Oliver Wendell Jones 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (704)
-
On the post: If You Don't Get The Matching Brand Paper Towel Out Of A Dispenser In A Restroom… Is That Trademark Infringement?
-
On the post: It Appears That The Encyclopaedia Britannica Entry On Shaking Down GPS Providers With A Bogus Patent Needs Updating
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 28 Jun, 2010 @ 12:10pmSue Back?
After a patent like this has been declared null and invalid - has anyone successfully gone back and sued the company who formerly sued them for patent infringement in hopes of getting their money back?
In other words, Company A sues Company B for patent violation and wins - the patent is later declared invalid - has there ever been a Company B that has gone back sued Company A to get their losses back? -
On the post: RIAA Gets AFL-CIO To Support Performance Tax: Payments In Perpetuity For A Small Amount Of Work
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2010 @ 11:45amMaybe we should ask our politicians to reverse the situation
After all, if the musicians need to get money for every time a song is played at some time in the future, then maybe the union workers should get a bit of money every time a car is sold or resold or driven, etc...
Yeah, that seems fair, doesn't it? -
On the post: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2010 @ 12:42pmRe: Re: Has a use...
If I put information out there, I should have the right to take it down later. Why's that? You gave the information away. It's not yours anymore. I can put out a sign offering free lemonade and later take down the sign - I can't ask you to give back the lemonade I've already given you - but I can put an end to giving out more lemonade. I should have the same rights with my private info.
-
On the post: Bill Would Extend DMCA-Style Takedowns To 'Personal Info'
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 26 Apr, 2010 @ 08:45amHas a use...
I can see a use for this for websites like Facebook or MySpace where the person who requests the information be removed is the person who put it there in the first place. If I put information out there, I should have the right to take it down later.
As long as they limit the bill to situations like that, I don't have a problem with it. -
On the post: TV Broadcasters Looking At Public Safety As Justification For Next Government Handout
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 14 Apr, 2010 @ 10:01am"Free" Spectrum?
The real reason that TV broadcasters was upset was that government was forcing them to change over from analog to digital but was not providing them with any financial motivation or compensation for doing so.
The American people got free coupons good for $40 off of a $40 converter box - the broadcasters got a deadline - spend $X,000,000 on new digital transmission equipment or go off the air.
The public outcry over the transition was huge and it basically cost them nothing (financially) and for most people they gained access to more channels and better picture quality. The broadcasters got stuck with a huge bill for a new transmitter, had to eat the cost of hundreds of person-hours of work to get switched over, had to give up a lot of advertising inventory to run the mandatory "The Big Switch Is Coming!" spots over and over and we got nothing from the government.
You may not like the fact the government "gave" the digital spectrum to TV broadcasters, but you seem to overlook the fact that TV broadcasters have to turn around and "give" their broadcasts back to the community for free. The public gains access to free television broadcasts, that is the public's compensation for "giving away spectrum".
Other than radio, I don't know of any other privately owned businesses that are "given free spectrum" and then turn around and provide a free service in return.
If you want to gripe about companies "taking our spectrum" take it up with the cell phone companies who don't give it back to the public, but sell it back at grossly inflated rates. -
On the post: Tough To Punish Those Who File Bogus DMCA Takedowns
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 04 Jan, 2010 @ 09:30am3 Strikes The Other Way
What if we proposed to the copyright holders that we want to implement a 180° 3 Strikes Law - You can make 3 faulty DMCA claims before you lose your right to make further complaints.
Maybe if the rights holder take the extra 3 minutes to think "Hmmm... do I really want to risk a strike against me for issuing this incredibly weak and vague DMCA claim or should I wait and only complain when it's an actual issue and I'm 100% confident I can win?" we'd see a lot fewer filings.
Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that law to pass. -
On the post: Lawmaker, Convicted Of Raping Foster Kids, Claims Name Is Copyrighted So You Can't Report It
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 16 Dec, 2009 @ 02:12pmCopyright Owner?
