Andrew F 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (469) comment rss

  • On the post: Sarkozy: We Must Regulate The Internet To Ensure Freedom

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Oct, 2010 @ 09:35am

    Freedom is slavery.

  • On the post: Not Being Able To Spy On Everyone Online Is A Feature, Not A Bug

    Andrew F ( profile ), 11 Oct, 2010 @ 01:22pm

    Re: Re: #3

    If you tap the login server, you could probably impersonate one of the users and get in that way. You'd probably also have to alter the client software to broadcast to multiple peers (including the FBI) rather than just one.

    It's doable, but it does open up a lot of security holes though.

  • On the post: IBM Patents Dividing The Number 60 By Your Car's Speed

    Andrew F ( profile ), 07 Oct, 2010 @ 12:28pm

    Re:

    I don't think so -- see the doctrine of equivalents.

  • On the post: Bill Gates Foundation Investing In Monsanto?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 30 Aug, 2010 @ 08:09pm

    Buy them out?

    If Bill Gates invested in (bought out) Monsanto, he'd have more leverage with which to force some changes. Not saying he is, but it's not implausible

  • On the post: How The Record Labels Kill Off Innovative Startups With Ridiculous Licensing Demands

    Andrew F ( profile ), 27 Aug, 2010 @ 08:04am

    Compulsory Licensing

    I wonder how these lawsuits would turn out if compulsory mechanical licenses were extended to music start-ups. I'm sure the labels would abuse the system nonethless, but the overall cost would at least be much much lower.

  • On the post: Insider's View: How Grandstanding State Attorneys General Make Life Miserable For Law Abiding Tech Companies

    Andrew F ( profile ), 23 Aug, 2010 @ 05:20pm

    SLAPP-plus

    It'd be hilarious if we could make anti-SLAPP laws apply to grandstanding attorney generals.

  • On the post: Court Tells Mall That It Cannot Ban Customers From Talking To Strangers

    Andrew F ( profile ), 18 Aug, 2010 @ 12:42am

    Can't find the case but ...

    I suspect a few things are going on:

    1) Malls have a weird status. They're private corporations, but they operate as pseudo-public places (that in fact, have replaced many actual publicly owned spaces). The theory is you act like a public space, you get treated as one. I'm not sure if courts have ever recognized this argument, but it's certainly been made.

    2) Unenforceable contract - Unless there's a sign at the door saying "you may not enter unless you agree to XYZ terms," the mall may not be able to enforce its restrictions. Moreover, the fact they're enforcing their policy unevenly (I highly doubt someone talking about the weather is getting kicked out, no matter what they say) is not helping their case.

    I'm not sure exactly how this translates into a free speech issue though.

  • On the post: Patents Getting In The Way Of Saving Lives; Fabry Disease Sufferers Petition US Gov't To Step In

    Andrew F ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2010 @ 04:02pm

    Re: Aren't we Forgetting Something?

    And given that others are apparently willing to pay a royalty to Genzyme, their refusal to license means lost profits.

  • On the post: Russian Court Orders YouTube Blocked

    Andrew F ( profile ), 30 Jul, 2010 @ 02:49pm

    Russia for Russians

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_for_Russians

    Apparently, it's a nationalist slogan.

  • On the post: Toyota Settles Big Hybrid Engine Patent Lawsuit; Demonstrates The Patent Tax

    Andrew F ( profile ), 23 Jul, 2010 @ 02:22pm

    Re: There is **NO** independent invention

    One explanation is that Toyota may have been aware of the patent only after it had invented its technology independently (hence why it wasn't able to file its own patents first). After all, it's not like engineers check out new patents filed on a regular basis. Moreover, patents often don't provide enough information to actually implement the invention itself, so even if they were aware of the patent, they might have just thought it was bogus.

    At any rate, Mike's point is that the law currently does not provide an independent invention defense, and that's bad. Even if both sides admit Toyota invented the technology, that's currently no defense. Sure, we shouldn't just rely on Toyota's word that it invented the technology without ever seeing the patent. But suppose Toyota actually was able to prove it -- e.g. by having the employee responsible for the inventing to take a lie detector test or something. The law should at least give Toyota a chance to make that case. Right now, it doesn't.

  • On the post: Pay What You Want Works Much Better With A Charity Component

    Andrew F ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2010 @ 02:23pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Also, the charity option is checked by default.

  • On the post: Copyright Lawsuit Plaintiff Demands $27 Million; Gets $500

    Andrew F ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2010 @ 02:21pm

    Re: Re: Re: Damages awarded

    Different question -- the issue is damages not blame. Assume for a moment that McDonald was at least partly responsible for harm caused to this lady (as the jury actually found).

