"That's ridiculous, and rests on the assumption that the title of a patent is a full description of what it claims."
Not a fully detailed description, but one would presume a fully accurate description. Don't make me give an example of how language can be both vague and accurate. You seem to be saying that while the title is good enough to use in their patent application, it's not good enough to use in an article about the patent.
Maybe you're referring specifically to the quip at the end of the article, which is funny both because it's a joke and because it's something you appear to be basing your entire understanding of Mike's article on. I guess it's OK for patent titles to be inaccurate, but not jokes.
"Which other commenter has identified that as the basis?"
Uh, no other. I'm saying that's the basis for their comments. I'd be sorry for the ambiguity except I'm not sure what difference it makes to the issue at hand.
"Also, most people arguing obviousness are doing so based solely on the one-sentence description of what the patent covers"
So, I'm unable to make assumptions about the basis for their comments but you are?
"Why is it somehow indicative of a problem that lots of people are being sued?"
Because they appear to be sued for no good reason. If you've evidence that this patent fostered the tiniest bit of innovation then I'm sure everyone would be glad to hear of it.
'This patent does not cover an "Internet protocol (IP) phone with search and advertising capability".'
Why would they choose that as the title of the patent if it isn't an accurate description for what the patent covers? Is the lesson of this story that people who write patents write intentionally misleading titles, or are you saying that it's OK for the patent writers to describe the patent in those terms but no one else?
"That is, after all, one of the main appeals of PayPal and Google Checkout, that you know your account information stays at PayPal or Google and all the merchant needs and gets is the public name of the PayPal or Google account. That is obvious enough now. However, dial back the clock to 1995 and ask again, were those around in 1995 when this patent was filed?"
Are you suggesting that PayPal and Google got those ideas from this patent too? That seems to be the only logical explanation for your argument.
"This patent does not cover what the article (and several early commenters) assumed it covered."
The implications of this suggestion seem to be that the patent in question must have been titled to intentionally mislead. After all, if it's misleading to use the title of a patent as the basis for the title of a story about the patent then that would seem to highlight a problem with the title of the patent.
"It's just annoying to see people say what a blatant abuse of law this is *based on the title of the patent*"
No, people seem to be saying that it's a blatant abuse of the law based on the fact that a bunch of companies are being sued for an idea that is either obvious enough or broad enough for them all to be infringing it. Perhaps they saw the patent and copied it and I would love for you to make that accusation.
"From there you can make a determination as to how broad or narrow this patent is."
So, in light of your astoundingly vague clarification, am I to presume that you're suggesting the patent doesn't matter because it's really narrow? I think you're possibly missing the entire point of this story, which is that a bunch of companies have been sued for something that is either obvious or broad enough for them all to have infringed it unwittingly.
"The song isn't really a parody as it is not an attempt to comment on the underlying work"
While I cannot divine the intended meaning by US lawmakers, outside of that law the meaning can be much broader than what you suggest. In fact, it has been explicitly stated by at least one scholar that a parody does not always target the subject of imitation.
Even allowing your narrow definition, others have already pointed out how you're wrong.
"It got me thinking and I soon realized that I haven't been to the movie theater even once since buying a big HDTV for my home theater room."
I'm wondering if people are actually running mini theatres from home yet. I can imagine that as they tend to do with watching sports, someone will come along and try to make it illegal if it becomes common.
"Better yet: download a torrent of it and mail your cash directly to Dave Grohl, along with a note explaining why. Bet he gets a kick out of it :)"
Perhaps worth doing just to make the point, but there are plenty of artists out there who offer me services I want without strings attached so I'm not likely to lose sleep wondering what to do with hypothetical money.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
"So, aren't people here being kind to presume that those people are paid to act in such a pointless and unproductive, hateful way?"
I tend to think that being an asshole because of greed is worse than just being an asshole. Maybe you're right in that they could be desperate for cash for a nobler purpose.
"A kid got suspended recently for putting a "kick me" sign on another kid. I am certainly in favor of regulating VIOLENCE that goes on, but name-calling, mockery, and social antagonism is how we grow."
Was the story really that simple? In my experience such supposedly absurd stories tend to leave out relevant details like a history of bullying or other contributing factors.
Also, name calling, mockery and social antagonism might be how you grew, but for many kids it's more the equivalent of being shat on, to continue the fertiliser metaphor.
"Whenever I hear about these lawsuits, I really do see some kid who was picked on in school who runs to the system every single time for aid. Man up."
Whenever I see someone using the phrase 'man up', I really do see some kid who was made to feel emasculated and has to compensate as an adult with sexist rhetoric.
"Don't go crying to mommy because someone threw a water balloon at you."
Yes, if they did that then they might miss their fertiliser. And water.
"We are cultivating a society full of entitlement, selfishness, and control."
By not allowing bullying yet being bullied? Damn those selfish kids' sense of entitlement.
