US Supreme Court Limits Patent Claims 118
Aire Libre and other readers noted a unanimous Supreme Court decision that denied LG Electronics's attempt to evade the first-sale doctrine by use of "business method" patents. LG licensed patents to Intel, then attempted to dictate what use Intel's customers could make of the Intel products incorporating LG patents. The decision (PDF) notes how easily patents can be written up as "business methods" to nullify the first-sale doctrine ("exhaustion") and to give the patent owner perpetual control downstream. Aire Libre adds, "That reasoning bodes well for copyright freedom as well, in light of the growing number of copyright holders who seek to nullify the Copyright Act's limitation on the distribution right by claiming the goods are 'licensed, not sold,' or subject to some restrictive EULA."
That's strange (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Interesting)
Course, not enough of the population seems to care and simply 'roots for their team'. Just an observation from outside your nation.
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Haha, actually I've been cheering them because despite being stacked with conservatives, they have still handed Bush his most significant legal setbacks of his entire eight years. Something the majority Democrat Congress has been unable to do. It's the Republicans who have been gnashing their teeth at the Supreme Court for being 'activist judges' when they won't let Congress or the President do something for no more reason than the Constitution says they can't.
Personally, I just take this to mean that in the eyes of the least politically motivated branch of government, even when stacked with conservative opinions, Bush is way out on the right on a great many things. Yet another sign of how our country's "left-right" barometer is currently skewed heavily to the right. So don't worry. Even when some liberal justices get appointed, it won't cause the court to significantly skew to the left. While in some ways counter-intuitive, it's amazing how our least Democratic branch of government is in a unique position to protect our Democracy.
What does Intel say about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Taking that into consideration, isn't Intel likely to go medieval at anyone mobbing their most important customers with such a blatantly bogus claim? Sure, LG is big - but probably not big enough to stand chances with Intel if they were to release the hell hou^W^W^W^W^W^W lawyers...
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What does Intel say about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the court decision (actually, the license agreement between LG and Intel):
"[the license] is granted by either party hereto . . . to any third party for the combination by a third party of Licensed Products of either party with items, components, or the like acquired . . . from sources other than a partyhereto, or for the use, import, offer for sale or sale of such combination." Brief for Petitioners 8 (quoting App. 164).
A literal (as requred for the licensish newspeak) interpretation quickly reveals that is's FRICKIN' IMPOSSIBLE to not infringe on the LG patents. Intel doesn't make capacitors, resistors, connectors, laminate sheets, transistors, voltage regulators, fasteners and LOADS of other crap that make up a single mainboard, no matter how "all-Intel" it is.
In short, the relevant part of the agreement is plain idiotic.
J.K Rowling v. RDR Books... (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless we are going to argue reincarnation, this lifetime is the only one I have. 'Forever' is my entire lifetime, or anyone elses. Nothing that is part of my culture can be remixed or reused by myself or virtually any generation I will ever see when there is a term limit of life + 70 years / 120 years.
Anyway, Lessig and others learned some HARD lessons, such as the power of money among other things, not to mention the series of some good small wins for EFF over the past year, for GPL and such, showing the value free and freedom to the public.
In light of the entire history of supreme court they can seem small, they have ruled on the side of reason defying long standing law, and majority opinion: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369. While Miller had to do with government taking, why can not the same PROPERTY law apply as they keep arguing. "It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken." was ruled. As for Rowling v. RDR Books, IMO, an idea only becomes culture AFTER it is given to the public. And you CAN'T copyright an IDEA. Making cultural references to an idea aren't piracy, and not even plagiarism, it is literature in its absolute meaning.
So I hope that this case shows that the supreme court is ready to rule on the side of reason that Congress CAN NOT hide away like it did after LaMacchia with the NET Act. Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ruled the way it did because the argument made could not beat the argument of big money, so YES, I think this case COULD have major implications in the near future over copyright.
The only circumstances under which I could be persuaded otherwise would be if they tax this PROPERTY progressively with respect to the amount of time on copyright, gross value earned from copyright, and number of copyrights held by a person. This would make it EQUAL with real property. At present, any vaguely original though or artistry I express in a tangible way has GREATER protection than the home for my family. And before I am accused of making a straw man, consider the ways you can loose and reclaim an IP versus the way you can loose and reclaim your house.
Hope that wasn't too off topic for anyone, just my thoughts on the supreme court and reason.
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that the reasoning does not bode anything for copyright freedom, but not for the reasons you indicate. Reasoning is actually very important to legal proceedings. Evidential issues can often get in the way, but if the evidence produces a clear set of facts then with very few exceptions, reasoning will provide a clear answer. It's comparatively rare to see this in court because usually when a case makes it all the way to a court decision the reason is that either there is a dispute about the evidence or the case is one that is close to the boundaries. In the remaining cases you have a butthead litigant with a butthead lawyer who is happy to use the court procedure as a weapon to drain and defeat their opponent even though their opponent should clearly win on the facts and the evidence.
The reason this doesn't mean anything for copyright freedom (at least in the way the summary suggests) is that the "licensed vs sold" distinction isn't as great as it might seem. You own the physical copy you buy, but you have to have a license to make copies of that. When you run software in (or install software on) a computer the computer makes copies, and you need a licence to do that. This is really not legally controversial. There may be an implied license in the circumstances, but it is quite possible for the implied license to be excluded, depending on all the circumstances.
Does it mean anything for the first sale doctrine in the US as it applies to copyright? Maybe, maybe not. Ask an American lawyer. From my antipodeon viewpoint it seems that first sale doctrine is really just a rule of interpreting licences and determining the existence of and scope of implied licences. This case dealt with a situation where Intel was granted a license and a separate agreement between Intel and the plaintiffs purported to restrict any implied licenses associated with it. It seems, from reading the headnotes, that this is a case that really revolved around its circumstances and if the plaintiff had limited the scope of the original license the outcome might be different.
Re:J.K Rowling v. RDR Books... (Score:3, Interesting)
The only other part about lifetime I was arguing was that the in Eldred the supreme court said that the constitutions "limited period" means congress can set any period of time such that it is not "forever". I was arguing existentially that a term greater than my lifetime IS forever.
Re:Interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
While one can reason that this right to keep and bear arms would expand to include modern weapons, I believe that the historical record is clear enough to rule out the expansion of such rights to weapons of mass destruction as are nuclear weapons. One could argue, however, that the States could retain a nuclear arsenal, as a deterrent against the misuse of the national army against the States (a frightening thought, but one that seems to be in line with the intent of the framers).
Re:J.K Rowling v. RDR Books... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no desire to see copyright widdled away towards something reasonable. It was extended past 14 years through a corrupted process people are recognizing, and it is time for it to be fixed!
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Further limits Apple action against Psystar (Score:3, Interesting)
This further limits any legal action Apple might take against Psystar for shipping computers that run retail copies of the MacOS.
Apple is limited on the copyright front by antitrust law; the requirement in the EULA that purports to require that the software only be run on Apple hardware is probably an illegal tying arrangement. (Don't argue otherwise without doing some reading first. There's a history of relevant cases and the party trying to enforce the tying terms usually loses.)
With this decision, Apple is also limited on the patent front. Apple's patent rights were "exhausted" when the boxed copy of the MacOS was sold. They can't raise a patent claim based on some restriction on later use of the software, not even for "method" claims.
Re:J.K Rowling v. RDR Books... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the original formulation struck a good balance: 14 years, extensible for another 14 while the author is alive. This still has a bias towards younger authors but it's less.
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:4, Interesting)