They arrested a kid for posting 3 chapters of Harry Potter that he translated into French.
The French release of the book is not for two months, and they sent in the police to arrest a fan?
Category: IP
Judge Says that Qualcomm Acted in Bad Faith, Loses Patent Rights
The concealing of existing or likely future patents seems to be all to common in standards setting, and now a Judge has slapped down Qualcomm for engaging in “an organized program of litigation misconduct” in a patent suit against Broadcom.
This is big, and this is good. One of the more sophisticated methods of patent trolling out there is to concealed patented, or patent pending, product when one sits on standards making bodies, and when the standard is widely accepted, it’s time send out demand letters.
Then again, the ruling may be more narrow:
… in a patent case in San Diego, U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster ruled that two Qualcomm patents related to video-compression technology can’t be enforced because the company deliberately concealed the patents from a standards-setting group. Qualcomm compounded its misconduct by withholding evidence and making false statements before, during and after a trial in the case that ended in January, the judge concluded.
Another possibility is that this is more an artifact of telling blatantly transparent lies to a judge, which tends to piss them off.
Then again, this is getting interesting:
But after the surprise discovery during the trial of an initial set of relevant emails, Qualcomm found and later shared more than 200,000 emails and other documents with the court. After reviewing the documents, Judge Brewster concluded that Qualcomm engineers had participated in the group well before May 2003. He also rejected Qualcomm’s suggestion that its failure to share evidence with Broadcom was an accident.
“The eventual collapse of Qualcomm’s concealment efforts exposes the carefully orchestrated plan and the deadly determination of Qualcomm to achieve its goal of holding hostage the entire industry desiring to practice the H.264 standard,” he concluded.
Broadcom, meanwhile, is pushing to find out more about whether senior Qualcomm executives knew of evidence that should have been disclosed sooner. It contends Qualcomm withheld information from other standard-setting bodies, too, a charge Qualcomm rejects.
“I think this is just a snapshot of their corporate behavior,” said David J. Rosmann, Broadcom’s vice president of intellectual-property litigation.
Pass the popcorn.
Another Victory for the End User.
The response of the record distributors to digital music has been punative and stupid, and they’ve just been slapped down by a Court in Germany.
They refused to force an ISP to turn over data of file sharers.
Under the European privacy regulations, this is typically restricted to criminal, not civil, matters:
The ruling follows the publication two weeks ago of an Advocate-General’s opinion prepared for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) which said that countries whose law restricted the handing over of identifying data to criminal cases only were compliant with EU Directives.
Advocate-General Juliane Kokott produced advice for the ECJ on a Spanish case in which a copyright holders’ group wanted ISP Telefonica to hand over subscriber details to it.
Kokott said that details did not have to be handed over in civil cases such as Telefonica’s, and that they only had to be handed over in criminal cases. The ECJ does not have to follow an Advocate-General’s advice, but does so in over three-quarters of cases.
Another German authority had made a similar decision earlier this year, according to Heise Online. The chief prosecutor’s office in Celle refused to offer a handover because it said that substantial damage had not been shown, and that it doubted that music industry representatives would use the evidence to bring a criminal case.
It would be nice if the US weren’t the 3rd world of privacy rights.
Google: Kill all the patent trolls | The Register
It appears that Google has gotten religion on patent abuse.
This is something that has been true for over 20 years.
When the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was established, software, business plans, and species were specifically not patentable, and the law is fairly clear that they should not be.
The wiggle room was that while free standing software is “tangible” because it required a computer to run on…Where they got business plans…I’m not sure.
Unfortunately, this court resembles a man with just a nail, and so has increasingly seen everything as a nail, which is why this court was recently slapped down by the Supreme Court.
The UK Government Shows Copyright Sanity
Well it looks like the UK government is going to come out against copyright extension, leaving it at 50 years.
Good for them.
You will, of course, get hand wringing from the usual morons like this:
The Guardian quoted Fran Nevrkla, kingpin of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), the outfit which collects the rakeoff from clubs, restaurants, and broadcasters: “This announcement effectively makes all performers and record companies second class citizens,” he said.
How does keeping to a promise that was made to the performers and to the public 50 years ago treat them as “second class citizens”. Copyright is not about guaranteeing that artists make money. It’s about making sure that artists have an incentive to create.
Retroactive extension is not an incentive to create.
Copyright is a limited time exclusive license, not property, and the idea that you could retroactively rewrite the contract while works are literally dissolving in vaults is a disservice to society.
Internet Radio Reprieve a Trojan Horse
It appears that the olive branch that was offered by SoundExchange contained a hornet’s nest.It comes with a requirement that they use DRM (digital rights management)
Along with the myriad of software issues, particularly across operating systems, that come a DRM scheme, it also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Internet radio.
