'Perhaps you would be so kind as to point to posts where "pro-copyright defenders" have argured that copying (or any of the other rights accorded pursuant to Title 17) with the assent of a copyright holder is bad.'
Perhaps if you all would be kind enough to give names then we'd be able to find them easier.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
"If that's not based on the title of the patent, what do you think it's based on? Certainly not the claims."
Like I said before, you seem to be basing your entire understanding of the article on a joke. I mean, Oh My God. He contradicted himself by only saying 'search and advertising' in the joke whereas he'd mentioned internet protocol before.
"But making assumptions about individuals you do *not* have experience (or do not knowingly have experience with) is not a useful prejudice."
No, but it's a pretty inevitable one. I do my best to not make assumptions about anonymous posters but when the majority of dissenting anonymous posters are merely abusing the ability to the fullest, it's certainly not something that's going to help you. Frankly, not knowing of any compelling reason for someone to not just put in a name every time they post, it's pretty low down on my list of things to care about. If you have a compelling reason to share with me then perhaps I'll be more careful in future. The one I've heard before is that someone wanted people to take their posts more on individual merit and not because of who they are, in which case fair enough, but it's hardly a compelling reason from my point of view.
"They don't have to explain it. Why should they? They are following the law. They don't have to justify why they didn't take some other course of action that they are not compelled to take."
'It is the third millenium. The world has changed. Climate, Nations, all were in upheaval. the Earth transformed into a poisonous, scorched dessert, known as "The Cursed Earth". The world's population has crowded into a few Megacities, where it created a voilence so powerful, the justice system could not control. Law as we knew it, colapsed. From the decay, rose a new order, a new style of justice enforcers. They were the police, jury and executioner all in one. They were, The Judges.'
'I thought they had moved on to "mentally handicapped". Idiot and moron used to be similar terms but have moved along in meaning....'
As far as I'm aware, the official term in America is still mental retardation and has never been mentally handicapped. Mentally handicapped was the official term in the United Kingdom, but that has changed to learning disability.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
"Yes. I cannot understand how you've gotten this far without realizing this."
Hey, you accused me of assuming that the patent must be invalid. I pointed out that I hadn't really given any thought to the matter. If you'd care to explain how the validity of the patent is essential to any of what I've said then go ahead.
"I think his reason for misleading people because most of his readers lap it up."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. It appears to be that Mike is misleading people for the sake of it. Is there a reason you believe Mike would mislead people just because he can?
"I am criticizing Mike for using the title as a basis for criticism"
I am saying that his criticism is not based on the title of the patent. You seem to believe that you understand his intent better than I do, despite not agreeing with him.
"Want respect? Judge what is said by its merit, not who says it."
I'd rather do both. I happen to believe that opinions about people based on past experience are a useful aspect of communication. If I can't see the merit in something and it comes from a complete stranger then I'm less likely to suspect I may be wrong than if it comes from someone who usually says stuff of merit.
"It's amazing to me how many Techdirt commenters feel like they alone understand what "the point of the article" is, and can therefore dismiss any valid criticism of any other point/assertion made in the article."
I don't think I'm alone in understanding the point of the article, but I've read enough of Mike's articles on patents to be confident that I do. I'm dismissing your criticism because your whole point seemed to be that we shouldn't freak out because of the title, when the title isn't why I'm freaked out.
"The allegation that lots of people do something now, does not mean it was obvious to do so when this patent was filed (or when the claimed invention was conceived/reduced to practice)."
Like I said, if they used this patent to come up with the idea then it would make sense. Perhaps all the companies did copy the patent. None of that is a judgement on the validity of the patent within the patent system, but an observation that the patent system is broken.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
"So now we've moved on from what the patent actually covers to an assumption that any patent infringed by lots of people must be invalid?"
I don't know, did someone mention validity? I'm looking more along the lines of 'the patent system is broken', especially if it is valid. If you can explain to me how this patent could possibly be justified then go ahead.
"I've repeatedly said I have no opinion on whether this patent is valid/invalid/good/bad/justified/etc."
My mistake. I guess this whole conversation is you arguing that Mike is misleading people for no apparent reason then.
"Why is it any time I criticize some aspect of a Techdirt article an army of commenters jumps in assuming I take the opposite position on *every* topic ever discussed on Techdirt?"
A) because you're criticising Mike for referring to a patent by its title and B) because you're posting anonymously so the odds are in our favour that you are in fact a troll. Want respect? Pick a name.
"I'm not talking about how many companies are being sued. I'm not sure why you are (ad nauseum)."
Here it is again: the point of the article is not reliant on the title of the patent, but on the fact that a bunch of companies are being sued by another company for no apparent good reason.
"The article contained a criticism of the supposed *content* of what the patent covers, as did most of the early commenters, based on a misperception/misrepresentation of what the patent covers."
You're arguing that the title of the patent is a misrepresentation of what the patent covers and blaming it on Mike.
'Why are you assuming that the basis for others' comments is something that only you have pointed out, and not the actual things said in their comments (i.e., people were doing "that" before this patent was applied for)?'
