I wonder when Paypal will get big enough to say "all right you credit card companies, we're going to keep doing business with the smutty bookstore, so raise your hand if you want us not to accept your card any more".
...And I wonder how we'll route around it when it's that big.
There is a third possibility: you could give a response that actually makes valid points (and please, be concise). If you can't do that, you shouldn't be posting at all.
(P.S. don't use the phrase "Catch-22" any more-- it doesn't mean what you think it means.)
Point 1: "...the author focused on just new allowances. What is glaringly missing, however, is data concerning those applications in the backlog queue that were not passed to issue."
I have to admit, that's a good point (albeit made too verbosely) . The first few lines of Mike Masnick's article refer to the number of patents granted, but not the acceptance frequency (and not to the worth of the granted patents, which is harder to quantify). I don't know whether the YLJR article contains the same weak argument.
Point 2: "He talked at length about what he perceived as problems associated with CAFC panels... It would have been nice... had he mentioned that this is the same process employed by the Circuit Courts of Appeal. It makes it seem as if the latter pass his jurisprudential muster, whereas the latter[sic] does not."
I presume you meant "the former". And who cares? What is your point? And are you so tangled up in your own patronizing and long-winded prose that you can't keep "latter/former" straight?
Point 3: "Patent law is not defined exclusively by the Title 35. The statutory provisions are, of course, the primary source of law, but an equally important consideration is [blah blah blah ad hominem blah]"
This is not the bar exam; please stay on topic. The kindest interpretation I can give to this point is that you are criticizing the author for not exploring the mechanism by which the USPTO evolves toward slack reviews. If that's your point, it's extremely weak.
Point 4: "...The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Section 101 was intended by Congress to be broadly construed, and ... the CAFC must do the same."
Which doesn't actually address either of the quoted points. Whether or not the interpretation should be broad, the point is that the CAFC is in such a position that they may only broaden it.
Point 5: "Oh, and on a final note, [284 words of irrelevant text, mostly cut and pasted from another source]"
I'd love to plot some curves for these companies, especially total salary paid to engineers, lawyers and executives over time, along with quarterly earnings and indicators for initiating patent lawsuits.
Am I leaving anything out? Political contributions? HQ building size? Stock price?
Never ascribe to large testicles what can adequately be explained by a small brain. The supervisor probably went sprinting to the rep's desk a few seconds later, yelling "Don't tell HIM that!"
1) Somebody at the SS notices phishing form, goes all Eliot Ness without understanding the whole interweb thing, makes a couple of phone calls.
2) GoDaddy folds like jackknife.
3) JotForm calls GoDaddy, GoDaddy passes buck back to the SS.
4) Phone rings on desk of the agent nominally in charge of this kind of thing. She has never heard of JotForm, doesn't know why it was shut down, but must save face: "I have to review the case; I'll get back to you in a few days."
5) She hangs up, looks over case, confirms gross overreaction, sets wheels in motion to lift embargo with no admission of ineptitude by SS. (Identifies underling responsible, makes note on calendar to tear said underling a new one.)
In this case it took only a few days, not a year. That's progress, I suppose.
To be fair, it's not that Google Search has a monopoly, it's just that Google Search dominates the market, and makes Google Maps more useful, thereby helping Google Maps to prosper in its own market.
The court considers this situation intolerable, but any particular way of "improving" it will probably be unsatisfactory if it doesn't work and illegal if it does.
Even if I had been calling the uprising a fluke, your response would still have been inappropriate. Please don't post here again until you have that straight.
Are you serious? We should have a lobby because "unlike the Internet, [lobbies] are something politicians understand"???
Politicians who don't understand the internet -- but still want to pass legislation on it -- should not be given treats, they should be given their walking papers in the next election. Then I think you'll be amazed at what the survivors can understand.
Since the January protests I've lost a lot of respect for arguments based on conventional political wisdom. But the assumption some people seem to be making is that it's still valid somehow, that way things were done before is the only way that works, that the current uprising against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA is just a temporary fluke, that we'll soon lose our resolve, that we can't mark our calendars and follow through. If that's true then we deserve whatever the **AA and their ilk decide to put around our necks.
"Explain to me why the blood sweat and tears I put into my album should NOT be considered a valuable resource, and anyone should be able to download it for free without my consent."
That's two questions. You consider your blood, sweat and tears valuable; I care only about the things you create with them. As for downloading without your consent-- why shouldn't I be able to? Let's try this: you sit in the park playing your precious song, and you demand that if I don't drop some coins in your guitar case I must cover my ears as I walk by, because after all you have the right to your song. I will not be impressed by your argument, I will not owe you money even if I like the song, and I will not give a tinker's cuss how much effort you poured into the writing of it.
I mostly agree with AC on this one, but maybe we can clear it up a little with... logic.
I own this teapot. Legally I may use it, transport it or smash it; no one else may do so without my permission. Someone could take it from me, either by stealth ("stealing") or force ("robbery"), but that would be illegal. I can transfer these rights to another if I wish. Everyone seems to agree that this can be called "property". (The propertiness of a teapot does not depend on the price of tea.)
