If those people made their home movies and then somehow allowed other people to make copies, they probably wouldn't be lost.
If you father had let his personal papers's content be known to the public and allowed people to copy them, as he was accruing them, then you wouldn't have to worry about archiving it after his death. Copies of his papers would have already been out there.
Although these are unlikely scenario because of privacy and other personal reasons, the concept is the same. If you allow people to copy your work from the beginning, it's more likely than not that you can find a copy out there when your original was destroyed.
Going back to the original story, had movie studios not destroyed all but the few copies of movies left for archive purposes, it would have been more likely than not that we would find a copy of a particular film out there in better shape. Thus making expensive restoration unnecessary.
And why was there only a few copies left? Copyright holders don't want the material spread around, so they recovered them all. Why were most destroyed? Because copyright holders have no need for hundreds of copies of the same thing. Why are they in bad shape? Because copyright holders, by themselves, can't find enough economic use for the old copy, and thus don't have the economic incentive to maintain them properly.
You are still missing the point. Had there been no copyright restrictions, it wouldn't be up to the studios and copyright owners to keep copies and decide which one to keep. And if they are freely available for anyone to copy, copying effort will likely happen more or less continuously as people acquires copies of films, shows they are interested in. So we don't need to preserve any particular copies, because we will have newer copies in better conditions available.
This is how old classics from ancient time are preserved, by people copying the original, instead of locking it up in an archive. Those that were locked up for one reason or another had all been lost.
No, without copyright issues, there would likely be many more copies of films in much better conditions out there in the wild, making the elaborate effort to restore and preserve that single copy we have left a moot point.
Prevalence of copies is a much better preservation technique than any scheme you could ever possibly devise.
Using the exact wording in the George Lucas threat letter. Since he had registered the trademark in 2005, by their logic, he should have a pretty good case against George Lucas, Google, Verizon, Motorola, and HTC for using Android and Droid.
Patent application put through under this "green" banner would cover just the narrow field of "green" technology, where as any patent applicant wanting to take advantage of the current system, if just for defensive purpose, would try to make a claim covering as wide a field as possible.
Almost everyone with some basic computer knowledge and downloaded tools can create and install ringtones on their phones. However, comparatively much fewer people have the both the skills and time to create an app for their phone. Not to mention upgraded phone can still use old ringtone, but an OS upgrade could potentially break your app, thus requiring continuous upgrade and support from original author. So the app market will be a much more permanent feature in mobile phone world than ringtone was.
What you describe is exact what reverse engineering is. Looking at how a software works, guess at how it works, then produces another that does exactly the same thing. You don't have to resort to decompile to call it reverse engineering.
How can software patent infringement and legal reverse engineering coexist?
If reverse engineering software is completely legal, wouldn't that pretty much negate the software patent altogether? You may claim a patent on your software, but I only have to legally reverse engineer it. Don't understand where infringement can happen.
Would have been to sue this guy for copyright infringment and trademark violation because he had mentioned GTA in his article, produced unauthorized arts relating to GTA, used GTA trademark without permission, and written unauthorized storyline for a potential GTA line of product.
Under current system, the amount of legal fee I have to pay is determined by myself. If I can't pay that much, I hire a cheaper lawyer, use up less billable hours, or even stop the whole thing if I have to. The big company can feel free to spend as much as they want to, but it doesn't cost me any extra. The factors in the risk-reward calculation is entirely controlled by myself. Under loser pay system, how much the other side can afford to spend becomes the deciding factor that needs to be considered, instead of the odd of winning the case.
Another fairer system would be to make whoever is richer loser pay. Compare the asset of the two, if one's asset is a certain multiple over the other, then this richer party will pay everyone's legal fee if it looses.
Absolutely No way in HELL should the loser pay system be allowed to exist in this area. Loser Pay system will simply make it more convenient for big corporations and deep pocketed entities to violate patents and not suffers the consequence. Because the patent holder will be afraid of the cost of litigation.
If the loser pay system exist and I was CEO of a big corporation, then I would feel absolutely no need to honor any patent from ordinary individual and small companies at all. If they threaten to sue, I'll just show them my team of lawyers, their hourly rate, and the length of time I could drag out the process, so the final lawyers bill will bankrupt them 10 times over. Even if they got a rock solid case, my low ball offer for settlement will stand a much better chance of been accepted under this threat.
NO way. The currently system is flawed, but it's there for a purpose.
A better system would be to make US patent office, and the clerk who approved the patent co-defendants in all patent lawsuits. This way, they won't be so keen on approving frivolus patents that invite law suits.
The ruling confirms that the law as currently written says the guy has to pay damage for infringment. It has nothing to do with whether it was "wrong to take and use ... without permission", or whether this action really truely is "take and use something" in the first place.
Because it doesn't take a lawyer to know they don't have a leg to stand on countersuing DKOS, so they can't get the boss to sign off spending money on that effort. But trying to get some third party to foot part of the legal bill, a little bit of clever presentation might get boss to say yet.
if a 50% DNA match is only thing hanging over your head, then any semi competent lawyer should be able to get the case dismissed pronto. In fact, such evidence wouldn't even get you a date with grand jury.