Some of the comments do seem to make assumptions about the scope of the patent, but I don't think it effects why they have a problem with the patent, which is what I was making assumptions about. Whether the patent is for for showing ads on internet searches or only doing so on a certain day at a certain time, it's still evidently too broad or obvious unless all the companies based their ideas off the patent.
"at least when the title is all that is used in the article to criticize the patent."
You mean, apart from all that about the companies being sued by another company that doesn't actually do anything productive.
"Mike's article uses only the title, then a snarky comment about how the subject matter of the title."
Yes, because he writes a blog and not a patent application. If you could tell us why the full and detailed description makes the slightest inkling of difference to the fact that a bunch of companies are being sued by another company that doesn't do anything useful then maybe you'd have a point.
"That's a pretty significant difference, wouldn't you say?"
You see, what I'm driving at here, is the possibility of you explaining what it's a significant difference to in relation to this story. Will less companies be sued if he recites the entire patent word for word?
'But if a patent only covers siamese cats born on the 3rd of July after 3:17pm on an odd-numbered year and having no more than 3 whiskers, then criticizing that patent solely as a "domestic cat" patent is misleading.'
So, we're agreeing to ignore your failure to grasp the meaning of the word accurate? Regardless, the patent is evidently too broad or too obvious unless every single company being sued somehow got their idea from the patent itself. Given that the subject of criticism is the broadness or obviousness of the patent and not the title of the patent then I fail to see your point. It could be titled 'method to show ads on the 3rd of July after 3:17pm on an odd-numbered year and having no more than 3 somethings' for all the difference it makes to the fact they're suing everyone. It might ruin Mike's joke a bit, or make it more funny.
Instead of telling us how this patent has had any positive effect and is in any way justified as a basis for suing, you argue over the fact that Mike references the patent by its actual title.
"And a freetard (still love that term! Don't let it die)"
Heh. When I see Tim Shriver on TV pointing out that those who take part in the Special Olympics would like people to stop using retard as a pejorative, I can't help but feel angry towards whoever decided that the word didn't have enough bad connotations and coined a derivative. It's like they were thinking 'how can I be a hateful to two completely unrelated groups at once'.
Re: "It's not that consumers don't get that media piracy is wrong"
'Similarly, consumers know piracy is wrong in the sense of "they might be punished for it", but I don't believe many think it's wrong in the sense of "they ought not do it".'
The valid argument that tends to crop up is that breaking the law is wrong in itself, but the 'anti-pirates' never care to expand on their premise and tell us why breaking the law is inherently wrong.
So one the one side we have to guess that they assume a slippery slope towards lawlessness and on the other I could probably detail an actual slippery slope into Judge Dredd's universe.
On the post: Did ICE Pirate An Anti-Piracy Video From NYC?
Re:
Perhaps if you all would be kind enough to give names then we'd be able to find them easier.
On the post: Did ICE Pirate An Anti-Piracy Video From NYC?
Joke
That'll avoid a lot of unnecessary comments.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
Like I said before, you seem to be basing your entire understanding of the article on a joke. I mean, Oh My God. He contradicted himself by only saying 'search and advertising' in the joke whereas he'd mentioned internet protocol before.
"But making assumptions about individuals you do *not* have experience (or do not knowingly have experience with) is not a useful prejudice."
No, but it's a pretty inevitable one. I do my best to not make assumptions about anonymous posters but when the majority of dissenting anonymous posters are merely abusing the ability to the fullest, it's certainly not something that's going to help you. Frankly, not knowing of any compelling reason for someone to not just put in a name every time they post, it's pretty low down on my list of things to care about. If you have a compelling reason to share with me then perhaps I'll be more careful in future. The one I've heard before is that someone wanted people to take their posts more on individual merit and not because of who they are, in which case fair enough, but it's hardly a compelling reason from my point of view.
On the post: Parade Of Strawmen Dominate House Hearing About Online Infringement
Re: Re:
If you're referring to iTunes, it doesn't even work on Linux.
On the post: UK Domain Seizures: Nominet Admits It's Helped Police Seize 3,000 Sites
Re:
Introducing Judge FUDbuster!
'It is the third millenium. The world has changed. Climate, Nations, all were in upheaval. the Earth transformed into a poisonous, scorched dessert, known as "The Cursed Earth". The world's population has crowded into a few Megacities, where it created a voilence so powerful, the justice system could not control. Law as we knew it, colapsed. From the decay, rose a new order, a new style of justice enforcers. They were the police, jury and executioner all in one. They were, The Judges.'
On the post: Parade Of Strawmen Dominate House Hearing About Online Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I'm aware, the official term in America is still mental retardation and has never been mentally handicapped. Mentally handicapped was the official term in the United Kingdom, but that has changed to learning disability.
On the post: Parade Of Strawmen Dominate House Hearing About Online Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
Hey, you accused me of assuming that the patent must be invalid. I pointed out that I hadn't really given any thought to the matter. If you'd care to explain how the validity of the patent is essential to any of what I've said then go ahead.