Wouldn't the copyright (if there was one, and I think we all agree there isn't...) technically belong to his parents as they created him and his name? Unless he legally changed his name to something completely new and different, I don't see how he can claim the ownership of his name...
-
On the post: Publishers Lashing Out At eBooks
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 02 Sep, 2009 @ 09:12amUs vs. Them
The way we (the buying public) see it is that since ebooks have no cost to ship, stock, print, etc. then the final price should be significantly less - it should be about however much the publisher nets on the paperback edition + a minor cost to cover production of the original, bandwidth, etc. and how dare they try to jack it up to some outrageous pricing point?
The way they (the publishers) see it is that the price should be the same as (or close to) a just published hard cover and that the difference between that and the actual cost for the ebook is their huge, huge, huge, glorious profit margin and how dare we try and cheat them out of that? -
On the post: Fresh Off Victory Over Dish, TiVo Sues AT&T, Verizon
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2009 @ 08:35amCompetitors aren't even close
I've used two different cable company DVR's (one standard and one HD), the Dish Network DVR and a standard Tivo and I can tell you that although they all record shows and let you pause TV, the similarities end there.
Tivo is the "ipod Touch" of the DVR world and the others are all "ipod shuffles" by comparison. Tivo integrates into your home network and lets you move video files back and forth for viewing on your PC or on your TV, lets you play online games, download podcasts and video "Tivocasts", and a few hundred other features that the other DVR manufacturers don't even try to emulate.
I recently upgraded to HD TV and am making do with the cable company's HD DVR until I can save up and buy a new Tivo HD XL and it's miserable dealing with how slow and klunky the user interface is. There is no way to conveniently skip commercials, you have to fast forward and then punch play before the show starts because the response time is so slow.
Worst yet, there is no way on the cable company box to tell it what channels I receive so the guide shows me dozens of channels I can't watch, but with my Tivo I can tell it which channels I can get and which channels I don't want to see listed (QVC, Lifetime Movie Network, etc.). With the cable company box I have to setup a list of favorite channels, then press Guide - Guide - Select - Select - Select to view a list of the channels I want to watch. That sure is convenient. The Favorites button on the remote doesn't bring up the favorites guide - no, it changes to the next available "favorite" channel. I suppose that might be handy if I was a channel surfer who determined what was on by cycling through all the channels - but I have digital cable with a guide - why would I want to do that? -
On the post: L'Oreal Loses To eBay In The UK This Time… Where Else Will It Try?
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 26 May, 2009 @ 07:40amBetter Analogy
While walking the streets of New York City, a gentleman with a folding table and an impressive display of watches offered to sell me a genuine Rolex for far below MSRP - below wholesale, even.
Should Rolex sue the city of New York for not doing a better job of policing their streets and allowing the city to become a veritable black market for illegal knock offs? -
On the post: AMC And IMAX Engaging In Deception? Calling Non-IMAX Films IMAX (And Charging More)
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 13 May, 2009 @ 02:38pmReal IMAX
A few years back, I got to see The Return of the King on the IMAX screen at the Indiana State Museum - it was not an IMAX film and it was just being blown up and shown on the IMAX screen and it was still amazing! When the screen is bigger than your field of vision (and the seats are raked at such an angle that there is no one in front of you blocking your view) you really can get lost in the movie and it's the next best thing to being there. If I pay extra to see a movie in IMAX it had better look just as good as ROTK did or I'll be asking for my money back, too.
-
On the post: Congress Delays Digital TV Transition: Everyone Loses!
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 05 Feb, 2009 @ 07:30amRe: Re: Re: DTV
No, not a typo - our current transmitter covers our entire DMA plus at least one or two additional counties in each direction. The new dual 9 KW transmitters will just barely cover our DMA, so our total coverage area is dropping drastically - much more than most other stations - but yes, there is a huge savings by going to digital over analog (just look how much longer your cellphone battery lasts in an all digital coverage area vs. analog-only - if you can still find such an area).
