Jon Renaut 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (196) comment rss

  • On the post: Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2010 @ 11:38am

    Re: Re: Misplaced liability

    I agree that it may end up with a positive outcome, but I don't think the ends justify the means here.

    The guy may not even have known how obvious it was. He wasn't a programmer or anyone involved in Netflix's innovation process. He was a patent attorney.

    But what this does is place liability on a guy who has done nothing but be a jerk. He followed the law. He's under no obligation to promote the progress and the general well-being of society. The error was by the patent office, so that is where we should place the blame.

  • On the post: Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 12 Jul, 2010 @ 11:26am

    Misplaced liability

    If he was granted the patent, doesn't he have every legal right to sue? Sure, it makes him a schmuck, but shouldn't the liability be placed on the patent office for issuing the patent on something that was obvious?

  • On the post: Amazon Sued For Selling Smarties

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2010 @ 04:29pm

    Now I want some foreign Smarties

    I had no idea there was a different kind of Smarties outside the US. You can get the chocolate ones on Amazon, but only 24 packs for $43. I'm not spending that much just to satisfy my curiosity.

    Next time I'm in a country that has the chocolate Smarties, I'm going to give my money to Nestle. Nice job, Ce De Candy.

  • On the post: Captain Cyborg Has A Virus-Infected Sidekick… But Nothing Can Stop A PR Campaign

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 27 May, 2010 @ 07:48pm

    Do I detect a hint of jealousy?

    Mike, you're just mad that you aren't an awesome cyborg, too.

  • On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 06 May, 2010 @ 04:49pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling

    I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally making this up, but I thought setting up a dummy company just to shield yourself from illegal activity was a way bigger deal than stealing someone's intellectual property.

  • On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 06 May, 2010 @ 04:38pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling

    I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally making this up, but I thought setting up a dummy company just to shield yourself from illegal activity was a way bigger deal than stealing someone's intellectual property.

  • On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 06 May, 2010 @ 03:32pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling

    Oh, you're right, I didn't read carefully enough. But my point remains - the liability should be on those who stole the trade secrets, not those who purchased the resulting code.

    The fact that the code was compiled vs not compiled shouldn't even enter the discussion.

  • On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 06 May, 2010 @ 03:21pm

    Re: Re: A little troubling

    It's not really about the coders - if we allow software patents, then coders are responsible for not violating them.

    But this is about software that someone purchased, not that they wrote. The liability needs to stay with the person who wrote it, regardless of whether it's compiled pre-purchase.

  • On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 06 May, 2010 @ 03:01pm

    A little troubling

    Does the ruling really hinge on compiled code vs source? Because that doesn't seem like the right distinction to make. Do we really want to put the liability on purchasers of software to make sure that the software they buy doesn't violate any patents?

  • On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents… But Gets HTC To Buy A License

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2010 @ 04:51pm

    Re: Update?

    Did Microsoft subsidize part of HTC's research/development/whatever with the understanding that the phones would run a Microsoft OS? If so, then I can see why HTC should pay Microsoft. But that's totally unrelated to any patent issues, as far as I can tell.

  • On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents… But Gets HTC To Buy A License

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2010 @ 04:49pm

    Re: Re: This is completely insane

    Interesting. Does that mean I can make an unauthorized copy of the latest Lady Gaga single and release it under an Apache 2.0 license, leaving all the liability on whoever downloads it?

    Seriously, there is a big difference between "implementing" and "installing". Is there a base Android that you can just install with no modifications, leaving the liability with Google? And does this really stand up in court, this "we're not responsible for jack, you take all liability by agreeing to the license"?

  • On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents… But Gets HTC To Buy A License

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 28 Apr, 2010 @ 10:21am

    This is completely insane

    I have no idea whether or not Android violates Microsoft patents. I don't really care. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it does.

    What does this have to do with HTC? It seems that Microsoft has two options here. They can go after Google over the patents, and either kill Android or clear Android. Or they can shut up and try to make a useful product.

    Since Microsoft hasn't stopped Google from distributing Android, doesn't it make sense that HTC is in the clear for using it? How could HTC possibly be found liable in any way for using a product from another company in good faith? Why does Microsoft even have the right to license the abuse of their patents this way?

    This is all just absurd.

  • On the post: New Ransomware Targets Porn Pirates, Makes Copyright Threats

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 16 Apr, 2010 @ 05:51am

    What a good idea

    I think this software is included in the latest versions of Windows Media Player and iTunes, too.

  • On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model — Not In Technology

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2010 @ 02:01pm

    Re: Re: You're not quite there

    Yeah, look at the DC plastic bag tax. For five cents per bag added on to your bill at the grocery store, bag usage dropped from 22 million to 3 million in a month. And there was no signing up for a micro-transaction provider or anything like that.

  • On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model — Not In Technology

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2010 @ 01:40pm

    Re: Re: You're not quite there

    But why should I pay for the gated community? If the content is good, communities will form elsewhere. There will be Facebook groups or Twitter hashtags or whatever your social media of choice is.

  • On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model — Not In Technology

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2010 @ 01:29pm

    Re: your comments (above)

    You're still talking about technology-based protection. You may be right that they're harder to copy, but it's still just a bunch of bits. If the stuff is really desirable, someone will figure out a technological solution to make it easy to get.

    At a glance, Flatter looks interesting, but I suspect they're going to have a hard time getting people to put up a monthly fee.

  • On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model — Not In Technology

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 13 Apr, 2010 @ 12:44pm

    You're not quite there

    Most of the things you're listing as "up-sells" are still non-scarce. You say that we have to sell what can't be copied, but footnotes, context, enhanced versions, sharing playlists - all of that can still be copied.

    And micro-transactions - they might as well be perpetual motion machines. Everyone thinks it would be cool if we had them, and tons of people have claimed to have done it, but no one has ever actually seen one work.

  • On the post: Why Copyright Criminals Filmmakers Won't Get Sued? Because They'd Win

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 07 Apr, 2010 @ 06:05am

    Sue on purpose

    Couldn't an artist sympathetic to sampling sue with the intent of changing the law? I'm sure someone like the EFF or Public Knowledge would be happy to help out.

    I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the details on what happens when the person bringing the suit actually wants to lose, but surely someone with standing to sue Girl Talk actually thinks it's awesome that his/her music was used this way.

  • On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2010 @ 08:14am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Neither, I actually found this really great MIT-licensed Python script that totally eliminates the need for fabric softener.

  • On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought

    Jon Renaut ( profile ), 31 Mar, 2010 @ 07:59am

    Re:

    I installed Linux on my washing machine last week. It's great! It's no longer compatible with my dryer, and I have to make the soap myself, but it's all worth it for the freedom to wash my whites in cold water.

Next >>