If people want to store songs on disk, the go with P2P solutions. They tune into Internet radio because they want to listen, not rip.
Net Neutrality: You Know It’s Good By Its Opponents
The MPAA has filed comments (PDF) that suggest that they oppose net neutrality because it might make it harder for copy protection systems and spying on users more difficult.
Fundamentally, what the MPAA, RIAA, and the Baby Bells want for them to say what you can do and SAY on your net connection.
Think of your cable company, without the charm.
Blowback from the Blackberry Case Continues
Significant patent reform is heading down the pike, and the Supreme Court has already made changes with its Teleflex ruling, and now Congress is weighing in.
Patent Fight Pending
Brian Wingfield, 07.20.07, 6:00 AM ETRemember the patent dispute surrounding the BlackBerry wireless device? Last year a communications catastrophe was avoided when BlackBerry maker Research in Motion agreed to settle with NTP over a patent infringement lawsuit.
….
This glosses over what happened. NTP was shaking down Blackberry using an injunction as a threat. When they got an injunction against all non-government service, Blackberry responded that they could not separate the business, and that they would comply by shutting everything down in the US.
Blackberries are used by 90% of congressional aids, most of the White House Staff, and most of the Supreme Court clerks, and a lot of congressmen and perhaps a few of the Justices too, so when this happened, they all freaked, and started talking to each other about a fix.
NTP blinked, not Blackberry, and so they settled for far less than they were originally demanding, but the damage had been done. The political establishment is now aware that IP has run amuck, and this bill is an attempt to fix this.
I do not believe that it goes far enough. I believe that the special patent court, which views everything as a nail since all it has is a hammer, should be abolished, and I believe that the bar for injunctive relief should be set much higher, but the fact politicians are finally seeing this as a problem is a very hopeful development.
Europe to RIAA: Eat My Shorts
This is not a court ruling, but it is likely to be the opinion adopted by the European court.
In related news: 23 New Schools to Receive Latest Round of RIAA Pre-Lawsuit Letters.
The RIAA is a bunch of thugs. When the revolution comes, they will be up against the wall before the PR department of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Only in the USA
It appears that some inmates at El Reno federal prison in Oklahoma attempted to buy a “get out of jail free” card using copyright.
They “copyrighted” and then attempted to file suits for millions of dollars against him and seize his property with the idea of using this as leverage to be let out.
Needless to say, the indictments against them for “conspiring to impede the duties of federal prison officials” rap, and “mailing threatening communications with the intent to extort”.
On the bright side, they have each received six figure offers of employment from the RIAA when they get out of stir.
RIAA Gets Owned
An Oklahoma woman stood up to the threats and intimidation that the RIAA used to try and extort money from her.
She won, and now she has been awarded court costs.
On July 13, 2006 the Oklahoma court ordered the RIAA’s claims against Foster be dismissed with prejudice and ruled she was eligible to be awarded attorneys fees. The court was skeptical that “an internet-illiterate parent, who does not know Kazaa from a kazoo” could be liable for copyright infringement committed by someone else using her internet account.
There are legitimate concerns about misuse of the RICO statutes, but its use against the RIAA’s thugs would be a “slam dunk.”
More Extortion by the Record Distributors
The Register has some insights into the conflict between Universal’s decision to go with an “At Will” arrangement with Apple’s iTunes.
Basically, it comes down to the record distributors wanting to demand royalties on the music Players.
Microsoft already does so with it’s abysmally received Zune player.
The article is right in some areas, and wrong in others though.
On why Apple is in the Driver’s seat:
Another underlying tension is that Apple has made a huge amount of money from sales of iPods – far more than the labels have made from iTunes. As of April 2007, the iPod had sold over 100 million units worldwide. This makes iPod the best-selling digital audio player series in history.
Analyst estimates for iPhone sales in its first weekend ran as high as 700,000 units, beating many investors’ expectations, and some expect the momentum to continue. The iTunes Store has sold over 2.5 billion songs since its inception four years ago, as well as 50 million TV shows and over 1.3 million movies, making it the world’s most popular online music, TV, and movie store. But the labels only make 70c off each track. This revenue pales in comparison to the amount of money Apple generates from sales of such devices whose purpose, in full (the iPod) or in part (the iPhone) is to store and play these tracks. The money is in the hardware.
No. That $0.70 is pretty significant, particularly since Apple, and the end user are paying ALL costs of distribution. $1.75 billion is not chump change.