"Actually briceforshin is the sock puppet. It is an anagram of Corbin Fisher, and it has been making the rounds on several sites posting LMH/CF propaganda."
Oh, that makes sen... Wait. Someone actually used an anagram for their sock puppet? Do they also burn up in sunlight and treat 'bloody mary' as a literal description for a drink?
"While I don't agree with most of what they tend to say, don't let it be said that I don't care."
It is important to remember that behind every commenter fitting the stereotype of an internet troll there is a person, who may be very troubled. That seems far more likely than the apparently prevalent theory that everyone is a shill. The competing theory would be that non-troubled people actually get a kick out of wasting everyone else's time, but I have trouble believing that anyone could get sufficient pleasure out of such a tediously pointless task (I certainly don't get pleasure from replying to them).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
"Love the way you connect with fans. "
You would consider that person a fan? I think that even if Mike's business model focused on page views then they would be more of a liability than a fan.
"I did actually try to think of a number low enough so that we're (mostly) all still alive when copyright expires but high enough to keep the current maximalists somewhat happy."
I can understand and respect that, it certainly seems to be a widely shared view amongst those looking for reform. I disagree that we should aim to keep "maximalists" happy because I haven't seen a reason for doing so beyond the search for a middle ground. I can suppose a reason that keeping them happy may be the only way to achieve reform, but if so then it is important that be clearly identified as the reason; not least because without such explanation those arguments could be referenced in support of copyright extension at a later date.
"I would LOVE to see a discussion on copyright length based on resulting creativity rather than financial expectations"
I was thinking that an interesting exercise would be to try and come up with a wish list of requirements for studies along those lines.
"My "agenda" (if you wish to call it one) is availability"
I think that is a core element of most agendas centred around copyright reform. Although I think you're referring specifically to absolute availability, motives for file sharing may include financial availability (hard to fill your iPod with legally acquired music), time availability (I don't want to be a week behind on my favourite shows let alone a season behind, especially when everyone is talking about them) and format availability (iTunes and Amazon offer few formats while Bandcamp offers many).
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not a fully detailed description, but one would presume a fully accurate description. Don't make me give an example of how language can be both vague and accurate. You seem to be saying that while the title is good enough to use in their patent application, it's not good enough to use in an article about the patent.
Maybe you're referring specifically to the quip at the end of the article, which is funny both because it's a joke and because it's something you appear to be basing your entire understanding of Mike's article on. I guess it's OK for patent titles to be inaccurate, but not jokes.
"Which other commenter has identified that as the basis?"
Uh, no other. I'm saying that's the basis for their comments. I'd be sorry for the ambiguity except I'm not sure what difference it makes to the issue at hand.
"Also, most people arguing obviousness are doing so based solely on the one-sentence description of what the patent covers"
So, I'm unable to make assumptions about the basis for their comments but you are?
"Why is it somehow indicative of a problem that lots of people are being sued?"
Because they appear to be sued for no good reason. If you've evidence that this patent fostered the tiniest bit of innovation then I'm sure everyone would be glad to hear of it.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
Why would they choose that as the title of the patent if it isn't an accurate description for what the patent covers? Is the lesson of this story that people who write patents write intentionally misleading titles, or are you saying that it's OK for the patent writers to describe the patent in those terms but no one else?
"That is, after all, one of the main appeals of PayPal and Google Checkout, that you know your account information stays at PayPal or Google and all the merchant needs and gets is the public name of the PayPal or Google account. That is obvious enough now. However, dial back the clock to 1995 and ask again, were those around in 1995 when this patent was filed?"
Are you suggesting that PayPal and Google got those ideas from this patent too? That seems to be the only logical explanation for your argument.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re:
The implications of this suggestion seem to be that the patent in question must have been titled to intentionally mislead. After all, if it's misleading to use the title of a patent as the basis for the title of a story about the patent then that would seem to highlight a problem with the title of the patent.
"It's just annoying to see people say what a blatant abuse of law this is *based on the title of the patent*"
No, people seem to be saying that it's a blatant abuse of the law based on the fact that a bunch of companies are being sued for an idea that is either obvious enough or broad enough for them all to be infringing it. Perhaps they saw the patent and copied it and I would love for you to make that accusation.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re:
So, in light of your astoundingly vague clarification, am I to presume that you're suggesting the patent doesn't matter because it's really narrow? I think you're possibly missing the entire point of this story, which is that a bunch of companies have been sued for something that is either obvious or broad enough for them all to have infringed it unwittingly.
On the post: 'Death Of ACTA' Song Taken Down In Copyright Claim
Re: Not really parody
While I cannot divine the intended meaning by US lawmakers, outside of that law the meaning can be much broader than what you suggest. In fact, it has been explicitly stated by at least one scholar that a parody does not always target the subject of imitation.
