"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" - Albert Einstein.
You changed the facts. The actual fact is that this was tweeted as a commercial endorsement, probably a false one, not as an observed fact. It did not say "K. Heigl seen coming out of Duane Reade store", it said "Even @KatieHeigl can't resist shopping #NYC's favorite drugstore." That is using her for an endorsement, saying she can't resist shopping there. Chances are very high she CAN resist it and will probably never shop there again. So it's not only an endorsement, it is a false and misleading statement. Right result. Duane Reade, Inc. needs to think before tweeting.
The "idiots" who proposed and passed the laws are your elected representatives. The real idiots are those who think simplistically that because it is a fact that a celeb shopped in your store, you are entitled to use their image for commercial purposes to get a free endorsement. Heck with Heigel's rights, and heck with the law your representatives passed. Just make your own laws.
You logic is flawed. Publicity rights are not copyrights, so even if A is true, B can also be true. Simplistic flawed logic does not change the facts. What Duane Reade, Inc. did is probably illegal. And, in the end, they had to pay to compensate for violating publicity rights. Right result.
Publicity rights serve to compensate celebrities for unauthorized use of their reputation for commercial purposes by freeloading opportunists like Duane Reade, Inc. It's the law, you know. If you don't like it, lobby for a change. If you have enough to spend enough the best Congress money can buy might change the law to benefit you and Duane Reade, but for now they are ripping off Heigle. You would also want to be compensated by those trying to get free endorsements from you, except that you don't have fame and fortune. Have-nots seem to always feel a sense of entitlement when they want an unearned share of what the "haves" have. Would you also feel entitled to jump and rape her because she is in the public, right? I mean, facts are facts, right - she asked for it. Or to jump her fence and use her pool because it's unfair she has one and you don't, so you should be entitled to an unearned share and just take it.
IV is doing this for IV not inventors. However, when the best Congress money can buy passes anti-inventor patent legislation, where else can inventors turn for help? Pennies on the dollar from a patent consolidator like IV is better for an inventors than nothing on the dollar and millions in patent enforcement expenses with nothing to show for it at the end. IV can spread that cost out over hundreds, if not thousands, of patents and thereby fund the litigation on the few that get hotly contested. Obviously, it is a successful business model for what started out as a MS tool to collect patents with which defend Big Software from suit on marginal software patents.
But it walks like an infringement suit and talks like an infringement suit...not a shakedown. So, I guess you admit this "duck" is just an infringement suit and Masnick and you are just drivel mongers.
It is not a shakedown (by definition to obtain money in a deceitful and illegal manner. There is nothing at all deceitful or illegal in what IV is doing. It is legal and they are honest in saying what they are doing. Now, Al Capone - that guy was dishonest and illegal in running Candadian booze into the US in violation of prohibition.
How is it up there is some alternate reality? Actually IV does contribute something useful. They pay money to inventors so that inventors have incentive to invent. Not being an inventor and not producing any useful yourself, it is understandable how you would miss that obvious fact.
"Yup. It looks like IV is simply trying to make sure that anyone who does anything must infringe on one of their patents, and has to pay up."
So, you think IV just files suits willy-nilly with no care for the cost of suit? And, you think that what a patent covers is defined by its title rather than the claims of the patent? You may hope your drivel encites people against IV, but you are really just an embarassment (your ass is, 'em, bared for all to see), a panderer to emotional imaginers who operate independent of reality.
The staff attack is arguably correct yet off topic. Masnick was contending that the Bilski decision leaves uncertainty that, in turn, leads to more litigation, not less. I agree with that contention, and would point to the seminal opinion of Tom Clark in Graham v John Deere where the Supreme Court established some degree of certainty in obviousness by establishing guidelines that are still quoted today. The machine or transformation test was a clear test that would have helped add certainty. However, it is water over the dam, and we do have some certainty. If it is commercial
I noticed on another site that a legal debate entitled "Software Patents Encourage Innovation" will take place on Aug. 24 at noon at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, CA (Mountain View is where Google is headquartered) between Bob Zaidman (well known expert witness for plaintiffs in software patent enforcement litigation)arguing for software patents and Edward Lee (head of the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Dept. of UC Berkeley)arguing against software patents. I bet Masnick and his moronic Techdirt dittoheads are afraid to show up for fear of embarrassment.