It is very possible that Universal intends to use the new “at will” deal to exert pressure on Apple to either replace the 99c fixed price with variable pricing or to agree to pay Universal a royalty on iPods, or both. Or as just discussed, Universal may wish to extend the royalty to any new products that play music, such as the iPhone.
True. They want to get all the golden eggs from the goose.
iPod’s success does not depend on iTunes, but rather the elegance of iPod’s design and ease of use. For these reasons, if Universal retreated from iTunes, no one can reasonably anticipate that it would seriously hurt sales of iPods or iPhones.
Generally agree, but I would also note that there is a chic factor driving iPod sales too.
The Audio Home Recording Act already imposes a royalty on digital tape recorders, but not MP3 Players or computers. But when the AHRA was passed in 1992, the personal computer was only just making its debut in the US, and the MP3 player had yet to be imagined. So while the Act compensates copyright owners and artists for lost sales because of copying, the income generated by the levy has been negligible because AHRA does not apply to the new generations of technology, including personal computers and MP3 players.
This is where the author jumps the shark. Digital tape is a failure because of the AHRA. Between the excessive fees on tapes, and the anti-copying technology that reduced playback quality on home units (notching), the AHRA destroyed the digital tape player.
So why hasn’t the Act been extended to include this new generation of technology? The principal reason is that the major labels have not pushed for it. But wouldn’t the record labels want to collect royalties from the manufacturers who are raking in money from sales of electronic equipment which is being used to acquire and listen to music without compensation to the labels?
Perhaps the main reason is the way royalties are distributed under the AHRA. The first third of royalties go to music publishers and writers. Then four per cent goes to side artists. The balance is paid 60 per cent to the labels and 40 per cent to the artists.
Maybe the record companies are afraid to push the extension of this Act to MP3 players and computers because they don’t want to set another precedent of splitting proceeds on a 60:40 basis with the artists they represent. The standard artist royalty is only 10 to 15 per cent.
Moreover, under the AHRA the artists are paid directly. By targeting a successful individual manufacturer like Apple, Universal is aiming to recoup red balances (the amount it spends on production and marketing) on each artist’s account. Most artists never recoup production and marketing costs so when the record labels collect money from their music, they “allocate” royalties to the artists’ accounts but actually keep the money.
While cheating artists is a major profit stream for the studios, the blithe assertion that the act has not been extended to MP3 players and computers is, “major labels have not pushed for it” is again, wrong.
During the debate over the AHRA, it was clear, and it is more clear now, that Congress was unwilling to to apply it to computer makers, and the basis of the law in the first place, copying, does not apply to MP3 players, which play music, but do not copy music.
As much power as the labels have, the fact that they could not get computers covered in 1992 means that they cannot get this now.
The labels do not go for this because they know that they will lose.
Kudos to IBM
Words I never thought I’d say.
IBM has relinquished a significant portion of its patent portfolio to open source projects.
Not only that, they were smart about it:
There is an exception to the grant of access to the technology: it is closed to anyone taking legal action to block further interoperability. IBM will not extend the access to anyone who is suing someone else over patents necessary for interoperability in the standards to which this technology relates.
This is one serious $%#@ you to Microsoft.
Net Radio Receives a Reprieve
This is about congress taking a good look at the US IP regime, and folks like the RIAA and Sounc Exchange not wanting that. This is whySound Exchange has compromised, and won’t collect the new rates for now.
Intellectual product (IP) is not property. It a temporary exclusive license for the public good.
There are more and more people, including the US Supreme Court, who are finding the US IP regime a hinderance, rather than a help to innovation and art in the US.
Internet Radio to Go Dark in 3 Days
I know, mixed metaphor, but this is important. Contact your congresscritter about this.
Court denies stay of Internet radio execution
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Published Thursday 12th July 2007 18:50 GMTThe Internet radio death watch continues. Late yesterday, a federal appeals court denied an emergency stay petition from webcasters, refusing to delay the arrival of massive royalty hikes that threaten to bring down online radio as we know it. The new royalty rates – which could mean a 300 per cent payment increase for large stations, 1200 per cent for smaller broadcasters – are due to kick in this Sunday.
The stay was rejected with a single sentence from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “Petitioners have not satisfied the stringent standards required for a stay pending court review,” the order read.
…
In March, the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board set down new royalty rates that would require webcasters to pay 8 hundredths of a cent each time they broadcast a song to an individual listener. That’s $0.0008 per song per listener – and it’s retroactive to the beginning of 2006. According to Ward, this amounts to a 300 per cent rake hike for the even the largest Internet radio stations, 1,200 per cent for the smallest webcasters. Most, he says, could not afford to stay in business. By 2010, rates are scheduled to hit $0.0019 per song per listener.
