http://www.techdirt.com/ Easily digestible tech news.... http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/09382823173/chicago-school-system-foia-requests-stonewalling-obfuscation-paper-shredding.shtml#c304 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:41:00 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/09382823173/chicago-school-system-foia-requests-stonewalling-obfuscation-paper-shredding.shtml#c304 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01434213446/dailydirt-tuition-debt-is-chumps.shtml#c56 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:39:49 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01434213446/dailydirt-tuition-debt-is-chumps.shtml#c56 College is also entirely unnecessary for the vast majority of jobs.
These days, even the jobs for which you don't need a college degree require a college degree. With so many people looking for work, it's a quick and easy way for employers to winnow down the field of applicants.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c914 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:38:51 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c914 The bots get false positives at times and one is one too many. In this case it seems like a lot of independent false positives on something that do not make these studios look good. That is rather suspicious!
In fact, it seems they were either targeting the documentary itself or targeting links containing the phrase "Pirate Bay" regardless of content. Either way, it's altogether improper behavior for anyone filing a DMCA notice, and in no way satisfies the "good faith" requirement of the DMCA. If the DMCA's "perjury" clause had any teeth, Simon Klose would be wiping the floor with all the studios.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/02455423183/prenda-lawyer-says-georgia-court-should-ignore-judge-wrights-order-because-look-hackers.shtml#c432 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:34:48 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/02455423183/prenda-lawyer-says-georgia-court-should-ignore-judge-wrights-order-because-look-hackers.shtml#c432
average_joe and horse with no name just hate it when due process is enforced.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130424/00010122821/adam-savage-why-copyright-trademark-holders-need-to-get-over-their-obsession-with-control.shtml#c181 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:33:31 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130424/00010122821/adam-savage-why-copyright-trademark-holders-need-to-get-over-their-obsession-with-control.shtml#c181 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/15454323039/appeals-court-issues-135-page-ruling-software-patents-that-answers-almost-nothing.shtml#c1010 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:31:54 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130510/15454323039/appeals-court-issues-135-page-ruling-software-patents-that-answers-almost-nothing.shtml#c1010
First, the majority of judges agree that the presumption of validity applies to Section 101. See Lourie at 23, and Radar at 26. This means that a defendant can't kill a software patent on a motion to dismiss, and without facts (e.g., expert testimony).

Second, the majority of judges agree that the key question is "preemption": does the claim cover all practical applications of the idea. They agree that this comes down to a question of the scope of the claim relative to "practical" and "real world effects". The judges all look for "meaningful limitations". Where the judges disagree is how you do that analysis, on what counts as "meaningful."

Even Lourie (who found all the claims ineligible) requires that the claim "wholly preempt" all "practical uses" of the idea. I would argue that a defendant has to prove that it could not practice the abstract idea without infringing. The patentee need only show that its possible to do that, because there is some limitation in the claim that is not required to practice the "big idea." In general, given a broadly stated "abstract idea" any good engineer can show that there is some limitation in the claim that is not required to implement the abstract idea. In that case, the defendant loses.

Your quotation above that "generic computer automation" should kill lots of software patents is not correct. Most software patents are not mere computer automation of an existing idea practiced in real life. Certainly there are plenty, but they are the minority. They may be more visible because they are more likely to be contested and result in litigation, but that's a biased sample.

More fundamentally, the underlying logic of this view is at odds with the law and I would argue, common sense. It has never been the case that an invention is ineligible because it is "automation" or because it uses conventional mechanisms. It may be obvious, but it's still eligible for patenting. Indeed, caselaw going back over a 100 years, and the modern patent law, specifically allowed for inventions that were new "uses" of existing machines, which arguably covers the "mere" computerization of an existing process.

Further, this thinking is "biased" against computers for no apparent reason. More specifically: would you deny patent eligibility to someone who used conventional pulleys and gears and levers and springs etc. in a new way to lift a stone? No, you would say that qualified as eligible for a patent, and then decide whether it was obvious. If you would not discriminate against other types of "hardware" that can be reconfigured and repurposed, then you should not discriminate against computer hardware which is reconfigured and repurposed by software.

One of the hallmarks of our patent system is that it is technology agnostic: it does not dictate which technologies are a priori worthy of protecting and which are not. It lets in all comers and thus does not bias the path of technological innovation. Imagine if in the 1920s or so, the Supreme Court decided the inventions that used electricity were merely applying a "natural law" or "natural phenomena" and therefore no electrical device was eligible for patent protection? Maybe you would say that we'd be better off--but there is no evidence for that. Indeed, the historical record is that Edison, Westinghouse, and many others relied on patents in order obtain financing and maintain profits for further research and development.

For a detailed analysis of the CLS opinions see http://www.bilskiblog.com]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01434213446/dailydirt-tuition-debt-is-chumps.shtml#c54 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:31:07 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01434213446/dailydirt-tuition-debt-is-chumps.shtml#c54 "College is also entirely unnecessary for the vast majority of jobs."