I just want to know what we lose by waiting?
What we as a station lose is 40% of our viewers (or more) - what we as viewers lose is the ability to accept poor reception - if you want to watch a show bad enough, you'll put up with some snow and static - with digital you won't have that option - you either get it clearly or not at all. This means that many viewers will need new antennas, and not just fancier rabbit ears - most of them will need a roof mount (or at least attic mount) antenna - by delaying til June we give the snow and ice a chance to melt and let them climb up there in relative safety. -
On the post: Congress Delays Digital TV Transition: Everyone Loses!
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 04 Feb, 2009 @ 07:18pmRe: DTV
They can transmit both digital and analog. Not necessarily. a) You can't broadcast both on the same antenna and unless your TV station happens to be very well funded, it's unlikely that they have two antennas big enough to broadcast both signals at the same time. b) It takes electricity - and a lot of it - to broadcast a powerful TV signal - to broadcast both would require significantly more electricity and most stations simply can't afford that. c) There is overlap between the analog and digital signals - they picked one date and said "everyone will switch on this date at this time" so that there would be no overlap - all the analog transmitters shut down and minutes later all the digital transmitters come online. There would be interference or cross-signal contamination. If they allow stations to turn off analog as they please and go digital, then they run the risk of interference - also many stations are changing their channel # which would be a source of great confusion if the channel # they are to move to is still in use by another station's analog system. I know this because I work for a Midwest TV station and we've been looking forward to this and dreading it at the same time. We're going from a 2.09 MW analog transmitter to dual 9 KW digital transmitters as that's what the corporate offices decided would provide equivalent power output. In reality, when we switch over, we expect to lose about 40% of our existing viewers - these are viewers outside of our DMA (Designated Market Area) that happen to tune us in because we're the only FOX affiliate in the area, and once we are forced to go digital I anticipate at least 5,000 calls from very upset people - we expect to lose as much 10,000 households - probably more. I've already told my boss, whatever the cut off date is, I'm calling in sick the next day. My specific job doesn't require me to be there for the transition, and I'm going to try and avoid helping to answer those 5,000 angry calls.
-
On the post: Digital TV Switchover Looking Like Massive Confusion-Generation Plan
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 23 Dec, 2008 @ 11:07amRe:
"But lets be real; if you're still getting your tv from the air you need to get in to the modern age and get cable."
It must be nice to live some place where every single person can get cable, as opposed to some place rural where the cable company doesn't seem to care about the thousands and thousands of homes outside the city limits.
Those people have two options - put up a rooftop antenna and be happy with the 3 channels available (1 FOX, 1 ABC and 1 PBS) or go with a satellite company and do with out any local programming at all (because the satellite companies are in no hurry to meet their federally mandated requirement to put all channels that want to be on satellite on satellite - they have until 2013, so what's the rush?).
These are the people who are going to suffer the most because they live far enough away from the transmitters that they won't get a good digital signal.
I work for a small station in the midwest. We currently operate an analog transmitter with over 2 MW of output. The company that owns the company that owns us gave us an old digital transmitter to use after the transition - it tops out at 9 KW - that means we'll be putting out less than 0.5% of the signal power we have now - couple that with the so called "digital cliff" (there is no fuzzy picture - you get a good picture or you get nothing) and viewers in our area are going to be in a world of hurt.
They promise that we'll get a better digital transmitter "real soon now" but I've been hearing that for a long time and so I'm not holding my breath while I wait. -
On the post: Subsidized Laptops With Locked In Wireless Broadband Contracts
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2008 @ 06:41amWhere did people learn math?
If you pay $100 down for the laptop and then $60/month for internet service for 2 years, then you're not paying $1540 for a laptop - you're paying $1540 for a laptop *AND* 24 months of internet service.
How much is the internet service if you don't get the $100 laptop? If the monthly internet service alone is more than $47.71 per month, then it's a good deal, contrary to what the people with no math skills tell you. -
On the post: Companies Sued For Not Paying For Time Spent Booting Up A Computer
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 21 Nov, 2008 @ 12:44pmWhat about walking?
