Well... maybe this could be the result that Bilski should have been and SCOTUS will hold that software is not patentable subject matter.

(fingers crossed)

The charges have been dropped. "In a brief statement Saturday, chief prosecutor Eva Finne says: 'I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape.'" http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g8-DEMtAE9q4i4ySQ0eV_qZefmRQD9HNV4A00

My non-profit has run a contest for the past three years. Maybe I've not been doing things the "right" way but it's only after an entry has actually won a prize that the developer assigns any rights to my organization. If they don't win then I get nothing. If they do win they always have the option of not assigning the rights (and concomitantly not receiving a cash prize!).

I'm not sure why somebody would willingly assign away their rights just for a chance to win and frankly I question the value of what a non-winning developer is receiving in exchange for the rights assignment. A "chance" doesn't seem like it would be adequate consideration.

Interesting - I thought they only lived in gardens and TV commercials.

You're right but Marketing shot down the name "fundamentally flawed."

Didn't test well.

Intent to defraud includes advertising that "fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual."
Dissemination of false advertisements http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/2/I/52

So is Steve Jobs going to be punished with "imprisonment for not more than six months"?
False advertisements; penalties http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/15/2/I/54

I agree that the question would benefit from some clarification.

The criteria in determining the success of a creative work would depend on one's perspective:

• Artist / Author / "creator": Although each "creator" may have their own, private definition of success, I would imagine that common criteria include an ability to earn a living income through the creative work, the respect of their peers, awards, etc.
• Society: Once society is exposed to any creative work theoretically society has been affected to some degree; it could be plausibly argued that any impact to society is a "success." If so, the only "failure" that comes to mind is a creative work that never saw the light of day and so will never have any impact on society whatsoever.
• RIAA: A successful creative work is that which is profitable. (But is a work still successful if it returns a profit lower than industry standards? How about if it's hugely profitable - breaking every record - but pirating is reducing the potential profits by 20%?)

Here, the question is about creative works that were "a financial failure" with respect to the RIAA and their claims of financial impacts from piracy so we should look to how a success would be defined from RIAA's perspective. Interestingly, a failure in the eyes of the RIAA might still be a success from the viewpoint of both the artists who created that work and from society in general.

This is not like "[...] used book retailers, music traders, software peddlers, refurbished computer sellers."

While concert promoters may have some of the same issues with scalpers that a book publisher has with resale of a book at a used book store their distinctions are far far greater than any commonalities:

1) Supply: books, music, software, and hardware are generally all materials that are in (nearly) unlimited supply, the tickets to a concert that has a finite # of seats and a finite # of performances is by-its-nature limited. When there are shortages of new hardware (e.g. game consoles at launch) that is a more apt analogy but again there is an inherent difference in that although production will ramp up and one can eventually buy a Wii, the same is unlikely true of seeing a specific performer in concert in your city or town; the scarcity of supply is what drives the profits of professional "ticket resellers."

2) Value: whereas a book that's already been read could still have the same amount of value to a second purchaser as did the first, the same is obviously not true of a concert ticket purchaser. Sure, somebody might want a used concert ticket to frame and hang on their wall but this is clearly not the same value as the person using the ticket to attend the concert.

The only thing that I imagine a concert promoter and a book publisher would have in common here is a perceived mentality that "nobody should make money off of this but me." Outside of that how in the world does a concert compare to software or a book? In a world of bad Slashdot analogies this may be the worst I've seen that received a +5 "interesting."

Subject matter is too crude a tool to filter out undesirable patents.

I agree that we would not want subject matter to be the only test but that's fortunately not the case. I think that it makes sense that subject matter be used as an initial hurdle however. I read the Bilski ruling as indicating a general reluctance by SCOTUS to patent processes but they wanted to avoid a bright-line ruling to allow for processes in unanticipated technologies that are more appropriate candidates.

The issue here is that in many of these patents test A and treatments foo, bar, and baz are all known in the art. The invention is the discovery of the association or correlation between test results and the optimal treatment

Frankly I don't understand why trade secret protection isn't sought in these instances more often; don't reveal which gene triggers treatment with foo, which with bar, etc. If it was adequately protected (e.g. the Coke formula!) it's protected far longer than the 20 years from a patent.