Even allowing your narrow definition, others have already pointed out how you're wrong.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re:
Why isn't it? You've posted part of the patent and told us absolutely nothing about why we shouldn't freak out, just that we shouldn't.
On the post: Discussions About Scarcity vs. Abundance In Copyright From A Century Ago Sound Just Like Those Today
Re: Re: *Rant mode engaged*
I'm wondering if people are actually running mini theatres from home yet. I can imagine that as they tend to do with watching sports, someone will come along and try to make it illegal if it becomes common.
On the post: Foo Fighters Album Leaked; Band Relieved
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps worth doing just to make the point, but there are plenty of artists out there who offer me services I want without strings attached so I'm not likely to lose sleep wondering what to do with hypothetical money.
On the post: Discussions About Scarcity vs. Abundance In Copyright From A Century Ago Sound Just Like Those Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
I tend to think that being an asshole because of greed is worse than just being an asshole. Maybe you're right in that they could be desperate for cash for a nobler purpose.
On the post: Foo Fighters Album Leaked; Band Relieved
Re: Re: Re:
Good idea, I can add them to Songkick.
On the post: Is Forwarding A Single Sentence Email From A Mailing List Infringement?
Re: I blame the new education system.
Was the story really that simple? In my experience such supposedly absurd stories tend to leave out relevant details like a history of bullying or other contributing factors.
Also, name calling, mockery and social antagonism might be how you grew, but for many kids it's more the equivalent of being shat on, to continue the fertiliser metaphor.
"Whenever I hear about these lawsuits, I really do see some kid who was picked on in school who runs to the system every single time for aid. Man up."
Whenever I see someone using the phrase 'man up', I really do see some kid who was made to feel emasculated and has to compensate as an adult with sexist rhetoric.
"Don't go crying to mommy because someone threw a water balloon at you."
Yes, if they did that then they might miss their fertiliser. And water.
"We are cultivating a society full of entitlement, selfishness, and control."
By not allowing bullying yet being bullied? Damn those selfish kids' sense of entitlement.
On the post: Film Company That's Sued Thousands Might Not Even Own Rights To Film It's Suing Over
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A mortgage is a specific type of loan agreement. I've not seen the terms of this agreement, but I wouldn't assume that they are similar.
On the post: Porn Company Says You Owe $25k If Content In Your Account Ends Up Pirated... Even If You Prove You Were Hacked [Updated]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, that makes sen... Wait. Someone actually used an anagram for their sock puppet? Do they also burn up in sunlight and treat 'bloody mary' as a literal description for a drink?
On the post: Foo Fighters Album Leaked; Band Relieved
Re:
Just checked and they still appear to be with RCA (subsidiary of Sony Music). I think I'd be more likely to burn the money in their honour.
On the post: Discussions About Scarcity vs. Abundance In Copyright From A Century Ago Sound Just Like Those Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
We could make you a nice organ grinder monkey hat if you like.
On the post: Discussions About Scarcity vs. Abundance In Copyright From A Century Ago Sound Just Like Those Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
It is important to remember that behind every commenter fitting the stereotype of an internet troll there is a person, who may be very troubled. That seems far more likely than the apparently prevalent theory that everyone is a shill. The competing theory would be that non-troubled people actually get a kick out of wasting everyone else's time, but I have trouble believing that anyone could get sufficient pleasure out of such a tediously pointless task (I certainly don't get pleasure from replying to them).
On the post: Discussions About Scarcity vs. Abundance In Copyright From A Century Ago Sound Just Like Those Today
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC Shill is at it again.
You would consider that person a fan? I think that even if Mike's business model focused on page views then they would be more of a liability than a fan.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
If this gets a tl;dr and some of my comments don't then I have think that my theory about people actually falling asleep isn't so far fetched.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trolls hibernate in the summer?
Or next to increasingly irrefutable statements:
Copyright is bad - FUD
Copyright needs reform - FUD
Copyright is a construct of law - FUD
Grass is green - FUD
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Incentives
I can understand and respect that, it certainly seems to be a widely shared view amongst those looking for reform. I disagree that we should aim to keep "maximalists" happy because I haven't seen a reason for doing so beyond the search for a middle ground. I can suppose a reason that keeping them happy may be the only way to achieve reform, but if so then it is important that be clearly identified as the reason; not least because without such explanation those arguments could be referenced in support of copyright extension at a later date.
"I would LOVE to see a discussion on copyright length based on resulting creativity rather than financial expectations"
I was thinking that an interesting exercise would be to try and come up with a wish list of requirements for studies along those lines.
"My "agenda" (if you wish to call it one) is availability"
I think that is a core element of most agendas centred around copyright reform. Although I think you're referring specifically to absolute availability, motives for file sharing may include financial availability (hard to fill your iPod with legally acquired music), time availability (I don't want to be a week behind on my favourite shows let alone a season behind, especially when everyone is talking about them) and format availability (iTunes and Amazon offer few formats while Bandcamp offers many).
Next >>