Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:40pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At the risk of devolving into further tautologies, if there isn't a clear-cut answer for something "new, non-obvious and novel" then it isn't any of those.
Either an invention is new, or it is not. There ain't no middle ground there.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:20pm
Competition
I drove past a van with this logo just tonight on the way home from work.
Wonder if its just advertising if if Newegg is going to start competing with GeekSquad. That could be a big deal for WorstTry and cause some execs and lawyers to go ballistic start suing.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:10pm
Nitpicking
Can't really have a "dry ice slurry" - since dry ice (frozen CO2) sublimates directly from a solid to a gas. Putting it in water wouldn't really work, either, and it still does the same thing - at most you'd get some water-ice slush with CO2 bubbling out that's no colder than regular frozen water.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 9:00pm
defenders of IP laws insist that there's a split and "ideas" are not covered.
Let's run a test for those defenders of IP laws and see if they really mean what they say.
Publicly state, along with your name and any organizations or law practices you represent, that you would support adding to copyright and patent laws this phrase:
"Under no circumstances whatsoever is this law to be used to block the expression or use of generalized or specific ideas. This law may only be used when significantly specific expressions or inventions are used without permission. Any party found attempting to assert ownership of an idea will be liable for all reasonable legal fees and damages that result in such assertion."
Or if that doesn't quite work for you, offer a alternate phrase that conveys the same thing.
I'm one of the more vocal commenters on TechDirt in support of complete abolition of all copyright and patent law. If I can take a step away from that "extreme" position (despite it being evidence backed), and admit this may help fix those systems, certainly you can support adding that line that would not be used anyway if you really do mean what you say.
I imagine all we'll hear is crickets. Prove me wrong.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:58pm
Re:
This idea has promise.
It is in effect no different than what police agencies do as sting operations, and undercover investigative journalists do to show wrongdoing by businesses.
Be very careful if you have to provide any statements under penalties of perjury, or if you're providing any false information directly to a law enforcement official. This is not real legal advice though, IANAL.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 12:34pm
Re: why not
Demand Progress is (I hope) classier than that.
A better response would be to highlight how the MPAA is willing to knowingly lie to advance their agenda, then demand an apology and permanent correction on the same blog post.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:36am
Guess the MPAA petitions are all fakes, too
This is backed up by a claim that they tried using fake emails to sign the petition, and it worked.
How many "send your congress rep a petition" things have MPAA or other IP-maximalists put up? I bet I can use fake addresses and emails on every single one of them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 11:25am
Charges filed?
If it is a site that meets the criteria, what we will do is start an undercover criminal investigation, and ultimately the agent will look at the site and—working within the statutes, 18 U.S.C. Section 2319 and Section 2320—they will look at whether this is a site that is going to meet those factors.
So they start an undercover criminal investigation, decide that the site falls foul of a law, get a judge to sign off on "seizing" a domain name, but then never file criminal charges so the accused can answer and defend themselves?
And I'm sure we'll get some copyright supporter saying this is all just peachy.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2011 @ 8:30am
Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I've provided a definition of a "good" patent, so I'm not sure why you think your definition is different than mine.
A good patent is one in which the invention is truly new, non-obvious and novel.
By definition, it is impossible for any evidence to exist that could be used to support invalidating that patent, because that evidence would not exist. If evidence exists, then there was no need for the patent and it should be rightfully invalidated.
If you think there are no benefits whatsoever to the patent system, then this is not an issue.
I recognize that there can, in theory, be good patents. I am for the complete elimination of the patent system because those cases are rare enough that the inventor should easily be able to profit from their invention because it is new and novel enough for them to have a significant time advantage in marketing it. The current patent system, as seems completely obvious to me, is nothing but a benefit to lawyers who are doing nothing but writing vague and generalized nonsense down on paper and suing productive members of our society for millions of dollars, or other lawyers who are charging hundreds or thousands per hour defending against the first set.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 12:40pm
Re:
Let's say you've got a "good" patent. If you have to litigate over that patent 4-5 times, there's a decent chance that one of those suits might end up with an invalidity judgment under a a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Your definition of "good" doesn't match mine.
Besides, at the speed court cases and appeals take, if you're litigating it 4-5 times, the patent should have expired.
Once that happens once, the patent is dead forever.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 7:35am
Re: Re: Re:
What you miss is that in a system without patents, the investors (and companies) that put the money into the research to create the original products just won't do it if they don't see good economic return.
Venture capital investors expect that most of the companies they invest in to fail and lose their money. For example, if a VC invests in 20 start-ups, 16 will fail and they'll get nothing out of it. 3 will break even or show small profits, just not really go anywhere, but that one remaining could be the next Google and will more than offset the losses by the others.
Obviously some VCs have better or worse track records, but they absolutely will invest even if success is not "guaranteed" by some piece of paper that the government gives you to claim you own an idea.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 9 Jun 2011 @ 7:23am
Re: Re: Re:
What they really want to do is stand on the shoulders of others, and benefit from all of it.
All progress stands on the shoulders of those who came before.
All knowledge is based on existing knowledge.
All science depends on previous science.
All art is to some degree derivative of previous art.
And so on.
It is nothing but hypocrisy for one person to claim that they get to stand on the shoulders of everyone before them, but no one can stand on theirs.
On the post: Score One For The Trolls: Supreme Court Says Congress Intended It To Be Very Difficult To Invalidate Patents
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either an invention is new, or it is not. There ain't no middle ground there.
On the post: ICE Declares 'Mission Accomplished' On Domain Seizures
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: 'Geek Power': Best Buy Sends C&D To Newegg Over Marketing Campaign
Competition
Wonder if its just advertising if if Newegg is going to start competing with GeekSquad. That could be a big deal for WorstTry and cause some execs and lawyers to go ballistic start suing.
