This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, so I don't think that consumer confusion is relevant. I think the only thing that Lucas would have to prove is whether the laser infringes on his copyright. This angle isn't without its own issues, but as far as I understand, consumer confusion isn't a criteria for copyright infringement.
You say that my mistake is that I assume that "for innovation to occur you need to have an original idea..." Of course I do, and of course I am correct.
You're both right. I believe you're using the dictionary definition of "innovation", which just requires a "new idea", whereas Mike (and others) make a distinction between invention (a completely new idea) and innovation ("ideas applied successfully in practice").
Of course open source limits innovation. If everyone were just reinventing the wheel we would only have a reinvented wheel, not any advance.
Wait, what does open source have to do with reinventing? You imply that the fact that open source limits innovation is self evident, yet your supporting analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with open source, at least not as far as I can tell.
Re: for innovation to occur you need to have an original idea,
I'm reminded of Emerson's phrase 'build a better mousetrap' - Mousetraps already exist , but they're all a bit unsatisfactory - make a BETTER one and the world will beat a path to your door
Ha! I like this. Very "insighful". The modern version of this would be "Build a better mousetrap and you'll get sued by the patent holder of the original mousetrap."
(So, you can mark a post as "insightful" but no one else can see this or even how many times it's been marked?"
Edison did not just take a pre-esisting light bulb, give it a few tweaks, and market the heck out of it
Based on the "invented by others" link in the article, it sounds like this is exactly what Edison did. Do you have a link to one of these "various journals" that contradicts this point? (BTW, I'm no Edison expert, so I honestly don't know the answer to this, but if you're going to contradict information in a provided link, you should probably provide a link of your own.)
then crafted several thousand experiments (most report somewhere in the order of about 10,000) until he finally hit on the right combination of elements for a workable/reliable bulb.
Ah, but this is exactly the point Mike was making, that Edison didn't invent the lightbuld, but that he instead copied an existing idea and made it "workable/reliable". In trying to contradict him, you've actually provided a great example of Mike's idea of the distinction between invention and innovation.
I think that when you are put on something as major as a list that means you cannot fly those on the list should be told why they are on the list and have some recourse for getting off the list
Agreed. In fact, I think this is the key distinction between this situation and your run-of-the-mill national security issue. I have no idea of there is a legal foundation for this opinion, but I think that because these people are being restricted from a certain activity, instead of just trying to get the government to divulge information it has on them, the government should not be able to invoke national security. If the no-fly list were instead used by some government agency to monitor people's travel, this would be a passive action and should be covered by the national security justification. But because it's an active action, preventing flying on a commercial plane, I think it should be treated the same as being accused of a crime i.e. the Sixth Amendment should apply.
They're arguing they have a constitutional right to fly and I don't know if you do.
I believe that the argument is based the constitutional right to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (Sixth Amendment) rather that a specific "right to fly".
Ah, but is it troll feeding if the original poster was actually serious? Sometimes it's hard to tell if the ridiculous statements by IP maximalists are intentional or not.
it is absolutely insane to think that a copyright holder can afford the staff required to monitor literally an infinite amount of cyberspace to look for offending materials, and then be forced to take (often expensive) actions to have that content removed.
It's far less "insane" than requiring the service provider to pay for a staff to monitor an infinite amount of cyberspace to look for offending materials. Who better to determine if something infringes than the rights holder? A common TechDirt story is how the rights holders don't even know what is infringing. If they can't even determine this, how can the service provider be reasonably expected to do so?
Why should the victim be held responsible for making sure they are not caused further damage in the future?
... The grant of a copyright or a trademark is the grant of a monopoly on a certain class of information, a grant that itself comes with inherent economic inefficiencies in the service of encouraging overall social value--encouraging investment in creative works.
Here's another example of why it's important to distinguish "theft" from "infringement". If IP were really property, then it would not make sense to hold the victim responsible the preventing the damage caused by theft. But because IP is not property, but a limited right granted to a party for the overall benefit to society, it makes perfect sense to view enforcement of that right in the context of the overall benefit (and cost) to society. This issue is only confusing if you mistakenly view IP as property which can be "stolen".
