Begins on page 25 of Steven's opinion. From page 26: "As the Court has explained, “Congress agreed with Jefferson . . . that the courts should develop additional conditions for patentability.” Graham, 383 U. S., at 10. Thus “[a]lthough the Patent Act was amended, revised or codified some 50 times between 1790 and 1950, Congress steered clear” of adding statutory requirements of patentability. Ibid. For nearly 160 years, Congress retained the term “useful arts,” see, e.g., Act of July 4, 1836, ch. 357, 5 Stat. 117, leaving “wide latitude for judicial construction . . . to keep pacewith industrial development,” Berman, Method Claims, 17 J. Pat. Off. Soc. 713, 714 (1935) (hereinafter Berman)."
Long Sea Vovage Business Method Never Patented - Be the First!
I like this paragraph from Steven's opinion:
"Also noteworthy is what was not patented under the English system. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Great Britain saw innovations in business organization, business models, management techniques,19 and novel solutions to the challenges of operating global firms in which subordinate managers could be reached only by a long sea voyage. Few if any of these methods of conducting business were patented." (emphasis added)
Steven's remarks highlights how the scope of what people believe can be patented has been stretched to the point of absurdity and to the fact that progress can still be achieved without the "benefit" of so-called patent protection.
If ASCAP wants to mobilize to "protect" copyright, then it logically follows that the Creative Commons, the EFF, and Public Knowledge have an equal right to fight back.
Over the years copyright has expanded in both breadth and scope. Organizations such as ASCAP never seem to be satisfied with this "favorable" trend. So if organization such as ASCAP can change the law to favor them, there is nothing wrong with "copyleft" trying to restore copyright to its original intent or even abolishing copyright.
You pointed previously pointed out the do-not-call list. The concept can be expanded. Essentially, I don't have a problem with "regulation" that serves a public purpose, such as stopping spammers.
Unfortunately in this country many people seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to intrude to the point of irritation to make a sale. Furthermore, when the word "regulation" is uttered everyone dumps on you for advocating intrusive government regulation and whining that "regulations" don't work.
We need to have an acknowledgment that people do not have a right to accost you for purposes of making a sale. We live in an imperfect world. We need to balance civility and regulation to assure that people are not imposed upon by salespeople. After all, if they can impose on you shouldn't you have a right to impose on them?
To throw in an "extreme" position, if the government is not allowed to protect us through regulation and the the salesperson won't stop pestering me, then I should have the right to shoot him!!!
Your welcome. The video for the Kogan Protector clearly demonstrates that creativity exists and will be produced by people without any assistance from copyright.
nasch, you wrote "You know that's a joke, right?" I will let you ponder on that. Since many people claim that intellectual property is need to promote the generation of products and content, why would anyone waste time preparing an ad that costs time and money if they did not have a real product to sell? I hope that you are not implying that those who developed the Kogan Protector are clueless idiots. After all patents and copyright promote innovation.
Your missing the point. This is not about persons who have an intent of breaking and entering in order to steal something. This about preventing those who feel that they can accost you anywhere and at anytime to present a commercial message; like the the emails and pop-up ads for viagra. People (corporations)should have enough civility not to force a sales pitch on you and you should not have to buy protection for this type of abuse.
You demonstrate my point that there is a place for regulation so that you did not have to pay protection money for a commercial product. You wrote "If you're talking about phone calls, then I'm happy to say there's a government program in the US that actually works. Seriously! It's called the Do Not Call Registry. You sign your phone number up and telemarketers aren't allowed to call you."
Junk mail is not outside the scope of this discussion, since the discussion concerns preventing unwanted intrusions. The video clearly demonstrates that throwing a physical object, such as a can of spam easily bounces off the Kogan Protector. Why not place it on your mail box?
Yes, there will always be situations were government will not be able to solve an "intrusion" problem. In fact your ability to view a lot of stuff on the internet is dependent on accepting the advertising being thrown at yet you. In fact there are even programs that can disable some advertising.
You must be oblivious to the junk mail, telemarketing calls, viagra emails, lottery winning emails, that you receive including dubious ads for virus protection, and spyware protection.