I own this land. I may walk around on it, or build on it. No one else may do so without my permission; to do so without my permission would be trespassing, and illegal. I can transfer these rights to another. I suppose someone could take these rights from me by falsifying documents-- I don't even know what that would be called. Everyone agrees that this land is my "property", (regardless of the fact that walking is free).
I own 1000 shares of Union Carbide. I can't show them to you, because they're non-physical. Transporting them is a meaningless concept. I suppose they could be taken illegally, like land. They give me dividends, and the right to vote within the company. Everyone agrees: "property", (even when the shares pay no dividends).
I am a citizen, and therefore have a vote in public elections. Non-physical. I cannot transfer this right to another. My vote is mine, but nobody calls this "property".
I own this copy of "The Tempest", by Shakespeare. It's a physical book (or part of one). It's like the teapot: I may read it, burn it, sell it, make copies of it, whatever. Property.
I own this copy of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. It's like "The Tempest", except that I may not copy it (but it's still mine, just as the teapot would still be mine if tea were banned). Property.
I have copyright on The Horse Thieves. I can show you a copy of the novel, but the novel itself is non-physical. I may make copies of the novel and sell them, but no one else may do so without my permission. To do so is infringement, and I suppose the right could be taken from me illegally, just like the shares of stock or the right to vote. (And to call infringement "theft" or "copyright theft" is just inaccurate, either careless or deceitful.)
So should a copyright be called "property"? Lawyers may have a technical answer, and others may want it talked about a certain way, but personally I think that it's not property if it can't be transferred at will. I don't think copyright can be (really not a lawyer) so the concept of property doesn't apply (and whether a novel can be copied cheaply has nothing at all to do with it).
Is there anything a U.S. citizen can do to offer support and show solidarity, apart from speaking out against ACTA (which I'm already doing), and getting on a plane to join the crowd in whatever part of Europe I'd most like to visit (which might be inappropriate, considering that it's supposed to express European opposition)?
I didn't think of Fahrenheit 451(*), but I got a mental image of a secret cabal preserving forbidden texts until the day they could be revealed, which led me straight to the last scene of The Lorax and a line beautifully delivered by John Hurt in "1984": "April the 4th, 1984. To the past, or to the future. To an age when thought is free. From the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man... greetings."
(*) note use of italics to indicate book title and double-quotes for film title /grammarNazi
On the post: Paypal Pressured To Play Morality Cop And Forces Smashwords To Censor Authors
balance of power
...And I wonder how we'll route around it when it's that big.
On the post: How The Patent System Is Rigged To Only Expand What's Patentable
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
(P.S. don't use the phrase "Catch-22" any more-- it doesn't mean what you think it means.)
On the post: How The Patent System Is Rigged To Only Expand What's Patentable
Re: Re: Re:
"...the author focused on just new allowances. What is glaringly missing, however, is data concerning those applications in the backlog queue that were not passed to issue."
I have to admit, that's a good point (albeit made too verbosely) . The first few lines of Mike Masnick's article refer to the number of patents granted, but not the acceptance frequency (and not to the worth of the granted patents, which is harder to quantify). I don't know whether the YLJR article contains the same weak argument.
Point 2:
"He talked at length about what he perceived as problems associated with CAFC panels... It would have been nice... had he mentioned that this is the same process employed by the Circuit Courts of Appeal. It makes it seem as if the latter pass his jurisprudential muster, whereas the latter[sic] does not."
I presume you meant "the former". And who cares? What is your point? And are you so tangled up in your own patronizing and long-winded prose that you can't keep "latter/former" straight?
Point 3:
"Patent law is not defined exclusively by the Title 35. The statutory provisions are, of course, the primary source of law, but an equally important consideration is [blah blah blah ad hominem blah]"
This is not the bar exam; please stay on topic. The kindest interpretation I can give to this point is that you are criticizing the author for not exploring the mechanism by which the USPTO evolves toward slack reviews. If that's your point, it's extremely weak.
Point 4:
"...The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Section 101 was intended by Congress to be broadly construed, and ... the CAFC must do the same."
Which doesn't actually address either of the quoted points. Whether or not the interpretation should be broad, the point is that the CAFC is in such a position that they may only broaden it.
Point 5:
"Oh, and on a final note, [284 words of irrelevant text, mostly cut and pasted from another source]"
You're paid by the word, aren't you?
On the post: Yahoo Going Patent Troll: Threatens Facebook Over Patent Infringement
experiment
Am I leaving anything out? Political contributions? HQ building size? Stock price?
On the post: Yahoo Going Patent Troll: Threatens Facebook Over Patent Infringement
Re: blame patents, not yahoo
On the post: Artist Sues Sony Music Because Her Artwork Appears In The Background Of A Music Video
The question is...