Also, shouldn't it be the principle of most cost avoidance?
what consumers really want is something different than is being provided, and the responsibility is on the content creator to better provide consumers what they want
Since this conscisely describes a recurring theme on TechDirt, I think that it should be part of a TechDirt Frequently Asked Questions list, maybe as part of a "What is RtB?" entry. Instead of responding to people in the comments section over and over with the same explanation about why infringement isn't the same thing as theft and how much of piracy is a business model problem, etc, it'd be nice to just point to a FAQ entry. "Why do people illegally download movies from the Internet? Well, much of it is because it's far more convenient that the legal alternatives. See 'What is RtB?' in the TD FAQ for more details."
their search should be entirely independant of the influence of other parts of their company
Why? What is the justification for this idea? Google is free to define their algorithms any way they want. If they want to remove every page that has the word "bing" in it from their results and not tell anyone, then that's completely up to them. If you don't like the results that Google gives you, you're free to go somewhere else for your search.
I don't see market dominance by itself to be the key factor in the definition of a monopoly. It's using your market dominance to remove consumer choice that makes a monopoly, not your market dominace itself. For example, having 91% of the OS market: OK. Telling OEMs that you have to install and pay for Windows on every computer you sell regardless of whether it has Windows on it: not OK.
As for Google, I have no idea how the search engine can be seen to be monopolistic. Google isn't twisting people's arms to use their search engine. They're not using dirty tricks against their competitors. The consumer has the choice to use other search engines. It just so happens that Google is a damn good search engine, so that's what most people use. Google is free to use whatever algorithms they want. If AT&T doesn't like it, then they're free to develop their own search engine.
I have no doubt that some people in the US government watched the Iranian protests with unbridled glee, hoping that the government would fall. And, to be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that the CIA or some other government agency tried to encourage the protests. But even "fueled" by is too strong a word. I honestly believe that in the heart-of-hearts of most of the protesters was true outrage over the perceived theft of the election. If "The West" fueled this in any way, it wasn't directly through some secret ops, but moreso indirectly by making communication tools available that allowed the citizens to see what happens outside their country and to organize protests about the things happening inside of it.
No it isn't. Nor would I deny the courage and integrity of the pawns in the Red October revolution, just those that were moving the pieces around....
You might say it's splitting hairs, but there is a big distinction between doing a disservice to something and denying something. By suggesting that the protesters were manipulated by outside forces into protesting, you're effectively saying that while they may be courageous and have integrity, they're not too bright. This is the disservice.
I think they were trying more for the, "we're susceptible to getting fucked with because we're the good, fair guys being picked on by the neighborhood bully".
I don't know. Totalitarian governments are all about control and by publisizing that you have so little control of your people that the entire country can be disrupted by other countries, your control is undermined.
Frankly, I'm not so sure they're wrong....
Wait, are you saying that the protesters were not motivated by honest anger over the election and that the protests were really caused by foreign governments? I don't think that anyone can deny that outside forces can affect the Iranian people, but if this is what you're saying, it's a great disservice to the courage and integrity of the protestors.
Which sounds better, Iranian govt. brutally represses an uprising within their own citizens, or Iranian govt. fights back against foreign meddling?
I understand your point about playing into the perception that "foreign countries" are meddlesome, but it would seem to me that most Iranians would be able to see through the pretence that the protests were organized outside Iran. Not to mention that, for the people who actually believe that it was caused by outsiders, the implications is "The Iranian people are so easily swayed by outside meddling that it can disrupt our country for days on end." It's a no win situation, people either think their government is telling an outright lie or that it's incompetent.
"you have been influenced by the destabilising propaganda which the media affiliated with foreign countries have been disseminating"
This statement makes no sense to me. If you are part of a totalitarian government, would you want to broadcast to your citizens that other countries have so much influence on your country that they can instigate a protest of several hundred people lasting several days?
You must have an extraordinarily low threshold for "damnation". By any reasonably definition, the post wasn't damnation, just note about a minor issue that highlighted a much larger one.
This article is just a pathetic attack against the Times Online and Rupert Murdoch's paywall plan
While there are certainly weightier topics discussed on TechDirt, the bad link is a fair topic. From the TD post: "On top of this, it really highlights the pure annoyance factor that The Times has created for everyone." Sure, it's a mistake anyone can make, but the bad link highlites the unintended consequences of adding artificial layers between your readers and your content. Not to mention how a silly mistake like this negatively affects the perception of the site's professionalism.