No, no one is "forcing" you to buy anything, the point you are missing is that companies believe they can intrude into your personal space, call you during dinner, use your valuable time in the name of selling you garbage. Note that I am not using the word "fraud". Do you believe that everyone has a right to interrupt you at their whim to sell you stuff? If you don't like it, that you have to pay for "protection".
Mike's comment "See, Conroy? No regulations needed... " raises a pro-regulation concept that tends to be overlooked. While this is a humorous spoof, it still raises the issue of why should we have to BUY a product to protect ourselves?
If companies/individuals are not ethical enough to control their avarice and the product clearly appears phony, regulatory action would then be justified. We pay taxes for a reason. Under the mantra of "less regulation" why should we be "forced" to pay a protection tax to a company (your local mob affiliate) for protection.
In a supposedly free-market economy how can a private entity force a third party to "spy" on the third party's customers and deprive the third party customers of internet access simply because the customer does something the private entity doesn't want?
Seems that we are continuing down the path of having laws that are of, by, and for the corporations.
The reason that newspapers, such as the New York Times, do not link to outside sources has to do with creating a "proprietary channel", or customer lock-in.
This approach has become a major business practice, look at companies that seek to lock their customers into their product lines. Apple uses a proprietary USB connector and makes it difficult for the user to really have open inter-connectivity. Newspapers, by only providing "internal" links, are essentially mimicking the practice limiting choice for the purpose of locking the consumer into their product universe.
Don't want your name tarnished, then don't go slumming. This company did not have to dip into the cesspool of "pre-settlement" agreements. What ever happened to responsible behavior. Maybe TBI could make amends by going after Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law. After all the law isn't supposed to be about extortion.
A depressing "big picture" aspect of this story is that the government (local,state,federal) are now experimenting with using copyright to lock content for revenue enhancement. The whole purpose of tax funded public education is to educate our citizens. Now education is to be used as a profit center?
Dark Helmet beat me to "international norms". As an add on, what about the consumers rights? Seems that the discussion of international treaty obligations and international norms is based on the faulty premise that only the content creators have any so-called "rights". The reality is that the content creators have been lobbying the government(s) to continue to strip the consumer of their rights. So - until the consumer is stripped of all rights; existing law is out of "norm" and unjust? Give me a break.
Verizon Website Verizon's worry free guarantee."Why Buy Online: Your information is kept private and secure."
Verizon Privacy Policy "Protecting our customers' privacy is an important priority at Verizon. We are committed to maintaining strong and meaningful privacy protections for customers." I can't resist this one jab which makes their privacy policy a joke. "Verizon shares customer information across our family of companies for marketing purposes unless you advise us not to." So you actually have to advise Verizon that you want your information protected!!!!!!!!
"Outside the Verizon Family of Companies: Except in certain circumstances explained in our privacy policy, Verizon does not sell, license or share information that individually identifies our customers with others outside of Verizon for non-Verizon purposes without your consent."
Once again supposed guarantees made by the corporate world are nothing more than hot air.
On the post: Music Licensing Firm Offers Cheap Licenses For YouTube Videos
The potential scam
On the post: Second Thoughts On Bilski: Could Another Case Get A Direct Ruling On Business Method Patentability?
A bit more complicated
"As the Court has explained, “Congress agreed with Jefferson . . . that the courts should develop additional conditions for patentability.” Graham, 383 U. S., at 10. Thus “[a]lthough the Patent Act was amended, revised or codified some 50 times between 1790 and 1950, Congress steered clear” of adding statutory requirements of patentability. Ibid. For nearly 160 years, Congress retained the term “useful arts,” see, e.g., Act of July 4, 1836, ch. 357, 5 Stat. 117, leaving “wide latitude for judicial construction . . . to keep pacewith industrial development,” Berman, Method Claims, 17 J. Pat. Off. Soc. 713, 714 (1935) (hereinafter Berman)."
On the post: Second Thoughts On Bilski: Could Another Case Get A Direct Ruling On Business Method Patentability?
Long Sea Vovage Business Method Never Patented - Be the First!
