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."
It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Reason has no place in a legal proceeding. Sad, but true. This ruling doesn't have any direct implications on copyright issues. Any perceived reason the justices showed with this ruling can only be tested against copyright if and when a similar dispute regarding copyright makes it to the Supreme Court. Until a person or organization has deep enough pockets to push/appeal a court case to the SC we'll never know if the justices' reason extends to copyright or not.
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:4, Interesting)
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:J.K Rowling v. RDR Books... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, we could go up to life of author or 70 years and still result in more reasonable copyright terms than what we have now.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, this applies only if you assume companies are out to get the maximum profit. If you assume that record companies and publishers
Re: (Score:1)
Well, that seems to be be their self-view, what with their 'Think of the Artists!!' refrain ;^)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
Additionally, corporations should have no special treatment in this regard -- *particularly* in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That I don't understand, and would appreciate some clarity. How does longevity side with the copyrights of the original artist versus the public? ...
My thought was people are living longer, but it is well established that people tend to be more prolific at an early age. If the copyright terms are too short, then longer living authors would burn up all the royalties and end up destitute before they kick the bucket - becoming a burden on society.
If an author (and I am not talking about a corporation here) is able to make a bit more, then she is more likely to have retirement money when dementia sets in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have fun!
Re: (Score:2)
You can't call that "not piracy."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The HP case is kind of reminding me of the rather stupid cease and desist letters that Paramount was sending to Star Trek fan sites years ago. They quickly stop doing that when some suit in Paramount realised that the *only* reason that ST is a successfu
Re:It doesn't bode anything for copyright (Score:5, Informative)
It may vary somewhat from state to state, but for the most part, the Uniform Commercial Code [cornell.edu] is the standard for all state laws that will determine whether software is sold as a sale of goods or licensed. And being a copyright issue, this will generally be decided in federal court anyway.
This ia a good ruling, but for anyone who pays attention, not a big surprise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This has exactly zero bearing on whether the software is licensed to users (it is, and this too
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't forget ProCD v. Zeidenberg [wikipedia.org], though, which upheld shrinkwrap licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 m
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, it's not, not in the US. 17 USC 117(a) states specifically that
Re: (Score:2)
But if I had my own laboratory, equipment and inclination, there's nothing stopping me from using a small diode laser or two an
Re: (Score:2)
'The doctrine says that the sale of an invention exhausts the patent-holder's right to control how the purchaser uses it.'
will affect Monsantos restrictions on reuse of seed?
That's strange (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That's strange (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/15/78316_HNebaypatent_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/05/15/78316_HNebaypatent_1.html [infoworld.com]
Decision depends on license and on what was sold (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the Supreme Court's decision (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-937.pdf [supremecourtus.gov]) it will be clear how it turns, first, on whether the patent license to Intel permits Intel to sell goods that practice the patents, and second, did the goods sold by Intel practice the patents. The answer to both questions was yes, triggering the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of patent rights with respect to the product that was sold. That was true even where the patent had method claims, and when those would not be completely practiced until the sold product was combined with other components. The rationale for that aspect was that the sold items practiced the patent by embodying all of the inventive matter and having in practice no other use except to practice the patent: the components left to be added were standard stuff, while all of the inventive content was in the items sold.
None of that depended in any way on the question whether the patent licensor engaged in manufacture on its own account. The court did not need to consider that. So the decision clearly applies to patent holders who grant licenses to others to sell patented products, irrespective of whether the licensors themselves do manufacturing or not.
-wb-
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That hardly seems like an argument you can make in a court of law.
That may be so, but it has the same ring as 'You won't be able to buy the right to just play
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: (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 t
8 years later (Score:4, Insightful)
The real question in all this is why the appeal court sided with LG.
Re: (Score:2)
As to why the appeals court sided with LG, -well,
that's why we have a Supreme Court, but bear in mind that this case has been in litigation since 2002 and the Supreme court only accepted the case in 2007. Prior to that time, the lower courts were following the law and the decisions of the SCOTUS from a prior era.
