Sneeje's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
from the righthaven--schadenfreude dept
When I read Techdirt, one of the things I'm looking for are articles that help me understand the complex considerations between governmental power and individual rights. They interest me because I find that they always force me to deeply consider my own justifications and philosophies, and the debates in the comments are always spirited and thought-provoking. They also interest me because I can't help but stare in disbelief at the “reasoning” that is sometimes used. For example, take Yet Another Story Of A Guy Arrested For Filming Police. It is amazing to me that fundamental rights (such as those inherent in the First Amendment) can be so blatantly ignored. We're all human, but I feel like these rights should flow naturally into our judgment. Alas that it is not so. But never fear, there is also hope! As a counterpoint to the prior article, we also have the fact that Boston Pays $170,000 To The Guy Police Arrested For Filming Them.
So, to stay sane, that's another thing I look for: hope—that those responsible for resolving the complex interplay between government power and our rights will at least consider that limits to government power are valid and necessary. For example the article that came out Thursday, where the court is exploring whether there are limits to border searches: Court Suggests Politically Motivated Border Searches May Be Unconstitutional. If nothing else, that one had a lot of great advice on how to protect your data from the government should you foolishly decide to cross the border carrying your laptop.
Another good article in this area, while not strictly relating to limits of governmental power, Why Infringement Isn't Theft, should lead people to question the government's reasoning behind why it is willing to act on behalf of intellectual property advocates, which would be a limit in and of itself. Seeing such a prominent law professor take this stance certainly falls under the category of "hope", at least for me.
But perhaps the greatest reason I'm drawn to Techdirt is the gobs of articles that undermine widely- and blindly-held beliefs in the intellectual property arena, that challenge the "IP laws=good so more must be better" thinking and explore the unintended consequences of their existence. The first of these addresses one of the areas that most people have very little exposure to, the decision-making behind the scenes in the VC World. Anyone that is a student of economics knows that monopolies carry a lot of baggage and barriers to entry for startups, but this was the first time I thought about how those barriers were perceived. Monopolies Can Strangle Innovation shows us that the "tax" on success is a very real phenomenon.
Mike also pointed us to Jonathan Coulton to show us yet again that not all artists are looking to intellectual property protection to ensure their success. My favorite quote from Jonathan speaking about a free and open internet: "... if as a consequence of letting that do what it wants, we destroy a number of industries, including the record business, and maybe even including the rock star business, I think that humanity will be better off." Now there's a man that can see the big picture.
The next article that really struck me (and others too, judging by the volume of the comments) regarding these unintended consequences was Patents Threaten To Silence A Little Girl. I think that most people believe that patents, copyright, and trademarks are the province of the business world only and do not affect the average person in their daily life. That article is a perfect example of how that's just not true--and the more restrictive the laws around intellectual property get, it's not hard to see how much more collateral damage there will be.
I'll close with a confession. There is something else that I sometimes look for in my weekly Techdirt feed: schadenfreude. Yeah, I said it. I can't help but enjoy the unfolding implosion that is Righthaven, and this week we got two doses, Righthaven Stops Showing up to Court and Righthaven's CEO Files Statement About How Righthaven's Own Lawyer Won't Respond To Him. A little piece of me will die when Righthaven stops being worthy of coverage here, but I'm sure something else of even greater face-palmage will arise. So with that, here's to the next week!


Re: Re: Re:
Ugh. You do realize that when you say, "You might consider reading up on this stuff..." that you come across as a) arrogant b) condescending, and c) foolish.
You should be bothered by c) the most because nothing you've offered actually refutes anything Mike said. All you've offered is your profound and hollow belief that you are more knowledgeable and therefore right. Blech--people like you really piss me off.
I've been reading this blog for years and perhaps it is you that needs to do some reading so that you'd realize that Mike has not only a deep understanding of this material, but he demonstrates it over and over again with both references and facts.
Re: Re: What if...
I realize that is a possible outcome but I was thinking that would only be what happened initially. If the review quality went WAY up (because the number of reviews went WAY down), it would become very clear what patents were likely to be validated by the USPTO and therefore once asserted, the defendant would have a clearer idea of whether the patent they were being threatened with was going to be thrown out.
Instead of only reviewing when a case is file, what if the plaintiffs could not file in court until the review was complete?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...
I don't know, it is possible it might not help with that. The whole idea hinges on both the review (after assertion) being of high quality and the ability to be awarded fees if the defendant prevails.
I realize your example covers groups that would never have the money to go to court in the first place though. One deterrent would be the fact that those groups also would not be a huge source of revenue either--the trolls would have to pursue many of them to make significant amounts of money and its likely one of them would challenge them in court.
Re: Re: What if...
Touche!
Re: Re: Re: Re: What if...
Yeah (treated more like trademarks), I realize that seems problematic, but what I'm hoping would happen would be that bad patents would stop being filed in the first place when they realized the amount of scrutiny they would undergo if they tried to actually use them.
This all assumes that the quality of the review would go WAY up.
There are other behaviors I think would occur:
- I think companies would file lots and lots of patents at least initially.
- I think some companies/individuals would probably ignore others' patents assuming they would not assert them (but this would be a good outcome if those patents were of the quality today)
Re: Re: What if...
