your main issue and your stupidity is that you think the ISIS people think the same way you do, which is totally wrong.
I haven't seen anyone make that claim. Can you show me where that claim was made?
Our main issue is with abusing the legal system to go after a third party who didn't break any law.
Anyway that's enough from me. You idiots will probably not even understand a thing i am saying and you will still wave your peace flag or whatever the fuck you think values are common between normal people and people willing to kill themselves to kill other people just because they don't believe in the same imaginary friend.
Do you even know what the post is about? From the paragraph above, it does not appear that you do.
Twitter may be exempt under 230 of the CDA but the material support law is rather broad.
This is true, but on the civil suit side, Twitter is totally protected. If the gov't were to file criminal charges concerning material support... that would be different. CDA 230 wouldn't protect against that (though common sense hopefully would).
Second, Qualcomm has been a huge player in getting us to where we are in the tech world. They have invested heavily and moved technology forward. I would suspect that more than half the people reading this have Qualcomm based electronics working for them right now. They are big, they have been successful, and they have defined the market. Why should they not have patents on the technologies they have developed? They are clearly not a "non practicing entity", they are huge and active and constantly investing. Ragging on them for doing a better job than the next guy is pretty lame.
No one said they shouldn't have patents. You're just making that up.
The problem is not how well Qualcomm has done in creating products. The problem is that they're actively blocking patent reform against abusive practices.
First off, would you like to disclose whether or not you work for an organization funded by Qualcomm?
She argues for the harmonization of claim construction. I think she's right. Why should the same claims be interpreted differently in a PTAB proceeding vs. in a district court? If you think they should, then can you explain why?
I don't have any problem with harmonizing claim construction. But, let's me serious, that's a pretty small issue overall and NOT what's holding up reform.
The issue I was raising is that Qualcomm is clearly throwing everything and the kitchen sink out in order to try to sink the reform effort. Self's biggest load of bullshit was when she basically threw up her arms and said "sure there's some abuse, but how can you tell" or when she tried to focus on how some people define a patent troll.
The bill is targeted at abusive practices, which you can distinguish, contrary to her claims, and has nothing to do with how you define a troll.
As a side note, one theme I've seen many times, including with your panel, is this: The people saying the patent system is broken almost always point to a small subset of the patent system, business methods and software patents. Those who think it functions well, but could be improved, focus on the system as a whole, which is a lot more than business methods and software patents.
1. I've pointed out regularly that I *disagree* with those who are looking to single out software or business method patents. Especially because I think hardware trolling is on the rise. The changes I've suggested for the patent system should apply across the board.
2. But calling that "a small subset of the patent system" suggests a near total lack of awareness of reality. Software related patents make up approximately half of all patent grants and the vast, vast majority of litigated/threatened patents these days. To argue it's a "small subset" is to suggest you don't know what's going on.
Laurie is not anti-reform, and it's childish to say she's anti-small inventor.
That's not even in the realm of reality. If you've watched anything having to do with the patent fight (and I know, you're new to the area...), you'd know that Qualcomm has basically done everything possible to block any patent reform. I didn't say she's anti-"small inventor" because the whole focus on "small inventors" is a cute little story that has nothing to do with patent reform. She's doing everything possible to kill patent reform that would help STARTUPS.
Just because someone puts out their photos for free doesn't mean you can turn around and monetize them for such incredible sums when the majority of the work was not yours.
But he *did*. And it's not the underlying work that makes it worth that much, it's the fact that it was created by Richard Prince. That's what's transformative. The original photo was worth x. The Prince version is worth many times x. You and I might not understand *why* but that's how the art world has valued them.
So my argument is that it's transformative not in the sense of "oh the work is different" but it's transformative in that "people value it entirely differently." Something is different about the work, and that difference is, basically "Richard Prince did this."
You're focusing too narrowly on whether the image *looks* different to determine if it's transformative. But that's not the way to look at it. It's a question of whether the overall way it's viewed is different. And that's why it's transformative.
Hi Mike, It's pretty simple. If Spotify filed the NOIs, you would be able to see them on the USCO's website. They aren't there. Spotify instead decided that it could just hold the money in escrow. You claim that this escrow maneuver is following the law, but nowhere in Section 115 or the CFR does it say that escrow is an alternative to an NOI.
I've updated the post. I didn't realize that the NOIs were public like that, and you're right that I don't see any from Spotify, which makes Lowery's case much stronger.
Hi Mike. Me again. Listen, rather than complain about how I misrepresent your views, why don't you take a few minutes and actually explain what your views are?
