If the USPO wants to improve patent quality, eliminating software and business method patents would be a good start. These have got to be some of the hardest patents to do a good job of reviewing. The are usually very abstract. A lot of problems would go away if they could limit patents to specific devices.
Reducing the volume of patents would allow more time to review each patent. It would also let the examiners work in their area of expertise. The typical patent examiner is not really qualified to review software and business method patents
It used to be that touring was seen as part of promotion for an album. The labels were willing to let the band keep the ticket sales money because it was an important promotional activity and the labels wanted to keep the bands motivated to tour.
A few years ago the labels decided they wanted a cut of touring money, too. Fortunately for artists the "360" contracts the labels wanted didn't really catch on.
In some professions it is admirable when someone believes in their cause despite the evidence against them. We can admire a football coach who tries to rally his team when all objective evidence says they are going to lose. However, part of an attorney's job is to help their clients see reality. No matter what an attorney says in court or in public, a lawyer needs to be honest with the client about the legal situation.
However, even a bad coach realizes that the game is over when the final gun goes off. If these guys think that this evidence of copying is strong enough to win in court, then maybe we shouldn't be surprised that they have trouble understanding that they have lost the case.
For years radio stations have been trying to get businesses to play the radio over PA systems. It greatly increases listenership which results in more payments to artists at least some artists, and it promotes the music. Demanding licences for playing the radio only hurts musicians in the long run.
I don't understand why radio stations have not lobbied to protect the ability of businesses to play the radio.
Laws can make minor adjustments to basic economics. Laws that fight basic laws of economics are ignored unless the public sees a good need for them.
Gypsy taxis is a good example. The number of shields available for licensed taxis is artificially low. The price of gypsy cabs is closer to what most consumers are willing to pay, so they factor in the risks and take the cheaper alternative. Gypsy cabs would dry up in an heartbeat if more cabs could be licensed. Prices for the high end cabs would drop which would benefit the public, and the cabs would have insurance and trained drivers. But the organized taxi industry wants to maintain its control so the public welfare is harmed by having unregulated cabs all over the the city, and the public is trained that ignoring the law is a good idea.
If New York passes a draconian law about private home rentals people will keep doing it. The law might deter a few people at the margin, but with the huge amount of money to be made by homeowners and the huge amount of money to be saved by visitors people will figure out a way to get around the law, or they will simply ignore it.
If the law passes, the hotels may find themselves in the same position as the RIAA and the taxi industry.
Hotels might be better off trying to capitalize on the situation. For example, Hilton hotels could start an program of "Hilton Certified" home rentals. The homes would have to meet certain standards and in turn would be listed on Hilton's website as alternatives to the hotel. That way Hilton would get a part of the revenue and have some nice marketing opportunities with people visiting New York. If a homeowner wasn't willing to pay Hilton's fees and meet their standards, then the homeowner could try the "Motel 6 Certified" program. For that matter, there isn't any reason you couldn't have "Starbucks Certified" homes. The state might even be able to collect some taxes from these organizations as long as the tax rates were reasonable. Someone will probably ask why the hotels would be willing to cannibalize their own businesses by offering alternatives. But there is already ample evidence that if they don't act someone else will jump in set up a business and they will be locked out of a significant portion of the tourism industry. The real challenge for the hotel industry is figuring out how to tap into this segment of the market.
Not a surprising ruling, and should probably be seen as Round #1
I am not at all surprised by the ruling. For one thing, the instinct of the court is to make its rulings on narrow grounds until the major arguments have been thoroughly argued and resolved in the lower courts.
Appellant court judges hate to be overturned. A 9-0 decision in this case sends a pretty clear message to the appeals courts, even if it was decided narrowly. I read the opinions as an instruction to the lower courts to figure out a better standard. In the meantime, it is going to be hard to find an appeals court that is going to issue a strong ruling in favor of business methods patents, and there is probably going to be a reluctance to support software patents.
I think this ruling will blend over into other IP issues, not just patents.
I was very encouraged by the opinions discussing the social purpose of patents. We have seen a lot of lower courts talking about IP as property rights. The opinions make it clear that the justices are concerned with the purpose of promoting progress in patent law. Strong IP proponents have been trying to blur the lines between different types of IP. Viewed through the lens of blurred lines it isn't hard to extend the opinions in this case to support stronger fair use.
It's nice to see that someone still thinks we have a bill of rights
I like seeing lawsuits framed like this. It emphasizes that rights to privacy are sometimes tied to important issues of free speech.
Privacy rights themselves are not guaranteed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and therefore it is often easy for the courts to ignore them entirely or assume that privacy rights may be subordinate to the needs of business models or government convenience. This case shows that at least in some situations privacy rights DO matter and that wholesale sweeping aside of privacy rights tramples all over the principles of democratic society.