…
And then there is the whole issue of retroactivity? By making it retroactive, will any new works be created?
No, they will not.
We have copyright to “encourage the useful arts and sciences”, to quote the constitution.
IP law is public interest law in the US. That’s how the constitution defines it, and why it allows it.
Under the current IP regime, Moby Dick would never have been reprinted after its initial publication, and there would be no Shakespeare at all. Both were rediscovered after the author’s deaths.
Pirate Bay in Caught in RIAA COINTELPRO?
Well it appears that Sweden may block Pirate Bay over allegations child porn.
Am I the only one who thinks that perhaps someone in the RIAA created the porn, and then put it up on the Pirate Bay to make this happen?
Gordon Brown Has Nothing to Fear from These Morons
The Register has an article, ISPs face down Tories on file sharing, where the ISPs basically told Conservative Party Leader David Cameron to go pound sand after a speech that he gave to record distributors.
The ISPA’s response was blunt:
A spokesman for ISPA said: “The Internet Watch Foundation is very focused in what it does and has taken a long time to get there working with the police. Unlike distributing images of child abuse, copyright infringement can be a civil offence.
“Any kind of blocking has to be the preserve of the courts.”
People who use music online understand the dynamics. They understand that record distributors cheat artists as an integral part of their business model. They understand that these companies want to make people pay multiple times that these people OWN, in order to put it on a walkman, or in their cars.
For the Tories to be sucking up to these folks confirms the worst suspicions of every British voter.
Bad Patent Applications
One of the ideas about patents is that the idea should be non obvious.
I saw this sort of display guidance 15 years ago on video games.
TomTom files patent for camera sat nav
By James Sherwood
Published Wednesday 4th July 2007 12:20 GMTTomTom is attempting to move up a gear in the in-car sat nav biz. It recently filed a patent for a GPS device that incorporates a camera to show the driver exactly where to turn off the road ahead.
…
Here is the picture of their device:
Does anyone remember the specific video game that had these sorts of arrows?
SiliconValley.com – Court upholds ruling vs. publisher
This was actually a VERY important decision. If it had gone the other way, you would have seen much of the internet based credit card activity simply stop.
It’s nice that someone has FINALLY found a limitation to “compensatory infringement.
Court upholds ruling vs. publisher
FIRM SOUGHT TO PUNISH CREDIT CARD ISSUERS OVER PIRACY OF ADULT IMAGES
By Dawn C. Chmielewski
Los Angeles Times
San Jose Mercury NewsCredit card companies that process payments for Internet pirates are not liable for copyright infringement, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco decided that a judge in San Jose was right in dismissing a lawsuit brought by a publisher in Beverly Hills against Visa International, MasterCard and other financial companies.
The 2-1 decision found that Perfect 10, a publisher of adult magazines and Web sites, failed to prove that credit card providers were liable because the financial companies played no role in helping people find or download the infringing images.
The decision dealt a setback to Perfect 10’s efforts to cripple Web sites that sell access to its erotic photographs without permission. The company said it would request a new hearing by a larger panel of appeals court judges.
…
SoundExchange Realizes that Congress Is Going Cut Them a New One
I used to work at Jarvis Products corporation, and I worked on meat packing tools including the Bung Dropper.
It looks like this: 
, And it does this: 
Here is the Youtube:
Yep, it literally cuts the animal a new asshole.
Sound Exchange decided to rape online radio stations, and now those stations have the US Congress’s ear. This means that it’s likely that they will get the deal that over the air radio has, which will lose them money relative to the status quo, so congress is poised to cut them a new asshole.
SoundExchange offers royalty compromise
By Austin Modine in Mountain View
Published Monday 2nd July 2007 23:15 GMTMusic industry taxman SoundExchange is offering a new deal to internet radio broadcasters who say upcoming royalty hikes will kill online broadcasting.
The proposed compromise puts a ceiling on the new set of hefty royalty rate hikes that takes effect July 15. Previously, the fee increase called for webcasters to be charged $500 per station per month in royalties. That would spell certain doom for stations such as Pandora and Live364 which offer thousands of streams over the internet.
Under SoundExchange’s latest olive branch, royalties would be capped at $2,500 per service, regardless of the overall number of stations or channels they are streaming.
“The idea that the per-channel minimum might have a disproportionate impact on certain internet radio stations was never presented to the Copyright Royalty Judges,” SoundExchange general counsel Michael Huppe said in a statement. “Nevertheless, at the request of Congress, we are trying to work with the small subset of affected webcasters, and are offering this proposal in the hopes of addressing those concerns.”
…