"Also noteworthy is what was not patented under the English system. During the 17th and 18th centuries, Great Britain saw innovations in business organization, business models, management techniques,19 and novel solutions to the challenges of operating global firms in which subordinate managers could be reached only by a long sea voyage. Few if any of these methods of conducting business were patented." (emphasis added)
Steven's remarks highlights how the scope of what people believe can be patented has been stretched to the point of absurdity and to the fact that progress can still be achieved without the "benefit" of so-called patent protection.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Equal Rights
Over the years copyright has expanded in both breadth and scope. Organizations such as ASCAP never seem to be satisfied with this "favorable" trend. So if organization such as ASCAP can change the law to favor them, there is nothing wrong with "copyleft" trying to restore copyright to its original intent or even abolishing copyright.
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
Unfortunately in this country many people seem to think that it is perfectly acceptable to intrude to the point of irritation to make a sale. Furthermore, when the word "regulation" is uttered everyone dumps on you for advocating intrusive government regulation and whining that "regulations" don't work.
We need to have an acknowledgment that people do not have a right to accost you for purposes of making a sale. We live in an imperfect world. We need to balance civility and regulation to assure that people are not imposed upon by salespeople. After all, if they can impose on you shouldn't you have a right to impose on them?
To throw in an "extreme" position, if the government is not allowed to protect us through regulation and the the salesperson won't stop pestering me, then I should have the right to shoot him!!!
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
Junk mail is not outside the scope of this discussion, since the discussion concerns preventing unwanted intrusions. The video clearly demonstrates that throwing a physical object, such as a can of spam easily bounces off the Kogan Protector. Why not place it on your mail box?
Yes, there will always be situations were government will not be able to solve an "intrusion" problem. In fact your ability to view a lot of stuff on the internet is dependent on accepting the advertising being thrown at yet you. In fact there are even programs that can disable some advertising.
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Re: Re: Unexplored Issues
No, no one is "forcing" you to buy anything, the point you are missing is that companies believe they can intrude into your personal space, call you during dinner, use your valuable time in the name of selling you garbage. Note that I am not using the word "fraud". Do you believe that everyone has a right to interrupt you at their whim to sell you stuff? If you don't like it, that you have to pay for "protection".
On the post: Help Has Arrived For Australians Worried About 'Spams & Scams' Coming Through The Portal
Unexplored Issues
If companies/individuals are not ethical enough to control their avarice and the product clearly appears phony, regulatory action would then be justified. We pay taxes for a reason. Under the mantra of "less regulation" why should we be "forced" to pay a protection tax to a company (your local mob affiliate) for protection.
On the post: Major Labels Begin Major Astroturfing Campaign To Get 3 Strikes In The US
Abuse of Due Process
Seems that we are continuing down the path of having laws that are of, by, and for the corporations.
On the post: How The NY Times Hides Behind Copyright Law To Hoard Information And Weaken Its Journalism
Its the Proprietary Channel
This approach has become a major business practice, look at companies that seek to lock their customers into their product lines. Apple uses a proprietary USB connector and makes it difficult for the user to really have open inter-connectivity. Newspapers, by only providing "internal" links, are essentially mimicking the practice limiting choice for the purpose of locking the consumer into their product universe.
On the post: Lawyers Who Tried To Get Into The Mass 'Pre-Settlement' Game Threaten Wordpress
How about ethical Behavior
On the post: Top Public School Signs Multi-Million Dollar Deal To Copyright & Sell Its Curriculum
Copyright Bastardization
On the post: IFPI Complains That Canada's New Copyright Bill Not Draconian Enough
Re: Okay...
On the post: Verizon Handing Over Names For US Copyright Group's Mass Automated Lawsuits
Re: The best part...
Verizon Privacy Policy "Protecting our customers' privacy is an important priority at Verizon. We are committed to maintaining strong and meaningful privacy protections for customers." I can't resist this one jab which makes their privacy policy a joke. "Verizon shares customer information across our family of companies for marketing purposes unless you advise us not to." So you actually have to advise Verizon that you want your information protected!!!!!!!!
"Outside the Verizon Family of Companies: Except in certain circumstances explained in our privacy policy, Verizon does not sell, license or share information that individually identifies our customers with others outside of Verizon for non-Verizon purposes without your consent."
Once again supposed guarantees made by the corporate world are nothing more than hot air.
Next >>