More and more the anti-piracy campaign looks like the Prohibition movement. The biggest difference is that prohibition was motivated by ideology but antipiracy is funded by the profit motive. When the country finally woke up and realized the damage being done by prohibition there was still lingering sympathy for the ideals. This time I doubt the will be much sympathy for the RIAA objectives. So far the industry has managed to make starving musicians the poster children for their movement; I think people are starting to realize that the artists are the biggest victims.
Suppose I am a politician named Joe Smith, and my opponents have accused me of being soft on crime. All I have to do is write an article or make a short video named "Joe Smith is Soft on Crime." (The work could be exactly opposite of the title since the modern political trend is to name things the opposite of what they stand for.) Then claim copyright, and get search engines to block on all searches related to Joe Smith being soft on crime. Even better, get a judge to order all searches on the topic to point to my document.
In this case the stated intent is to "monetize" piracy. The main purpose of the lawsuit isn't to discourage piracy. The objective is to make money by suing people for piracy. The people who put this out on the internet actually hoped that the movie would be pirated as much as possible so they would have more people to sue.
Long story short, the movie was a box office failure, and this is a method to try to use the courts as an alternative to selling tickets or DVD's.
Honestly, at least 90% of the people they are suing probably did something illegal. I have no objections to those people getting sued. I do have a few objections to the Hurt Locker lawsuit. It is clearly set up as an extortion racket, and they have hit people with lawsuits who are completely innocent. Those innocents really don't have any recourse but to pay up. The lawsuits are generally filed in a venue that is too far for them to go and defend themselves or to hire a lawyer to do so; it is simply cheaper to pay up. Second, this isn't what the courts are set up for. The filmmakers are not trying to get redress for a wrong; they set up the situation to foster mass lawsuits. Third, the way the lawsuits are filed appears to violate court rules that are intended to prevent exactly this type of abusive lawsuits.
Hollywood and book authors traditionally do pay people to use their stories, although there is no actual legal requirement to do so. However, there is a danger that if the source of the story is obvious and they get a fact wrong, then they might possibly be sued for libel or defamation.
Paying people for their stories does get the studio or author a few benefits. 1) They usually get the person and their family as technical consultants. 2) They avoid bad publicity for exploiting the person or family. 3) Protection from lawsuits due to liable or defamation issues.
In this case I don't think the link between the person and the story were obvious. In fact, I think it is the soldier's own complaint that made the link in the minds of anyone who cares. That would probably have been enough to get the film makers off the hook for any type of libel or slander issues. However, it looks like the film makers are now acknowledging the link. In that situation I hope they got their facts straight about the soldier because that might be enough to open them up for a legitimate lawsuit.
>>Maybe this will encourage moviemakers to make better movies in order to make profits.
Unfortunately the big moviemakers equate "better movies" to mean "movies that make a bigger profit." When this is the objective the industry naturally gravitates to proven themes that have been market tested into mediocrity. It is very hard for a producer to be able to break through this studio barrier.
I am willing to bet that there was some bean counter making a multi-million dollar salary who was in the pricing meeting and said "If we price it below the cover price we will cannibalize our print edition."
Movies that do poorly at the box office always need an excuse. The media and the general public generally don't question "piracy" so it is very convenient. If a movie gets terrible reviews and there is one pirated copy out there, then the blame will be affixed to piracy, and there is always a copy out there. Wolverine comes to mind as an example.
Forget about the cost of coffee, what about the musicians?
To me the main issue isn't the atmosphere of the coffee house or how much the coffee costs.
Look at it from the musician's standpoint. People like to share their music, even if they do not plan to turn professional. Those who do want to turn professional need performing experience like they used to get in small local venues.
From my youth, I remember a lot of shops basically allowing people to perform there as a favor to the musicians. The shops didn't always try to capitalize on the music. Musicians performed and got valuable feedback from the audience. People who performed a lot became better musicians; I saw it in a lot of my friends.
This is what has been killed off. It was easy to have a microphone, and amp or two, and a few feet of floor space. People didn't worry about whether the music was original or covers.
It seems to me like one easy solution is to set a minimum threshold below which licensing is not required. The kind of shops I remember seemed to have capacities of around 200 people, so maybe something like 250 people would be a reasonable threshold if you include employees. Put the burden on the collection society to prove that the threshold was violated in order to reduce the intimation factor.
The supporters of the collection societies seem to think the fee is $1 a day. If we assume that, we are really talking about pretty small amounts of money that would be lost to the really small venues. Encouraging a thriving business in the small venues would probably end up creating a thriving music scene which would quickly grow to larger venues. If the fees are not too high once passing the 250 threshold, it is quite likely that the number of larger, paying venues would also grow. The collection societies might not get rich off of this system, but musicians and the music industry as a whole would definitely be stronger.
