A Guy 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (566)

• On the post: UK Judges Think US Makes It Too Hard To Get Patents, Lower Patentability Bar To Show How It's Done

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2011 @ 03:24pm

  Re:

  My thought exactly +1

• On the post: Luma Labs Discontinues Popular Product Line After Competitor Gets A Patent… Despite Prior Art Going Back Over A Century

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2011 @ 02:55pm

  Re: Re: Re: Where's your patent?

  It really says something about the quality of this sites' trolls when it's hard to tell the difference between someone obviously making a joke and those being serious.

• On the post: Luma Labs Discontinues Popular Product Line After Competitor Gets A Patent… Despite Prior Art Going Back Over A Century

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 14 Nov, 2011 @ 02:51pm

  Re: Where's your patent?

  Of course Mike doesn't have a clue. I have a patent on clues.
  
  If he had clue I'd sue him. You better not have a clue either or you're looking at years of litigation. I have no intention of licensing my clue patent to you.
  
  /sarc

• On the post: Company Sues Ex-Employee Because He Kept His Personal Twitter Account & Followers

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2011 @ 04:25pm

  I bet the Twitter TOS says that Twitter owns the account and these people are suing over nothing.

• On the post: Can Defenders Of SOPA Explain How You Define Taking Deliberate Action To Avoid Taking Action?

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2011 @ 03:01pm

  Re: Re: Re:

  The problem comes when you force Joe internet site to start to distinguish between legitimate fair use and copyright infringement.
  
  Sure, in some cases it can be pretty obvious, but it often isn't.
  
  Remember when Viacom uploaded to YouTube directly, and subsequently sued for infringement over those videos?
  
  Remember that YouTube video of the baby with a prince song playing in the background?
  
  How does a site know when a specific video is infringing? How can a website make a determination on fair use when that usually takes a trial to sort out on its own?
  
  If the answer is to take proactive measures to delete it all at the first suggestion of infringement, when it has been proven that infringement notices have been used improperly to censor in the past then how is that not an abridgement of the freedom to speak?

• On the post: Can Defenders Of SOPA Explain How You Define Taking Deliberate Action To Avoid Taking Action?

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2011 @ 02:27pm

  Re:

  See my reply above on the differences between patent rights and copyright.

• On the post: Can Defenders Of SOPA Explain How You Define Taking Deliberate Action To Avoid Taking Action?

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2011 @ 02:25pm

  Re:

  Patent rights are not the same as copyrights.
  
  There is no Constitutional amendment stating the government shall make no law abridging the freedom to manufacture. The Commerce Clause specifically gives the congress wide berth to regulate these types of things.
  
  Forcing one to take deliberate action to censor speech on the other hand IS disallowed by the first amendments prohibition on making laws "to abridge the freedom of speech."

• On the post: Viacom Says That By Letting People View Videos On Phones, YouTube Loses DMCA Safe Harbors

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2011 @ 03:14pm

  Re: Re:

  I'm talking about the legalese quote of course. Mike's analysis was perfectly clear.

• On the post: Viacom Says That By Letting People View Videos On Phones, YouTube Loses DMCA Safe Harbors

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2011 @ 03:11pm

  Re:

  He's basically saying users only directed their videos to be put up on youtube. If youtube takes those videos and does something else with them, like putting them on a mobile phone, it takes the burden from the user and shifts it to youtube.
  
  That, of course, is crazy.
  
  First, mobile phones with data plans are part of the internet too so it's not doing anything substantively different with the video.
  
  Second, the users directed youtube to use their videos in terms governed by the EULA. If sending it to a mobile device is in the EULA in some way, then it is still at the direction of its users and they should still qualify for a safe harbor.
  
  It took me about four reads too.

• On the post: Epic Games On The Future Of Triple-A Game Development Marketing And Pricing

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2011 @ 12:48pm

  Re: Re:

  Yeah, newspapers are dying. However, the news industry has never had lower barriers to entry.

• On the post: Understanding Anonymous: The Culture Of Lulz

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 10 Nov, 2011 @ 12:36am

  Re: Re: Re:

  Point taken.
  
  I missed a secondary demographic.
  
  Really, it wasn't a criticism. I like lulz just as much as the next guy, provided they aren't at my expense of course.

• On the post: Understanding Anonymous: The Culture Of Lulz

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 11:57pm

  Anonymous is a banner to be flown by anyone and everyone if it suits them. The banner stands for nothing in particular other than some vague, undefinable, counter cultural ideal. As a result, it appeals to those with a short attention span, a little free time, and a vague desire to belong to something but not to take it too seriously.

• On the post: Epic Games On The Future Of Triple-A Game Development Marketing And Pricing

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 11:05pm

  Have you ever noticed that talk of "the death of an industry" often comes when that industry has never been doing better?
  
  I think the reason that so much attention is focused on the content industries is because they are experiencing a golden age, not because they are dying.
  
  If the video/music/gaming industries truly were dying, no one would care because they would already be irrelevant.

• On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 08:41am

  Re: Re: Re: Re:

  We'll see who the Supreme Court agrees with. I agree with your technical arguments. It is definitely efficient.
  
  However, the public place policy is a matter of precedent by a court. It is not a matter of legislation and is therefore given less weight than say the founding document of our democracy by a group of public servants.
  
  The SCOTUS can decide which ever way they want. Luckily, in the government world, you only need to convince 5 of 9 guys to agree with you.
  
  In the rest of the world, there are a lot more people to convince.

• On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 02:18am

  Re:

  Wrong president, the tracking happened on Bush's watch.

• On the post: Rep. Steve King Decides American Consumers Should Pay For Chinese IP Violations

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2011 @ 01:13am

  Re: Re:

  ????
  
  huh?
  
  How does our out of control national debt, high unemployment, and one sided trade relationship with China have to do with any of that?

• On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 11:09pm

  Re: Re:

  That's not a bad troll.
  
  However, as I stated previously, it's about incentives and consequences, not your personal sense of morality.
  
  The incentives for human beings to do things more efficiently and get things at a lower cost will not go away. No amount lobbying, wishing and trolling will make that basic drive go away.
  
  You could try to destroy the tools, but the consequences of that are worse than the problem, at least from a rational citizens point of view.
  
  We would give up a platform for efficient innovation, free speech, anonymity, and whatever else people get from the internet in exchange for paying higher prices and giving up a greater amount of personal freedom.
  
  It won't happen, at least not in a democracy at our technology level, and luckily for us trying to inspire moral panic probably won't work at the expense of free speech in this society.

• On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 09:30pm

  Re: Re:

  Just to clarify, I believe finding it unconstitutional is a net good

• On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 09:28pm

  Re:

  We also have the technology to easily wipe out every last person on the earth, but I don't hear anyone clamoring to use it.
  
  It's not a question of technical ability. It's a question of incentives and consequences.
  
  The incentive for law enforcement to warrantlessly track you 24/7 it is reduced if you can sue their asses for doing it. The consequences of making it illegal are increased judicial over site of the executive and greater privacy rights for all involved.
  
  I believe it is a net good and hope it is soon outlawed.

• On the post: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality Of Having People Tracked By GPS All The Time

  

  A Guy ( profile ), 08 Nov, 2011 @ 07:55pm

  The defendant's lawyer is just trying to get his client off.
  
  The justices can make any ruling they want whether it is based legislation or reality or not (see citizens united ruling). I really hope that the entire warrantless GPS tracking practice is struck down. Maybe then we can stop hearing about the secret interpretation of the patriot act.
  
  Or, maybe the government will just keep it up and never introduce its evidence in a public court so it doesn't get a hearing.

Next >>