Re: (Score:2)
suddenoutbreakofpithytags (Score:1)
Please tag responsibly.
This is not about "Business Methods" (Score:4, Informative)
This is good news indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
What was clarified in this decision is that vendors don't have the right to control the downstream licensees of their patents, and the first sale doctrine was reaffirmed.
This will change the way that EULAs are interpreted in the future. Specifically, any restrictions against resale or limiting the uses the product can be used for will no longer be valid.
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: (Score:1)
Re:Good work, men! (Score:5, Funny)
One of the Supremes is a girl, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Good work, men! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, it's good to see that there's some recognition at the top of the system that these patent shenanigans are beginning to seriously compromise manufacturing and development.
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.
EFF's Lessig endorsed Obama long ago. (Score:5, Informative)
A 20 minute video done by Lawrence Lessig on why he supports Obama. Would it be too much to consider that the endorsement of the Electronic Freedom Foundation?
That does give me some comfort over some of the things that REALLY concern me over Obama as mentioned above.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which, as I was trying to point out, is largely the case. You can't possibly prevent the justices from holding what you might call conservative or liberal viewpoints. Yet despite this, and despite efforts to deliberately get as many of a certain viewpoint on the bench as possible, the Supreme Court of the U.S. remains largely centrist. Overall, they have done a better job of respecting and sticking to the Constitution by far than either of the other two branches. They are the "line in the sand" you refer to, and they've done a very good job of stopping people from crossing it.
In so much as they can. I mean, they don't have the ability to rule on arbitrary issues, so as long as warrantless wiretapping doesn't come before them in a case, they have no ability to rule on it.
Sorry for my ranting folks, but this just bugs the hell outta me. If you want the Constitution changed, then vote to ammend it. I do not want some judge changing the original meaning to fit with their own political ideology and/or dreams for a different future.
Which has been happening far, far less often than you probably think. The fact is that everyone colors their interpretation of the Constitution and what it means "from the beginning of its creation" with the political ideology. I consider myself very much a constructionist (or I guess origionalist [wikipedia.org]), yet I don't delude myself that my reading of what "the Founding Father's intended" isn't affected by my own beliefs.
The demonstrated ability of SCOTUS to resist this influence in their rulings is rather impressive to me, especially compared to the other two examples. All this screaming about "activist judges" changing the Constitution to suit their whims (in either direction, "left" or "right") is vastly overplayed, if not played out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The SCOTUS haven't respected the Constitution for a long time. c.f. Wickard v. Filburn. The fact that anyone can argue that that is a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause simply defies belief. I mean, deep down, they have to know that's wrong, right?
Correct. If the members of the SCOTUS at that time had bothered to do any reading around the reason for the Interstate Commerce clause, they would have known that while the Articles of Confederation were in effect, the States were charging tarrifs on all sorts of goods coming into their States from other States and it was causing major problems. The intent of the Interstate Commerce clause was to encourage the free flow of goods between the States.
Changing the original meaning? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't get it. You actually believe that the words of the Constitution encode enough information to enable everyone to unequivocally understand what the authors of that document believed should be done in all possible situations (even assuming they had one unanimous opinion)?
Face it. That's impossible, and that's why we have judges. And why they're constantly overturning old decisions and laws.
Of course, I do agree with you that judges shouldn't be making their decisions based on partisan loyalty. But one has to cope with the fact that they are human also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course the Constitution isn't supposed to "encode enough information to enable everyone to unequivocally understand what the authors of that document believed should be done in all possible situations." That's why the Constitution and the bill of rights are about *enabling* the government to perform certain tasks, and the rest of it should be left up to Congress -- to pass laws -- and the states, to whom the default of power is given.
1) The Bill of Rights I'm familiar with mainly deals with enabling the public (and inhibiting the government) --- what is the connection between the First Amendment and enabling the government, for example?