On the post: Do You Need Permission To Take A Photo With A Chair In It? You Might In France...
unintended consequences
On the post: Be Afraid: Russia And China Seek To Put In Place Top-Down Regulation Of The Internet
Re:
On the post: Streaming Rights On Whitney Houston Movie NOT Pulled In Order To 'Make Really A Large Amount Of Money On DVD Sales' [Updated]
Re:
On the post: US Returns JotForm.com Domain; Still Refuses To Say What Happened
Never ascribe to malice...
1) Somebody at the SS notices phishing form, goes all Eliot Ness without understanding the whole interweb thing, makes a couple of phone calls.
2) GoDaddy folds like jackknife.
3) JotForm calls GoDaddy, GoDaddy passes buck back to the SS.
4) Phone rings on desk of the agent nominally in charge of this kind of thing. She has never heard of JotForm, doesn't know why it was shut down, but must save face: "I have to review the case; I'll get back to you in a few days."
5) She hangs up, looks over case, confirms gross overreaction, sets wheels in motion to lift embargo with no admission of ineptitude by SS. (Identifies underling responsible, makes note on calendar to tear said underling a new one.)
In this case it took only a few days, not a year. That's progress, I suppose.
On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
Re: Re:
The court considers this situation intolerable, but any particular way of "improving" it will probably be unsatisfactory if it doesn't work and illegal if it does.
On the post: French Court Fails Digital Economics; Claims Free Google Maps Is Illegal
Re: Re:
...And oh, the unintended consequences...
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: change the game back?
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: change the game back?
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: change the game back?
Politicians who don't understand the internet -- but still want to pass legislation on it -- should not be given treats, they should be given their walking papers in the next election. Then I think you'll be amazed at what the survivors can understand.
Since the January protests I've lost a lot of respect for arguments based on conventional political wisdom. But the assumption some people seem to be making is that it's still valid somehow, that way things were done before is the only way that works, that the current uprising against SOPA/PIPA/ACTA is just a temporary fluke, that we'll soon lose our resolve, that we can't mark our calendars and follow through. If that's true then we deserve whatever the **AA and their ilk decide to put around our necks.
On the post: Mighty Buzzard's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
change the game back?
We've just won a major battle without one. Are you sure lobbies are still the best way to fight?
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
Re: Re: Re:
That's two questions. You consider your blood, sweat and tears valuable; I care only about the things you create with them. As for downloading without your consent-- why shouldn't I be able to? Let's try this: you sit in the park playing your precious song, and you demand that if I don't drop some coins in your guitar case I must cover my ears as I walk by, because after all you have the right to your song. I will not be impressed by your argument, I will not owe you money even if I like the song, and I will not give a tinker's cuss how much effort you poured into the writing of it.
On the post: RIAA Totally Out Of Touch: Lashes Out At Google, Wikipedia And Everyone Who Protested SOPA/PIPA
IANAL (BIASTFLO)
I own this teapot. Legally I may use it, transport it or smash it; no one else may do so without my permission. Someone could take it from me, either by stealth ("stealing") or force ("robbery"), but that would be illegal. I can transfer these rights to another if I wish. Everyone seems to agree that this can be called "property". (The propertiness of a teapot does not depend on the price of tea.)
I own this land. I may walk around on it, or build on it. No one else may do so without my permission; to do so without my permission would be trespassing, and illegal. I can transfer these rights to another. I suppose someone could take these rights from me by falsifying documents-- I don't even know what that would be called. Everyone agrees that this land is my "property", (regardless of the fact that walking is free).
I own 1000 shares of Union Carbide. I can't show them to you, because they're non-physical. Transporting them is a meaningless concept. I suppose they could be taken illegally, like land. They give me dividends, and the right to vote within the company. Everyone agrees: "property", (even when the shares pay no dividends).
I am a citizen, and therefore have a vote in public elections. Non-physical. I cannot transfer this right to another. My vote is mine, but nobody calls this "property".
I own this copy of "The Tempest", by Shakespeare. It's a physical book (or part of one). It's like the teapot: I may read it, burn it, sell it, make copies of it, whatever. Property.
I own this copy of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. It's like "The Tempest", except that I may not copy it (but it's still mine, just as the teapot would still be mine if tea were banned). Property.
I have copyright on The Horse Thieves. I can show you a copy of the novel, but the novel itself is non-physical. I may make copies of the novel and sell them, but no one else may do so without my permission. To do so is infringement, and I suppose the right could be taken from me illegally, just like the shares of stock or the right to vote. (And to call infringement "theft" or "copyright theft" is just inaccurate, either careless or deceitful.)
So should a copyright be called "property"? Lawyers may have a technical answer, and others may want it talked about a certain way, but personally I think that it's not property if it can't be transferred at will. I don't think copyright can be (really not a lawyer) so the concept of property doesn't apply (and whether a novel can be copied cheaply has nothing at all to do with it).
On the post: Watch Out: Widespread Protests Against ACTA Spreading Across Europe
RAH, RAH, RAH!
On the post: Why Piracy Is Indispensable For The Survival Of Our Culture
Re:
(*) note use of italics to indicate book title and double-quotes for film title /grammarNazi
Next >>