I know, right? The Masnick Effect is so powerful this time it even convinced the Indian Government! Even they are buying into the idea that this is a bad move on the part of ICE/DHS! ZOMG!!!111!!one!!
Hey, don't joke about those CDs... Back in my Foul Bachelor Frog days, me and my roomies would pop a buck on those self-adhesive rubber feet, grab those CDs, and -BAM- infinite coasters.
Oh wow... really? You're interpretation is that the law is applied in some particular order as it passes thru the constitution? Really?
Hmm. Interesting, but stupid. The Bill of Rights are the Amendments. The first 10, in fact. The whole purpose of an amendment is to change and existing thing. So, the fact that the Amendments came later could (and should) be taken that they are more important than the first part because they are fixing or modifying something that someone (you know.. the founding fathers, our elected representatives) felt needed to be fixed.
So, by the very definition of "amendment", the Bill of Rights does trump copyright law.
Well, you're not a judge Mike, and I'd say embedding streams of full games without consent is going to fall into the "other use" category.
And why is your opinion on the matter any more relevant than Mike's?
But guess what... as has been pointed out, the NFL doesn't create the law. They can say "or any other use" all they want... just like the carwash down the street can say "we're not responsible for damage to your car or antenna"... but guess what, they are.
So, while I'm sure your reality is a fun place full of cupcakes and joy, here in the real world, just saying something doesn't make it so.
I have a different question... Joe, you are by far the loudest crier of "FUD FUD FUD!!!" I've seen... well, anywhere. My question is this: why does you opinion on this article's (or any article's) status as FUD outweigh anyone else?
I look at this article as a genuine question of consequence for actions taken... I don't feel that it's trying to whip up any support for one cause or another by throwing out outlandish claims that are not supported by evidence. So if you feel it's FUD (which is your opinion and you're welcome to it), why do you feel the need to come in here and sling the word around? What is accomplished?
If anything, I'd say the fact that you come here and scream "FUD" any time this blog (which is an expression of one person's opinion anyway) poses a hypothetical (yet relevant to the subject of the blog) question... well, you're the one creating FUD by trying to discredit Mike.
"You can't trust TechDirt! Look at all that false info! LIES I SAY!!! Look at Masnick trying to garner support for [whichever agend you feel he supports]!"
Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
"The pirate sites will all move their domains, which is exactiy what gov wants."
Wait-wait-wait... let me make sure I have this right. The US government, who you claim is on the side of Copyright and against piracy, has a plan to move pirates out of the country...
and therefore completely out of their jurisdiction, thus making them immune from any action whatsoever by the US Government?
No, the signature is in no way a statement of guilt or innocence... it's only a verification that you received the ticket itself. At least, that's how it is in Florida.
Ok... I get what you're saying. A patent-holder who is unable to physically produce a product can teach the idea to someone who can build it for them... OK... but that doesn't address the point that the actual purpose of a patent is to grant sole control over an idea to the holder.
The point of the patent is not to teach others what to do with an idea. And even if you want to allow the fact that the practice of a patent is to teach others to help get an innovation or invention to market, that CERTAINLY does not address the fact that these litigators who sit on patents and don't teach others... who sit on them and wait until someone tries to do work on their own and then sue them... are not teaching anything.
Let's take RIM for example... Where's the teaching from the owner of the (still, dubiously broad) patent who did nothing with it except keep it in a drawer, who then sued the first person who actually did the work on the same idea? I don't really care if you believe that RIM had the idea independently or if they somehow magically gleaned it from the owner's head... it's irrelevant to this conversation. If the point of a patent is to teach, where is that exemplified in this scenario? Who taught whom?... other than the lesson of the Patent Troll.
So, again, the point of a patent is to grant sole control… the ideal practice of a patent is to use that control to teach others to help get product/idea to market… but we see deliberate action against that ideal because it seems to be far more lucrative to use the control to sue people instead of innovate. Again, this is against your teaching ideal.
"You have missed the point of patents and that is that they teach. Even if a product is not immediately produced a documented invention often spawns additional inventions."
Hmm... and I thought the point of a patent was to give a government-granted temporary monopoly on a product or method for the purpose of allowing the inventor/innovator to recoup the cost of creation and development. How silly of me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "theft" of an idea
"Which demonstrates who it is not productive to cite stats for you or any other TechDIRT lemming. It is a futile exercise because you either cannot or will not pay attention."
You know, for someone with such an ~ahem~ impressive signature & resume, you have a very tenuous grasp on debate tactics... and on the English language, for that matter.
