Why are patents allowed on naturally occurring phenomena like genes anyway?
That's just it, though - the patent is granted for the isolation, refinement, or modification of the gene. The issue is what is considered 'naturally occurring.' Chemical composition patents are granted based on the assumption that the composition isn't just sitting around and easy to get at.
The policy question is whether just protecting the process used to isolate something is enough, rather than protecting the actual thing itself.
You're right, the language "common law copyright" is improper and confusing - all I meant to refer to was state copyright law.
If the state has a statute, on the books, that provides copyright protect to something that 301 doesn't provide protection for then that would allow the state court to hear the case. EXCEPT 301 covers everything which can be copyrighted in the United States, the state copyright statute will be invalidated for some reason, so it is a circular argument.
I understand that federal copyright law preempts state copyright law when the work is valid subject matter under federal law, but if the work is valid under a state statute and NOT valid under federal law, why couldn't someone just assert their claim under state law? They wouldn't be claiming a copyright under federal law, just the rights associated with their state's law.
In this case the guy's name is obviously not valid subject matter under 102. But, arguendo, if it were valid under his state's statutes, why would that be preempted?
Well, he might have a defense given three of the four factors:
Was the nature of the use commercial, or for non-profit, educational use?
Did he use the entire work, or just portions of it? (I'm guessing just portions.)
Did his use of the work affect its marketability?
Wow. Even I found that tasteless.
No, I actually mean I'm going to qwerty some bitches foreheads here. Sorry for any confusion.
See, if you had said you were going to dvorak some bitches, then the authorities would have known you must be maladjusted and unstable.
What's that noise? Oh, I'm just tapping my keyboard. Aoeu, aoeu, aoeu...
You're dead on with the non-Intel requirement. The tantalizing stories of new ARM-based netbooks (or "smartbooks" as I've heard them called) have kept me from buying.
What I want:
1. ARM-based processor. This means low power, meaning longer lasting battery life. Ideally something around 8 hours would be fantastic. Presumably this would also mean fanless (which means quiet, and thin).
2. Small - maybe 8" to 9". Also, light. My current aging setup is a PDA with bluetooth folding keyboard, for a total weight of about 1.5 lbs. I'd like something around the 2 lb weight range, or less. I no longer carry around my 5 lb MacBook unless I absolutely have to - it's simply too much weight (combined with books, sometimes lunch) to be lugging around a city all day.
3. Linux-based (or at least an option). Main reason my PDA/keyboard setup is no longer that viable is because it's a pain to use tools like scp, and there's no modern web browser. I'd like a machine to run ssh (and scp), definitely rsync, and have the option of installing open-source stuff like Perl, R, and LaTeX.
4. $200 price point. Don't subsidize it by requiring a wireless subscription, either.
I saw a prototype Pegatron machine that looked like it would meet all of these, but it's not available yet... every time I search, I keep hearing that these machines are just around the corner. In summer, they were coming about for Christmas 2009. Now that it's December, I hear they are coming out in Q1 2010.
Yeah, it just sounds like a typical corporate line about intellectual property. If the server is reimplemented (as opposed to downloaded off some warez site) by reverse engineering, seems to me the most it could be is an EULA violation. EULA probably states something like "you may only use this client to connect to authorized servers, etc."
Depending on the particular mechanisms involved, you might be able to argue that skipping the license check is a violation of the DMCA (for example, if the private server has to falsify a credential and return it to the client, and this takes place via a process of breaking an circumvention mechanism), but that's the only thing I can come up with off the top of my head.
On one hand, I see why a treaty like ACTA might be desirable to establish a common copyright law across all nations. Especially given how much copyright infringement is going on between nations and how hard it is to enforce laws nationally when the economy and the access is global.
We already have plenty of international agreement on copyright law: the Berne convention, WIPO copyright treaties, the TRIPS agreement, etc. All of those have plenty more signatories than ACTA will have, anyway.
There are also more appropriate venues to be negotiating changes to international copyright law (namely, WIPO). ACTA is not being negotiated there because WIPO requires transparency and broad participation, and ACTA's supporters know that it would not stand a chance at WIPO.
From what I have heard from people who have seen ACTA, as well as the few leaks about it, the reason it's being kept so secret is because it is exporting a lot of crappy US policy, including fundamentally flawed bits, like the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
If Kirk had any interest in increasing transparency in the ACTA negotiations, he'd be able to. He has about a dozen plausible ways:
1. He could say that the Obama administration is interested in transparency, therefore the US will make draft texts public.
2. He could have his office stop denying FOIA requests on the idiotic grounds of "national security."
3. He could say something like, "In light of increasing concern about the transparency (as expressed by groups like the MPAA and the European Parliament), we have opted to release draft texts."
That's just what I can come up with off the top of my head. No, I think his statement is probably honest (in part because I'm guessing he was caught off guard - I've met Jamie Love, and I'm betting the way he posed the question to Kirk put Kirk on the spot).
What do the negotiations matter? The politicians, or most of them, aren't usually involved in negotiations anyways. What counts is the ratification. That's where the politicians wear it.
Well, ratification would count, except that in the U.S., ACTA is being negotiated as an executive agreement, and thus doesn't require ratification by Congress.
A few Congresspeople have sent a letter to Obama expressing their concern over the secrecy of the treaty, but others are just parroting the line about protecting American business and innovation, etc.
I agree there are good reasons for some negotiations to be kept private, then ratified later. However, when there is no ratification, the negotiation is entirely secret and simply presented to us as a fait accompli, where is the opportunity for public involvement and comment?
"Inquiry is fatal to certainty." -- Will Durant