Christopher Weigel 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (137) comment rss

  • On the post: Viacom Still Can't Figure Out Which Video Clips Actually Infringed On YouTube

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2010 @ 09:56am

    Re: Re: Re:

    Aside from the number, what parallels here do you see?

  • On the post: Court Rejects PA DAs Attempt To Charge Teens For Sexting Themselves

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2010 @ 08:17am

    Re: Sexting themselves!!

    Huh?

  • On the post: Viacom Still Can't Figure Out Which Video Clips Actually Infringed On YouTube

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2010 @ 08:17am

    Re:

    Fail analogy is fail.

    M&M's have no identifying markers. Copyright's entire POINT is identifying markers.

    However, you did manage to adequately express the point of the article for us, even with a rather miserably bad analogy (which I think was trying to argue for Viacom, not against them). If I can't figure out which videos I own, how the hell do I have any right to expect someone else to?

  • On the post: Reporting On Someone Claiming An Opponent 'Lies' In A Heated Debate Is Not Libel

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 18 Mar, 2010 @ 07:57am

    Re:

    Huh?

    Are we even reading the same article?

  • On the post: Judge Rules P2P Legal In Spain Yet Again

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 15 Mar, 2010 @ 02:03pm

    Re:

    And if that's really how they choose to adapt, good riddance. Perhaps, in the vacuum produced by their kindergarten-level departure (if we can't play my game, I'm taking my ball and going home!) we might see some actual evolution of the industry.

  • On the post: Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 09 Mar, 2010 @ 03:58pm

    Re:

    Don't you have a billygoat to go terrorize or something?

  • On the post: NYC (Finally) Creates System For Giving Press Passes To Online Journalists

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2010 @ 11:47am

    Re:

    Hmm, ad hominem attacks, strawmen... Yeah, I'm done talking to you. Feel free to believe whatever vast conspiracy theory you so choose.

  • On the post: NYC (Finally) Creates System For Giving Press Passes To Online Journalists

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 05 Mar, 2010 @ 09:19am

    Re:

    It makes life a lot easier for people if you click "reply to this comment" instead of having a running chain at base level. Also, have you ever heard the term "Wall of Text"?

    More to the point, "If they didn't have good standards, and the police were already complained too (I give the benefit of the doubt here to the bloggers), then a law suit may have been the only avenue."

    I highly doubt litigation is ever the "only avenue". And as Mike, myself and others have pointed out, the litigation didn't have a legal leg to stand on. I'm not arguing if they should or shouldn't have gotten press passes, but the lawsuit was ill-conceived.

    What were you saying about strawmen?

  • On the post: NYC (Finally) Creates System For Giving Press Passes To Online Journalists

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 04 Mar, 2010 @ 04:18pm

    Re:

    Oh dear god.

    1) Stop spamming. Seriously.

    2) Learn the comments system. Trying to read your comments is giving me a massive headache.

    3) If you feel there should be a law, take it up with your local congressman. If you feel the law is being misapplied, take it up in court. This doesn't mean "I feel there should be a law" means "I can sue as if there was one".

    4) Quality of publication is subjective. Selecting which of these publications you wish to be represented is, likewise, subjective. If I wander into a press conference as a reporter from "bunnies, bikinis and bratwurst" I should have a reasonable expectation of not being taken seriously.

    5) Related to 4: If you feel your publication isn't being adequately represented or respected, I have one word for you: EXPOSURE. Become well-known and you have a leg to stand on. Sitting around acting like a litigious turd accomplishes nothing except losing respect and goodwill.

    6) Even if the granting of press passes was caused by the lawsuit (which can't be proven) that still is insufficient to say it could have been accomplished ONLY by the lawsuit. See #3.

  • On the post: No, You Don't Have To File Patent Lawsuits

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 28 Feb, 2010 @ 09:03pm

    Re: fairure to Defend Patents Invalidates Them.

    I'm seeing a lot of "facts" here. Any evidence to back them up? Because what I'm seeing is some combination of fear-mongering rhetoric, sweeping generalizations, and ad hominem attacks.

