Scary? That's nothing.

There's a new privilege on the block and I don't think you've noticed it.

1) Copyright: The privilege to exclude others from performing or making copies 2) Patent: The privilege to exclude others from utilising a similar design 3) 3Strikes: The privilege to exclude others from accessing/utilising the Internet

What's more this new privilege doesn't require evidence to prosecute, it only requires evidence for a tribunal - to find grounds for an appeal against the assumption of guilt upon 3 accusations.

How would you transfer the equivalent of private ownership of the Internet to publishing corporations?

Easy. Grant them the privilege of excluding anyone (competitors and anyone else they didn't like).

Moreover, unlike having to get a court order to evict someone from your property, they have it easier. They just say "You're trespassing" three times and then flick an off switch. The victim then has to waste time borrowing someone else's Internet connection (who isn't going to be unworried by this) to wail about it.

What do you think is going to be done with such power?

Extortion: unfavourable deals will be offered instead of disconnection. Connections with very high '3strikes exempt' license fees will be offered to demonstrate that people don't remain disconnected, simply 'no longer trusted' with an unlicensed connection.

ACTA represents the corporations' effective control over the Internet. They don't need to control the technology, they simply need the power to exclude anyone they don't like.

This happened three centuries ago when the Stationers' guild decided to eliminate their competition from independents (aka pirates and seditionists). Today it's pirates, counterfeiters, terrorists and paedophiles - bogeymen to distract from 'independent/free publishers such as the FSF, and citizens with freedom of speech'.

Only criminals need freedom, upstanding citizens will be content consumers.

So, when they say "Graduated response" this means "Get the fuck off my property!"

Quote below from Justices Hear Patent Case on Protecting the Abstract, New York Times article.

"During the one-hour oral argument on Monday afternoon, the Bilski patent and its ilk also seemed to sit poorly with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who raised questions that suggested an interest in narrowing the scope of patents to more squarely focus on physical inventions and not abstract ideas and processes."

Looks like the Times is actually reporting for a change. Usually the paper, when it comes to reporting news dealing with intellectual property, writes biased articles that are pro intellectual property. Once again some sanity is surfacing at the Times.

You know, I actually see the outlined exchange as ridicule. I think Jakes did us a huge favor by outlining how far these patent crabs will go to suppress even to most fundamental social advancement.

You know, I actually see the outlined exchange as ridicule. I think Jakes did us a huge favor by outlining how far these patent crabs will go to suppress even to most fundamental social advancement.

Here's a tid-bit that seems to have been overlooked in patent arguments.

"MR. JAKES: It's very much related to our current economy and state of technology, with computers and the Internet and the free flow of information. But that's what --

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But a patent limits the free flow of information. It requires licensing fees and other steps, legal steps. So you can't argue that your definition is improving the free flow of information."

------------------------------------------------------------------

So Jakes claims patents are useful to society, because patents makes the technology "visible". The only problem, society is not able to freely use the technology. So how does that constitute progress?

Patents are best thought of as an electric motor with an efficiency of 1% that draws 50 amps from the car's battery in order to provide a feeble amount of power the wheels undriven by the combustion engine.

To the layman it seems the motor must contribute to the vehicle's progress.

Unfortunately a democracy is 99% laymen, and it is thus easy for motors to argue themselves into a position of power.

To those few engineers and thermodynamists it's a nightmare. One cannot argue that the motor does not provide some power to the wheels, and yet it still serves as an overall brake.

Wow, I didn't expect this at all, but the line of questioning from all the justices is almost making me giddy. I'm waiting for someone to bring up the idea of patenting a method to get in SCOTUS. Maybe I'm biased in my reading, but it seems like they're openly ridiculing Mr. Jakes at every turn. I just hope they realize it's idiots like Jakes who are currently running the asylum, and they better darn make a ruling that puts a stop to that. By pointing out all the ridiculous granted method patents, that show just how corrupt the patent system has become, I almost think Jakes is making a better case for a beneficial broad SCOTUS ruling than anyone trying to defend the lower court decision.

In the world view of the IP maximalist, even a method for "picking a jury" is patentable and subject to a monopoly. Imagine that you are a criminal defendant and your attorney has strategies for picking jurors that might be favorable to your arguments. gastrite enantematosa

口頭弁論のハイライトは、よく表示されます。租税回避法に関する私のresearch papersを持つだけの時間。