EFF Wins Protection For Time Zone Database 71
First time accepted submitter TempestRose writes "The trials and tribulations of the time zone database sued by an astrology software company are finally over. From the article: 'The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is pleased to announce that a copyright lawsuit threatening an important database of time zone information has been dismissed. The astrology software company that filed the lawsuit, Astrolabe, has also apologized and agreed to a 'covenant not to sue' going forward, which will help protect the database from future baseless legal actions and disruptions.'"
Astrolabe Needs ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
whooo (Score:5, Insightful)
patent and copyright trolls gone mad..... seriously... a text file with cities and the time offset?? when will the stupidity end?
Re:whooo (Score:5, Informative)
In most EU legislations, databases are copyright (or Author's right) protected, even when the actual items in the database are not. So a database of historical events or facts actually can be protected.
Re: (Score:1)
And in that case it is Olson who gets the protection because he coordinated the collection of the data.
Re:whooo (Score:5, Informative)
In most EU legislations, databases are copyright (or Author's right) protected, even when the actual items in the database are not. So a database of historical events or facts actually can be protected.
As I understand copyright law, that is also the case in the US if the collection meets some minimum requirements - however the underlying facts aren't copyrightable; which was the issue with the TZ dB. Anyone can compile a list of sunrise times from copyrighted sources and publish it; they can't however copy the book it's in and make it available to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Feist v. Rural [wikipedia.org] is the case you want to look at. Under that rulling the TZDB was free and clear unless the astrologers sould show a "spark" of creativity in the collection of facts. Basically, the facts themselves are not copyrightable, though the arrangement, presentation, or selection of facts may be copyrightable.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, it appears that a collection of facts is not copyrightable in Australia - specifically, a telephone directory:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/44.html [austlii.edu.au]
Re:whooo (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a bit tricky. Since the database is copyrighted (Your arrangement of the data) but the data itself isn't, it's illegal to copy the database and use it without permission, but it's legal to make your own Database containing all the same facts.
I think what most Database authors do is that they put bogus data entries into their database and if they can find their entries in someone elses database, they can show that it's a copy rather then a independent work.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these are facts, but only one of them is true, and that's a fact.
No it isn't. By definition facts are true. The bogus data are not facts.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
All of these are facts, but only one of them is true, and that's a fact.
No it isn't. By definition facts are true. The bogus data are not facts.
No they aren't. In computer science, a fact is a data value, without any implications about the trustworthiness of the data. In general science, a fact is a verifyable observation, with no certainties about its truthfulness until said verification has been done. In law a fact is a statement which is found to be true by a trier (like a jury), which still doesn't make it true per sé. I think in philosophy a fact is actually true, but that's not my area, ask someone with a beard and Birkenstocks.
There are
Flame Fail (Score:5, Informative)
While most would share your assumption that fact implies truth, and indeed the first three definitions of the word support that view, the 4th and 5th definitions clearly allow for "false facts":
In legal terms, "false facts" not only exist, they are arguably quite common in legal circles. Most defense attorneys would probably admit as much, over a pint of beer.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember in lower elementary school doing an exercise called "Fact or Opinion", where the point was not to figure out which of the statements were true, but to figure out which could be determined to be objectively true, as opposed to which were subjective opinion. "The earth is a cube" was a fact even though it's not true, and "The earth is awesome" was an opinion.
Of course even at age 7 or whatever it was, I understood that words had multiple meanings in different context, and in this context was diffe
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re-read the GP, or a dictionary. Words in natural languages have multiple meanings. This is such a case.
Re: (Score:1)
A statement such as "Oasis are the greatest rock band of all time" is patently an opinion, it cannot be said to be either true or false
. A statement such as "Oasis have sold x number of records" can be verified as being either true or not. If I say "Oasis have sold exactly 10 albums in their whole career"
Copyright trap (Score:3, Informative)
I think what most Database authors do is that they put bogus data entries into their database and if they can find their entries in someone elses database, they can show that it's a copy rather then a independent work.
These are commonly called 'copyright traps' or 'fictitious entries'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
These are commonly called 'copyright traps' or 'fictitious entries'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_entry [wikipedia.org]
Last year Google did a similar thing to Microsoft [bbc.co.uk] - by placing meaningless entries in their database - when they suspected Bing was copying their search results.
Re: (Score:1)
I think what most Database authors do is that they put bogus data entries into their database and if they can find their entries in someone elses database, they can show that it's a copy rather then a independent work.
Only in the lab. In the real world, the users take care of adding the bogus facts.
Re: (Score:2)
it's illegal to copy the database and use it without permission
However, it is perfectly legal to copy the facts from the database since the copyright extends only to the creative aspects of the collection. See Feist v. Rural.
Re: (Score:2)
What relevance exactly does an United States court case have on European database law?
Re: (Score:2)
The database as a whole can be, but not the individual facts in it. Just by mixing in other sources of facts and changing the format to suit the particular purpose, the TZ database is not an infringement on the Astrolabe database as a whole.
Re:whooo (Score:5, Funny)
they probably read in the stars they weren't going to win :)
Re: (Score:1)
Astrolabe made a mistake, they were informed about it and quickly corrected their mistake.
TFA states that the lawyers should have known facts cannot be copyrighted, but some parties have been trying to redefine copyright to include everything, so I can understand their mistake.
Re: (Score:1)
Their intentions were still malicious. A bit of common sense would reveals their greed.
Re:whooo (Score:4)
I can believe Astrolabe made an error, but I would sure like to know why their lawyers didn't just explain it to them. I would also like to know why their lawyers aren't in for a reaming from the court. If they KNEW the law, then as officers of the court they should have refused to have any part in the suit, and if they didn't, it was up to them as professionals to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, it never got to court.