2) Your argument appears to totally miss my point, which was not connected with whether the "meaning" has an enabling or inhibiting sense. In both cases you're still going to need judges to define the behavior of the legal system in borderline cases. (My apologies if your post was not meant as a rebuttal
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the internet is blurring the line between interstate and intrastate commerce. It is (or not) constitutional for state and local taxes to be applied to sales between a store in California and a cust
Re: (Score:1)
Not only that, but the law governs human beings. Human beings change. Society changes, some less, some more, over long periods of time. The constitution, being not law itself but that which is the foundation for all of our laws, should be read according to the society in which it currently represents.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you do this, there is no foundation at all!
For example, the internet is blurring the line between interstate and intrastate commerce. It is (or not) constitutional for state and local taxes to be applied to sales between a store in California and a customer in Washington, when the server hosting the storefront and processing the sale is sitting in Texas? What if the server is in California? Or in Washington, for that matter? Basically, is this interstate commerce or not?
It depends upon where the seller and buyer reside. If both reside in the same state, it is intrastate commerce. Otherwise, it is interstate commerce. Where the transaction is processed doesn't matter.
Cheap shot (Score:1)
I think that's kind of a strawman. It might be what he would say if he were shown that scenario with no context, but what is actually important is what he would say if he were also to be exposed (at a slow enough rate to absorb) to all of the societal changes which have taken place in the meantime, before being shown Obama.
<pedantic>
BTW, the Oval Office was built in 1909 [wikipedia.org] and I doubt that Washington would recognize a modern necktie [wikipedia.org], eithe
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, the earlier poster thinks that the court is conservative, while I think that it's dangerously liberal - just look at the gaping hole that is the commerce clause today.
Of course, I tend to think that the founders wrote in rather plain language, and generally speaking, KISS should apply. Especially from circuit courts, I've seen torturous readings of laws to essentially try to say that the law means the opposite of what it says.
And yes, this includes stuff like same sex marriage, abortion, discrimination, etc... It's not that I actually have a problem with same sex marriage*. I'm generally pro-choice**, and I don't care whether you're white, yellow, or black. Don't even care if you're green or purple other than curiosity as to how you got to be that way.
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution. For that matter, I tend to think that legislators who propose, vote for, and enact blatantly unconstitutional laws should be fired.
*I'm of the opinion it should be civil unions for all, if you want to call yourself married find a priest, priestess, rabbi, mullah, witchdoctor, whatever willing to perform the ceremony.
**for first trimester, second should require some special circumstances, and third some serious medical issue(like it being discovered that said baby has no brain, and will die within a week of birth even with life support). If it should be done, the morning-after pill should be used. It should not be for sex selection, or just because you're too lazy of a dumbass to use birth control. On the other hand, if you're such a dumbass, you shouldn't be having kids anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc...
The problem with that sentiment is that many of the better decisions of the court (which you no doubt agree with) were cases where the court went out on a limb, setting precedents that they saw as a logic extension of the law, but which others might call "'legislating from the bench', inventing rights." Two off the top of my head: Miranda v. Arizona [wikipedia.org] (Miranda rights), and Mapp v. Ohio [wikipedia.org] (inadmissible evidence).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still say that they should err on the side of FOLLOWING the constitution. Miranda fits neatly in with the fifth, but as far as I'm concerned shouldn't be necessary. Most people today know about the fifth. Though, yes, in part it's from the popularization of Miranda. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been handled thro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has already been done. It is the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because a right isn't listed in the constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't constitutionally protected. (But clearly it helps.)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to refer you to a recent article in the NY Times which pointed out that in the first year of the Roberts court, a great majority of the decisions came down to 5-4 votes split along the typical ideological line. Even Judge Posner criticized this record. So far this year, there are signs that the Chief Justice is wo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Can I make a giant leap here? We are in this mess today because of slavery. While it was necessary to have it abolished, the defeat of the South solidified power/control being stripped at the state level.