"The court assigns blame, not I. Defendants who lose, and most do, are found to be at fault.
"Fault for the necessary to litigate lies completely with companies who act as if they have an inalienable right to to "innovate" through unauthorized use of inventors property."
I'm sorry, was this not you assigning blame? Did I misread that?
Also, feel free to provide evidence to show that "most" defendants in this lose.
"It is interesting that a number of big companies who are routinely found to be in the wrong are associated with TechDIRT, and that may be why TechDIRT Drivel flows freely. "
While I'm not holding my breath for it, feel free to show which companies are 'associated' with TD and the nature of that association. Otherwise, I'll just write this one off as more "RJR Drivel".
And where did your 'knowledge' and expertise come from? Divine impartment… or public education? Or, as seems to be the case, a crackerjack box?
By the way, nice shift of conversation instead of addressing points that are raised. 'Round here in these uneducated parts we call that a Red Herring (or sometimes a straw man). Nice dodge... if I didn't know better (and I don't), I'd almost think you're Anonymous himself.
"Most countries outside the U.S. and Europe lie in a Patent-Free Zone—where companies have not filed patents because they believe there is no market for their goods. So this intellectual property is available to anyone in those nations who can find a use for it."
Sounds like the 'patent holders' are the ones who are ignoring the patent, not the government. It's showing how these emerging markets are flourishing because of the lack of patents.
"If anyone on TechDIRT actually understood economics..."
Raise your hand here if you have a degree that deals in economics and business. Mike? Don't be shy. Here... (raises own hand). Now you won't be alone.
"...they would know that unpatented products and services profit margins drop to the lowest sustainable rate."
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/01/opportunities-in-the-patent-free-zone/
Yeah, look at this horrible situation where innovation cannot happen outside of the patent system. This horrible place where... oh, wait, where innovation is not only booming but a healthy economy exists for technology without innovation. But I guess that's Techcrunch drivel instead of Techdirt drivel.
Oh, my mistake... I mistook you for a valid discussion participant who actually had something to say. Now I see you're here to make ad hominim attacks with no backup of your statements. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
"Inventors with patents have one choice, the law allows them to sue for damages. "
Wrong. Nice false dichotomy, but wrong. see below...
Looks like someone liked our authentic Ristretto for iPad so much that they decided to copy it. This email was forwarded to us by a customer in Norway. Can any of you translate it for us? Our best guess is that this product is made in somewhere in Asia (not Norway) though we don't know for certain. Are we mad? Not really. We're too busy designing the next generation of laptop bags -- the copycats will just have to keep up with us.
-Creator of original product
So, how was that TD drivel?
For a very brief moment, I mistook you for someone who had something intelligent to say. Again, thank you for showing me that talking to you is a waste of my time... a waste that won't continue after this. Don’t worry about responding to my questions, I’m sure the answers would be little more than further, baseless attacks with no evidence or insightful comment.
On the post: Homeland Security Strapping GPS Devices To Indian Students Victimized By Scam
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Senator Wyden Asks WTF Is Up With Homeland Security Domain Seizures
Hey, Anonymous...
Yeah, that creaking sound? That's the foundation of DHS/ICE's actions weakening and falling out from underneath them.
On the post: Katie Couric And Bryant Gumbel Discover The Internet
Re: About?!?!
On the post: Katie Couric And Bryant Gumbel Discover The Internet
Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At_sign#History
On the post: Katie Couric And Bryant Gumbel Discover The Internet
Re: I loved this...
You jelly, AOL?
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. Interesting, but stupid. The Bill of Rights are the Amendments. The first 10, in fact. The whole purpose of an amendment is to change and existing thing. So, the fact that the Amendments came later could (and should) be taken that they are more important than the first part because they are fixing or modifying something that someone (you know.. the founding fathers, our elected representatives) felt needed to be fixed.
So, by the very definition of "amendment", the Bill of Rights does trump copyright law.
On the post: Homeland Security Domain Seizures Raise More Questions: Is Embedding A Video Criminal Infringement?
Re: Re: Re:
And why is your opinion on the matter any more relevant than Mike's?
But guess what... as has been pointed out, the NFL doesn't create the law. They can say "or any other use" all they want... just like the carwash down the street can say "we're not responsible for damage to your car or antenna"... but guess what, they are.
So, while I'm sure your reality is a fun place full of cupcakes and joy, here in the real world, just saying something doesn't make it so.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re:
I look at this article as a genuine question of consequence for actions taken... I don't feel that it's trying to whip up any support for one cause or another by throwing out outlandish claims that are not supported by evidence. So if you feel it's FUD (which is your opinion and you're welcome to it), why do you feel the need to come in here and sling the word around? What is accomplished?