"I think his reason for misleading people because most of his readers lap it up."
I'm not sure what you're saying here. It appears to be that Mike is misleading people for the sake of it. Is there a reason you believe Mike would mislead people just because he can?
"I am criticizing Mike for using the title as a basis for criticism"
I am saying that his criticism is not based on the title of the patent. You seem to believe that you understand his intent better than I do, despite not agreeing with him.
"Want respect? Judge what is said by its merit, not who says it."
I'd rather do both. I happen to believe that opinions about people based on past experience are a useful aspect of communication. If I can't see the merit in something and it comes from a complete stranger then I'm less likely to suspect I may be wrong than if it comes from someone who usually says stuff of merit.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think I'm alone in understanding the point of the article, but I've read enough of Mike's articles on patents to be confident that I do. I'm dismissing your criticism because your whole point seemed to be that we shouldn't freak out because of the title, when the title isn't why I'm freaked out.
What about that is so hard to understand?
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Like I said, if they used this patent to come up with the idea then it would make sense. Perhaps all the companies did copy the patent. None of that is a judgement on the validity of the patent within the patent system, but an observation that the patent system is broken.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
I don't know, did someone mention validity? I'm looking more along the lines of 'the patent system is broken', especially if it is valid. If you can explain to me how this patent could possibly be justified then go ahead.
"I've repeatedly said I have no opinion on whether this patent is valid/invalid/good/bad/justified/etc."
My mistake. I guess this whole conversation is you arguing that Mike is misleading people for no apparent reason then.
"Why is it any time I criticize some aspect of a Techdirt article an army of commenters jumps in assuming I take the opposite position on *every* topic ever discussed on Techdirt?"
A) because you're criticising Mike for referring to a patent by its title and B) because you're posting anonymously so the odds are in our favour that you are in fact a troll. Want respect? Pick a name.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here it is again: the point of the article is not reliant on the title of the patent, but on the fact that a bunch of companies are being sued by another company for no apparent good reason.
"The article contained a criticism of the supposed *content* of what the patent covers, as did most of the early commenters, based on a misperception/misrepresentation of what the patent covers."
You're arguing that the title of the patent is a misrepresentation of what the patent covers and blaming it on Mike.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some of the comments do seem to make assumptions about the scope of the patent, but I don't think it effects why they have a problem with the patent, which is what I was making assumptions about. Whether the patent is for for showing ads on internet searches or only doing so on a certain day at a certain time, it's still evidently too broad or obvious unless all the companies based their ideas off the patent.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean, apart from all that about the companies being sued by another company that doesn't actually do anything productive.
"Mike's article uses only the title, then a snarky comment about how the subject matter of the title."
Yes, because he writes a blog and not a patent application. If you could tell us why the full and detailed description makes the slightest inkling of difference to the fact that a bunch of companies are being sued by another company that doesn't do anything useful then maybe you'd have a point.
"That's a pretty significant difference, wouldn't you say?"
You see, what I'm driving at here, is the possibility of you explaining what it's a significant difference to in relation to this story. Will less companies be sued if he recites the entire patent word for word?
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
So, we're agreeing to ignore your failure to grasp the meaning of the word accurate? Regardless, the patent is evidently too broad or too obvious unless every single company being sued somehow got their idea from the patent itself. Given that the subject of criticism is the broadness or obviousness of the patent and not the title of the patent then I fail to see your point. It could be titled 'method to show ads on the 3rd of July after 3:17pm on an odd-numbered year and having no more than 3 somethings' for all the difference it makes to the fact they're suing everyone. It might ruin Mike's joke a bit, or make it more funny.
Instead of telling us how this patent has had any positive effect and is in any way justified as a basis for suing, you argue over the fact that Mike references the patent by its actual title.
On the post: Parade Of Strawmen Dominate House Hearing About Online Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. When I see Tim Shriver on TV pointing out that those who take part in the Special Olympics would like people to stop using retard as a pejorative, I can't help but feel angry towards whoever decided that the word didn't have enough bad connotations and coined a derivative. It's like they were thinking 'how can I be a hateful to two completely unrelated groups at once'.
On the post: Why Chris Dodd Is Doing Everything Wrong With The MPAA
Re: Re: Re: "It's not that consumers don't get that media piracy is wrong"
On the post: Parade Of Strawmen Dominate House Hearing About Online Infringement
Re:
On the post: Why Chris Dodd Is Doing Everything Wrong With The MPAA
Re: "It's not that consumers don't get that media piracy is wrong"
The valid argument that tends to crop up is that breaking the law is wrong in itself, but the 'anti-pirates' never care to expand on their premise and tell us why breaking the law is inherently wrong.
So one the one side we have to guess that they assume a slippery slope towards lawlessness and on the other I could probably detail an actual slippery slope into Judge Dredd's universe.
On the post: Phone That Can Search The Internet & Display Ads Patented; Everyone Sued
Re: Re: Re: Liar, liar pants on fire
Huh? Why would it need to fully describe every iteration to be accurate? Domestic cat is an accurate description for over 80 breeds of feline.
Next >>