Not at all. The brands I've seen on paper towel dispensers don't match any of the brands of paper towel I see in supermarket. My assumption was that paper towel rolls just fit any of the standard size dispensers, and the companes that made them were largely independent from each other. But the paper towel/toilet paper I find in public restrooms is usually some cheap and crappy no-name brand anyway, even if the dispensers themselves are good.
It's definitely not a trademark violation though. If the company had a contract with the venue to provide the paper to go with the dispenser, then it could possibly break the contract. But if the dispenser was sold separately with no such contract, and the company happens to offer paper that the venue doesn't use, then tough luck. That's called competition.
The problem is absolutely not with IV, and I fail to see how you can accuse them of making the situation worse. Sure, they're running a business and making money from what they do, but they're in the business of selling defensive patents to companies that are already being attacked.
The real problem is with the broken patent system, and with the trolls who abuse it for offensive purposes. Blaiming a company that exists to help out another company to improve their defence, is really blaming the wrong party.
Geographic restrictions haven't made sense for the past 15 years or so, ever since DVDs came out with those stupidly unnecessary region codes. They make even less sense on the internet and are absolutely obsolete.
The problem, and the reason for their persistence among the entertainment industry, is a combination of price discrimination, localised royalty collection agencies for each country, and continuing to work along side old network distribution deals, particularly with local TV networks where networks demand monopolised internet streaming alongside their TV monopolies. But such restrictions don't make sense anyway, even for TV programs; particularly live broadcasts, on the internet.
Take, for example, the world cup, or even the olympics, where streaming was done by some broadcasters, with regional restrictions limited to their own respective countries. The major problem with this is that if, for example, someone happens to be in a foreign country, where the local broadcast is in a language they don't understand, there is no ability to legally obtain a stream from your home country, in your own language. (I ended up bypassing these restrictions with a VPN to get the olympic streams from Australia; didn't bother for the world cup, cause we lost fairly early on)
"...about an embarrassing thing (where her clothes were stripped off) that happened to her at a wedding in Jamaica which was caught on film..."
The article in THREsq says this happened at a funeral, not a wedding, which suddenly makes this whole article make a little bit more sense. I was wondering how getting stripped at a wedding had anything to do with someone dying at a funeral. (I haven't seen either film, so I have no idea what the actual plot is; I'm just assuming someone dies while at a funeral based on the title.)
Lawrence, the recordings done in a studio are copyrighted. The issue of who holds the copyright, whether it be the studio, the artist, recording company, or whatever, is an entirely separate issue to the question of whether recordings themselves can be copyrighted.
There's nothing wrong with claiming copyright on recordings of wildlife sounds. As far as copyright is concerned, that's no different from recording the sound of anything else.
There is a lot of creative skill and effort involved with getting the equipment set up in a way that captures the specific sounds in an effective way, and in filtering out unwanted background noise. How is this any different from a photographer claiming copyright over a photo of wildlife?
Although, I agree that Apple should not be involved at all. They are just a service provider, and so the correct way for the copyright holder to deal with this issue is to file a DMCA takedown notice with Apple and/or take up the issue directly with the developer.
The problem with this bogus DRM claim is that the actual video stream is still unencrypted. They're relying on licensing terms agreed to by vendors who are then given the Huffman tables to deobfuscate the EPG. Existing hardware that can receive the transmissions can still quite happily access the video content, and the EPG is not at all needed for recording the program, although it can perhaps help with some automatic timers.
This article is just a pathetic attack against the Times Online and Rupert Murdoch's paywall plan (although I certainly don't agree with the paywall). This is obviously just a mistake that slipped through without being noticed, which can and does happen occasionally. But so what? Who cares?
It certainly has nothing to do with their paywall attempt, and so trying to link this trivial mistake with that one is just silly. I suggest you focus on real issues, rather than hunting for issues where there aren't any.
"CSIRO's WiFi patent and the hundreds of millions of dollars it sucks from companies doing actual innovation"
You're implication here seems to be that the CSIRO isn't doing any actual innovation, which is not the case at all. The CSIRO does actually do a lot of real research and innovation in a lot of areas.
However, I do think it is extremely unethical for them to be suing other companies over patents, given that they are a tax payer funded organisation whos research should be done for everyone's benefit, not just their own.
So, while the CSIRO is not your typical patent troll, they are certainly behaving like one with their extreme aggression used to enforce their patents.
They're supposed to be able to narrow down partial matches by looking up the make and model of the vehicle that is registerred to matching number plates.
For the case illustrated in the video, they should have been able to find a set of partial matches based on the visible digits "7598 ?S". I assume they can also determine other information like the state in which the vehicle is registered based on the design of the plate.
They can then find all the vehicles that match those criteria, then narrow it down by the type of vehicle. So it's hardly a guessing game. It just seems like in this case, that last step somehow went a bit wrong. I guess maybe the offer who sent the ticket confused the description of a trailer with that of a semi-truck.
It's not really clear how the whole patent pool network will function. The article says that it's a distributed network, rather than a centrlised pool. But then it's not clear what it really means to join or to leave.
Does a company implicitly join the pool if they announce that their patent portfolio is under the licence? Or do they need to register with some centralised registry? If so, then I can't see how it can be called distributed. If not, then it would be impossible to keep track of who is and who isn't in the pool at any given them, let alone keep track of when companies join and when they leave.
