There always seems to be some new company making a multi-screened laptop, http://www.slidenjoy.com/ but I've never seen one in-the-flesh. I'm really looking forward to infinite-display vr http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/virtual-desktop-vr-windows/ , especially as head tracking improves and as its combined with eye tracking to eliminate mice (just as the touchpoint is not as good as a mouse but largely suffices).
This award (should it stand) will certainly benefit UW, as previous awards under this patent have, to the tune of 20% to the inventors, 15% to the department, with the remainder supporting WARF and its grants across the campus.
I'm pessimistic on the value of software (and most other) patents, but I've both disclosed projects to WARF and have had early-stage research funded to the point that it was competitive for federal grants. Among the tech transfer offices, WARF is a pretty sympathetic target. And I too was hoping to foist Walker upon anyone else..
I'll add that UW is one of the few universities that does not automatically obtain the rights to any student invention, so among peers UW/WARF are pretty good.
"Because of the way the patents are written, MPHJ actually can’t go after scanner manufacturers. Only the whole “system”—putting the scanner together with a network—infringes."
I'm pretty sure this is wrong; you cannot violate a patent if you (or a company for its internal use) assemble the invention. Patents are a market restriction; Apple sought to ban Samsung phones from sale - Samsung could make as many 'copies' as it likes provided it does not offer them on the market. Given this read, a copy shop which copied the 'invention' of "scanner"+"internet" would be liable when offering their scan&email product to the public, but the common, internal use of multifunction printers does not infringe.
Rather than petitioning the WH to 'allow' us to unlock phones, I'd much rather petition for competency in the Librarian of Congress. As it is, this exemptions process is founded on a woefully poor understanding of technology (development and use) so I'd much rather challenge the LoC/WH to explain why this process is legitimate.
" If the technology allows it, why not probe the system and see what comes out? It's the natural curiosity of a young and insightful mind, looking to see what information is there. When it's made available, how do you not then seek to access it?"
Moreover, these prosecutors often act as if there are clear lines for what is appropriate behavior, when in reality the only boundaries are those made in trial. Especially given the opacity of most ToS, it should not surprise anyone that it is actually easier to just try something than to understand the ToS. If these prosecutions are good for anything, it is to highlight the stark differences between a world with natural, (generally) inviolable rules -- technology founded on standards and science -- and law, a manmade system interprable by and benefiting (substantially) only those with a career in it. Laws are certainly necessary but they must not artificially or, usually, unintentionally restrict possible uses of technology. Hello CFAA reform.
I'm pretty sure the Super Bowl hasn't happened yet, so unless the seizures are in response to the sites' streaming of last year's, then they haven't (and could not have) streamed the Super Bowl. Time-space continuum issues aside, what proof of imminent crime is needed to seize a business? I doubt that these sites advertised their impending streaming, but rather that a user can reasonably assume it will be streamed.
Also, since this is obviously motivated by the content industry, will the seizure page link to the official free-stream? Yeah, probably not.
For any random piece of content, the viewer does not absolutely know whether its existence online is authorized by the rightsholder or not. I agree that the status of most free online streams/tv/movies/music as not authorized is apparent to the majority of viewers, but the viewer does not have actual knowledge, only the suspicion. The difference is that someone who buys a cd/dvd agrees, by that action, to not upload it. Such an agreement does not transfer online.
Let me reduce the distinction: if some site says, "Let's collect and host every .mp3 file we can find, and freely offer these to any visitor." If the site responds to DMCA notices, this site should be perfectly legal, regardless of the site's reasonable suspicion that some of the mp3 files contain copyrighted music. Ninja certainly chose a more editorial role than this, but I think their case reduces to my example.
I don't think the uploaders' association to Ninja is meaningful; does the DMCA prohibit employees from uploading to their company's site?
As long as the links/content are not the subject of previous takedown notices (ie that Ninja has no knowledge that that particular content is infringing), the uploaders should not be constrained. It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing.
In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement.
There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders.
I don't think the uploaders' association to Ninja is meaningful; does the DMCA prohibit employees from uploading to their company's site?
As long as the links/content are not the subject of previous takedown notices (ie that Ninja has no knowledge that that particular content is infringing), the uploaders should not be constrained. It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing.
In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement.
There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders.
Does it belong to the entity that created it, as in copyrights on artistic expression, or the owner of the device that captured it, as in the case of cameras and photography?