    Then what are fair damages here? Medical costs seem to be a good baseline here. Opportunity costs from time that could have spent working are also fair game. That could very well end up in the 10s of 1000s of dollars.

    To get to a million though, usually you need to consider stuff like "severe emotional distress" and "prospective business advantage." Or punitive damages, although the Supreme Court has limited those to about 4x compensatory damages. Those are probably the sources of much ire about lawsuit awards. That and the lawyer fees.

  • On the post: Get Ready For The Next Entertainment Industry 'Solution' To Content Distribution: Kinder, Gentler DRM

    Andrew F ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2010 @ 05:01pm

    Consumer benefits from DRM

    Maybe they should advertise that it'll walk your dog or get you half-off frozen yogurt or something.

  • On the post: Judge Says The First Amendment Protects You If You Lie About Receiving A Purple Heart

    Andrew F ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2010 @ 04:58pm

    Medal Verification Website

    Wouldn't it be easier to just set up a website where potential victims of "medal fraud" could go and search to see if someone was lying or not about their medals?

  • On the post: Turns Out People Actually Do Like Smart, Long Form Content Online

    Andrew F ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2010 @ 08:14pm

    Re: Why are there stylized snowflakes by names now?

    It's a computer-generated unique identifier for anonymous commenters / people who post without logging in. This way, when multiple ACs are talking, readers can keep track of who's who.

  • On the post: A Paywall… For Obituaries?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 14 Jul, 2010 @ 09:38pm

    Competing with Free

    Look, a competitor that lets you post and view obituaries for free! http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/09/a-loved-one-has-passed-away-whats-your-digital-strategy/

    This is actually an interesting business issue: a recurring problem with online obituaries is how to make money tastefully. I'm hoping the startup mentioned in the link manages to develop a business model that doesn't sound like squeezing dollars out of the bereaved (even if funeral homes swear by it)/

  • On the post: The Guardian Makes It Super Simple For Blogs To Repost Its Content

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2010 @ 11:28pm

    Re:

    Eh? Not sure how this hurts their legal case if someone strips out the ads. The Guardian isn't surrendering its copyright and it's still requiring that you agree to its (contractual) conditions before using the plguin. If anything, this helps in two ways:

    (1) Every time you use their Wordpress plug-in, it includes this message:

    PLEASE NOTE: Add your own commentary here above the horizontal line, but do not make any changes below the line (Of course, you should also delete this text before you publish this post.)

    If you delete that text though, that's a pretty good sign that you've read the text. And if you then remove any ads, the Guardian now has an excellent case that your breach of contract / copyright infringement was not innocent but willful.

    (2) Every time you use the Guardian plug-in, the Guardian's servers probably log this in some way. Using those logs, it shouldn't be too hard to create an automated service that visits blogs hosting Guardian content and check to see if the blogs are stripping out the ads. You can, of course, easily circumvent this (copy and paste), but that's not any worse than what bloggers can do right now. Plus, since enforcing compliance among plug-in users can be easily automated, that frees up legal resources to go after the more clever copyright infringers (if they so choose of course -- it might not be worth their time).

  • On the post: The Guardian Makes It Super Simple For Blogs To Repost Its Content

    Andrew F ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2010 @ 11:08pm

    Clever

    I'll often read a blog post that quotes and links to a news article but not actually click the link. Therefore, although I read the news site's content, they don't get any ad revenue from me.

    With this new system, if the blog post includes the full Guardian post and ads, the Guardian gets to count me as an ad impression even if I never visit their website. Win! It also increases the chance that I'll actually read the full article (there's a smaller psychological barrier to scrolling down vs. clicking a link).

  • On the post: Lack Of Food Copyright Helps Restaurant Innovation Thrive

    Andrew F ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2010 @ 04:54pm

    More patent than copyright

    I think this gives a better case for why patents are not (always) necessary rather than copyright. This isn't a case of the literal exact "expression" of the Korean taco being copied but the idea.

    The copyright analogue would be if people were innovating in food despite some Star Trek-like replicator device that made perfect copies of foods.

  • On the post: Gucci Allowed To Sue Credit Card Processors For Contributory Infringement Over Counterfeit Goods

    Andrew F ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2010 @ 11:39pm

    Knowledge

    If you're liable for knowing that the activity is illegal, a party that makes a half-hearted attempt to police infringement by third parties is more likely to be found liable that one that makes no effort whatsoever. Doesn't this just create a weird monkey-see-no-evil incentive? I think this was one of rationales for the Section 230 safe harbor in the first place.

Next >>