YAT CopyRight Law Thread

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/eff-wonders-did/

President Barack Obama gave Queen Elizabeth II an iPod on Wednesday with some 40 Broadway songs from popular musicals like West Side Story and the King and I.

Yet convoluted U.S. copyright laws make it unclear whether the chief executive is a copyright scofflaw. Fred von Lohmann, a copyright expert at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explains:

"You know your copyright laws are broken when there is no easy answer to this question," he wrote.

D'oh! How many millions of dollars in fines is he liable here? Figure 40 songs, 250,000 each, plus additional for each time played. Willful infringement penalties?
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Well we can't throw him in jail for ruining the economy, tripling the deficit, doubling the debt, and continuing the illegal wars.. but we'll get him with the RIAA!!! MUHAHAHAHAHA
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
You know an area of law or regulation is completely screwed up when the answer to a simple question is often "unclear" to even experts on the matter.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
We need to reform copyright laws because they cannot be possibly applied to our new technologies.

It has always been legal for an individual to take a copyrighted item, say a sewing machine, take it apart, duplicate each part, and thereby have a working sewing machine that belongs to said individual. The breech in copyright law occurs when he sells said sewing machine to others. Because something like a sewing machine takes mass production to achieve any economy in manufacture, it would be totally impractical for any individual to make such a copy for only themselves.

But with modern technology that does not apply to music, because its cheap and easy to make an infinite number of digital copies once you have that first digital copy. So all kinds of questions arise, could I make a digital backup copy of that CD I buy in case the original is lost. Could I make another for a friend provided I make no profit on the deal. But clearly if I buy one CD and my friend buys another, we both then make copies for each other, then we have clearly paid royalties on only one CD, but end up with two CD's we can make back up copies of.

So how do we protect the artist who relies on such royalties to keep the music alive?
But God no yeech yuck, when outfits like the RIAA who have always always been the exploiters of Musicians claim to be their protectors, its enough to gag a maggot. Actually, the RIAA is what is now obsolete, it used to be that recording artists had to rely on the RIAA because they could not afford to buy the expensive recording equipment to make records, but now even a garage band can afford to make their own Cd's. And if I go to a retail store and buy that expensive CD, the recording artist gets almost none of it and the rest is almost pure profit for parasites.

Beyond that I don't know what the answer is, but we must modernize our copyright laws. We have not and the abuses are rampant.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
We need to reform copyright laws because they cannot be possibly applied to our new technologies.

It has always been legal for an individual to take a copyrighted item, say a sewing machine, take it apart, duplicate each part, and thereby have a working sewing machine that belongs to said individual. The breech in copyright law occurs when he sells said sewing machine to others. Because something like a sewing machine takes mass production to achieve any economy in manufacture, it would be totally impractical for any individual to make such a copy for only themselves.

How do you get a copyright on a sewing machine?

Do you mean a patent? But then making the sewing machine infringes on the patent.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
We need to reform copyright laws because they cannot be possibly applied to our new technologies.

It has always been legal for an individual to take a copyrighted item, say a sewing machine, take it apart, duplicate each part, and thereby have a working sewing machine that belongs to said individual. The breech in copyright law occurs when he sells said sewing machine to others. Because something like a sewing machine takes mass production to achieve any economy in manufacture, it would be totally impractical for any individual to make such a copy for only themselves.

<-----------------Patent Attorney

A sewing machine is not copyrightable. The directions for using the sewing machine are, and text/images displayed on the machine might be. But the machine itself? No.

It is possible, however, to obtain utility patent over a sewing machine. But to do that under modern patent laws, the inventor of the machine would have to file an application in the U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) that includes claims which define useful, novel, and non-obvious subject matter. The application must also describe the claimed invention with sufficient particularity that one of ordinary skill in the art could reproduce it without "undue experimentation" (i.e., inordinate effort).

Provided the USPTO agrees with the applicant that the application meets the above requirements, it will allow the application to issue as a U.S. patent. Once the patent issues, the patentee has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the claimed invention into the U.S. Note that these are exclusionary rights. Apart from excluding others, a patent does not grant the patentee any right to [do] anything. Thus, for example, the patentee might be prevented from practicing the claimed invention by another patent issued earlier in time.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
147
106
Patents need to DIAF (no offence soxfan).