As long as the music isn't so bad that it chases off customers then everyone wins, except maybe the collection societies. In theory the collection societies should be collecting money and passing it on to the songwriters. If we have a threshold, the writers would not get paid for performances in small venues. However, if the collection society kill off the small venues, they are not getting paid there anyway. Besides, there is plenty of evidence that the collection societies are not very good at getting money to the artists, so only the collection societies themselves would lose money. Their expenses would go down, however, since they would not have to chase collections from little shops.
On the post: First Post-Bilski Patent Appeals Ruling Rejects Software Patent
Improving patent quality
Reducing the volume of patents would allow more time to review each patent. It would also let the examiners work in their area of expertise. The typical patent examiner is not really qualified to review software and business method patents
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
Re: Re: I don't feel sorry for the bands...
On the post: RIAA Accounting: Why Even Major Label Musicians Rarely Make Money From Album Sales
360 marketing
A few years ago the labels decided they wanted a cut of touring money, too. Fortunately for artists the "360" contracts the labels wanted didn't really catch on.
On the post: Supposed 'Proof' Of SCO's Infringement Claims Against Linux Seem Lacking
Tenacity in the face of facts to the contrary
However, even a bad coach realizes that the game is over when the final gun goes off. If these guys think that this evidence of copying is strong enough to win in court, then maybe we shouldn't be surprised that they have trouble understanding that they have lost the case.
On the post: Sharron Angle Insists She's Going To Sue Harry Reid For His Reposting Of Angle's Own Website
Re: Re: Waste of time
On the post: AP's New Policy: If They Speak To You, They Can Reprint Anything For Free?
squared
square(Streisand Effect)
On the post: UK Hairdresser Fined For Playing Music Even Though He Tried To Be Legal
less moneyfrom radio
I don't understand why radio stations have not lobbied to protect the ability of businesses to play the radio.
On the post: Woot Asks AP To Pay Up For Quoting Woot Blog Post Without Paying [Updated]
Time to buy something
On the post: .xxx Red Light District To Be Approved, Despite Complaints; But Will Anyone Actually Care?
Re:
On the post: NY Hotels Upset Over More Efficient 'Home' Competition; Gets Politicians To Try To Outlaw Such Things
Economics vs Laws
Gypsy taxis is a good example. The number of shields available for licensed taxis is artificially low. The price of gypsy cabs is closer to what most consumers are willing to pay, so they factor in the risks and take the cheaper alternative. Gypsy cabs would dry up in an heartbeat if more cabs could be licensed. Prices for the high end cabs would drop which would benefit the public, and the cabs would have insurance and trained drivers. But the organized taxi industry wants to maintain its control so the public welfare is harmed by having unregulated cabs all over the the city, and the public is trained that ignoring the law is a good idea.
If New York passes a draconian law about private home rentals people will keep doing it. The law might deter a few people at the margin, but with the huge amount of money to be made by homeowners and the huge amount of money to be saved by visitors people will figure out a way to get around the law, or they will simply ignore it.
If the law passes, the hotels may find themselves in the same position as the RIAA and the taxi industry.
Hotels might be better off trying to capitalize on the situation. For example, Hilton hotels could start an program of "Hilton Certified" home rentals. The homes would have to meet certain standards and in turn would be listed on Hilton's website as alternatives to the hotel. That way Hilton would get a part of the revenue and have some nice marketing opportunities with people visiting New York. If a homeowner wasn't willing to pay Hilton's fees and meet their standards, then the homeowner could try the "Motel 6 Certified" program. For that matter, there isn't any reason you couldn't have "Starbucks Certified" homes. The state might even be able to collect some taxes from these organizations as long as the tax rates were reasonable. Someone will probably ask why the hotels would be willing to cannibalize their own businesses by offering alternatives. But there is already ample evidence that if they don't act someone else will jump in set up a business and they will be locked out of a significant portion of the tourism industry. The real challenge for the hotel industry is figuring out how to tap into this segment of the market.
On the post: Second Thoughts On Bilski: Could Another Case Get A Direct Ruling On Business Method Patentability?
Not a surprising ruling, and should probably be seen as Round #1
Appellant court judges hate to be overturned. A 9-0 decision in this case sends a pretty clear message to the appeals courts, even if it was decided narrowly. I read the opinions as an instruction to the lower courts to figure out a better standard. In the meantime, it is going to be hard to find an appeals court that is going to issue a strong ruling in favor of business methods patents, and there is probably going to be a reluctance to support software patents.
I think this ruling will blend over into other IP issues, not just patents.
I was very encouraged by the opinions discussing the social purpose of patents. We have seen a lot of lower courts talking about IP as property rights. The opinions make it clear that the justices are concerned with the purpose of promoting progress in patent law. Strong IP proponents have been trying to blur the lines between different types of IP. Viewed through the lens of blurred lines it isn't hard to extend the opinions in this case to support stronger fair use.
