Social Media isgossip. It is mostly relevant to the relatively llltterate and those who feel somehow disenfranchised. While better education would not solve all the problems it would be a giant step in the right direction.
It would also result in a significant reduction in the power of social media - the more you know, the less you rely on gossip.
Don't know where you got your law degree, but in my (4th ranked) law school they would gleefully meet you in court on that remark.
Yes, you or anyone else can vet a work - but if the reason is in violation of the First, look out!
As to not giving a reason, that would add to the damages in a lawsuit.
Would my answer be different if it were Obama? Of course not! I think Obama was among our better Presidents, but the Constitution rules!
Imply Trump can ignore the first amendment? Ignore reasonable questions (which would make Trump look like a total coward - well, maybe, but his ego won't allow that). Nope - neither has a prayer of working.
As an attorney, commentary on another's work is not grounds for infringement. BUT, anyone can sue anyone. It is a shame this suit was filed, and it should be thrown out on grounds it fails to identify a cause of action, but this isn't the fault of copyright - it is stupidity coupled with a flaw in the way the courts operate. We need to assess the costs of purely facetious actions on the plaintiff to discourage this sort of thing.
"The market would solve the pollution problem without the government" - "the market would provide a safety net without the government" - is this guy a total idiot, or simply someone who hates history so much he is trying to rewrite it? I stopped listening; this was even worse than Trump saying the economy strength Obama created is actually due to him.
So, from the comments and article: Speaking as a frog, so the water is a little warmer, and maybe getting warmer - no worries. Let's just notice it might get cooler, or they might take me out of the water. Not going to get excited yet.
"Innovating", in the sense of building defenses against competitors, involves making litigation expensive - it does not necessarily involve invention, or anything useful to the public.
Innovating through a recession, on the other hand, means making consumers desire your product - totally different! It does involve invention, it does involve things useful to the public.
The two things are not only different, they are diametrically opposed. That's WHY I specialize in small entities - I make litigation inexpensive, so all that is left is invention.
Well, as a patent attorney I largely agree; but there is the problem that the Supreme Court decided some time ago that only judges can interpret patent claims, and the claims "are the patent" (probably good, since they are less likely to be swayed by a seasoned attorney).
I would like to see obtuse, muddled patents invalidated for lack of clarity, rather than being "interpreted" by "experts" in the employ of the parties. That would defeat the purpose of many patents - making litigation expensive!
Some patents are abstract and hard to understand (take PCS, for example), but an independent expert (paid for by both parties?) can fairly quickly figure out if this applies.
I suspect the EFF, etc., would supply experts, for that matter.
Again, RIGHT ON, Michael!
While I continue to maintain that children (and many adults) ARE influenced by the media and the culture surrounding them (for example, ScienceDaily showed that if you are surrounded by obese people, obese seems "normal"), it is equally true that these things are not necessarily bad.
"Protecting the Children" all too often means leaving them defenseless against the real world. NO violence can be as damaging as too much violence. I could go on and on, but I would rather just agree with what has already been said!
WOW! I am impressed! I find myself in the position of totally agreeing with everything Michael says!
I will add that, in defense of GM, wages in the auto industry have gone up to the point that, even with automation, they are uncompetitive in the cars many people want - they have to build "muscle" cars, whether the mainstream wants them or not, because that is where the large margins are (and where the "Muricuns" that buy "Muricun" agin them furriners are, even if they have to pay extra).
Also, I will add that I am now convinced that the IP system is hopelessly broken - not that we don't need one, as Michael says, but we don't need the one we have at this time!
So if a libel is published in a medium with a million readers, the person libeled is protected if they have a blog read by 2 or 3 people? Did I hear you right?
Why would you think the RIAA would stop claiming those things merely because the Judge ordered a new trial? Are you saying the RIAA has suddenly gotten a bad case of honesty?
Perhaps the main reason the courts close down a case when it is done, and do not want to review what the USPTO finds, is that if they allow unlimited litigation, the guy with all the money wins (in this case, M$ could litigate an opponent out of business, with or without any justification for the lawsuits).
I hope the Supremes will tell them to take a hike; but this is by far the worst Supreme Court we have ever had, which makes me nervous.
As an attorney, I have to agree with Einstein; the "only thing that is infinite is human stupidity ...". Putting stuff like Verizon not owning the internet PUTS THAT CLAIM IN ISSUE! In fact, much of the stuff in the internet would not be easily assertable in court if the company putting it in fine print had not brought it up! In such a case, "more" may be "less".
I think they got what they wanted; a moment of fame and the widest possible exposure to the real estate market.
The real problem is playing into their hands by printing such nonsense.
Of course, the better stuff to write about is controlled by the media, which is controlled by the "right wing" (should be the "wrong wing"). That we won't hear about (like, how the
"surge" didn't really work; it was just manipulated to look that way).
The continuation process is so heavily abused it should be eliminated. The Courts are powerless to do so without the proper legislation from Congress, though, and Congress is deep in the corporate "feed trough". Again, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
Social Media
Social Media isgossip. It is mostly relevant to the relatively llltterate and those who feel somehow disenfranchised. While better education would not solve all the problems it would be a giant step in the right direction.
It would also result in a significant reduction in the power of social media - the more you know, the less you rely on gossip.
USPS - Nike article
You've lost a lot of credibility with me by (snidely) including an inference of USPS "spying" on us in an otherwise interesting article.
