Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Really? (Score 0) 228

My point was that a grant is not "exclusive" if you are required to share it.

The patent system grants a limited monopoly in exchange for complete and enabling disclosure of an invention. It is this disclosure that promotes the useful arts, not the use of the underlying invention. In other words, patent policy does not care whether an inventor actually does anything with his patent. By the time the patent issues, the inventor has already paid his side of the quid-pro-quo.

The theory upon which this trade-off is justified is that if we don't give inventors an incentive to create and disclose their inventions, they will not do so. The limited monopoly purports to serve as this incentive under our current system. Other types of incentives have been suggested, such as prizes, research grants, subsidies, or tax deductions for R&D, but each comes fraught with its own suite of complications.

(Also, I mentioned the First Amendment argument because it comes up in law school discussions on this topic, not because I think it makes sense to me.)
Science

Submission + - If You're Fat, Broke, and Smoking, Blame Language (vice.com)

derekmead writes: A Yale researcher says that culture differences how much money we save, how well we take care of ourselves, and other behavior indicative of taking the long view, are all based on language.

His study argues that the way a language's syntax refers to the future (PDF) affects how its speakers perceive the future. For example, English and Greek make strong distinctions between the present and the future, while German doesn't, while English and Greek speakers are statistically poorer and in worse health than Germans. (The study includes a broader swath of languages/nationalities, but that's a start.)

Submission + - Capitol Records Motion to Enjoin ReDigi Denied (blogspot.com)

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The motion by Capitol Records for a preliminary injunction against used digital music marketplace ReDigi has been denied. After hearing almost 2 hours of oral argument by attorneys for both sides, Judge Richard J. Sullivan ruled from the bench (PDF), holding that plaintiff had failed to show "irreparable harm"."

Comment Re:Really? (Score 0) 228

a compulsory license requirement would be in no way unconstitutional.

I disagree. A compulsory license would contravene Article I and possibly implicate the First Amendment. It is possible that one may pursue a patent not because they wish to produce a product, but because they wish to prevent others from doing so.

For example, let's say you've patented Method A of processing widgets. Now say you discover Method B, which is less efficient but still viable. You might patent Method B even though you have no interest in using it, just to stop your competitors from moving in an using Method B.

Alternatively, imagine that you hate a particular technology, but you happen to know a lot about it. You could patent a new invention in that technology area just to stop others from using it. In this case, mandating that you license the patent could also be considered an abridgment of your freedom of speech. Of course, it be in the public domain once your patent expires, but for a little while you could make your statement.

References:
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (emphasis added)
First Amendment, in relevant part:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Google

Google Patent Proposes $2 Fee To Skip Commercials 434

theodp writes "A day after Google debuted its new Google TV website, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,806,329 to the search giant for its Targeted Video Advertising invention. Among other things, the patent proposes having viewers take 5-10 minutes to 'fill out a consumer survey and perhaps to provide additional information such as a mailing address survey before starting the program' to avoid having to watch 10 minutes of commercials. 'As another alternative,' the patent continues, 'the broadcaster may offer the users an option to pay $2 (such as through a micro-payment system, such as GBuy) to exchange for skipping all commercials.' More from the patent: 'The system may allow a user to skip all of the promotions that they want to skip, but may also require the user to fully watch at least four promotions before the program will continue. Likewise, the system may require the user to follow activities that generate a certain amount of advertising revenue or advertising points (e.g., that may correspond directly or indirectly to advertising revenues) before the program will continue.'"
Privacy

In Court? Be Careful What You Post On Facebook 147

mbone writes "Going to court? Seeking damages for injuries? Be careful what you post on Facebook (and, presumably, elsewhere). In the first case of its kind (analyzed in the Courtroom Strategy blog), a Suffolk County, NY Judge allowed a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit to obtain access to the Facebook profile of the plaintiff suing them, saying 'Plaintiff has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy.' You have been warned. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, but I would expect this to become common." Readers might be reminded of the Canadian case reported last year of a woman whose cheerful Facebook pictures led an insurance company to yank coverage.
The Courts

Supreme Court May Tune In To Music Download Case 339

droopus writes "The US Supreme Court is weighing into the first RIAA file-sharing case to reach its docket, requesting that the music labels' litigation arm respond to a case testing the so-called 'innocent infringer' defense to copyright infringement. The case pending before the justices concerns a federal appeals court's February decision ordering a university student to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $27,750 — $750 a track — for file-sharing 37 songs when she was a high school cheerleader. The appeals court decision reversed a Texas federal judge who, after concluding the youngster was an innocent infringer, ordered defendant Whitney Harper to pay $7,400 — or $200 per song. That's an amount well below the standard $750 fine required under the Copyright act. Harper is among the estimated 20,000 individuals the RIAA has sued for file-sharing music. The RIAA has decried Harper as 'vexatious,' because of her relentless legal jockeying."
Encryption

Intel Threatens DMCA Using HDCP Crack 373

mikesd81 writes "Intel is apparently threatening to use the DMCA against anyone using the HDCP crack under the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. 'There are laws to protect both the intellectual property involved as well as the content that is created and owned by the content providers,' said Tom Waldrop, a spokesman for the company, which developed HDCP. 'Should a circumvention device be created using this information, we and others would avail ourselves, as appropriate, of those remedies.'"
Image

Open Sarcasm Fighting Copyrighted Punctuation 155

pinkushun writes "SarcMark is a copyrighted punctuation mark, that claims 'It's time that sarcasm is treated equally!' Pretty damn cheeky while they're charging for their software, which only inserts their punctuation through a hotkey. Open Sarcasm is destroying SarcMark by advocating a new punctuation mark (not displaying here properly — alt+U0161) as the new open and free sarcasm symbol. Either way, this will be one interesting turnout. With bad unicode support across the web, displaying the characters properly might be an issue. PS Left out sarcastic end sentence as Slashdot doesn't display the U0161 character."

Slashdot Top Deals

The universe does not have laws -- it has habits, and habits can be broken.

Working...