I blame it on Lincoln, and indirectly, slavery. The confederate states seceded from the union and Lincoln said they couldn't do that. Given that the Constitution defines the powers granted to the Federal government and there is nothing in the Constitution that says a State can't secede from the Union, Amendment 10, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.", applies and Lincoln exceeded
Re: (Score:2)
I most definitely agree with you. The civil war resulted in a number of precedents that gave the federal government far more power. Other points would be the change of making Senators directly elected instead of chosen by the individual state legislatures. Before that, the individuals selected would serv
Re: (Score:1)
I think you might need to read your copy of the constitution closer. People have rights. The government has powers. If something isn't directly coded as a power of government, it IS a right of the people. See the 9th amendment for more details
Re: (Score:2)
IE a 'you can't do what we didn't tell you you could do'.
What I'm trying to get at, is that some people have some rather insane ideas of 'rights'.
Some people believe that they have the right to 'not be offended'. Whether that be gays, catholics, sex ed, the color purple, etc...
Over in Europe, proposed constitutional amendments include 'affordable housing'. Doesn't matter if you have no inco
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is trickier than you imply, though. The gaping hole can't be fixed without overturning precedent. A SCOTUS decision about a constitutional matter, even a really stupid and bad one, becomes the law, don't you think? Thus a conservative SCOTUS has a problem: do they defy the written constitution, or defy the preced
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, I tend to think that the founders wrote in rather plain language, and generally speaking, KISS should apply.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Any way you look at it, that's some of the most tortured grammatical architecture ever devised. ;)
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution.
My objection to that perspective is equally philosophical - that rights are inherent, not granted. Your perspective, interestingly, is exactly what the Founders feared when they crafted the Bill of Rights.
"But, Jefferson, if we enumerate a bunch of rights, won't
Re: (Score:2)
I much prefer the SC to be telling congress, the president, and the rest of the government what they can't do, rather than what they can do.
IE not allow congress to say that a crop, grown on the farmer's own land, fed to the farmer's own cattle, which are sold within the state, is NOT interstate congress because if he hadn't grown the crop, he might of purchased it from an out of state source.
On the abortion angle, I was talking about all abortions - not
Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not want my neighbors to have thermonuclear weapons under the 2nd amendment.
And if they can't, then the document is subject to interpretation in light of current technology for reasonableness.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You saying we are "supposed" to is about the same as the judges interpreting something.
Legalities never work for constitutions. You can't make a fusion bomb really illegal because then they find something 99% a fusion bomb that isn't one. Laws can keep up but constitutions become very ugly very fast if they try that approach.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't recall anywhere in the constitution or federalist papers where they considered the long term implications of the 2nd amendment with regard to technology.
You saying we are "supposed" to is about the same as the judges interpreting something.
No. The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't cover every possible situation and made provisions for amending the Constitution. "Supposed to" has nothing to do with it.
Legalities never work for constitutions. You can't make a fusion bomb really illegal because then they find something 99% a fusion bomb that isn't one. Laws can keep up but constitutions become very ugly very fast if they try that approach.
Apples and oranges. Legality refers to laws. Constitutional refers to the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't supposed to be tinkered with and this is why changing it is so difficult. If you don't like this, there is a process for changing that too.
Re: (Score:2)
So Bill Gates could buy 6 and still have $10 billion left over.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
hence when the court gets a crac
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you want a right-wing SCOTUS. :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't. Which makes it even less of a surprise that Slashdotters could support this decision and not be the hypocrites that the OP's troll tried to imply.
I want to point out that the Court is not on the same left/right continuum as most of American politics. For
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not unable, but unwilling.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
While I'm sure there are some examples of that, this is not one of them. From the article:
The Bush administration supported Intel's customers. It cited inconvenience, annoyance and inefficiency of multiple royalty payments being passed down the chain of distribution with no obvious stopping point.
Re: (Score:1)
Which is exactly what the founders intended. The Supreme Court exists to protect us from the 'tyranny of the majority'. We are not a true democracy because a pure democracy can be just as dangerous to liberty as a dictatorship.