These jobs you speak of... do they require you to say "do you want fries with that?" alot?]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/10391523084/vp-joe-biden-believes-theres-no-legal-reason-government-cant-slap-sin-tax-violent-media.shtml#c647 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:28:38 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130514/10391523084/vp-joe-biden-believes-theres-no-legal-reason-government-cant-slap-sin-tax-violent-media.shtml#c647 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/11301723178/amazon-wants-to-sell-fan-fiction-with-it-originator-fanfic-author-all-sharing-profits.shtml#c565 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:23:18 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/11301723178/amazon-wants-to-sell-fan-fiction-with-it-originator-fanfic-author-all-sharing-profits.shtml#c565
Do you post your fic on Archiveofourown.org? I both post & read most of my fanfic there for many reasons, but a big one is that there's a drop-down menu on "Download" where you can choose mobi, epub, pdf, or html to download to your ebook rather than reading the fic on the screen. My first thought on discovering the drop-down was, "I'll never have to pay for an overpriced zine again!", and I immediately gave AO3 a nice donation.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01434213446/dailydirt-tuition-debt-is-chumps.shtml#c42 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:17:19 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110311/01434213446/dailydirt-tuition-debt-is-chumps.shtml#c42 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/10303023175/magic-hat-brewery-sues-west-sixth-brewing-using-number-six-their-logo.shtml#c346 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:08:57 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/10303023175/magic-hat-brewery-sues-west-sixth-brewing-using-number-six-their-logo.shtml#c346 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c2002 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:08:40 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130523/00174423181/kim-dotcom-threatens-to-sue-google-facebook-twitter-over-2-factor-authentication-patent-if-they-dont-help-him.shtml#c2002 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130424/00010122821/adam-savage-why-copyright-trademark-holders-need-to-get-over-their-obsession-with-control.shtml#c159 Thu, 23 May 2013 18:04:30 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130424/00010122821/adam-savage-why-copyright-trademark-holders-need-to-get-over-their-obsession-with-control.shtml#c159 Sticking to copyright: while Disney may have "stolen" from fairy tales (no one complained), the labor of thinking up, working out, and producing Mickey Mouse was nearly all due to Walt Disney (and his gang of slave-artists to draw the many images), so the resulting film is ALL his.

No. He stole from Grimm Fairy Tales, who took from thousands of years of stories to tell the children in regards to good moral upbringing.

Then you have to think about this... Walt Disney is DEAD!

He no longer has anything to do with creativity. His corporation is a shell, meant only to make money.

And to ENJOY the product of his work, you only had to pay a nickel!

Wrong. The public enjoyed his work and nowadays they enjoy it on the Pirate Bay since Disney's Vault is a figment of our imagination.

If you don't want to pay, you don't have to, but you've then NO right to enjoy the content.

Nope. I can enjoy it in a number of legal avenues without paying for it. A friend has a DVD. Or a friend has a VCR tape. And I've yet to pay. The same as people sharing media nowadays on Pirate Bay that you can't seem to wrap your head around.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/02350923170/new-bill-would-stop-patent-trolls-hiding-behind-shell-companies.shtml#c418 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:58:44 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/02350923170/new-bill-would-stop-patent-trolls-hiding-behind-shell-companies.shtml#c418 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c898 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:47 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c898
There is only one troll here and he will not offer a legitimate opinion on this or any other case.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/18102623141/so-its-come-to-this-seven-high-school-students-arrested-throwing-water-balloons.shtml#c2121 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:57:38 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130519/18102623141/so-its-come-to-this-seven-high-school-students-arrested-throwing-water-balloons.shtml#c2121 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/02350923170/new-bill-would-stop-patent-trolls-hiding-behind-shell-companies.shtml#c411 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:56:59 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/02350923170/new-bill-would-stop-patent-trolls-hiding-behind-shell-companies.shtml#c411 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml#c1384 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:56:54 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130502/18364622931/ma-teen-arrested-held-without-bail-posting-supposed-terrorist-threat-facebook.shtml#c1384 Now, for the record I am a first amendment advocate who lectures on the topic quite frequently and when I first got word of this story my PERSONAL opinion was that charging this GUY (he is no kid) with terrorism was an affront to the friends I lost on 911.

NOW.... having said that... let's take a look at the story you are criticizing, shall we?

You ASSume when reading this straight news story that the writer was "breathlessly" trying to bias the readers of said story and that said bias was to paint Carmen D'Ambrosia in a bad light as to railroad an INNOCENT FLOWER with negative press.

But..... since my PERSONAL opinion was (at the time)disgusted that he was being charged with "terrorism" ... and the FACTS of the story showed D'Ambrosio in a bad light... it was the FACTS that lead the story not any personal bias. If there was personal bias in this NEWS story it would have favored Cameron.

