Andrew F 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (469) comment rss

  • On the post: Prenda's Brett Gibbs Tries To Avoid Answering Questions About Alan Cooper By Dismissing Case

    Andrew F ( profile ), 30 Jan, 2013 @ 02:32pm

    Re: Prenda and the courts

    Due process takes time. Courts also have other cases to deal with. When you have cases where even a day's delay could cost someone millions of dollars, dealing with crap like this is low priority.

  • On the post: Anonymous Launches White House Petition Saying DDoS Should Be Recognized As A Valid Form Of Protest

    Andrew F ( profile ), 11 Jan, 2013 @ 08:43pm

    Re:

    This. I'm not sure sit-ins are legal. It's a form of civil disobedience, and while we frown on an excessive response to civil disobedience,it is, by definition, illegal.

    The point of sit-ins during the civil rights era wasn't to protest legally. The whole point was to break segregation, and is so doing, highlight the injustice of those laws. Alternatively, the point of a sit-in is to demonstrate a willingness to sacrifice yourself to highlight the seriousness of a cause -- e.g. I think XYZ business is so evil that I am willing to go to jail for trespassing to highlight this.

    Legalizing sit-ins would take much of the symbolic impact out of them. It would not, however, make them any less annoying.

  • On the post: Innovation, Optimism And Opportunity: All Coming Together To Make Real Change

    Andrew F ( profile ), 29 Dec, 2012 @ 03:53pm

    And how about some optimism for all the cool new innovation out there? 3D printers! Self-driving cars! Commercial space flight! Robots on Mars! Personal heads up displays! And so on.

  • On the post: London Police To Set Up Special Copyright Crime Police Force

    Andrew F ( profile ), 18 Dec, 2012 @ 08:21pm

    I dunno ... I think it'd be great to live in a place with a special police task force for copyright. Because clearly such a place doesn't have more pressing concerns, like murder, rape, arson, burglary, harassment, substance abuse, vandalism, and drunken hooliganism. Right?

  • On the post: NYTimes Columnist Proves That Among Billions Of Tweets Some People Say Stuff You Don't Care About

    Andrew F ( profile ), 17 Dec, 2012 @ 01:33am

    Filtering

    Mike, the real risk isn't you reading about someone eating lunch at a restaurant you really like -- it about that tweet getting lost among the hundreds of random tweets about ... whatever you find irrelevant.

    Filtering problem. We have tons of information and that's a good thing -- the value-add now for social networks is filtering out the irrelevant bits.

  • On the post: Copyright Maximalists Attempt To Downplay Significance Of RSC Report By Chanting Their Mantra: Copyright Is Property

    Andrew F ( profile ), 26 Nov, 2012 @ 08:12pm

    Degrees of Property

    The flaw isn't that copyright = property, but that more property rights = better economic outcomes. For example, it's one thing to say that pizza should be protected as property. It's quite another to expand that to the right to sell pizza.

    I mean, I can imagine a market where Pizza Hut claimed the exclusive right to sell pizza to me. Pizza Hut would lobby Congress to pass laws to protect its rights, because it's, you know, unfair for me to order Round Table after Pizza Hut spent all this money marketing their pizza to me. There'd be a robust market developing for the sale and trade of pizza rights. There'd also be non-pizza-making entities that buy up these rights and license them at high cost. The naysayers would deride these groups as "pizza trolls" but they're mostly tolerated, because everyone knows arbitrage is necessary for a well-functioning market.

    So yeah, increase property rights and you may get more markets. But more property and more markets doesn't mean a better pie.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

    Andrew F ( profile ), 18 Nov, 2012 @ 10:28pm

    PetrAEus, not PetrEAus.

    Sorry!

  • On the post: That Was Fast: Hollywood Already Browbeat The Republicans Into Retracting Report On Copyright Reform

    Andrew F ( profile ), 17 Nov, 2012 @ 05:42pm

    The GOP caved in response to elitist Hollywood liberals? That's saying a lot about the GOP.

  • On the post: Why Do We Even Have 'Distribution' As A Right Protected By Copyright?

    Andrew F ( profile ), 15 Nov, 2012 @ 07:59pm

    Importation Issues

    My understanding of the distribution right is that it was meant as a way to deal with importation issues. Suppose a book is copyrighted in the US but not in Canada. One problem would be that people would make the copies in Canada(legally) and then sell them in the US. THe distribution right was meant to address that.

    The US copyright statute has a separate section dealing with importation rights now, but it's still somehow tied to the distribution right I believe.

  • On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing

    Andrew F ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2012 @ 11:33pm

    Re:

    Patent abolishment might be politically suicidal, but I doubt it's unconstitutional. The Constitution says Congress MAY create patent rights, but nothing says it HAS to.

  • On the post: Richard Stallman: Legislate That Using Software On General Purpose Computers Is Not Infringing

    Andrew F ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2012 @ 11:30pm

    Re:

    Part of the problem with carve-outs is that every time you need a carve out, you have to go through Congress. It's slow and time-consuming.

