Hulser 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (811) comment rss

  • On the post: What Happens When A Reasonable Developer Runs Into Aggressive Trademark Lawyers?

    Hulser ( profile ), 08 Aug, 2011 @ 10:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Reporting first

    I personally like seeing that I submitted stories.

    Agreed. How can we know who wins at Techdirt if Mike doesn't keep the score correctly?

  • On the post: Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube

    Hulser ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 01:13pm

    Re: Re: Why didn't they just ask YouTube?

    Or, you know, they just searched for "blink-182" and looked up every video that wasn't an audio-only video or an official blink-182 video.

    Well, right. That was kinda my (sarcastic, indirect) point. The wording "helped us" just seemed a bit odd to me. It implied some rather complex process (as in Content ID) rather than just a simple search.

  • On the post: Blink-182 Rewards Fans Who Uploaded Unauthorized Clips On YouTube

    Hulser ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 12:15pm

    Why didn't they just ask YouTube?

    "AT&T helped us search YouTube for every instance of fans using our music without our permission."

    So...AT&T has their own version of YouTube's Content ID?

  • On the post: The Story Of Patent Reform: How Lobbyists & Congress Works… And How The Public & Innovation Get Screwed

    Hulser ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 11:55am

    Re: Re: Re:

    As always, if you start with your conclusion, you can almost always write your way back to the intro and make it look credible. But the piece is pretty one sided, don't you think?

    Welcome to the Internet age. The press was always biased; it's just now we know about it. Rather than trying to hide behind the paper shield of "objectivity", the new forms of journalism are up front about their opinions. The problem of course is that you have to actually think for yourself instead of lapping up what The Media regurgitates at you. And in case the point is not clear, just because someone is expressing an opinion, it doesn't mean their facts are incorrect. If you have a problem with the facts, then attack the facts.

  • On the post: Google Being More Aggressive About Bad Patents; But Should It Go Even Further?

    Hulser ( profile ), 04 Aug, 2011 @ 07:15am

    Re:

    Quite a bit of money to spend on "bogus" patents.

    So, you think that just because a company is willing to pay a lot of money for a patent, that it's automatically legitimate? If so, you just haven't been paying attention. You can search Techdirt for "defensive patent", but here's a good place to start...

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110729/03340615311/definition-defensive-patent-is-bad-patent.shtml

  • On the post: Irony: FBI Says Apple Letting You Remotely Kill iPhones They've Taken Is 'Big Brother-ish'

    Hulser ( profile ), 03 Aug, 2011 @ 08:27am

    Double irony

    What's even more ironic is that a feature that was meant to thwart theives is instead thwarting the FBI. The next step of course is the FBI demaning a back door to circumvent the kill switch.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 07:56pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simultaneous invention

    If 80% can independently arrive at the solution it's 'easy o discover' the solution.

    So, basically you're saying that algebra is easy. I'm not quite sure how to react to that other than...no it isn't. There may be a straighforward process by which you can instruct someone how to solve algebra problems, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently easy. Using my example above, programming a computer is hard. It takes a certain kind of personality to really embrace, training, and experience to master. Yet once you've reached the point where you are an "expert", certain principles -- such as streaming -- are "obvious" and "easy" to formulate. Writing a program to stream an mp3 is not easy. Coming up with the idea for streaming -- to someone who is an expert programmer -- is obvious and easy. That's the difference.

  • On the post: By Definition, A Defensive Patent Is A Bad Patent

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 07:13pm

    Obvious

    If someone tried to patent a process that relied on the fact that defensive patents are only relevant in cases where a similar patent shouldn't have been issued because it was obvious, the patent would be rejected as too obvious, but only if the patent office worked correctly such that they rejected patents that were actually obvious.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 06:17pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simultaneous invention

    To someone skilled in the field ANY algebra problem is obvious.

    Call me a geek, but I LOLed at the joke. As for this statement, the reason that it's wrong is the very basis of my example/analogy. You can be equiped with all of the tools necessary to solve a problem, but still be required to apply that knowledge to come up with solution to the problem. Another example: if you were to have asked a computer programmer a few years ago how they would allow people to listen to music on a smart phone, they'd probably pause for a moment and describe the concept of streaming. They would not need ten minutes, days, or weeks to come up with the principle of streaming. It would be...obvious. This is materially different from solving an algebra problem.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 06:05pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Simultaneous invention

    Students aren't experts, the answer should be obvious if you asked a bunch of algebra teacher though, unless 80% of those kids are geniuses.

    If a student is instructed intensely on the principles of algebra during a class, this is similar to -- not exactlyt the same! -- as someone who has been instructed intensely over several years in a technical field and who is now considered an "expert". The similarities are blatantly obvious. Sheesh. What is it with people who don't understand analogy?


    From what I remember of the history Darwin and Wallace and few others were sharing the research that let them arrive at this conclusion.

    Unsure of point.


    It should be because then who should hold the patent?

    Did you accidentally start responding to someone else's comment? What little sense I can make of your reply doesn't appear to relate to anything I've written.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 03:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Simultaneous invention

    Its not about it being obvious its about it "being obvious to an expert in the field" so the patent system is suppose to take the base knowledge and training as a given

    And how does this contradict my example? It should go without saying that students taking an algebra test would be trained in algebra enough to solve the problem. I'm simply pointing out an example where an expert can arrive at a solution that is not necesarilly obvious.