From now on, I will be more suspicious of what is said.
That sort of thing should be beneath you dignity "even for a Republican" - there, how to YOU like that?
Don't know where you got your law degree, but in my (4th ranked) law school they would gleefully meet you in court on that remark.
Yes, you or anyone else can vet a work - but if the reason is in violation of the First, look out! As to not giving a reason, that would add to the damages in a lawsuit. Would my answer be different if it were Obama? Of course not! I think Obama was among our better Presidents, but the Constitution rules!
Re: so?
Imply Trump can ignore the first amendment? Ignore reasonable questions (which would make Trump look like a total coward - well, maybe, but his ego won't allow that).
Nope - neither has a prayer of working.
AI and copyright in art
As an attorney, commentary on another's work is not grounds for infringement.
BUT, anyone can sue anyone. It is a shame this suit was filed, and it should be thrown out on grounds it fails to identify a cause of action, but this isn't the fault of copyright - it is stupidity coupled with a flaw in the way the courts operate. We need to assess the costs of purely facetious actions on the plaintiff to discourage this sort of thing.
Court of Public Opinion
So, instead of going to court to stop the administration from illegally deporting asylum seekers, we should have "the base" simply "get rid" of them?
Is this America, where the rule of law matters, or Nazi Germany?
"The market would solve the pollution problem without the government" - "the market would provide a safety net without the government" - is this guy a total idiot, or simply someone who hates history so much he is trying to rewrite it?
I stopped listening; this was even worse than Trump saying the economy strength Obama created is actually due to him.
EU and Google
So, from the comments and article:
Speaking as a frog, so the water is a little warmer, and maybe getting warmer - no worries. Let's just notice it might get cooler, or they might take me out of the water. Not going to get excited yet.
EU and Google
Innovating through a recession
"Innovating", in the sense of building defenses against competitors, involves making litigation expensive - it does not necessarily involve invention, or anything useful to the public.
Innovating through a recession, on the other hand, means making consumers desire your product - totally different! It does involve invention, it does involve things useful to the public.
The two things are not only different, they are diametrically opposed. That's WHY I specialize in small entities - I make litigation inexpensive, so all that is left is invention.
Patent Education for Judges
Well, as a patent attorney I largely agree; but there is the problem that the Supreme Court decided some time ago that only judges can interpret patent claims, and the claims "are the patent" (probably good, since they are less likely to be swayed by a seasoned attorney).
I would like to see obtuse, muddled patents invalidated for lack of clarity, rather than being "interpreted" by "experts" in the employ of the parties. That would defeat the purpose of many patents - making litigation expensive!
Some patents are abstract and hard to understand (take PCS, for example), but an independent expert (paid for by both parties?) can fairly quickly figure out if this applies.
I suspect the EFF, etc., would supply experts, for that matter.
Pop Culture
Again, RIGHT ON, Michael!
While I continue to maintain that children (and many adults) ARE influenced by the media and the culture surrounding them (for example, ScienceDaily showed that if you are surrounded by obese people, obese seems "normal"), it is equally true that these things are not necessarily bad.
"Protecting the Children" all too often means leaving them defenseless against the real world. NO violence can be as damaging as too much violence. I could go on and on, but I would rather just agree with what has already been said!
Competition
WOW! I am impressed! I find myself in the position of totally agreeing with everything Michael says!
I will add that, in defense of GM, wages in the auto industry have gone up to the point that, even with automation, they are uncompetitive in the cars many people want - they have to build "muscle" cars, whether the mainstream wants them or not, because that is where the large margins are (and where the "Muricuns" that buy "Muricun" agin them furriners are, even if they have to pay extra).
Also, I will add that I am now convinced that the IP system is hopelessly broken - not that we don't need one, as Michael says, but we don't need the one we have at this time!
Libel laws
So if a libel is published in a medium with a million readers, the person libeled is protected if they have a blog read by 2 or 3 people? Did I hear you right?
RIAA problems
Why would you think the RIAA would stop claiming those things merely because the Judge ordered a new trial? Are you saying the RIAA has suddenly gotten a bad case of honesty?
Sounds like M$ wants to use their money!
Perhaps the main reason the courts close down a case when it is done, and do not want to review what the USPTO finds, is that if they allow unlimited litigation, the guy with all the money wins (in this case, M$ could litigate an opponent out of business, with or without any justification for the lawsuits).
I hope the Supremes will tell them to take a hike; but this is by far the worst Supreme Court we have ever had, which makes me nervous.
fine print
As an attorney, I have to agree with Einstein; the "only thing that is infinite is human stupidity ...". Putting stuff like Verizon not owning the internet PUTS THAT CLAIM IN ISSUE! In fact, much of the stuff in the internet would not be easily assertable in court if the company putting it in fine print had not brought it up! In such a case, "more" may be "less".
Boring
I think they got what they wanted; a moment of fame and the widest possible exposure to the real estate market.
The real problem is playing into their hands by printing such nonsense.
Of course, the better stuff to write about is controlled by the media, which is controlled by the "right wing" (should be the "wrong wing"). That we won't hear about (like, how the
"surge" didn't really work; it was just manipulated to look that way).
Total agreement!
The continuation process is so heavily abused it should be eliminated. The Courts are powerless to do so without the proper legislation from Congress, though, and Congress is deep in the corporate "feed trough". Again, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!
Total agreement!