Jason 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (227) comment rss

  • On the post: Psystar Loses Big To Apple

    Jason ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2009 @ 01:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Smackdown!

    Whether or not Apple supports this distribution model is irrelevant. If it is an industry standard for distribution, it'd be bullshit for the court to throw a blanket label of 'unauthorized copy' on it.

    The real issue was the modifications. Unfortunately, some very important matters of fact and law related to the modifications were not tried here.

    However, I think it's probably due to a crappy defense. Usually, if you give a judge the tools he needs to determine something should be tried, he will want it to be tried. In this case, I can't see where the defense even understood the strengths of their own case. They certainly didn't bring them to bear.

  • On the post: Psystar Loses Big To Apple

    Jason ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2009 @ 12:58pm

    Re: Re: Re: Master copy vs. individual copies

    There were two types of modification that took place, only one should have been identified as infringing.

    Psystar added code to make OS X interoperable with the independently created machine level computer programs on their hardware. Under the DMCA, that is legitimate reverse engineering for interoperability.

    TECHNICALLY THE PROBLEM: They also removed kernel code from OS X, which they can't legally do.

    If instead they had found a way to keep that code and disable the same at boot, they would have been in A LOT better position to argue the rest of the case.

  • On the post: Psystar Loses Big To Apple

    Jason ( profile ), 16 Nov, 2009 @ 12:45pm

    Re: Re: No right of first sale.

    If the consumer can't buy a hackintosh because the EULA prohibits it, then the EULA is being enforced on the consumer.

  • On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:52pm

    Re: Wait...

    Sorry, but the whole pharma patent things totally pre-dates Bush.

    You're going to have to have a bi-partisan shit-fest, what with the Obama-stration bringing back the fairness doctrine and all.

  • On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:47pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    If you have to tell people, then you didn't do it right.

  • On the post: More Important Saving Lives From Swine Flu Or Protecting Roche's Monopoly?

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:47pm

    Re:

    Oh yeah, well your facts are all wrong, too. Tamiflu IS NOT a vaccine, dillwad!

  • On the post: An 'Aha Moment' About Ridiculous Trademarks, As Oprah And Mutual Of Omaha Fight Over 'Aha Moment'

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:43pm

    Protecting the consumer

    I'm so glad they are fighting this out, because I was totally confused as to whether to buy insurance or a dumb idea from Oprah.

  • On the post: An 'Aha Moment' About Ridiculous Trademarks, As Oprah And Mutual Of Omaha Fight Over 'Aha Moment'

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:42pm

    Re: AHA

    -sorry but I'm afraid that would cause confusion in the market
    -sorry but prior art: Nelson from The Simpson's
    -sorry but you're not very funny
    -sorry but I can't buy a license because I am not funny either, which is why I trademarked my

    sorry butt.

  • On the post: An 'Aha Moment' About Ridiculous Trademarks, As Oprah And Mutual Of Omaha Fight Over 'Aha Moment'

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Just wanted you to know...

    In a day or twoooooooo!!

  • On the post: Justices Show Supreme Skepticism About Broad Business Model Patents

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:15pm

    Re: Re:

    "What is the difference between a "blatant idea thief" and say a "not-so blatant idea thief"?"

    According to Jakes, the latter writes down all the steps.

  • On the post: Justices Show Supreme Skepticism About Broad Business Model Patents

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 04:14pm

    Re:

    Yeah, how come the rookie gets to decide that for the whole team?

  • On the post: Justices Show Supreme Skepticism About Broad Business Model Patents

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 03:13pm

    Re:

    The only problem is that Stewart is completely opposed to it. Yeah you've got to read the full transcript. At times funny as hell and at other times just plain scary.

    The justices themselves seem to be completely at odds on this. They seem to be interested in clarifying how software can be patentable, but a business method cannot. But they don't seem to be able to make themselves to do it.

    Simply put, if processes are not patentable apart from application, then what is being patented is the process-application in se, the processes notwithstanding. Since the computer itself is an application machine, the only patentable part of the endeavor, i.e compiling the instructions into an application, is automated, fast, and cheap. In this case, this small detail of compilation was so tiny that no one in the case could aptly recall that it occurred. Certainly none could put their finger upon something so small as compiling as being the HUGE KEY DIFFERENCE between textual instructions and an encoded application.

