<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;vague&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 21 Oct 2011 02:39:05 PDT</pubDate>
<title>EU Legal Review Agrees With US: ACTA Dreadfully Written; Wide Open To Interpretation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/02170316425/eu-legal-review-agrees-with-us-acta-dreadfully-written-wide-open-to-interpretation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/02170316425/eu-legal-review-agrees-with-us-acta-dreadfully-written-wide-open-to-interpretation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Earlier this year, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) did a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110421/16580813994/crs-report-withheld-ustr-confirms-that-acta-language-is-quite-questionable.shtml">legal review of ACTA</a> to see if it conformed with existing US law.  While the USTR tried to keep the report buried, it eventually came out -- and basically said that ACTA was drafted in a dreadfully confusing and opaque way.  The issue?  It's not even clear if US law conforms to ACTA, because ACTA can be interpreted in many different ways -- some of which suggest the US is in compliance, and some of which say we're not.
<br /><br />
The EU Parliament's legal service recently conducted a similar review and came to an identical conclusion: <a href="http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number9.20/acta-ep-legal-service-opinion" target="_blank">ACTA may or may not be legal</a>... depending on how you interpret it.
<br /><br />
This <i>should</i> be seen as a massive problem.  When you're crafting a giant international agreement that is binding on various countries (and, yes, the US pretends it's not binding, but the other signers insist it is binding, meaning under international law, they likely can hold the US to a claim that it's binding), the fact that it's so vague that what is and what is not legal under it is totally wide open to interpretation means you've drafted a really bad agreement that shouldn't be approved.  In the meantime, any country signing such a document should be ashamed of itself, because it doesn't even know what it's bound itself to.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/02170316425/eu-legal-review-agrees-with-us-acta-dreadfully-written-wide-open-to-interpretation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/02170316425/eu-legal-review-agrees-with-us-acta-dreadfully-written-wide-open-to-interpretation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111020/02170316425/eu-legal-review-agrees-with-us-acta-dreadfully-written-wide-open-to-interpretation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-is-not-a-good-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111020/02170316425</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:45:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>If You're Going To Sue For Patent Infringement, It Helps To Say What Actually Infringes</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/0335048410.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/0335048410.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, we wrote about a guy, Greg Bender, who holds a patent (<a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=-YkgAAAAEBAJ&#038;dq=5,103,188%20target=" target="_blank">5,103,188</a>) on a "buffered transconductance amplifier," that he's decided is infringed upon by pretty much any electronics device.  He <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090412/2110264466.shtml">filed a ton of lawsuits</a> claiming that his patent was infringed on by makers of computers, cell phones, hard drives, DVD players, HDTVs and MRI machines.  However, it appears he failed when it came to providing specifics.  <a href="http://twitter.com/joemullin/statuses/9932143554" target="_blank">Joe Mullin</a> points to the news that Bender's lawsuit against Motorola <a href="http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/03/vaguely-identified-devices-in-patent.html" target="_blank">has been dismissed for failing to state a claim</a>.  Specifically, the lawsuit was so vague and general that it wasn't clear what he was suing over.  In the lawsuit, Bender claimed the following were infringing:
<blockquote><i>
products [including], without limitation, cell phones, computers, network drivers, high definition television sets, ultrasound machines, MRI machines, lab equipment, arbitrary waveform generators, audio amplifiers, video amplifiers, hard disc drives, ADC/DAC converters, DVD-RW players, DSL modems, CCD cameras, satellite communication technology, and other products where high performance, high speed analog circuits are used, and/or components thereof.
</i></blockquote>
With such a broad list, the court noted that no one had any idea what was actually infringing:
<blockquote><i>
Nowhere in the Amended Complaint does Plaintiff identify, with the requisite level of factual detail, the particular product or line of products, that allegedly infringe the '188 Patent. Instead, Plaintiff merely claims that the infringing "products include, without limitation, cell phones, computers . . . and other products where high performance, high speed analog circuits are used, and/or components thereof." [P]laintiff has done nothing more than recite a laundry list of electronic devices. These cursory allegations are insufficient to give the Defendant fair notice of the claims being alleged against it.
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/0335048410.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/0335048410.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100304/0335048410.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>pro-tip</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100304/0335048410</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>