They use to help the little guy stay afloat, but now a days they are only there to assure the big guy never has any competition. I would say they are very anticompetitive. (Just TRY to start up a microprocessor business without buying patent licences). Everything under the sun is patented, making it hard to even know if you are violating a patent. Companies are set up for the express purpose of making tons of patents (sometimes even prior art patents) and suing everyone that violates their extremely general patents. Hoping to get lucky.
 
Last edited:

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
I agree with Cogman 100%. Patents are anti-capitalist.

Copyright laws need to be abolished or seriously toned down as well. Why the hell should it be a criminal offense for violating a copyright law? You aren't really stealing anything, because it's not physical.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
Patents need to DIAF (no offence soxfan).

They use to help the little guy stay afloat, but now a days they are only there to assure the big guy never has any competition. I would say they are very anticompetitive. (Just TRY to start up a microprocessor business without buying patent licences). Everything under the sun is patented, making it hard to even know if you are violating a patent. Companies are set up for the express purpose of making tons of patents (sometimes even prior art patents) and suing everyone that violates their extremely general patents. Hoping to get lucky.

None taken. I understand that there are some who feel strongly against the U.S. patent system. But for every one of them, there are dozens who feel the opposite way.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
147
106
None taken. I understand that there are some who feel strongly against the U.S. patent system. But for every one of them, there are dozens who feel the opposite way.

:) I guess I'm just bitter over how hard it is right now to enter the electronics industry. At very least, I would like to see the length which a patent lasts decrease. The fact that just barely the x86 patents are starting to be freed is crazy. They should last 1 to 5 years tops.

In the tech industry, 50 years might as well be 1000000000000 years.
 

Sho'Nuff

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2007
6,211
121
106
:) I guess I'm just bitter over how hard it is right now to enter the electronics industry. At very least, I would like to see the length which a patent lasts decrease. The fact that just barely the x86 patents are starting to be freed is crazy. They should last 1 to 5 years tops.

In the tech industry, 50 years might as well be 1000000000000 years.

Presently, and in most cases, the term of a U.S. patent expires 20 years afterthe date the underlying patent application was filed. The patent term was shorter in the past, buu never longer than 20 years. So, I'm not sure where you are getting 50 years from. Looks like you might be confusing copyright term with patent term.

Then again, 20 years is a still a long time in the electronics world. But some perspective is required. Presently, the USPTO is taking anywhere from 24-48 months to act on an application. Yep, act, not allow. If patent term were shortened to five years, it is easily possible that the term of the patent would expire before it issues. Not the best way to promote science and the useful arts, if you ask me.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Patents need to DIAF (no offence soxfan).

They use to help the little guy stay afloat, but now a days they are only there to assure the big guy never has any competition. I would say they are very anticompetitive. (Just TRY to start up a microprocessor business without buying patent licences). Everything under the sun is patented, making it hard to even know if you are violating a patent. Companies are set up for the express purpose of making tons of patents (sometimes even prior art patents) and suing everyone that violates their extremely general patents. Hoping to get lucky.

Your sig mentions software and you don't even mention software patents!

At least 90% of software patents are complete junk. EE patents have nothing on software patents.

And I work on patents, too.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
As an aside hasnt patent law as we know it today spurned some of the most interesting tech and mashups because of the fact that everything has to be reverse engineered and changed enough to not infringe?
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Presently, and in most cases, the term of a U.S. patent expires 20 years afterthe date the underlying patent application was filed. The patent term was shorter in the past, buu never longer than 20 years. So, I'm not sure where you are getting 50 years from. Looks like you might be confusing copyright term with patent term.

He's probably confused about submarine patents of the past.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Presently, and in most cases, the term of a U.S. patent expires 20 years afterthe date the underlying patent application was filed. The patent term was shorter in the past, buu never longer than 20 years. So, I'm not sure where you are getting 50 years from. Looks like you might be confusing copyright term with patent term.

Then again, 20 years is a still a long time in the electronics world. But some perspective is required. Presently, the USPTO is taking anywhere from 24-48 months to act on an application. Yep, act, not allow. If patent term were shortened to five years, it is easily possible that the term of the patent would expire before it issues. Not the best way to promote science and the useful arts, if you ask me.

Well, you can extend patents under the right conditions such as reformulation or a substantial evolution of the product without changing it's fundamental nature. Big pharma companies abuse this clause to keep generics off the market. Just look at Clariton. Half of the time they aren't even reformulating either as the case of Clariton D when it's patent was set to expire. The company claimed reformulation for a daytime version of the product. However, it just turned out to be a new box and nothing was changed with the original patented formula. But they got an injunction placed for quite awhile on the generics from letting them sell. Which gave the Clariton company longer exclusive rights. The money they earned for the lengthened exclusive rights more than made up for the cap fines they had to pay later.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Patents need to DIAF (no offence soxfan).