I think PaulT's response below accurately summarizes my thoughts here.
I've been "explaining what my views are" for nearly 20 fucking years and you're the only person alive who claims I'm somehow unwilling to discuss them.
As per always, when I do engage with you, rather than admitting you were wrong, you move the goalposts and pretend that the strawman Mike in your head must be more truthful than the real Mike who has actually responded to you, explained my position over and over again, despite your somewhat pathological insistence that I'm not actually answering you.
I've been trying for over five years to get you to do this, and all you've ever done is make excuses, demand apologies, say I'm misrepresenting you, pretend you've answered my questions (while refusing to ever link to the answer), attack me personally, and run away. You've done this hundreds of times.
Refusing to ever link to an answer? Holy fuck, dude. I ANSWERED you above. I've answered you dozens of times. People above linked to a bunch of my older answers. I can link to more, but clearly that's not enough. In a thread where I directly answered your question and proved you to be a liar, you're still doing your trollish shtick.
It seems very clear to me that you simply don't want to discuss your views.
I write 10 or more posts a day "discussing my views."
I'm here, ready and willing to discuss things on the merits. Why aren't you? What are you so scared of?
I've discussed my views in detail. I do so every day. I've answered your questions in detail. Many times. And EVERY SINGLE TIME you pull out the same bullshit you're pulling in this thread where you ignore the answer, or insist that it can't be true or (your favorite) you start pretending you're Socrates with your list of silly goalpost moving questions, as if you think that you're somehow on the path to finding some inconsistency in my answers. You're not Socrates.
Anyway, go ahead and throw your tantrum about how I'm "running away" even as I directly answered your question. I'm heading out for the rest of the week for CES, so I won't be able to respond much to comments, but go ahead, and pretend I'm not responding because you won. That'll be amusing to read about next weekend when I get back.
Btw, I find it somewhat amusing that when this particular commenter posts something and I don't respond within 3 or 4 hours, he will usually comment again saying "crickets!" even if I'm, you know, busy with my actual job.
I'm going to assume that this same commenter is busy today which is why I haven't yet seen an apology for yet another of his bogus claims about the position he keeps insisting I have (which I don't). Of course, he also never apologized for any of those other times that I clearly answered his questions despite him claiming I didn't.
It's hard to feel too broken up by this, considering that even if they weren't infringing copyright, the music these sites were promoting has had well-documented strong ties to gang violence, drug culture, misogyny culture and all-around sleaze for decades. Heck, when the example you're holding up to try to establish the legitimacy of the site is freaking Kanye West, that belongs right up there on the Not Helping Your Case leaderboard with the guys who point out that if we shut down YouTube we might miss out on the next Justin Beiber, but three or four steps higher.
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
Because you don't like some music and what it's talking about, you're totally okay with violating their First Amendment rights?
That is the stereotypical "I support free speech, but not this speech I don't like." Frankly, I find your ridiculous argument that the music is all about "gang violence, drug culture, misogyny" to be offensive. Is it then okay to argue you should be barred from saying it just because I find it offensive?
Heck, when the example you're holding up to try to establish the legitimacy of the site is freaking Kanye West, that belongs right up there on the Not Helping Your Case leaderboard with the guys who point out that if we shut down YouTube we might miss out on the next Justin Beiber, but three or four steps higher.
The point -- which apparently went WAY over your head -- is that one of the largest music stars today was supporting the website. That you read something else into it suggests a rather problematic view on your part.
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
No, a publication got censored because of government overreaction. There is no evidence that it involved "bad people". And we "shed a tear" for them because we don't abide by censorship. That you apparently have no problem with it says pretty much all I need to know about you.
Oh, the horror! Their free service/feature comes with strings attached... so opt-out--problem solved. (And then you'll pay full-price for your "pleasure".)
Yeah, really! Who cares that the company lied to the public and its customers, and broke the regulations against throttling. Who cares that it's purposely downgrading the internet that people paid for.
It's simple. Mike thinks it's a huge tragedy that these works from 1959 are not in the public domain. What about works from 1960? From 1970? From 1980? From last year? He won't tell us anything about those works. Does he think it's a tragedy that those works aren't in the public domain too? If not, what's the difference?
I don't think those works should be in the public domain, so long as the creators followed the rules at the time to get those works covered by copyright.
My only issue here is that the bargain made *AT THE TIME OF CREATION* said those works should be in the public domain now. Works that were created after that would still be under copyright (in many cases) and thus should remain as such.
I've said as much before. Stop lying about what you *think* I've said. It's not only petty, it's bullshit.