TKnarr’s Techdirt Profile


About TKnarr

TKnarr’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 13th, 2017 @ 1:38pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think the dodge may backfire on them. While Allergan may have sold the patent to the tribe, they didn't do anything that made the patent not be issued by the US PTO. The challenge to the patent would still be being made with the US PTO, under US law and in US courts where it's the US government and not the tribal government that's sovereign. So now it'll be the tribe having to defend the patent without any expertise in the matter, and the PTAB may refuse to allow Allergan to intervene and help the tribe since they're no longer a party to the review.

  • Sep 12th, 2017 @ 3:17pm

    Re: Hmm...

    Because the suit was brought by PETA who have no interest in establishing that the photographer owns the copyrights.

  • Sep 8th, 2017 @ 12:11pm


    You mean guys don't like to look at Ming-Na Wen? Or Halle Berry? Or Salma Hayek? Or Charlize Theron? Or a host of others? If you believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in...

  • Aug 28th, 2017 @ 2:53pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Right now such a data breach wouldn't be damaging at all... for the company collecting the data, anyway, since it's all but impossible for the consumers who do suffer the damage to hold the companies liable.

  • Aug 28th, 2017 @ 12:14pm


    I suspect the editing claim here's similar to one made by a Federal agent trying to run a sting on Backpage: when an ad using language that suggested the person being advertised was underage and/or involved in prostitution was submitted, BP refused to accept it and the poster had to edit it until all such suggestion was removed. This was presented as equivalent to BP editing the posting themselves, which of course it isn't.

  • Aug 24th, 2017 @ 2:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    The problem isn't the IP address, it's the near-complete lack of evidence that the IP address was involved in infringement at all. If a plaintiff wants to file a John Doe case, they should be barred from going any further than filing until they've shown their evidence to a judge with the standard being evidence that could survive a reasonable motion for summary judgment. If all the plaintiff has is a list of URLs, the case dies because there's no evidence in the record that those URLs contain copyrighted content or that if they do the plaintiff owns the copyrights. Each URL should be accompanied by a statement of exactly what content that URL contains, a detailed description of how the content was confirmed to be what was claimed, and a statement of who created the work and when and (if the author isn't the plaintiff) a complete chain of copyright transfers terminating with the plaintiff. If they're just an agent for the copyright holder, the case is suspended until they amend their complaint to add the copyright holder as a complainant and the holder's notified of the action.

    Those requirements should be easy to meet for any legitimate case, which means 99% of the copyright infringement cases out there either won't get filed or will get laughed out of the courtroom on the first day.

  • Aug 23rd, 2017 @ 12:17pm

    (untitled comment)

    I wonder what'll happen when the first complaint is made that the product contains a manufacturing defect (pointing out that the update is to fix a problem) and that the manufacturer is refusing to fix said defect as required by law unless the owner agrees to new contract terms?

  • Aug 21st, 2017 @ 2:00pm

    Re: The Joy of Unicode

    Like 'I' and '1', or '0' and 'O'. Or the infamous "'", "`", "‘", "’" and "′".

  • Aug 21st, 2017 @ 1:57pm

    Re: Re: The Joy of Unicode

    Unicode support is also a very necessary idea if you want web sites in countries other than English-speaking ones. Web browsers, however, should flag URLs that contain characters that're outside the Unicode range(s) used by your default locale.

  • Aug 21st, 2017 @ 10:58am

    (untitled comment)

    I'd guess Google will appeal, and if 3rd Circuit upholds the decision they'll appeal to the Supreme Court because there's a circuit split. They can make a convincing argument that this case and the Microsoft decision can't be distinguished, as Microsoft also could have moved the data back to domestic servers where it would fall under the warrant. After all, the judge in the Google case isn't ordering Google to just wait to see if the data comes back to the US naturally, he's ordering them to make the data come back to the US.

  • Aug 16th, 2017 @ 2:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    I think the new narrative will fall flat simply because people have already been exposed to the reality that one of the biggest sources of malware is legitimate web sites that host advertising. That's why the use of ad-blockers is on the rise. All people will do is shrug at the DCA and go "That's different from every other web site out there how again?".

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 9:11pm


    I don't think it does. What it does is require that the plaintiff go back to the judge and make a motion to compel discovery, get it granted and go back to the service provider with the judge's order. Which is almost certainly what Yahoo told him to do when they rejected his request.

  • Aug 14th, 2017 @ 11:12am

    (untitled comment)

    So, what Admiral is saying is that needs to be added to the list of domains that my local nameserver is authoritative for and which have a wildcard record resolving to a web server that responds to all requests with "404 Not Found". Glad they clarified that, now I'll never even contact their site to potentially copy their content so I'll never have to worry about whether I've circumvented anything Admiral's put in place to prevent that copying and thus never have to worry about Section 1201.

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 11:45am

    Re: Re:

    It isn't. And those videos should be left up as well unless they meet the same criteria above.

  • Aug 11th, 2017 @ 10:59am

    (untitled comment)

    No, they shouldn't be forced to take it down. Not until he's specifically telling people to go to North Korea and try to kill Kim Jong Un, being aware that they can and will do just that. Until that point it's merely insanely offensive (not to mention IMHO simply insane) and that's not enough to move it outside the scope of the First Amendment.

  • Aug 4th, 2017 @ 12:25pm

    (untitled comment)

    What's more fun is that allowing AirBnb to be sued like this opens up another can of worms: how is what any hotel/motel does with on-line reservations (or even renting rooms in-person) sufficiently different as to render them less liable than AirBnb? If anything they have more knowledge of the activities than AirBnb and more control over honoring or refusing the reservation. This would be a huge sword dangling over the entire hospitality industry.

  • Jul 26th, 2017 @ 11:59am


    I think what Senator Wyden needs to do is to call for open hearings to "fully document the problems Title II classification has created for the broadband industry and to provide a solid foundation for the FCC's rules changes". Don't phrase it as trying to cut Pai off at the knees, phrase it as if you're trying to get the evidence he claims is there completely and clearly in the record.

    Then when the broadband people are done saying how it's hampered their investment in expansion and upgrades, pull out their own statements to investors and read out the relevant sections with the text projected clearly. Ask them whether, given the discrepancies, they've lied to investors about their business situation and plans or not and to provide good reason why this matter should not be referred to the SEC for prosecution. Don't involve the FCC here at all, just use the results the next time he tries to trot out his "hurt investments" line to counter him with "But the broadband companies themselves said before Congress that it didn't hamper their plans at all.".

  • Jul 21st, 2017 @ 3:40pm

    Re: There's a more obvious flaw with this "evidence"

    It's a pretty good presumption, though. People don't just go loaning out their phones for extended periods, so if he had it on him at all around that time it's likely he had it on him for the entire period. It's an easy presumption to rebut, but absent any rebuttal it's reasonable to assume that his phone didn't go randomly wandering off.

  • Jul 21st, 2017 @ 3:35pm


    It isn't even triangulation. The prosecution was essentially trying to base their location calculation on data from a single tower, and even assuming they got the right tower the error margin's far too high for their claims. And there's no guarantee they even identified the right tower, just imagine the error margin if they're trying to calculate the location relative to a different tower than would've been used at the time of the incident.

  • Jul 11th, 2017 @ 4:36pm


    Tiffany Inc. v. Ebay Inc. would seem to indicate otherwise.

More comments from TKnarr >>