Not necessarily. If a law in a country is based on strict liability then you are probably correct because strict liability does not require a "guilty state of mind." For example, statutory rape in the U.S. is generally a strict liability crime (e.g. it wouldn't necessarily help Adam if he truly believed that Eve was of legal age if in reality she's a minor because state of mind isn't a factor for strict liability crimes).

However, strict liability isn't the only level of culpability; in the U.S. the other levels are negligently, recklessly, knowingly, and purposefully. To use your driving example: if somebody were driving negligently (shown by not paying attention) and hit an old lady who is jaywalking it is a very different matter than if he is driving recklessly (shown by steering with his feet) or purposefully (shown by keeping a tally on his website of how many old ladies he has run over). If the jaywalking old lady is killed, this distinction may mean the difference between manslaughter and murder.

To apply these culpability levels to the issue at hand it will be necessary to look to the statutes themselves; if the statute defines "illegal data collection" as being an act that is done purposefully, then negligence may not rise to that level. If it is determined that an error in Google's code is the reason behind the data collection and that the presence of the error in the code is due to negligence on the part of Google then it's entirely possible that no law was broken.

In cases like this defendants sometimes file a motion for summary judgment stating that there is no cause of action.

Wikipedia has an article that goes into greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_judgment

In order to watch "District 9" in HD my options were:

• 1) Drive to the movie theater and watch it on a large screen in a large air-conditioned theater; or
• 2) Purchase the HD disc that has either been shipped to a retail store or to my house and then toss / recycle the packaging; or
• 3) Stream the movie straight to my house.

#3 seems to have the fewest ecological externalities so why isn't it "green"?

It's unfortunate that Comcast is allowed to offer a service perceived to be "unlimited" but is anything but. That single movie was 11GB when streamed through XBL to my XBOX 360, representing over 4% of my total monthly "allotment." If I'd used Comcast's view-on-demand service instead then I wouldn't have this bandwidth "cost" - does that seem reasonable?

I expect the FCC will eventually have to reclassify ISPs and I hope everybody will remember who forced their hand... bad Comcast - bad! Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done.

I always thought that intent was important when being charged with a crime.

For some crimes it matters but not for all. Drunk driving, trespass, and in many states statutory rape are all examples of strict liability crimes. Check out the wikipedia article on mens rea for an explanation and more details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

As is often the case here the cited article http://techdirt.com/articles/20100511/1018059377.shtml is just a highlight of a more thoughtful article http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/05/as-the-battle-of-e-book-readers-heats-up-amazon-is-trying-to-beat-the-competition-by-continually-adding-new-features-to-its.html which reveals far more detail (yes, not only did I read TFA but TFAFA as well).

This "feature" is not required; a user can turn off "Annotations Backup" on their Kindle.

My concerns are these:

1) When privacy issues are implicated the default option should always require explicit "opt-in."

2) While this provides a helpful feature (the ability to retrieve one's annotations should they lose the data and wish to go to Amazon for a back-up) the only way to receive the benefit is by allowing aggregation of one's personal notes.

3) Will users understand the potential privacy implications? When dealing with tech issues I think of what my Mom would think and I doubt she'd realize that this could be a "bad" thing.

So... although this issue isn't necessarily as alarming as the summary above it is an issue that needs to be addressed. I've always liked Amazon and am hopeful that the Kindle privacy issues are the result of the same lone asshat who decided to delete "1984" and "Animal Farm" from Kindles last year. If so then it's time for said asshat to move on (Facebook would be a logical place) and allow the Kindle to flourish without any undue asshattery.

Oh, and could we stop playing "telephone game" with the articles on here? It doesn't take much time to locate a relevant (and more authoritative) source. I don't fully understand the "article approval process" but it seems that poorly cited / inaccurate summaries are more often the rule than the exception. My attempts to have any articles approved have been wholly unsuccessful and I'm not keen on engaging in deceptive hyperbole to change that.