They use to help the little guy stay afloat, but now a days they are only there to assure the big guy never has any competition.

There is a good story related to how big corporations use the little guy . Robert Kearns invented the intermittent windshield wiper that is used in millions of cars and ford stole it.

They even made a movie about it called "flash of Genius"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1591476505/

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118404,00.html
When he began tinkering with his revolutionary wiper, in 1962, he was an engineering professor at Michigan's Wayne State University and a small-time inventor (his early credits included a comb that dispensed its own hair tonic). Kearns installed an experimental version of his "intermittent wiper" in the family's Ford Galaxie in 1963 and brought it to Ford. The company hired him as a consultant, worked with him for six years&#8212;and then dropped him. Instead of the supplier's contract he had hoped for, Kearns got a handshake and a wiper motor mounted on a plaque.

With a wife and six kids to support, the distraught inventor worked as Detroit's buildings and safety engineering commissioner, then moved in 1971 to Maryland to work for the National Bureau of Standards. One day in 1976, he cracked. Kearns landed in a Maryland psychiatric ward, and by the time he emerged several weeks later, his red hair had turned completely white. Shortly thereafter, he retired on disability.

In 1978 Kearns filed suit against Ford. During the legal odyssey that followed, three law firms abandoned him, one judge died, and finally even his wife left. "It got to the point where the only thing that existed was the lawsuit," says Phyllis Kearns, now 58 and an editorial assistant at the National Institutes of Health. "There was no end to it."

Even so, Kearns's children hung tough. Eldest son Dennis, now 35, became a licensed investigator to assist his father and once, during negotiations with Ford attorneys, placed his .45 automatic on a desk, no doubt leaving the impression that he meant business. In another less-than-heroic episode, he also began an eight-month affair with a paralegal in an opposing law firm. The romance ended soon after she turned over some crucial documents, but a judge refused to admit the evidence and fined the father $10,000 for his investigator's underhanded strategy.

By January of this year, when the case finally came to trial, the whole family had rallied to Kearns's side. On hand in Detroit were ex-wife Phyllis, the six kids and Kearns's girlfriend, Jean Ryan, 59, a retired government cartographer he met eight years ago at a meeting for divorced Catholics.

Almost from the start, the case began fueling new debate about the country's 200-year-old patent laws and the wisdom of having jury trials for such complex matters. In the end, Kearns's award was "shockingly low," says Washington, D.C., attorney and longtime patent expert Harold Wegner, echoing the view of many. "It's ludicrous for perhaps intelligent but uninformed individuals to decide such complicated issues."

With interest, if the judge awards it, Kearns's $5.1 million award could double, and he has additional suits pending against a score of other automakers as well. But the case has already cost him $650,000, financed with a small inheritance and his various jobs, and he is still faced with $3 million in outstanding legal debts. Appealing the Ford decision would forestall any award for now and mean further expense. "I've always told people that my greatest fear is that I would be $12 short of getting to trial," he says. "Now it looks like I'll be $1.2 million short," which is the estimated cost of an appeal.

"There's no precedent for a hero like Bob Kearns who's willing to go the distance," says son Dennis, vowing to stick by his father. As for Dad, the inventor insists that money never was the point anyway. "I've done too much hurting," Kearns says. "I want to protect other inventors by showing the little guy can win."
 
Last edited:

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,286
147
106
There is a good story related to how big corporations use the little guy . Robert Kearns invented the intermittent windshield wiper that is used in millions of cars and ford stole it.

They even made a movie about it called "flash of Genius"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/


http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20118404,00.html

Interesting. So even WITH the patents, it is basically impossible for the little guy to get ahead. That to me says "kill the patents."

I don't think you could justify a valid case like this not favoring Robert Kearns. And yet the system is so screwed up that he is currently under by 1.2 Million.

At very least, we need large amounts of reform to the system. Shorten patent lengths. Change who can be on the jury for the suits. And for heavens sake, have someone in the field actually READ the patents.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
I don't know that shortening patent lengths is particularly necessary across the board...maybe it should depend on the particular subject matter? That would be interesting.

I do think that the quality of examination from the USPTO needs to increase. There needs to be a slightly higher standard to be met to be granted a patent, IMO. Of course the problem is how can you define the standard for any particular application?