Two good perspectives for some court to decide in 10 years.
In other news, "MPEG LA starts the search for VP8 patents"...
'cause On2 obviously had to use some patent while making the codec. Seriously, if your patent(s) was actually fundamental this would have come out during Google's acquisition.
This'll seem quaint in 5 years...
I'm really looking forward to infinite-display vr http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/virtual-desktop-vr-windows/ , especially as head tracking improves and as its combined with eye tracking to eliminate mice (just as the touchpoint is not as good as a mouse but largely suffices).
Re:
https://budget.wisc.edu/budget-news/blank-presentation-video-available/
Re:
http://www.warf.org/about-us/background/history/warf-bayh-dole/warf-and-bayh-dole.cmsx
Re: Possibly good can come from this?
http://www.warf.org/for-uw-inventors/for-uw-inventors.cmsx
I'm pessimistic on the value of software (and most other) patents, but I've both disclosed projects to WARF and have had early-stage research funded to the point that it was competitive for federal grants. Among the tech transfer offices, WARF is a pretty sympathetic target. And I too was hoping to foist Walker upon anyone else..
Re:
http://www.warf.org/about-us/background/history/steenbock-and-warf-s-founding/steenbock-a nd-warf-s-founding.cmsx
Much has changed since the 20s...
I'll add that UW is one of the few universities that does not automatically obtain the rights to any student invention, so among peers UW/WARF are pretty good.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re:
"Because of the way the patents are written, MPHJ actually can’t go after scanner manufacturers. Only the whole “system”—putting the scanner together with a network—infringes."
I'm pretty sure this is wrong; you cannot violate a patent if you (or a company for its internal use) assemble the invention. Patents are a market restriction; Apple sought to ban Samsung phones from sale - Samsung could make as many 'copies' as it likes provided it does not offer them on the market. Given this read, a copy shop which copied the 'invention' of "scanner"+"internet" would be liable when offering their scan&email product to the public, but the common, internal use of multifunction printers does not infringe.
Wrong emphasis
Prior knowledge?
Moreover, these prosecutors often act as if there are clear lines for what is appropriate behavior, when in reality the only boundaries are those made in trial. Especially given the opacity of most ToS, it should not surprise anyone that it is actually easier to just try something than to understand the ToS. If these prosecutions are good for anything, it is to highlight the stark differences between a world with natural, (generally) inviolable rules -- technology founded on standards and science -- and law, a manmade system interprable by and benefiting (substantially) only those with a career in it. Laws are certainly necessary but they must not artificially or, usually, unintentionally restrict possible uses of technology. Hello CFAA reform.
Pinocchio?
Pre-Crime
Also, since this is obviously motivated by the content industry, will the seizure page link to the official free-stream? Yeah, probably not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders
Let me reduce the distinction: if some site says, "Let's collect and host every .mp3 file we can find, and freely offer these to any visitor." If the site responds to DMCA notices, this site should be perfectly legal, regardless of the site's reasonable suspicion that some of the mp3 files contain copyrighted music. Ninja certainly chose a more editorial role than this, but I think their case reduces to my example.
Re: Re: Ninja Uploaders
As long as the links/content are not the subject of previous takedown notices (ie that Ninja has no knowledge that that particular content is infringing), the uploaders should not be constrained. It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing.
In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement.
There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders.
Re: Ninja Uploaders
As long as the links/content are not the subject of previous takedown notices (ie that Ninja has no knowledge that that particular content is infringing), the uploaders should not be constrained. It is not the duty of Ninja uploaders (or employees of YouTube) to determine what is infringing or not; as techdirt has covered repeatedly and which was recently recognized by the court in Veoh v. UMG, only the rightsholder has the specific information required to determine if any particular content is infringing.
In sum, I think only the first uploader - the person responsible for converting from physical media/tv to internet - can be (should be) held responsible for copyright infringement.
There is a meaningful distinction if the uploaders recorded tv episodes and uploaded them, but not if they merely repost. In this respect, the uploaders are more similar to a search engine - finding content and making it accessible to the interested user - than first uploaders.
Thorny
Two good perspectives for some court to decide in 10 years.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Just trying to help.
Re: Life is difficult
'cause On2 obviously had to use some patent while making the codec. Seriously, if your patent(s) was actually fundamental this would have come out during Google's acquisition.
So how much do you charge for an infinite good?
More comments from Ben >>
Ben’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt