Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Notice of Opposition (Score 2) 209

All these arguments are great, except that they mean nothing if the mark gets published in the Official Gazette and no one files a notice of opposition within 30 days. Then the mark will be presumed valid and harder to overturn. After a certain point, the mark can no longer be challenged, so it's best to get in opposition as early as possible.

If it gets past the first examiner, it will be published in the Official Gazette in the coming weeks (it's a weekly publication). That's when the notice of opposition should be filed. It costs $300, and requires proof of service to the applicant.

Comment Oh No! (Score 1) 391

Because only Google could figure out that SSNs are sequential, follow a known formula, and can generally be figured out with the last 4 digits and the location and date of birth. Sooo Scary! To think that SSNs are in any way a secure identifier is to be naive.

Comment Experience with Infringement (Score 1) 227

I had this exact thing happen to a photograph I had posted on Flickr. A magazine from the UK took my image without license, and published it in print, online, and in a DVD. Their distribution included many stores here in the US. Before posting the image, I had taken the time to register my copyright with the USCO, so that unlocks statutory damages, which are very important in copyright infringement cases. Without registering *before the infringement*, you don't get attorneys fees or court costs, and you only get actual damages. That makes pursuing an infringement case a loser if you don't have the copyright registered.

Having distributed physical copies into the US, I could have pretty easily used the US as the venue for a lawsuit, or even done so through a solicitor in the UK. However, lawyers are messy, and enforcing judgments across international borders is costly. The first thing I did was prepare an invoice stating the usage of the image, that there was no implicit license, that the images are copyrighted (which they are, whether you registered them or not), and how much I expected in licensing fees for the usage. I also added a multiplier for needing to issue the license retroactively and having discovered the infringement myself. After a bit of negotiation as to the licensing fee, the publication was very apologetic and wired me the agreed upon rate. Now they have a license, I got paid for the commercial use, and we parted amicably.

For more information, I highly recommend the ASMP website on copyright: http://asmp.org/tutorials/enforcing-your-rights.html

Censorship

Submission + - Thailand Blocks Wikileaks; Cites Emergency Rule (google.com)

eldavojohn writes: After bloody anti-government riots in 2005, Thailand enshrined Emergency Rule into its laws which has since resulted in more than a few websites being shut down. In addition to websites, Thailand's government has used this decree to 'arrest hundreds of suspects and silence anti-government media.' Now, they are blocking Wikileaks.
Government

Submission + - Government to slash waste websites (pcpro.co.uk)

nk497 writes: The UK government is to slash the 820 websites it runs by 75%, after finding that some sites serve so few people that each visit costs over £11, with some sites actually competing with each other. A report published today by the Central Office for Information found that in the last year £94 million had been spent setting up and running just 46 websites, with an additional £32 million in staff costs. Those websites that do survive the cuts will see their budgets slashed in half.
Music

Submission + - ASCAP declares war on free culture (zeropaid.com)

ndogg writes: "ASCAP has sent letters to its members saying things like, "Many forces including Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation and technology companies with deep pockets are mobilizing to promote “Copyleft” in order to undermine our “Copyright.”" Drew Wilson, an artist himself, explains how ASCAP completely misses the point about how Copyleft works."

Comment Re:DMCA? Only in America (Score 2, Informative) 271

ImageLogr.com -> A 173.236.52.170

WHOIS 173.236.52.170:
OrgName: SingleHop, Inc.
OrgID: SINGL-8
Address: 621 W. Randolph St.
Address: 3rd Floor
City: Chicago
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60661
Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.singlehop.net:4321

NetRange: 173.236.0.0 - 173.236.127.255
CIDR: 173.236.0.0/17
OriginAS: AS32475
NetName: SINGLEHOP
NetHandle: NET-173-236-0-0-1
Parent: NET-173-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.SINGLEHOP.COM
NameServer: NS2.SINGLEHOP.COM
Comment:
RegDate: 2010-03-23
Updated: 2010-03-23

Allocated to an ISP in the United States.

Privacy

ImageLogr Scrapes "Billions" of Images Illegally 271

PurpleCarrot writes "In what must be one of the largest attempts to scrape images from the Web, the site ImageLogr.com 'claims to be scraping the entire "free web" and seems to have hit Flickr especially hard, copying full-sized images of yours and mine to their own servers, where they are hosting them without any attribution or links back to the original image in violation of all available licenses on Flickr.' The site even contains the option to directly download images that ImageLogr has scraped. What makes this endeavor so amazing is that it isn't a case of 'other people gave us millions of infringing images, help us remove the wrong ones,' but one of 'we took all the images on the Web; if we got one of yours, oops!' The former gets some protection from the DMCA, whereas the latter is blatant infringement. ImageLogr's actions have caused a flurry of activity, and the site's owners have subsequently taken it offline, displaying the following message: 'Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon.'"

Submission + - ImageLogr Scrapes "Billions" of Images Illegally (thomashawk.com) 1

PurpleCarrot writes: In what must be one of the largest attempts to scrape images from the web, the site ImageLogr.com "claims to be scraping the entire 'free web' and seems to have hit Flickr especially hard, copying full-sized images of yours and mine to their own servers where they are hosting them without any attribution or links back to the original image in violation of all available licenses on Flickr." The site even contains the option to directly download images that ImageLogr has scraped. What makes this endeavor so amazing is that this isn't a case of "other people gave us millions of infringing images, help us remove the wrong one's" but one of "we took all the images on the webz, if we got one of yours, oops!" The former gets some protection from the DMCA, whereas the latter is blatant infringement. The site has caused a flurry of activity and has since shut off its site, being replaced with the following message: "Imagelogr.com is currently offline as we are improving the website. Due to copyright issues we are now changing some stuff around to make people happy. Please check back soon."

Comment Non-Consenting Inventor (Score 1) 310

I think that this raises a question regarding non-consenting inventors. If an inventor who holds a patent is not a consenting party to the formation of the industry standard, should they lose their patent rights solely because someone decided to make a standard based around the patent? E.g. if a group of cotton makers created a "standard seed removal system for cotton" as an industry standard, should that have caused Eli Whitney to lose his patent on the cotton gin for it becoming a de facto standard when he never made it a de jure standard?
The Courts

Supreme Court To Consider First Sale of Imports 259

Animaether passes along a legal tale that "doesn't involve the kind of cutting-edge issues that copyright lawyers usually grapple with in the digital age [and] sounds like the kind of lawsuit that should have been resolved 200 years ago," yet still "is very much a product of the Internet-driven global economy." "Can copyright owners assert rights over imported goods that have already been sold once? That is the issue before the Supreme Court in Costco Wholesale Corp v. Omega, S.A. (backstory here). What's at stake is the ability of resellers to offer legitimate, non-pirated versions of copyrighted goods, manufactured in foreign nations, to US consumers at prices that undercut those charged by the copyright holders."

Comment Re:Three parents? Not really. (Score 3, Informative) 201

Not so. Mitochondrial DNA is not contained in the nucleus, but is rather contained in the hosting cell. In a normal fertilization, this is always the mother's mitochondiral DNA, but in this case, it is the egg donor's DNA. Any mitochondrial problems the donor might have had could be expressed by the child even if the two nuclear DNA parents don't have any such issues.

Slashdot Top Deals

I have hardly ever known a mathematician who was capable of reasoning. -- Plato

Working...