    Also, this conversation:
    A: I'd like a carve-out for nano-technology, please!
    B: The quantum computing guys are offering me 10 million for their carve-out. Can you match that?

  • On the post: Congressman Sues TV Stations For Defamation For Airing Political Ads Against Him

    Andrew F ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 09:23pm

    Re: Re:

    The bar is that you have to be outright lying and know you're outright lying -- mere innuendo or misleading comments probably would be okay. Also, if you read the complaint, it argues that the "gist" of the ad was defamatory. If you have to rely on the gist of something as opposed to the actual something, it's probably not going to pass that bar.

    The high bar would be useful for the TV stations, who could argue that they just aired the ad without fact-checking, and therefore didn't know anything.

  • On the post: Being A Jackass On Twitter Shouldn't Be Illegal; Public Shame Should Be Enough

    Andrew F ( profile ), 31 Oct, 2012 @ 09:12pm

    Negligence

    There's already a law that deals with this: negligence. Bringing a negligence claim in court requires would require showing that you personally suffered some actual harm because of this guy's Twitter posts though. Seems like a stretch here.

  • On the post: Privacy Case May Come Down To Whether It Costs $12k To Uninstall An iPhone App

    Andrew F ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2012 @ 12:15pm

    Re: Re: Economics

    I'll do it for $19! Arbitrage is awesome.

  • On the post: Copyright: The New Mercantilism

    Andrew F ( profile ), 28 Oct, 2012 @ 12:11pm

    Const. Amendments

    The funny thing about a Constitutional Amendment is that you have to persuade something like 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to go along with it. And if you had that much of Congress behind you, copyright laws probably wouldn't be so ridiculous to begin with.

  • On the post: Philip Morris Sends Cease & Desist To Artist For Using Marlboro Box In His Art

    Andrew F ( profile ), 26 Oct, 2012 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: But Philip Morris might be right...

    I don't think Campbell soup actually sued. The paintings didn't really portray Campbell in a negative light, so they were pretty chill about it.

    Also, soup companies can CwF too: http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2010/08/campbell-soups-response-to-andy-warhols-appropriation/
    http://madisonian.net/2012/08/30/warhol-and-campbells-soup/

  • On the post: Yes, An Independent Invention Defense For Patents Is Completely Feasible

    Andrew F ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2012 @ 08:35am

    Re: Re: Response to: average_joe on Oct 24th, 2012 @ 4:02pm

    Most trolls are financially motivated. They're trying to maximize profit, not destroy innovators for the heck of it. Keep in mind that trolls have to pay legal costs too. If the odds of them recouping that cost are low, many won't bring suit.

    That said, yes, some trolls will still use the cost of frivolous litigation to force a settlement. Something like the equivalent of an anti-SLAPP law for patent suits might be helpful here.

    But an independent invention defense would still be helpful for businesses though. The amount of money a troll can demand in settlement goes way down if it's unlikely to win at trial.

  • On the post: Yes, An Independent Invention Defense For Patents Is Completely Feasible

    Andrew F ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2012 @ 02:04am

    Re: Gosh, that's awfully complex and iffy.

    On complexity, yes, there is a cost. But my argument is that the cost is manageable.

    First, the complexities stem from known problems that lawyers have been handling for centuries. Think of it this way -- modern computers are ridiculously complex. Yet we use computers for rather important tasks all the time without incident. Part of this is because much of the complexity has been abstracted out, and the abstractions are well tested. Likewise, a lot of the complexities with an independent invention defense can be abstracted out to existing legal problems with existing solutions.

    Second, complexity in law doesn't necessarily create as much opportunity for exploitation as, say, complexity in software. Law can be much more fluid. It can contain open-ended language that lets courts and lawyers fill in the details. And it can permit courts and lawyers alter those details in response to an exploit. The point of my post was not to architect a complete system for deciding independent invention, but to show that courts and lawyers have a number of tools with which to respond to various challenges.

    Third, "cheating" in the patent trolling context isn't binary. It's not like hacking, where a single security flaw can be your undoing. This is really about tilting the cost-benefit analysis against trolling. A few trolls may still go for it, but if it's no longer worth it to troll on average, that's pretty good as far as public policy goes.

  • On the post: Yes, An Independent Invention Defense For Patents Is Completely Feasible

    Andrew F ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2012 @ 11:35pm

    Re: Gosh, that's awfully complex and iffy.

    A physical model requirement wouldn't prevent software patents. The patentee would simply write some code, run it on a physical computer, and call it a working model of their invention.

  • On the post: Yes, An Independent Invention Defense For Patents Is Completely Feasible

    Andrew F ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2012 @ 11:05pm

    Re: Re:

    Technically, yes, you could look at it that way.

    When I say "independent invention defense", think of it as shorthand for "a legal doctrine that permits a defendant to win a patent infringement suit by showing that they came up with their product independently of the patentee's efforts".

    Under current law, there's nothing wrong with re-inventing a patented invention. But if you manufacture, use, or sell your invention, you're liable to be sued, even if you did it entirely on your own. An independent invention defense would limit your liability.

Next >>