In your case, your notion of how people in other country live is sadly mis-informed by not having a brain and/or the slightest urge to actually use what little brain power you have.
Those kids that were sent to these treatment centers have serious problems, often spending almost all of their waking hours in front of a computer, playing games or chatting lasting days at a time. The parents who sent them to the treatment centers were desparate to save their lives, literally, as there are several cases of young kids dying after marathon gaming sessions.
Why users never learn to accurately specify what they want?
Judging by your words, it's probably because you never asked them to do it in the first place. When you receive a specification that's unclear to you, send it back for clarification, instead of working with what you THINK is what the user want.
When you stop making assumptions about what you saw, the users will stop assuming they have created a clear specification.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
If you father had let his personal papers's content be known to the public and allowed people to copy them, as he was accruing them, then you wouldn't have to worry about archiving it after his death. Copies of his papers would have already been out there.
Although these are unlikely scenario because of privacy and other personal reasons, the concept is the same. If you allow people to copy your work from the beginning, it's more likely than not that you can find a copy out there when your original was destroyed.
Going back to the original story, had movie studios not destroyed all but the few copies of movies left for archive purposes, it would have been more likely than not that we would find a copy of a particular film out there in better shape. Thus making expensive restoration unnecessary.
And why was there only a few copies left? Copyright holders don't want the material spread around, so they recovered them all. Why were most destroyed? Because copyright holders have no need for hundreds of copies of the same thing. Why are they in bad shape? Because copyright holders, by themselves, can't find enough economic use for the old copy, and thus don't have the economic incentive to maintain them properly.
Hope you can see the point, finally.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
This is how old classics from ancient time are preserved, by people copying the original, instead of locking it up in an archive. Those that were locked up for one reason or another had all been lost.
On the post: Film Archives Being Eaten Away; Would Be Nice If People Could Make Copies To Preserve
Re: Re: Re: Re: Preservation is costly
Prevalence of copies is a much better preservation technique than any scheme you could ever possibly devise.
On the post: Would A Moron In A Hurry Confuse R2D2 With An Ad Platform? No? But George Lucas Would...
He should counter sue
On the post: Companies Not Rushing To The Patent Office For Accelerated Review Of Green Patents
Not hard to understand at all
On the post: Election Watcher Files Affidavit Saying He Saw Sequoia Employee Illegally Connect To E-Voting Tabulator
Re: Re:
On the post: Chair Designer Sues Disney Over Chair Used In Alice In Wonderland Movie
Re: Re: Lame
On the post: Now That The Ringtone Market Is Collapsing, Are There Lessons For Those Who Are Jumping On The App Bandwagon?
Key difference between ringtone and App
On the post: Is Emulating How A Piece Of Software Functions Copyright Infringement? UK Court Doesn't Think So...
Re: I'm confused
On the post: Is Emulating How A Piece Of Software Functions Copyright Infringement? UK Court Doesn't Think So...
How can software patent infringement and legal reverse engineering coexist?
On the post: Journalist Totally Makes Up Story About GTA Based On Murderer, Then Attacks Video Gamers Who Called Him On It
A dark humor sort of way to fight him
On the post: Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?
Re: Re:
On the post: Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?
Re:
On the post: Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?
If the loser pay system exist and I was CEO of a big corporation, then I would feel absolutely no need to honor any patent from ordinary individual and small companies at all. If they threaten to sue, I'll just show them my team of lawyers, their hourly rate, and the length of time I could drag out the process, so the final lawyers bill will bankrupt them 10 times over. Even if they got a rock solid case, my low ball offer for settlement will stand a much better chance of been accepted under this threat.
NO way. The currently system is flawed, but it's there for a purpose.
A better system would be to make US patent office, and the clerk who approved the patent co-defendants in all patent lawsuits. This way, they won't be so keen on approving frivolus patents that invite law suits.
On the post: Looking More Closely At Judge Gertner's Constitutional Analysis Of Copyright Awards In Tenenbaum Case
Re: FYI
On the post: Research 2000 Sends Cease & Desist To FiveThirtyEight For Discussing DailyKos Concerns
Re: Re:
On the post: If Your Brother Was Arrested For A Crime, Does It Violate Your Privacy When They Store His DNA?
Re: Ok
On the post: Internet 'Addicts' Escape Chinese 'Rehab' Center
Re: I'm amazed that you're amazed.
Those kids that were sent to these treatment centers have serious problems, often spending almost all of their waking hours in front of a computer, playing games or chatting lasting days at a time. The parents who sent them to the treatment centers were desparate to save their lives, literally, as there are several cases of young kids dying after marathon gaming sessions.
On the post: As Hurt Locker Producers Sue Thousands For File Sharing... They Claim Free Speech Rights To Copy Story Of Soldier
Re: Re:
But everyone knows what we THINK may happen is often not what WILL happen.
On the post: Are Yahoo & The AP Manipulating Comments? Or Are They Just Really Bad At The Internet? [Updated]
Re: Re: Incompetence is a strong word
Judging by your words, it's probably because you never asked them to do it in the first place. When you receive a specification that's unclear to you, send it back for clarification, instead of working with what you THINK is what the user want.
When you stop making assumptions about what you saw, the users will stop assuming they have created a clear specification.
Next >>