy.
See the difference? Those doctrines exist to create a bright line between public security and individual privacy.
That is true--I meant the likelihood of succeeding on the merits, but that is irrelevant if the defendants have to spend thousands to get to that point.
Yes and yes. My three year old even does a better job of dealing with obnoxious older brothers and somehow doesn't resort to childish threats like this.
1) it's an empty threat and there's no way they don't know that
2) it's behavior intended to intimidate
3) it offers no acknowledgement of any actual problem
4) it makes no effort to engage with any other perspectives
5) it does massive amounts of collateral damage to relationships with anyone involved
If that isn't an irrational, emotional reaction I don't know what is.
On the post: Barnes & Noble's Filing Clearly Explains Why The Patent System Is Broken And How To Fix It
What if...
If the patent were strong and likely to stand up to scrutiny, it would be worth litigating over it. Otherwise, you take the chance that it is invalidated (and you pay fees). In the meantime, after submission, but before assertion and review, the patent is nothing more than a claim staked (similar to a scientific paper) for credit.
On the post: When Is An Image 'Manipulated Enough' To Become An Original Creation?
Re:
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is relevant only in determining intent and knowledge. That's what the courts have held and you know it.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
AJ, you of all people know that legal matters aren't true or not true--its what you can get a court or a jury to accept. That's the issue here.
So by definition he isn't lying. The question is whether or not what they did is an example of something two people could do and run a greater than normal risk of being prosecuted.
And exactly how is what he's doing any different than you or anyone else? Are you saying your arguments are not meant to manipulate? Really?
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1030 (A),(4) or (5)(C).
And then...
(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer—
[snip]; or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
Knowingly is the important word, because that's where the TOS becomes important. If you agreed to the TOS, then you cannot claim you breached unknowingly.
And, remember the important part here (the nuance that seems beyond you), is not whether they would be found guilty, but whether someone taking the same actions (as SC and BC) are at risk for PROSECUTION.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What Mike is pointing out is that the law is being abused and has the potential for abuse by using both real and speculative examples. You can dismiss them by saying a) they are outliers or b) fantasy, but I think that would be foolish. I don't think it is speculative to assert that as the government gains more of an ability to observe, control, or punish us our individual risk of government intervention in our lives goes up.
I for one, find those discussions very useful in forming my own opinions about these regulations. I'm sorry that you do not.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, ad hom, no evidence, and worthless. This is why you have no credibility here. This is no different than anyone here calling you a stupid troll.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
President Clinton had knowledge of the actions of Stephen Colbert (impersonating Clinton) via Twitter. And if the next thing you tell me is that having tacit knowledge of someone impersonating you along with your implied or explicit approval would not be something a prosecutor would use against you (if you were not Bill Clinton) or does not violate TOS then we have nothing more to say because you live in a world of complete fantasy.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rest of the article adequately shows how the COLLABORATIVE actions of those two individuals could be seen as a violation:
a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
Also, I really shouldn't bother, but I'll say it anyway. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I can't think critically, but I understand you'll saying it because it's important for you to believe that no one else understands things except you.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh, since that is valid in either direction, I guess it is meaningless...
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See the difference? For example, when you say, "Mike accused the president," that is an accusation of Mike. If you had said, "Did Mike accuse the president of violating the CFAA?" we would be able to start a reasoned discussion of how his approach to the topic was or was not an accusation.
I don't know how else to explain it other than I think the majority of people reading the article understand that it is a discussion about how a meaningless public interaction could run afoul of the law. I believe a very small minority would interpret it the way you do, because to do so requires completely ignoring the context and intent of the forum in which it appears. I suppose you'll use the same thing (forum context and intent) to explain your view, but I would submit that maybe you should consider that it is your own personal context that is preventing you from understanding what is presented here.
Personally, I walked away from the article thinking that it was a good example of how any of us could violate laws such as that by doing everyday things.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second, still not playing your game. Wake me when you cite the specific passage(s) where he "accused" the president of something as opposed to asked a question about the collective actions of two individuals.
On the post: The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Instead, here is your debate process:
1) Say something controversial without evidence, usually with some direct or indirect ad hominem
2) Claim that anyone responding and the OP never provide any evidence or analysis
3) Act like a victim when you are rebutted or ad hom'd yourself.
I can tell you enjoy it, but let's not pretend it's actually reasoned debate.
On the post: EFF Fights Texas' Claims That Searching A Cell Phone Is No Different Than Searching 'A Pair Of Pants'
Re:
If you uncover plain-sight evidence in the act of an inventory search (intent = making certain there are no hidden weapons and making sure the detainee can recover his/her belongings later), you can act on it, because it was found in a reasonable manner.
If you conduct an investigatory search on someone's phone (intent = finding incriminating evidence) you need a warrant because you need to show cause for invading someone's privacy.
See the difference? Those doctrines exist to create a bright line between public security and individual privacy.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re:
1) it's an empty threat and there's no way they don't know that
2) it's behavior intended to intimidate
3) it offers no acknowledgement of any actual problem
4) it makes no effort to engage with any other perspectives
5) it does massive amounts of collateral damage to relationships with anyone involved
If that isn't an irrational, emotional reaction I don't know what is.
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Re: Re: Did the university register the copyright on their survey?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey
Did the university register the copyright on their survey?
Next >>