Basically the Astrolabe lawyers threatened to sue, EFF lawyers replied and Astrolabe apologized for the mistake and backed down.
Re: (Score:3)
It got close enough for the EFF to threaten them with rule 11. That makes it close enough for disciplinary action.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers represent people. Your free to ignore a lawyer's advice, and hire them anyway to make your argument. The lawyers reputation may suffer, guilty by association type thing.
Re: (Score:2)
A lawyer is ALSO an officer of the court and has a duty to protect it from abuse. They can certainly give their client the benefit of the doubt and then some when representing their position, but where the law is clear, they cannot argue against it. That is why the EFF threatened rule 11 proceedings and that's why they promptly backed down when threatened.
Donate (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet another reason to click on that "Donate" button on the EFF site.
Re:Donate (Score:5, Interesting)
I donated for the first time when the whole SOPA thing was the pressing matter. I'll probably donate again today.
The EFF matters. Their core beliefs match mine more so than most of the places I donate to.
I'm a geek, and they do good for geeks. That's good enough for me.
Strange.. (Score:5, Funny)
that they didn't read this in their horoscope..
You won this time EFF, but I'll get you next time! (Score:5, Interesting)
which will help protect the database from future baseless legal actions and disruptions.
From them maybe. The current warfare of the patent/copyright system has come to a point where, even if one line of defense does not seem to work, companies are free to pursue a different course of action and see if they cannot get different results. Hence why, to many, the current system is broken. It simply is no longer being used for the reason for which it was created.
Re: (Score:2)
It simply is no longer being used for the reason for which it was created.
-Friedrich Hayek
You know of course... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You know of course... (Score:5, Funny)
...that Astrolabe could not claim to hold copyright on facts such as when the sun rises. What TFA fails to state is that this is because Apples owns the patent on it.
I thought Oracle owned all the Sun patents.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It is perfectly possible for one company to own the patent on an invention, and another completely separate company to own the copyright on the data used in that invention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Samsung owns the patent for the sun setting. Meaning that the sun is stuck midway in the sky, can't rise or set, and everybody loses.
I'd like to be the first to say (Score:3)
"It's about time."
I'd like to be the first to say (Score:5, Funny)
Sacrifice Astrolabe: Add two mana of any one color to your mana pool. Draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep.
Re: (Score:1)
Sacrifice Astrolabe: Add two mana of any one color to your mana pool. Draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep.
I'd tap that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sacrifice Astrolabe: Add two mana of any one color to your mana pool. Draw a card at the beginning of the next turn's upkeep.
I'd tap that.
What are you using? Icy Manipulator? Clearly you can't tap the card without at least a twiddle or something...
#toomuchmtg
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that "tapping" is a game mechanic that is patented by Wizards of the Coast? Unfortunately, I'm not joking :-(
Incompetence (Score:5, Informative)
Both Astrolabe and (especially) their counsel were incompetent here. Counsel never even served Eggert and Olson after filing a complaint September 30th. IANAL, but I think that they had to do that by January, and I assume that that had something to do with the EFFs statement [eff.org] January 12th :
"Today, we’re taking the battle to Astrolabe, and starting the process for seeking sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.Rule 11 requires litigants to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts and law before filing any paper with the court. Obviously, that didn’t happen here. Astrolabe now has 21 days to withdraw its Complaint. If it doesn’t do so, the Rule 11 “safe harbor” expires and we’re free to ask the court for sanctions.
Jan 12 + 21 days is Thursday, February 2nd. I imagine that Astrolabe and their counsel dropped the suit to avoid these sanctions.
Re: (Score:1)
Jan 12 + 21 days is Thursday, February 2nd.
When talking about the TZ DB, you could at least make it clear if you're talking about Jan 12 UTC, Jan 12 PST or Jan 12 somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, this covenant not to sue smells an awful lot like a dismissal with prejudice to me...
Not good enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh gee, thanks. They promise not to sue again. I'm sorry, but I don't accept this whole "We made a mistake" argument. If a parent sits there watching their child tap dance in the middle of a raging bonfire, "I made a mistake" isn't going to cut it. Said parent would be charged with criminal negligence.
The company and their lawyers had an obligation to perform their due diligence. They didn't, and in the process of following their greed they turned the life of an innocent developer into a living hell and threatened a critical piece of global architecture.
Both the company and their legal counsel should be counter-sued into a black hole.
Re: (Score:2)
There goes the incentive (Score:5, Funny)
If government doesn't grant a monopoly on the facts of timezones, then what incentive do astrologers have to allow timezones to exist? EFF, you people are ruining the progress of the sciences and useful arts!
Re: (Score:3)
If government doesn't grant a monopoly on the facts of timezones, then what incentive do astrologers have to allow timezones to exist? EFF, you people are ruining the progress of the sciences and useful arts!
Absolutely. Without a financial incentive nobody will ever use a clock again.
The timing of this (Score:1)
In Other News Astrolabe Sues Little Orphan Annie (Score:3)
"The sun 'll come out tomorrow! Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow, there'll be sun...."
Congratulations (Score:2)
I'm going to take what might be an unpopular position here and congratulate Astrolabe for admitting they made a mistake. That's something we see far too infrequently in such cases. Yes, the suit should never have been filed, but when presented with the evidence that they were wrong, they didn't argue and try another tactic, they owned up to it, admitted they were wrong, dismissed the suit, and apologized. About the only thing more they could have done is pay all the legal costs, and without knowing anything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily, this is the US, it's not a loser pays system. Had they lost the EFF Rule 11 claim, they could have been forced to pay legal fees, but we don't have automatic loser pays here.