I think you are focusing on the wrong word. "Property" is defined to include "tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims"
Further, as to "appropriate," it is not specifically defined by statute, but there are two definitions for theft:
(a) Deprive the other person of a right to the property or a benefit from the property. (b) Appropriate the property to his or her own use or to the use of any person not entitled to the use of the property.
Between the definition of property, the separation of "appropriate" from "deprive", and case law support interpreting this exact language, I feel very confident that "theft" as defined by Florida Statues, includes copyright infringement.
Again, I understand not wanting theft to include copyright infringement. But the reality is, as it stands now, it does.
Do you have a link to the original cease and desist? While it is certainly not a requirement, most civil settlements include a confidentiality agreement. If it did and she sent it to someone else to threaten them, that would be a violation.
Maybe I am biased, but isn't this good? Mattel tried to abuse the copyright system and was forced to pay for MGA's legal fees. Awards like this may encourage other attorneys to take low-income defendants(a relative term when it comes to this type of litigation). It may also discourages other copyright trolls.
Maybe they are just suing each other to get publicity. They noticed how lawsuits like this bring lots of unintended attention to other people. Why not use that to bring attention intentionally to yourself? Seriously, without the lawsuit would you have ever mentioned either of these movies? They probably have lawyers on staff, so it doesn't cost anything extra other than court fees. Way cheaper than buying ad time on tv that people will just fast forward through.
I have to disagree with the non-patentability of software patents. The problem with many software patents is they are obvious (they do something obvious but with a computer) or they have prior art. But a real non-obvious, novel process should be patentable. Complex software that takes teams of engineers weeks or months to design should have patent protection. If not, their desire to invest that time and money would be diminished. I still believe the problem with software and patents is that the bar to patentability is too low and that the patent examiners don't really understand software and let patents through that don't really even meet their current bar.
Non-Obviousness is very hard to prove in the patent field. While it is very possible that a pool of skilled programmers would not catch everything, they would catch some. Once the patent is granted, it is almost impossible to invalidate as being obvious because it is hard to say something is obvious when the solution is in front of you. Of course it is obvious then.
As to the time/cost problems, I think people would work for free, but if they don't the patent office should pay for a pool of people. If they are going to grant patents, they should put the burden on other inventors of proving that the patent is invalid after the fact.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sburch79.
Re: Re: Re: Copyright Infringement is Theft
I suck at closing tags too
Re: Re: Copyright Infringement is Theft
I think you are focusing on the wrong word. "Property" is defined to include "tangible or intangible personal property, including rights, privileges, interests, and claims"
Further, as to "appropriate," it is not specifically defined by statute, but there are two definitions for theft:
Between the definition of property, the separation of "appropriate" from "deprive", and case law support interpreting this exact language, I feel very confident that "theft" as defined by Florida Statues, includes copyright infringement.
Again, I understand not wanting theft to include copyright infringement. But the reality is, as it stands now, it does.
Copyright Infringement is Theft
I understand what you are saying and I'm not upset or angry one way or the other, but, at least in Florida, you are wrong (cue Florida jokes).
In Florida, theft is defined as someone who "knowingly ... uses the property of another with intent to ... appropriate the property to his own use." Fla. Stat. s. 812.014(1). Under this, the Court has held that copyright infringement constitutes theft. See CBS, Inc. v. Garrod, 622 F. Supp. 532, 536 (M.D. Fla. 1985), aff'd, 803 F.2d 1183 (11th Cir. 1986).
I get that you don't think this should constitute theft, but it can and does.
Confidential?
Do you have a link to the original cease and desist? While it is certainly not a requirement, most civil settlements include a confidentiality agreement. If it did and she sent it to someone else to threaten them, that would be a violation.
They're Advertising for New Counsel
They are currently advertising for new counsel on the Florida Bar.
http://l.fl.bar.associationcareernetwork.com/JobSeeker/JobDetail.aspx?abbr=L.FL.BAR&jobid=628cb1ee-131c-40c3-9885-2c05076d4a80&stats=y
Is it really that bad?
Maybe I am biased, but isn't this good? Mattel tried to abuse the copyright system and was forced to pay for MGA's legal fees. Awards like this may encourage other attorneys to take low-income defendants(a relative term when it comes to this type of litigation). It may also discourages other copyright trolls.
It's the Striesand Effect Used For Good
Maybe they are just suing each other to get publicity. They noticed how lawsuits like this bring lots of unintended attention to other people. Why not use that to bring attention intentionally to yourself? Seriously, without the lawsuit would you have ever mentioned either of these movies? They probably have lawyers on staff, so it doesn't cost anything extra other than court fees. Way cheaper than buying ad time on tv that people will just fast forward through.
Re: May Not Be Perfect
That should be "shouldn't put the burden on other inventors". Sorry.
Re: I dont think so
I have to disagree with the non-patentability of software patents. The problem with many software patents is they are obvious (they do something obvious but with a computer) or they have prior art. But a real non-obvious, novel process should be patentable. Complex software that takes teams of engineers weeks or months to design should have patent protection. If not, their desire to invest that time and money would be diminished. I still believe the problem with software and patents is that the bar to patentability is too low and that the patent examiners don't really understand software and let patents through that don't really even meet their current bar.
May Not Be Perfect
Non-Obviousness is very hard to prove in the patent field. While it is very possible that a pool of skilled programmers would not catch everything, they would catch some. Once the patent is granted, it is almost impossible to invalidate as being obvious because it is hard to say something is obvious when the solution is in front of you. Of course it is obvious then.
As to the time/cost problems, I think people would work for free, but if they don't the patent office should pay for a pool of people. If they are going to grant patents, they should put the burden on other inventors of proving that the patent is invalid after the fact.