Yes, I mean asserted through a lawsuit. That's pretty much the only way to "use" a patent TMK other than perhaps the passive effect of others knowing you could assert it.
What if...
What if the patent office did not review any patents until they were asserted? Couple this with the request from B&N to "Require Losing Patentees to Pay Costs and Expenses, Including Attorneys' Fees" and you might have a solution.
If the patent were strong and likely to stand up to scrutiny, it would be worth litigating over it. Otherwise, you take the chance that it is invalidated (and you pay fees). In the meantime, after submission, but before assertion and review, the patent is nothing more than a claim staked (similar to a scientific paper) for credit.
Re:
Just to be clear, we agree that the statement "Basically, there's no amount of changing that makes it original work." is bogus right? You're just explaining what those in the video think, yes?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your lack of ability to comprehend his explanation is certainly evidence of something, just not his "dishonesty".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The TOS part is a bit of a red herring--and you know it (you know, total bullshit meant to manipulate the thread).
It is relevant only in determining intent and knowledge. That's what the courts have held and you know it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except everything you just said is also bullshit. He made the argument, plenty of people think it is valid, so...
AJ, you of all people know that legal matters aren't true or not true--its what you can get a court or a jury to accept. That's the issue here.
So by definition he isn't lying. The question is whether or not what they did is an example of something two people could do and run a greater than normal risk of being prosecuted.
And exactly how is what he's doing any different than you or anyone else? Are you saying your arguments are not meant to manipulate? Really?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is it really that hard? You disagree, so you must have already done the analysis yourself.
1030 (A),(4) or (5)(C).
And then...
(2) the term “protected computer” means a computer—
[snip]; or
(B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
Knowingly is the important word, because that's where the TOS becomes important. If you agreed to the TOS, then you cannot claim you breached unknowingly.
And, remember the important part here (the nuance that seems beyond you), is not whether they would be found guilty, but whether someone taking the same actions (as SC and BC) are at risk for PROSECUTION.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
18 USC § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, and I can tell that subtlety and nuance isn't your strong suit. It's becoming clear to me that where you've gone wrong is that you cannot comprehend or find value in a discussion that doesn't include black or white statements or conclusions. I bet you were a hoot in college.
What Mike is pointing out is that the law is being abused and has the potential for abuse by using both real and speculative examples. You can dismiss them by saying a) they are outliers or b) fantasy, but I think that would be foolish. I don't think it is speculative to assert that as the government gains more of an ability to observe, control, or punish us our individual risk of government intervention in our lives goes up.
I for one, find those discussions very useful in forming my own opinions about these regulations. I'm sorry that you do not.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, " incredibly deep and dishonest current that runs through Mike's posts." is equally applicable to yours.
Again, ad hom, no evidence, and worthless. This is why you have no credibility here. This is no different than anyone here calling you a stupid troll.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, fine, although I believe there is a difference, I'll grant that you do not. My point still stands:
a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
President Clinton had knowledge of the actions of Stephen Colbert (impersonating Clinton) via Twitter. And if the next thing you tell me is that having tacit knowledge of someone impersonating you along with your implied or explicit approval would not be something a prosecutor would use against you (if you were not Bill Clinton) or does not violate TOS then we have nothing more to say because you live in a world of complete fantasy.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what you are failing to understand--and I guess we'll just agree to disagree is that the statement was collective not individual. Your entire argument is a STRAWMAN. He never shows how President Clinton violated the CFAA BECAUSE HE NEVER SAID HE DID. He asked, "Did Stephen Colbert and President Clinton violate the CFAA" SEE THE DIFFERENCE? COLLECTIVE versus individual.
The rest of the article adequately shows how the COLLABORATIVE actions of those two individuals could be seen as a violation:
a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
Also, I really shouldn't bother, but I'll say it anyway. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I can't think critically, but I understand you'll saying it because it's important for you to believe that no one else understands things except you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can't you accept that there is value and thoughtfulness in the articles here or does your brain turn off?
Huh, since that is valid in either direction, I guess it is meaningless...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I suspected that's what you were referring to, which is why I worded my request the way I did. I think it is more than a stretch to call that an accusation. I also believe that you are trying so hard to show how Mike is... we'll say, "wrong-headed" that you are convinced the article is about "accusing the president" and not an exploration of whether the actions of two public individuals rose to the level of violating the CFAA.
See the difference? For example, when you say, "Mike accused the president," that is an accusation of Mike. If you had said, "Did Mike accuse the president of violating the CFAA?" we would be able to start a reasoned discussion of how his approach to the topic was or was not an accusation.
I don't know how else to explain it other than I think the majority of people reading the article understand that it is a discussion about how a meaningless public interaction could run afoul of the law. I believe a very small minority would interpret it the way you do, because to do so requires completely ignoring the context and intent of the forum in which it appears. I suppose you'll use the same thing (forum context and intent) to explain your view, but I would submit that maybe you should consider that it is your own personal context that is preventing you from understanding what is presented here.
Personally, I walked away from the article thinking that it was a good example of how any of us could violate laws such as that by doing everyday things.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, it would be equally valid for me to say, "I know you will dispute Mike"--but how does that advance the debate? The point is to back your assertions or point out HOW someone else's assertions are flawed.
Second, still not playing your game. Wake me when you cite the specific passage(s) where he "accused" the president of something as opposed to asked a question about the collective actions of two individuals.