    I say, "Rightly so."

    In Clarkeian terms, it's magic. At least in terms of the purpose of a patent - remember you patent the material application and not the process - the technology for turning a description into an application is sufficiently advanced that it simply makes no sense to protect the applicational endeavors toward any species within this entire class of applications.

  • On the post: Judge Says No Twittering From The Courtroom

    Jason ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2009 @ 08:36am

    A little too early

    As others have mentioned, the primary concern is that the medium involved can be controlled to prevent misconduct, perceived or actual, as well as accidental procedural errors that could cause a mistrial. This is similar in concept to a story that Mike covered previously where witnesses were texting to each other within the courtroom.

    It's important to protect against tainting process. When news feeds are allowed within the courtroom, it's because well established controls have been put in place. When a new medium is introduced, it's obviously going to take time to put proper procedures in place.

    The judge didn't say "No Twittering in the Courtroom - EVER!" He said it needs to be treated like any other broadcast medium - needing proper procedures and controls in place.

    The ruling as described here seems fair and balanced and also open-ended enough to allow for courtroom tweeting to be evaluated as a possible channel. It's just a little too early to expect a court to suddenly open up to in-court tweeting without careful consideration of the impact. Give it time.

  • On the post: Murdoch Says Fair Use Can Be Barred By Courts; Will Probably Remove Sites From Google

    Jason ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2009 @ 03:02pm

    Re:

    Ya see, they got ther new-fangled fer use dock-trine now, but it's jest a passin' thang.

  • On the post: The Moral Argument In Favor Of File Sharing?

    Jason ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2009 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: What about the copyright holder?

    AC, Your argument is drowning in linear thinking. You speak as though a download can only take one path to the end user. The problem you can't seem to get around is that the distribution itself is a networked function. That's what torrents ARE, and more nodes equals broader, faster distribution.

    Even if a corporate distributor used torrents (which few have the savvy to do), they aren't necessarily going to be able to pay to get distribution to a wider audience faster than another distributor paying nothing who has a more compelling content item, which by no other force than its popular appeal will find itself on more nodes thereby achieving wider, faster, cheaper, and more efficient distribution.

  • On the post: Lord Mandelson Wants Students To Get More Tech Education; Can We Start By Educating Him?

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 05:08pm

    What's Funny...

    ...is that if we ever do clog up the internet, the only way to fix it will be to mandate exactly the kind of high-bandwidth-efficiency apps this guy is bitching about.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 05:02pm

    Re: Re:

    I'd like a big frozen fish that I can slap you with over and over with the words, "It's not stealing!" written on it. But even then you wouldn't get a clue about what is stealing and what is infringement.

    Even the US Supreme Court has covered this.

    It's infringement of a right that we gave and that we can collectively decide to take away. We are in the evaluation process of that decision. You call it piracy, but don't worry. The history books will not.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 04:45pm

    Re: Re:

    http://tinyurl.com/yk4wmt8

    I'm sorry, did you say something stupid? Yes, you did.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 04:38pm

    Re: Re: What I want...

    Yeah, not only that, but for the first time in forever I actually intend to buy something I saw advertised.

    Can't remember the last time that happened on TV, but then I can only barely remember the last time I watched TV.

  • On the post: Comcast Exec: We Need To Change Customer Behavior, Not Our Business Model

    Jason ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 04:30pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    No, people are terminating an outmoded, fruitless, and economically harmful social contract clause that no longer benefits society.

    If by 'something' you mean a digital copy, then NEWSFLASH - it DOES have no cost, and it no longer makes sense to produce as if it does - this is completely separate from weather it is acceptable to you or not. IT IS. IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE.

    We no longer have to sing Yo Ho, Haul together to rally a force and win our content. We already have it.

    If Comcast and the rest of the content production and distribution industry want copyright to exist at all the terms are simple: Make it so that we don't notice it. Make the cost so close to nothing that we do not feel it. Make it easier and more compelling to pay that cost than it is to get it for free.

    This is not some manifesto or battle cry. This is to bring you back to reason. Make paid content make sense as described above, and then copyright ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE. If you stretch the terms of the agreement so grotesquely far beyond reason, then we have no choice.

    Make it reasonable. Otherwise, you can assume that your copyright is revoked.

Next >>