But this does bring up an interesting point when dealing with people who like to recklessly attack others without knowing the true motives... or even bothering to ask.
It seems from your criticism of my piece, that your beef is really centered around why I did NOT show my bias when writing the story .... since THAT bias is one you would AGREE with. This amuses me greatly.

The satanic depiction on his Facebook page in and of itself means nothing. But when you take it in context with what he was being charged with, his bragging on facebook that he was going to "beat every murder charge", and saying his acts would be bigger than the Boston Marathon, previous threats,complaints by dozens of kids at Methuen High School that they felt he was a threat, and some rather DISTURBING previous posts (which we did NOT report) the satanic imagery BECOMES relevant.

Now let's address another issue. FACTS
It is rare today to find people interested in those pesky facts because most people want to fit a story to THEIR narrative not let the facts SHAPE their narrative.

Tea Party conservatives are writing blog postings and emailing me saying D'Ambrosio was targeted for his "anti government posts". Several other blogs paint him out to be a goofy kid, who was just clowning around and is up against jack booted thug government cops looking to take away his rights.

But the facts show differently.
#1 He is not being charged under the patriot act or any FEDERAL charges at all. He is being charges under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269, Section 14B. (Bomb Threats/Hijacking threats). Which is commonly referred to by Law Enforcement as a "terrorism statute" But does not elevate the criminal offense to the Federal level.
#2 He has an arrest record and a probation record that shows him to be anything BUT a "goofy kid" or an innocent flower.The neighbors we spoke with ALL said that he was a violent kid with a really troubled home and every one of them said being in jail was better than what he had to go home to. EVERY ONE OF THEM. I did not include that in the story because I didn't think smearing the father was relevant to the story.
#3 He was not charged because of anti-government rapping, he wasn't charged because the evil government conspired against him, he was charged because he sent TEXT messages where he threatened a mass murder (NOT RAP LYRICS) and he then posted similar threats on line. Hiding behind "They were rap lyrics" doesn't cut it in the real world. This isn't high school. I cannot post on line that I am going to go out and rape women and when I get caught get a free pass claiming they were lyrics to a song.
#4 None of his threatening posts SAID they were rap lyrics. to those unfamiliar with Cameraon's aspiring rap career they looked more like the messages we saw from the columbine killers in their notebooks. These were not written in lyric form, and they didn't rhyme (though I agree not all rappers rhyme)
#5 A LIBERAL MASSACHUSETTS JUDGE looked at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in LAWRENCE district court (the poorest city in MA and the highest minority population with BY FAR the most liberal judges). She said she found his pattern of behavior (oddly missing in your criticism) "Very troubling". I have followed Judge Rooney... she is as liberal as they come!
#6 Police that I spoke with, both the chief and officers involved said they had arrested him because they believed he was a threat and was escalating violent threats on line and in text messages, as well as verbally to students. At no time did ONE officer on or off the record cite anti government opinions as a motivating factor.

Now it is up to a jury if it goes that far.
Cameron D'Ambrosi is not a terrorist by any stretch. Deeming him a terrorist is an afront to every American who died at the hands of REAL terrorism.
But he isn't a "goofy kid" or a victim of the evil government who is prosecuting him for a RAP song either. He is a VERY troubled kid with violence issues, a very troubled home life and the perfect profile of a mass shooter. His postings and his personal behavior landed him where he is. Not some jack booted government agent hell bent on taking people's free speech rights away.

The story I wrote was an accurate depiction of the facts we had at the time. It was those FACTS that determined the direction of the story. I am sorry if they are inconvenient FACTS to those looking for a poster boy for their cause (a cause I actually agree with).

Maybe in course of fighting monsters you have become one yourself.

http://valleypatriot.com/methuen-teen-being-held-on-terrorism-charges-becomes-free-speech-poster-boy]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c889 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:56:31 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c889
If your opponent is an ankle-biter, his response cannot be "ad hom."

Looks like he's saying anything and everything he thinks will offend without even considering whether he contradicts himself.]]> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c873 Thu, 23 May 2013 17:54:32 PDT http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130522/18103323179/filmmaker-behind-pirate-bay-documentary-says-bogus-dmca-takedowns-take-away-his-free-speech.shtml#c873 It has nothing to do with HIS speech, merely his ability to copy someone else's speech. If he were really expressing himself, he wouldn't need to copy someone else.

It sounds to me that you are claiming false play on his part.

The video is his own rather low quality speech. His documentary seems jovial to the human story it was trying to deliver.

The bots get false positives at times and one is one too many. In this case it seems like a lot of independent false positives on something that do not make these studios look good. That is rather suspicious!

As for if artists should police, I have to ask, who should take the bill? Government, some vague "teh intarconnected webz" or the ones who live off of it. To me your argument is backwards since this guy is on the recieving end of these claims.

As for his "legal rights". The guy is from Scandinavia. Thus DMCA does not apply directly to him (It is solely a rightholder vs site dispute legally since it has no jurisdiction there!). It is quite rich to expect him to know the law in every country where a site he visits is from.]]>