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re: Re:
This is a copyright issue, not a trademark issue, so I don't think that consumer confusion is relevant. I think the only thing that Lucas would have to prove is whether the laser infringes on his copyright. This angle isn't without its own issues, but as far as I understand, consumer confusion isn't a criteria for copyright infringement.
On the post: Can Laser Maker Be Blamed For Blogs Comparing Laser To Star Wars Lightsabers?
Re: Hmm...
On the post: Patent Lawyer Insists Open Source Stifles Innovation
Re: No joke, just the facts
You're both right. I believe you're using the dictionary definition of "innovation", which just requires a "new idea", whereas Mike (and others) make a distinction between invention (a completely new idea) and innovation ("ideas applied successfully in practice").
Of course open source limits innovation. If everyone were just reinventing the wheel we would only have a reinvented wheel, not any advance.
Wait, what does open source have to do with reinventing? You imply that the fact that open source limits innovation is self evident, yet your supporting analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with open source, at least not as far as I can tell.
On the post: Patent Lawyer Insists Open Source Stifles Innovation
Re: for innovation to occur you need to have an original idea,
Ha! I like this. Very "insighful". The modern version of this would be "Build a better mousetrap and you'll get sued by the patent holder of the original mousetrap."
(So, you can mark a post as "insightful" but no one else can see this or even how many times it's been marked?"
On the post: Patent Lawyer Insists Open Source Stifles Innovation
Re:
Based on the "invented by others" link in the article, it sounds like this is exactly what Edison did. Do you have a link to one of these "various journals" that contradicts this point? (BTW, I'm no Edison expert, so I honestly don't know the answer to this, but if you're going to contradict information in a provided link, you should probably provide a link of your own.)
then crafted several thousand experiments (most report somewhere in the order of about 10,000) until he finally hit on the right combination of elements for a workable/reliable bulb.
Ah, but this is exactly the point Mike was making, that Edison didn't invent the lightbuld, but that he instead copied an existing idea and made it "workable/reliable". In trying to contradict him, you've actually provided a great example of Mike's idea of the distinction between invention and innovation.
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re: I agree...
Agreed. In fact, I think this is the key distinction between this situation and your run-of-the-mill national security issue. I have no idea of there is a legal foundation for this opinion, but I think that because these people are being restricted from a certain activity, instead of just trying to get the government to divulge information it has on them, the government should not be able to invoke national security. If the no-fly list were instead used by some government agency to monitor people's travel, this would be a passive action and should be covered by the national security justification. But because it's an active action, preventing flying on a commercial plane, I think it should be treated the same as being accused of a crime i.e. the Sixth Amendment should apply.
On the post: No Fly List Members Sue The Gov't; Want To Find Out Why They Can't Fly
Re: Constitutional Right?
I believe that the argument is based the constitutional right to be "informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" (Sixth Amendment) rather that a specific "right to fly".
On the post: The Economic Argument For Why Court's Viacom Ruling Makes Sense... And Why Viacom Hates It
Re: This thread...
On the post: The Economic Argument For Why Court's Viacom Ruling Makes Sense... And Why Viacom Hates It
Re:
It's far less "insane" than requiring the service provider to pay for a staff to monitor an infinite amount of cyberspace to look for offending materials. Who better to determine if something infringes than the rights holder? A common TechDirt story is how the rights holders don't even know what is infringing. If they can't even determine this, how can the service provider be reasonably expected to do so?
On the post: The Economic Argument For Why Court's Viacom Ruling Makes Sense... And Why Viacom Hates It
Most cost avoidance
...
The grant of a copyright or a trademark is the grant of a monopoly on a certain class of information, a grant that itself comes with inherent economic inefficiencies in the service of encouraging overall social value--encouraging investment in creative works.
Here's another example of why it's important to distinguish "theft" from "infringement". If IP were really property, then it would not make sense to hold the victim responsible the preventing the damage caused by theft. But because IP is not property, but a limited right granted to a party for the overall benefit to society, it makes perfect sense to view enforcement of that right in the context of the overall benefit (and cost) to society. This issue is only confusing if you mistakenly view IP as property which can be "stolen".
Also, shouldn't it be the principle of most cost avoidance?