If anything, I'd say the fact that you come here and scream "FUD" any time this blog (which is an expression of one person's opinion anyway) poses a hypothetical (yet relevant to the subject of the blog) question... well, you're the one creating FUD by trying to discredit Mike.
"You can't trust TechDirt! Look at all that false info! LIES I SAY!!! Look at Masnick trying to garner support for [whichever agend you feel he supports]!"
Sounds like FUD to me.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: 5 of my clients have moved their websites off shore
Wait-wait-wait... let me make sure I have this right. The US government, who you claim is on the side of Copyright and against piracy, has a plan to move pirates out of the country...
and therefore completely out of their jurisdiction, thus making them immune from any action whatsoever by the US Government?
Great plan.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Faulty Reasoning.
The point of the patent is not to teach others what to do with an idea. And even if you want to allow the fact that the practice of a patent is to teach others to help get an innovation or invention to market, that CERTAINLY does not address the fact that these litigators who sit on patents and don't teach others... who sit on them and wait until someone tries to do work on their own and then sue them... are not teaching anything.
Let's take RIM for example... Where's the teaching from the owner of the (still, dubiously broad) patent who did nothing with it except keep it in a drawer, who then sued the first person who actually did the work on the same idea? I don't really care if you believe that RIM had the idea independently or if they somehow magically gleaned it from the owner's head... it's irrelevant to this conversation. If the point of a patent is to teach, where is that exemplified in this scenario? Who taught whom?... other than the lesson of the Patent Troll.
So, again, the point of a patent is to grant sole control… the ideal practice of a patent is to use that control to teach others to help get product/idea to market… but we see deliberate action against that ideal because it seems to be far more lucrative to use the control to sue people instead of innovate. Again, this is against your teaching ideal.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Faulty Reasoning.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "theft" of an idea
Troll on, good sir… troll on.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Wild West - Transnational Corp Style
"Fault for the necessary to litigate lies completely with companies who act as if they have an inalienable right to to "innovate" through unauthorized use of inventors property."
I'm sorry, was this not you assigning blame? Did I misread that?
Also, feel free to provide evidence to show that "most" defendants in this lose.
While I'm not holding my breath for it, feel free to show which companies are 'associated' with TD and the nature of that association. Otherwise, I'll just write this one off as more "RJR Drivel".
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: "theft" of an idea
By the way, nice shift of conversation instead of addressing points that are raised. 'Round here in these uneducated parts we call that a Red Herring (or sometimes a straw man). Nice dodge... if I didn't know better (and I don't), I'd almost think you're Anonymous himself.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: Wild West - Transnational Corp Style
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101205/23343312139/us-messenger-bag-company-discovers-cop ycats-asia-says-well-keep-innovating-theyll-have-to-keep-up.shtml
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: Re: Re: "theft" of an idea
"Most countries outside the U.S. and Europe lie in a Patent-Free Zone—where companies have not filed patents because they believe there is no market for their goods. So this intellectual property is available to anyone in those nations who can find a use for it."
Sounds like the 'patent holders' are the ones who are ignoring the patent, not the government. It's showing how these emerging markets are flourishing because of the lack of patents.
It illustrates a point counter to that of RJR.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: "theft" of an idea
Raise your hand here if you have a degree that deals in economics and business. Mike? Don't be shy. Here... (raises own hand). Now you won't be alone.
http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/01/opportunities-in-the-patent-free-zone/
Yeah, look at this horrible situation where innovation cannot happen outside of the patent system. This horrible place where... oh, wait, where innovation is not only booming but a healthy economy exists for technology without innovation. But I guess that's Techcrunch drivel instead of Techdirt drivel.
On the post: Lead Inventor On One Of The Patents Paul Allen Is Suing Over Worries About Litigation Over Innovation
Re: TechDIRT Drivel
Wrong. Nice false dichotomy, but wrong. see below...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101205/23343312139/us-messenger-bag-company-discovers-cop ycats-asia-says-well-keep-innovating-theyll-have-to-keep-up.shtml
So, how was that TD drivel?
For a very brief moment, I mistook you for someone who had something intelligent to say. Again, thank you for showing me that talking to you is a waste of my time... a waste that won't continue after this. Don’t worry about responding to my questions, I’m sure the answers would be little more than further, baseless attacks with no evidence or insightful comment.
Next >>