IMHO, the only way this could potentially work is for it to be an irrevokable licence that applies to all patents in the owners posession at the time they make the declaration. They could, at any time, cease applying the licence to future patents they acquire, but that shouldn't revoke the licence from prior patents.
But the idea of making it so that companies can't pick and choose which patents to licence probably won't work in practice. If companies want to do that with this system, they could just set up a separate patent holding company and assign the rights for that patent to that company. So even if that special patent holding company licences all of its patents under the licence, it won't stop the original company from retaining patents it wants to keep.
So it basically becomes a way for companies to throw out their old, useless patents while still retaining, and possibly threating others with, the patents they still consider valuable. This is then no effectively different from what other companies, like IBM, have done with their prior royalty free licence to a limited selection of patents.
It's really questionable what are the actual legal grounds for the law suit? What law does the plaintiff think has been violated? Sure, it's unfair for Sony to forcefully remove such a feature, but unfairness does not equate to being illegal, nor does it necessarily qualify as grounds for compensation.
Clearly, we need safe harbours for print shops so that they are exempt from any liability. It is completely unreasonable for anyone to think that a shop clerk would ever be able to judge which photos are being printed with or without permission from the copyright holder, and the idea that professional-looking photos are more likely to be infringing is ludicrous.
While I agree that it was stupid for the MPAA to sue Real for this product, I also think the product would have been a complete failure from the outset. As you're aware, there are plenty of other DVD ripping tools widely available for free that do everything that RealDVD could do, but without any of the restrictions. So I don't know what Real hoped to achieve with it's worthless product. Seriously, who wants to pay for a product that is, by design, more restrictive than the free alternatives?
Mike, I meant that you largely ignored it within this particular article. The fact that you've covered it previously is irrelevant to my point.
I agree with you that patents suck and we would be better off without the entire system. But the reality of the situation is that we're currently stuck with it and companies like Verizon are forced to take whatever defensive measures they can against aggressors. And as is so often the case with patents, the fight fire with fire approach is sadly the most effective defense, despite being a costly exercise.
Why shouldn't Verizon and IV in this case do whatever they can to work together to defend against TiVo's attack? By saying that IV shouldn't have stepped in to help Verizon out with a patent to counter sue TiVo, then you're basically saying that Verizon should have been left suffer the consequenses while TiVo - the real evil party - gets a nice payout.
At least this way, TiVo gets a taste of their own medicine, and I hope TiVo suffers big time for their initial aggression, and learns not to be so aggressive in the future.
Mike, you seem to have largely ignored the fact that TiVo struck first and instead tried to place all the blame upon Verizon. Clearly, Verizon is doing this as a defensive measure. TiVo shouldn't have sued Verizon in the first place, and most of the blame should lie with them for being so aggressive. I would have much more concern about this if Verizon had taken an offensive position with this borrowed patent.
This is a clear case of not only trademark infringment, but copyright infringment. It's clear that the designer of the schools logo has simply copied the Dodge logo, removed the border and the word "DODGE" from below, and given it to the school. That is highly unethical behaviour from the designer.
If the designer had instead drawn the ram differently, then that would be fine. There's no problem with both the school logo and Dodge's logo being Rams. The problem here is the blatant copying that has occured.
And I don't buy the argument that this is simply free advertising for dodge. It can give the false impression that Dodge is somehow affiliated with the school, such as a sponsorship deal.
Yes, Spotify has a lot of benefits, but they are not without problems. The major problem I have with it, and why I cancelled my subscrption to it, was because the use DRM and force you to apply software upgrades as soon as they're released by not letting you play your music until you do. On mobile devices, where you don't always have access to wifi connections or good mobile data plans, this is not always convenient, and I got screwed over by this policy once already.
This result of this case is ludicrous not just becasue the current rights holders didn't own the rights at the time the song was written and released, but because new works taking inspiration from older works is exactly how a good, healthy creative culture is supposed to work.
Look at painters reusing the artistic styles of their predecessors; authors reusing and reimagning the stories of old, and incorporating common themes; musicians reusing the same chord progressions of old classic songs. This recent ruling, combined with the indefinite cycle of copyright term extensions, will only serve to kill this inspirational culture for good.
For the comments here making suggestions about how long copyright terms should be, keep in mind that term extensions are bad. Keeping track of which works had their copyright extended and which didn't is already difficult enough.
The ideal system would be a fixed term from the year of publication or, if it can be reliably determined, the year of creation. This would make the system fair and easy. There's no need to know about when the author died, or whether the copyright is held by a corporation, or whether the copyright holder applied for extensions. If the work has a known creation or publication year, determining its copyright status is easy. A reasonable term would, I think, be somewhere between 20 and 40 years.
This still leaves the problem of orphan works who's authors cannot be found, and works without known publication or creation dates, but at least with a relatively short copyright terms, you can still guarantee entry into the public domain as the earliest known year the work was discovered + length of fixed copyright term.
This is so annoying. I've stumbelled across so many good news and blogs based on links to old articles. This site included. Often, if the old articles are good, I'll take a look at the more recent articles and if it's any good, I'll subscribe to the feed.
Number of sites that delete old articels, of which I have become a regular or casual reader: 0
Number of sites that don't delete old articels, of which I have become a regular or casual reader: Too many to count.