On the post: Content Creators Coming To Terms With The Fact That Their Works Will Be Shared
TechDirt FAQ
Since this conscisely describes a recurring theme on TechDirt, I think that it should be part of a TechDirt Frequently Asked Questions list, maybe as part of a "What is RtB?" entry. Instead of responding to people in the comments section over and over with the same explanation about why infringement isn't the same thing as theft and how much of piracy is a business model problem, etc, it'd be nice to just point to a FAQ entry. "Why do people illegally download movies from the Internet? Well, much of it is because it's far more convenient that the legal alternatives. See 'What is RtB?' in the TD FAQ for more details."
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Re:
Why? What is the justification for this idea? Google is free to define their algorithms any way they want. If they want to remove every page that has the word "bing" in it from their results and not tell anyone, then that's completely up to them. If you don't like the results that Google gives you, you're free to go somewhere else for your search.
On the post: There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best
Market dominance does not a monopoly make
As for Google, I have no idea how the search engine can be seen to be monopolistic. Google isn't twisting people's arms to use their search engine. They're not using dirty tricks against their competitors. The consumer has the choice to use other search engines. It just so happens that Google is a damn good search engine, so that's what most people use. Google is free to use whatever algorithms they want. If AT&T doesn't like it, then they're free to develop their own search engine.
On the post: Juror Didn't Disclose MySpace Friendship With Defendant... Because It Was Just MySpace
Re: It's not that she KNEW or didn't KNOW the defendant
To pile onto the response to your puerile rant...
Mike Masnick isn't a journalist nor does he claim to be, so your comment is irrelevent.
On the post: Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no doubt that some people in the US government watched the Iranian protests with unbridled glee, hoping that the government would fall. And, to be honest, I wouldn't be too surprised to find out that the CIA or some other government agency tried to encourage the protests. But even "fueled" by is too strong a word. I honestly believe that in the heart-of-hearts of most of the protesters was true outrage over the perceived theft of the election. If "The West" fueled this in any way, it wasn't directly through some secret ops, but moreso indirectly by making communication tools available that allowed the citizens to see what happens outside their country and to organize protests about the things happening inside of it.
No it isn't. Nor would I deny the courage and integrity of the pawns in the Red October revolution, just those that were moving the pieces around....
You might say it's splitting hairs, but there is a big distinction between doing a disservice to something and denying something. By suggesting that the protesters were manipulated by outside forces into protesting, you're effectively saying that while they may be courageous and have integrity, they're not too bright. This is the disservice.
On the post: Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know. Totalitarian governments are all about control and by publisizing that you have so little control of your people that the entire country can be disrupted by other countries, your control is undermined.
Frankly, I'm not so sure they're wrong....
Wait, are you saying that the protesters were not motivated by honest anger over the election and that the protests were really caused by foreign governments? I don't think that anyone can deny that outside forces can affect the Iranian people, but if this is what you're saying, it's a great disservice to the courage and integrity of the protestors.
On the post: Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors
Re: Re:
I understand your point about playing into the perception that "foreign countries" are meddlesome, but it would seem to me that most Iranians would be able to see through the pretence that the protests were organized outside Iran. Not to mention that, for the people who actually believe that it was caused by outsiders, the implications is "The Iranian people are so easily swayed by outside meddling that it can disrupt our country for days on end." It's a no win situation, people either think their government is telling an outright lie or that it's incompetent.
On the post: Iran Sends Warning SMS Messages To Potential Protestors
This statement makes no sense to me. If you are part of a totalitarian government, would you want to broadcast to your citizens that other countries have so much influence on your country that they can instigate a protest of several hundred people lasting several days?
On the post: Dear Rupert: Before Putting Up A Paywall, It Helps To Have Your Staff Check The HTML
Re: Re: Re: Who cares?
You must have an extraordinarily low threshold for "damnation". By any reasonably definition, the post wasn't damnation, just note about a minor issue that highlighted a much larger one.
On the post: Dear Rupert: Before Putting Up A Paywall, It Helps To Have Your Staff Check The HTML
Re: Who cares?
While there are certainly weightier topics discussed on TechDirt, the bad link is a fair topic. From the TD post: "On top of this, it really highlights the pure annoyance factor that The Times has created for everyone." Sure, it's a mistake anyone can make, but the bad link highlites the unintended consequences of adding artificial layers between your readers and your content. Not to mention how a silly mistake like this negatively affects the perception of the site's professionalism.
Next >>