    Further, the argument that has been forwarded before that the true defense of an industry is evolution. There's no intrinsic reason why we can't compete on equal footing with overseas companies. Likewise, has it occurred to you that perhaps other companies have ideas America can benefit from?

    Finally, you're attacking a viewpoint that doesn't really exist. Intellectual property, in moderation, is a good thing. What Mike and everyone here is arguing against is the fact that a system ostensibly established to protect innovation and encourage evolution instead does the opposite, being used instead as a blunt instrument to discourage innovation, along with damage and/or destroy those American jobs you ostensibly hope to protect.

    I find it truly telling that nobody speaking against the viewpoint expressed in the article has yet managed to produce a cogent, intelligible response. Do you really believe anyone here is so uneducated as to fall for populist, inflammatory rhetoric? Or is this simply a true example of the best arguments you can muster?

  • On the post: No, You Don't Have To File Patent Lawsuits

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 27 Feb, 2010 @ 09:45pm

    Re: here I come

    huh? This is just an absurd comparison. I... don't even know how to respond.

  • On the post: No, You Don't Have To File Patent Lawsuits

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2010 @ 09:05am

    Re: Re: Legal advice

    sorry, there were really supposed to be line breaks in this. As is, wall of text for the lose.

  • On the post: No, You Don't Have To File Patent Lawsuits

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 26 Feb, 2010 @ 09:03am

    Re: Legal advice

    I'm fairly certain the point, which appears to have gone completely over your head, is as follows: This is a patent which has never been implemented, used or developed by the associated company. It is, further, a patent lawsuit wherein Xerox has almost certainly been aware of the existence of Google and Yahoo for considerable lengths of time. Considering that the patent was never implemented, it seems hard to justify the idea of "patents encourage innovation" in this case (and most others, but I'll leave that can of worms alone for now). Absolutely no harm has been done to Xerox, as they've had well over a decade to identify infringement, construct a competing search engine, arrange licensing, or simply decide that the methods provided in their patent are better serving the needs of the community (including, in all probability, their own needs) by being implemented by another company. Furthermore, given the differences between Yahoo's and Google's function, the patents involved here are undoubtedly vague, and looking over the description thereof in the article seems to support this notion. In other words, Xerox has vague patents, which they've done nothing with, and they've waited almost a decade to act upon the alleged "infringement". This is precisely the sort of thing that makes we the "uneducated" (in terms of patent law) public think you and your fellow patent lawyers are, mostly, a particularly underdeveloped species of iguana.

  • On the post: It's Probably Not A Good Idea To Ask People To Spam The Judge Hearing Your Case With Support Emails

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2010 @ 04:51pm

    A few points

    Firstly, it seems Trudeau has been found to be in contempt of court in the past, by this same judge. Given the previous occurrence, I'm not entirely surprised that the judge correspondingly lowered the "don't be an idiot" threshold.

    Further, given the potentially unsettled nature of Trudeau's clients, he really should have predicted less-than-pleasant results in pointing them to the judge. It seems almost laughably ironic that Trudeau is asking the public he has misled to act as character references, at the very least.

    I'm sorry, but if one of his "character references" (which is really all a friend contacting a judge can act as) threatens the judge to such a point he has to ask the US Marshals to check and make sure it's not a real threat... Well, in that case it's obvious he overstepped badly, at the least.

  • On the post: But, Wait, Didn't The Entertainment Industry Insist ACTA Wouldn't Change US Law?

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 02 Feb, 2010 @ 09:03am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I have little faith in people who use "sheeple" in an unironic manner.

  • On the post: Did The Automobile Dehumanize Walking? No? Then Does Google Dehumanize Intelligence?

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2010 @ 02:33pm

    Re:

    And, at the same time, freed up monstrous amounts of time that we can now use to exercise.

  • On the post: French Court Forcing Google To Remove Word 'Scam' From Google Suggest

    Christopher Weigel ( profile ), 14 Jan, 2010 @ 01:19pm

    Re: Why

    Try "I really hope you"