On the post: DailyDirt: Better Food Through Science
Nitpicking
Just nitpicking.
On the post: Ideas Do Matter, But That Has Nothing To Do With 'Intellectual Property'
Let's run a test for those defenders of IP laws and see if they really mean what they say.
Publicly state, along with your name and any organizations or law practices you represent, that you would support adding to copyright and patent laws this phrase:
"Under no circumstances whatsoever is this law to be used to block the expression or use of generalized or specific ideas. This law may only be used when significantly specific expressions or inventions are used without permission. Any party found attempting to assert ownership of an idea will be liable for all reasonable legal fees and damages that result in such assertion."
Or if that doesn't quite work for you, offer a alternate phrase that conveys the same thing.
I'm one of the more vocal commenters on TechDirt in support of complete abolition of all copyright and patent law. If I can take a step away from that "extreme" position (despite it being evidence backed), and admit this may help fix those systems, certainly you can support adding that line that would not be used anyway if you really do mean what you say.
I imagine all we'll hear is crickets. Prove me wrong.
On the post: MPAA Attacks Demand Progress With Ridiculous & Unsubstantiated Claims
Re:
On the post: ICE Declares 'Mission Accomplished' On Domain Seizures
Re:
It is in effect no different than what police agencies do as sting operations, and undercover investigative journalists do to show wrongdoing by businesses.
Be very careful if you have to provide any statements under penalties of perjury, or if you're providing any false information directly to a law enforcement official. This is not real legal advice though, IANAL.
On the post: MPAA Attacks Demand Progress With Ridiculous & Unsubstantiated Claims
Re: why not
A better response would be to highlight how the MPAA is willing to knowingly lie to advance their agenda, then demand an apology and permanent correction on the same blog post.
On the post: MPAA Attacks Demand Progress With Ridiculous & Unsubstantiated Claims
Re:
This. Either they are that dumb (remember "series of tubes"?), or willfully blind thanks to bribe^H^H^H^H^H campaign contributions.
On the post: MPAA Attacks Demand Progress With Ridiculous & Unsubstantiated Claims
Re:
Abusing the DMCA takedown procedure is illegal. Violating due process is illegal. Bribery and extortion are illegal.
Why does the MPAA support and engage in all those illegal things?
On the post: MPAA Attacks Demand Progress With Ridiculous & Unsubstantiated Claims
Guess the MPAA petitions are all fakes, too
How many "send your congress rep a petition" things have MPAA or other IP-maximalists put up? I bet I can use fake addresses and emails on every single one of them.
On the post: Lies, Damned Lies And Facebook Evidence Get FBI Involved In Divorced Couple's Spat
Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Declares 'Mission Accomplished' On Domain Seizures
Charges filed?
So they start an undercover criminal investigation, decide that the site falls foul of a law, get a judge to sign off on "seizing" a domain name, but then never file criminal charges so the accused can answer and defend themselves?
And I'm sure we'll get some copyright supporter saying this is all just peachy.
On the post: Score One For The Trolls: Supreme Court Says Congress Intended It To Be Very Difficult To Invalidate Patents
Re: Re: Re:
A good patent is one in which the invention is truly new, non-obvious and novel.
By definition, it is impossible for any evidence to exist that could be used to support invalidating that patent, because that evidence would not exist. If evidence exists, then there was no need for the patent and it should be rightfully invalidated.
If you think there are no benefits whatsoever to the patent system, then this is not an issue.
I recognize that there can, in theory, be good patents. I am for the complete elimination of the patent system because those cases are rare enough that the inventor should easily be able to profit from their invention because it is new and novel enough for them to have a significant time advantage in marketing it. The current patent system, as seems completely obvious to me, is nothing but a benefit to lawyers who are doing nothing but writing vague and generalized nonsense down on paper and suing productive members of our society for millions of dollars, or other lawyers who are charging hundreds or thousands per hour defending against the first set.
On the post: Police Arrest A Bunch Of Folks In Europe For Linking To Infringing Content
Re:
I won't even disagree with you. This seem like the perfect way to get rid of copyright altogether - make it illegal to possess.
On the post: Score One For The Trolls: Supreme Court Says Congress Intended It To Be Very Difficult To Invalidate Patents
Re:
Your definition of "good" doesn't match mine.
Besides, at the speed court cases and appeals take, if you're litigating it 4-5 times, the patent should have expired.
Once that happens once, the patent is dead forever.
And that's bad why?
On the post: French Government Creates Its Own Giant Patent Troll
Re:
On the post: Investors Speaking Up About Patents Harming Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
Venture capital investors expect that most of the companies they invest in to fail and lose their money. For example, if a VC invests in 20 start-ups, 16 will fail and they'll get nothing out of it. 3 will break even or show small profits, just not really go anywhere, but that one remaining could be the next Google and will more than offset the losses by the others.
Obviously some VCs have better or worse track records, but they absolutely will invest even if success is not "guaranteed" by some piece of paper that the government gives you to claim you own an idea.
On the post: Investors Speaking Up About Patents Harming Innovation
Re: Re: Re:
All progress stands on the shoulders of those who came before.
All knowledge is based on existing knowledge.
All science depends on previous science.
All art is to some degree derivative of previous art.
And so on.
It is nothing but hypocrisy for one person to claim that they get to stand on the shoulders of everyone before them, but no one can stand on theirs.
On the post: Judge: Not Having The Best Security Not Illegal; Defrauded Company Can't Blame Bank
Re: Re: The **bank's** money was stolen, not the customer's money.
They put it through as "credit" instead of debit. No one has cared about signatures on receipts for a very long time.
Next >>