On the post: ACLU Jumps Into Case Where North Carolina Wants Detailed Info On Your Amazon Purchases
It's nice to see that someone still thinks we have a bill of rights
Privacy rights themselves are not guaranteed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights and therefore it is often easy for the courts to ignore them entirely or assume that privacy rights may be subordinate to the needs of business models or government convenience. This case shows that at least in some situations privacy rights DO matter and that wholesale sweeping aside of privacy rights tramples all over the principles of democratic society.
On the post: Senate Oversight Of IP Czar... Only Involves Entertainment Industry Execs
Re: Re:
On the post: Is Forcing IsoHunt To Block Search Terms A First Amendment Violation?
Could easily be used to block protected speech
On the post: As Hurt Locker Producers Sue Thousands For File Sharing... They Claim Free Speech Rights To Copy Story Of Soldier
Re: Point?
Long story short, the movie was a box office failure, and this is a method to try to use the courts as an alternative to selling tickets or DVD's.
Honestly, at least 90% of the people they are suing probably did something illegal. I have no objections to those people getting sued. I do have a few objections to the Hurt Locker lawsuit. It is clearly set up as an extortion racket, and they have hit people with lawsuits who are completely innocent. Those innocents really don't have any recourse but to pay up. The lawsuits are generally filed in a venue that is too far for them to go and defend themselves or to hire a lawyer to do so; it is simply cheaper to pay up. Second, this isn't what the courts are set up for. The filmmakers are not trying to get redress for a wrong; they set up the situation to foster mass lawsuits. Third, the way the lawsuits are filed appears to violate court rules that are intended to prevent exactly this type of abusive lawsuits.
On the post: As Hurt Locker Producers Sue Thousands For File Sharing... They Claim Free Speech Rights To Copy Story Of Soldier
Re: I don't get it though
Paying people for their stories does get the studio or author a few benefits. 1) They usually get the person and their family as technical consultants. 2) They avoid bad publicity for exploiting the person or family. 3) Protection from lawsuits due to liable or defamation issues.
In this case I don't think the link between the person and the story were obvious. In fact, I think it is the soldier's own complaint that made the link in the minds of anyone who cares. That would probably have been enough to get the film makers off the hook for any type of libel or slander issues. However, it looks like the film makers are now acknowledging the link. In that situation I hope they got their facts straight about the soldier because that might be enough to open them up for a legitimate lawsuit.
On the post: Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films
Re: This is true.
Unfortunately the big moviemakers equate "better movies" to mean "movies that make a bigger profit." When this is the objective the industry naturally gravitates to proven themes that have been market tested into mediocrity. It is very hard for a producer to be able to break through this studio barrier.
On the post: More People Recognizing That Media iPad Adaptations Feel Like CD-ROM Media
Cannibals
On the post: Film Director: File Sharing Only Hurts Bad Or Mediocre Films
Bad films need an excuse
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Forget about the cost of coffee, what about the musicians?
Look at it from the musician's standpoint. People like to share their music, even if they do not plan to turn professional. Those who do want to turn professional need performing experience like they used to get in small local venues.
From my youth, I remember a lot of shops basically allowing people to perform there as a favor to the musicians. The shops didn't always try to capitalize on the music. Musicians performed and got valuable feedback from the audience. People who performed a lot became better musicians; I saw it in a lot of my friends.
This is what has been killed off. It was easy to have a microphone, and amp or two, and a few feet of floor space. People didn't worry about whether the music was original or covers.
It seems to me like one easy solution is to set a minimum threshold below which licensing is not required. The kind of shops I remember seemed to have capacities of around 200 people, so maybe something like 250 people would be a reasonable threshold if you include employees. Put the burden on the collection society to prove that the threshold was violated in order to reduce the intimation factor.
The supporters of the collection societies seem to think the fee is $1 a day. If we assume that, we are really talking about pretty small amounts of money that would be lost to the really small venues. Encouraging a thriving business in the small venues would probably end up creating a thriving music scene which would quickly grow to larger venues. If the fees are not too high once passing the 250 threshold, it is quite likely that the number of larger, paying venues would also grow. The collection societies might not get rich off of this system, but musicians and the music industry as a whole would definitely be stronger.
As long as the music isn't so bad that it chases off customers then everyone wins, except maybe the collection societies. In theory the collection societies should be collecting money and passing it on to the songwriters. If we have a threshold, the writers would not get paid for performances in small venues. However, if the collection society kill off the small venues, they are not getting paid there anyway. Besides, there is plenty of evidence that the collection societies are not very good at getting money to the artists, so only the collection societies themselves would lose money. Their expenses would go down, however, since they would not have to chase collections from little shops.
Next >>