Donnicton, you show your prejudices and biases when you say patent trolls lose more than they win. In your, dreams my friend, but not in reality. In reality, the opposite is true. Even with Zimmerman, the court found he had won enough to pay a $600K+ judgment, so you have your head up your rear to think things turn against trolls more often than not. Zimmerman claimed poverty only to avoid the judgment and the Judge saw through that. Intellectual Ventures, Acacia, General Patent, Lodsys, etc. - all making fortunes. The TSA analogy is really misplaced and inapplicable. With much, much more at stake than $600K, we have not had a commercial airplane successfully terrorized since TSA was formed, so it is actually a great success story, much like patent enforcement companies are a great success story with MS, Apple & their team coughing up $4.5 billion to keep Nortel patents out of the hands of Google or the patent trolls. $4.5 billion evidences the level of their fear.
This suit was pursuant to patent laws not Twitter service to Agarwal. First, the plaintiff was VS Technologies, which did not have a Twitter account and was not created until after Agarwal got a Twitter account, so the Judge found that VS Technologies could not have agreed to the TOS. Hard to dispute that. Second, the suit was not about Twitter's service to Agarwal, but rather Twitter's adoption of items covered by the VS Technologies patent. Third, if TOS trumped patent law choice of forum, a patentee suing multiple social networks would generate satellite lawsuits in each network's TOS forum choice, rather than in one multi-defendant case in one jurisdiction before one judge, and judicial efficiency favors one case rather than an unlimited number when the issue is essentially the same. Hard to dispute that logic. Fourth, in this case the balance of convenience appeared to be either equal or favoring non-transfer. That balance is for the Court to determine, not Twitter. Fifth, Agarwal's undisputed testimony was his Twitter account was only obtained in order to gather evidence for the suit, not to use the service. Sixth, the USDC-VA-E has a faster docket (it is one of the famous rocket docket jurisdictions for patent cases), and that was a minor factor favoring non-transfer to USDC-CA-N. Not mentioned was the real reason, which the Judge well knows, that the USDC-VA-E is much more pro-plaintiff than the USDC-CA-N so the plaintiff wants it to stay at the USDC-VA-E and Twitter, the defendant, wants it the hell out of there and into a more anti-patent forum like the USDC-CA-N. If Twitter were the patent owner and VS Technologies the defendant, Twitter would be arguing the other way, namely to keep the case there. All in all, this was a real legal stretch by Twitter, indicating desperation. Expect Twitter to try to settle this one.
The WIPO article has some excellent quotes: "most authors agree that IP rights remain critical for the efficient functioning of markets"
Even one of you Techdirt fools knows that the right to exclude someone from practicing an invention serves as a barrier to entry into the market for that invention. The founding fathers found that desirable to reward inventors in order to promote progress.
WIPO merely attempted in this study to assemble the articles describing the barrier effect and then concluded that the consensus is it's a good thing for developed countries, but that there are widely varying views as to whether IP protection is good for developing countries. Since we are in the US not the Congo, this article says strong IP protection is good for us .
Leave it to Techdirt to try to distort that into something critical of IP when it is just the opposite. You clowns are pathetic dupes of Masnick.
If I patent the wheel and you invent a wheeled cart your cart infringes my patent because it uses my patented invention, the wheel. But, you could patent your cart and stop me from putting my wheel on a cart, since you not me invented that combination. This has been the law for 220 years. What is LOL is you not understanding it and embarrassing yourself by posting to show your ignorance. "Better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt" - A. Lincoln
Hmmm ... kind of like how inventors have to file a lawsuit against companies infringing their patents just to get what's owed to them
Actually, no. Nothing likes that. One involves a signed and agreed upon contract, in which company A promises to pay person B $x for royalties.
The other involves random company M with a silly patent suing a company who actually innovated, and demanding a cut of something they have no right to and don't deserve.
See the difference?
Mike, you don't get it and never will. A patent is the result of a contract - disclosure in return for period of exclusivity - and there is no substantive difference. If you had any substance you would understand, but alas you are too caught up trying to defend you "all patents are bad" nonsense. Here, when a clear analogy hits you in the face, you comment how unfair it is to the artist and yet don't recognize that these two things both come from the same clause of the Constitution. Mike, one thing is clear, you're no Thomas Jefferson. You're just a low life invention thief shill. Interesting you whine about Happy Day's actors getting cheated and then put on your own act about how you think that is unfair and yet continue to think it is okay for an inventor to get similarly cheated.
Absolutely disgusting dirt. I see the "dirt" in TechDirt must be your filth. More is the pity that you suck your sheepish readership in with your lies.