I worked as a contract technical writer for a huge pharma company in the Midwest. Since I was a contractor, I was required to park in the designated contractor parking lot. From there to my desk was a 14 minute walk - each way.
I found out a couple of weeks into the job that all the other contractors in my area charged our contract house for the 28 minutes spent walking back and forth to our cars each day, so I started adding that on to my timecard as well.
The very last week I was there I found out that since I rode a motorcycle I could have parked in the designated motorcycle parking lot that was 2 city blocks closer to my desk... oh well, I needed the exercise, I guess. -
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: WalMart Changes Its Mind, Keeps DRM Servers Running (For Now)
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 10 Oct, 2008 @ 07:51amPossible business idea?
You approach companies like Microsoft, Wal-Mart and Yahoo and offer to take over their DRM servers for a one-time fee - they provide you the equipment, DNS info and whatever else you need to route the DRM checks to your business location.
Then the companies can send letters to their customers telling them that the DRM is being transferred to a 3rd party company, please continue enjoying your music, yada yada yada and then 3 years from now, we shut down the servers and sell the equipment on ebay.
The customers can get mad, but at who? A random 3rd party company that existed just to absorb the blame when the time came?
Sounds like a win-win for everyone but the consumer, and when did we, as business owners, care about the consumer? We *already have* their money... -
On the post: UK Says Phorm Clickstream Tracking Is Okay… If Clearly Explained To Customers
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 19 Sep, 2008 @ 06:49amMixed Feelings
I have mixed feelings about anyone intercepting my web surfing and substituting ads.
But... if they let me pick and choose what kinds of ads will show up (i.e., I click a check box and no more animated Flash ads that move around my screen show up) then I might not be totally opposed.
If I can choose from a list of products and services, say "show me ads for upcoming sci-fi movies, new TV shows, Chinese restaurants in my area, pizza ads featuring coupons, etc.") and only those ads show up, then I would actually like the service.
They could even make it work like Tivo where I can give ads a Thumbs Up (show me more ads like this) or a Thumbs Down (don't show me ads like this) - if they could tailor it to my wants and needs as well as Tivo does, then I would buy stock in the company. -
On the post: FCC May Need To Staff Up The Phone Lines To Deal With Digitial TV Transition
Oliver Wendell Jones ( profile ), 13 Sep, 2008 @ 06:31pmHas your conversion date come to pass?
I work for a small midwestern TV station. We currently broadcast in analog on a 2+ Megawatt transmitter but currently our digital signal is only powered at 7.94 Kilowatt. Why? Well, because the company that owns the company that owns our station hasn't got around to sending us a "real" digital transmitter and all we have is our "play" digital transmitter to "play" with and get used to digital broadcasting before the (hopefully much) bigger digital transmitter arrives - probably with days to spare before the actual transition date.
Every week we get calls from people complaining that they've watched our commercials (that the FCC requires us to play!) telling them to buy a converter box, they've done so, and now they can't hardly pick up a signal and they want to know why. Truth is, we're probably not the only station in this same situation.
Don't freak out if you don't get as many channels *now* - if after February 17, 2009 you still don't get as many channels, then feel free to freak out.
Also, if you buy a converter box (and they're only about $10 if you use the free coupons provided by our government) be sure to get one with "analog passthrough" or when you hook it up prior to 2/17/09 you'll find that you can't pick up any analog TV because the box blocks it (that accounts for about 1/4 of the phone calls we get each week).
Woohoo - Free Money!!!
The next time I use a public restroom where the paper towels don't match the dispenser I can sue and claim emotional damages because my expectations weren't met! I can apparently sue the owner of the restroom, the distributor of the 'bogus' paper towels and the manufacturer of the dispenser for putting their brand on it and setting my expectations! I'm gonna be rich!*
*Patent pending for this particular lawsuit idea - if you try and use this same idea, I will sue you, too!