    We are not talking about philosophy and scientifictheory.

    I was merely illustrating that the issue of obviousness crosses different categories.


    Did you know there are hundreds of patents for making toast?

    And how does this relate whatsoever about my point about obviousness? I did not say that the principle of obviousness was being applied correctly by the US patent office. It most certainly is not. What I said was that simultaneous invention would not be an effective argument for IP maximalists.

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: Simultaneous invention

    Simply because patents are not supposed to be obvious - and if more than one person comes up with the idea at the same time there is a prima facie case that the idea IS obvious.

    Here's an example. I'm an algebra teacher and I give a test with a single problem. 80% of the class gets the right answer. Was that answer obvious? No. It took a base level knowledge of algebra and the correct implementation, but it was not obvious.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that an obvious idea should be patentable. I'm just saying that to many people, especially IP maximalists, simultaneous invention doesn't logically equate with obviousness.

    For example, the theory of evolution may seem obvious to us now, but it wasn't at the time that it was formulated simultaneously by Darwin and Wallace.

    "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
    - Arthur Schopenhauer

  • On the post: The Very Basis Of Our Patent System… Is A Myth

    Hulser ( profile ), 29 Jul, 2011 @ 10:03am

    Simultaneous invention

    I don't see how simultaneous invention invalidates the basis of the patent system. One could argue that the very reason that there are more than one team of people working on an invention is that there is a patent system in place which incentivizes the first inventor. "Why are there so many simultaneous inventions? Because the patent system ensures that the first team to solve the problem gets a truckload of money! Duh."

    The later points made in the article about how the patent system isn't (as) required seem to be much more compelling than the "simultaneous invention" point. Maybe he defends the idea of simultaneous invention in more detail in the full article, but based on the information quoted here, it just seems like it's too easilly dismissed by the IP maximalists.

  • On the post: Do You Have Property Rights Over Your DNA?

    Hulser ( profile ), 27 Jul, 2011 @ 10:57am

    Circular logic

    And, as the article notes, even if such laws are put in place, does anyone really think it would stop surreptitious DNA collection and analysis?

    Isn't this circular logic? Without a law that makes it illegal to collect DNA without express approval, there'd be no need for the "collector" to be surreptitious. Also, who realistically thinks that *any* law completely stops anything? Discounting the hyperbole in public statements by politicians, they surely have to realize that any law is only going to limit an activity, not eliminate it.

    I do worry when people seek to go too far with laws to protect what they think is really a privacy issue (especially by conveying property rights), where there may not be a real privacy issue at all.

    Wait, are you saying that there isn't a privacy issue? Or just that they're taking the wrong approach by characterizing a privacy issue as a property issue?

  • On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Continues Duplicitous Campaign To Conflate Counterfeit Drugs With Copyright Infringement

    Hulser ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 11:22am

    FightOnlineTheft?

    All you have to do is get to the end of that video to see the deception involved. The entire video is about the tragic death of someone who took counterfeit drugs, but what's the address of the site they show you at the end? www.FightOnlineTheft.com. Wait, what? What does theft have to do with anything in that story? Even if you fail at basic IP law and think that theft is the same thing as infringement, there's still no relation to almost all of the content of that site and what happened to this woman's friend. In fact, I can't find anywhere on the site where they even bother to claim that PROTECT IP would have helped in this tragic case.

  • On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her

    Hulser ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 08:56am

    It was an accident

    Also, can the Kardashian sisters also sue Old Navy because Melissa looks too much like them? What about the mother? BTW, I only know Kim has sisters because I tripped on the remote and accidentally switched the channel to E! while one of their shows was on. I swear.

  • On the post: Kim Kardashian Sues Old Navy For Hiring Actress Who Looks Like Her

    Hulser ( profile ), 22 Jul, 2011 @ 08:51am

    But but...

    There's at least one big area where Melissa Molinaro does not look like Kim Kardashian. Case dismissed!

  • On the post: AP Finally Learns That On The Internet, You Can Link To Other Sites

    Hulser ( profile ), 21 Jul, 2011 @ 03:13pm

    First of none?

    Doh. I thought I submitted this one in time to get a "Hulser was the first one of many to point us to..." ;-)

  • On the post: You Know What's Missing From The Aaron Swartz Indictment? Any Mention Of Copyright

    Hulser ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 01:28pm

    Re: Re: Hacking does not require a copyright factor

    Normally, you don't see anyone claim that garden variety hacking to access a system is "theft." So I was just pointing out the odd use of "theft" when they weren't even using a copyright claim.

    Understood. I guess I'm so used to ignoring the bloviating blowhards who talk to the public and instead focusing on the legal aspects that the conflict didn't really strike me as unusual.

  • On the post: You Know What's Missing From The Aaron Swartz Indictment? Any Mention Of Copyright

    Hulser ( profile ), 20 Jul, 2011 @ 01:21pm

    Re: Re: Hacking does not require a copyright factor

    Then why refer to "theft" so prominently in the press statements?

    One of the basic principles of public speaking is to target your audience. If you know that the word "theft" has emotional weight to your target audience (the public), they you'll throw it around as much as possible. It doesn't mean that that terminology is used when they actually present the legal case.

Next >>