Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit”–coming soon to a soap ad near you?
So far Courtney Love is ruling that out, but chances are we’ll be hearing more of the seminal grunge band’s music in unexpected places now that Kurt Cobain’s cash-strapped widow has agreed to sell off a 25 percent stake in the Nirvana song catalog in a deal valued at $50 million, per Rolling Stone.
[…] To preemptively squelch backlash from fans worried about the over-commercialization of a decidedly anticorporate band, Love sought to assure the Nirvana faithful that the music won’t simply be licensed to the highest bidder.
“We’re going to remain very tasteful, and we’re going to [retain] the spirit of Nirvana and take Nirvana places it’s never been before,” Love told the magazine.
[…] Following her husband’s 1994 suicide, Love became the primary benefactor of Cobain’s estate, which included ownership rights of more than 98 percent of Nirvana’s song catalog. The other two former members, Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, own the remainder–slightly less than 2 percent split between them. The new deal does not affect their portion.
What, that’s not what Eolas wanted?Â Interesting what market power affords a software developer, isn’t it?Â Eolas: Changing IE User Experience a Shame
Reacting to news that the next cumulative IE security update will require an extra mouse-click to interact with certain embedded multimedia content, Eolas Chief Operating Officer Mark Swords called on the software maker to purchase a patent license instead of worsening the browsing experience.
In an interview with eWEEK, Swords declined to respond to questions regarding the ongoing litigation, which is wending its way through an appeals process, but insisted that the Chicago-based company is open to negotiating a settlement that allows Microsoft to license its technology.
[…] He said the IE modifications spelled out by Microsoft, which will reportedly disrupt the way online advertising and streaming media content is delivered over the Internet, is an inconvenience users could do without.
The phones _ carrying the seal of approval from Israel’s rabbinical authorities _ have been one of the most successful mergers of technology and centuries-old tradition in the ultra-Orthodox community, which is most widely recognized by the men’s black garb based on the dress of 19th century European Jews.
The kosher phone is stripped down to its original function: making and receiving calls. There’s no text messaging, no Internet access, no video options, no camera. More than 10,000 numbers for phone sex, dating services and other offerings are blocked. A team of rabbinical overseers makes sure the list is up to date.
These are the same rabbis who have told followers to scorn television and radio. But mobile phones are considered just too essential in one of the world’s most tech-friendly nations. The ultra-Orthodox account for about 7 percent of Israel’s 7 million people.
Datapoints for, or inspiration from, Genevieve Bell?
In my view, rules ensuring network neutrality are indispensable.
I understand that there are those who argue that we should rely on mere network neutrality â€œprinciples,â€ or an imprecisely-worded FCC policy statement, rather than legally enforceable rules. Others will advise us to take a â€œwait-and-seeâ€ approach.
Yet we know from public statements from several industry executives that the owners of the broadband wires into our homes would like to start charging fees to Internet content providers. In other words, they want to artificially constrain the supply of Internet-based content and services to high-bandwidth consumers. This represents nothing more than the imposition of a broadband bottleneck tax on electronic commerce. Such a bottleneck tax for accessing consumers will undoubtedly have a chilling effect on investment and innovation.
There are some out there who will inevitably ask the question, â€œBut why shouldnâ€™t Google pay?â€ Google certainly has a very large market cap and presumably could afford to pay. But that is precisely the wrong question to ask. The question to ask is whether Larry Page and Sergey Brin could have afforded to pay circa 1998, whether Chief Yahoo Jerry Yang could have afforded to pay a broadband behemoth circa 1995, whether Marc Andreesen, the founder of Netscape, could have afforded to pay anyone, anything, circa 1994.
If there is an entrepreneur in some proverbial garage somewhere today, whose idea is new, whose product is still in â€œbeta,â€ their dreams are just as real and valid as Larryâ€™s, Sergeyâ€™s, Jerryâ€™s, and Marcâ€™s were an Internet-generation ago. We should be doing everything we can in public policy to ensure that this successful Internet model continues to drive innovation, economic growth, and job creation.
Instead, the proposed bill before us effectively condones online discrimination and then ties the hands of the agency from promulgating any guidelines to address it. The Barton bill actually says the FCC that it can never adopt rules to protect the Internet experience for the millions of entrepreneurs and consumers who rely on it.
One of the great examples of domains where innovation (?) is vibrant despite the absence of formal copyright protections is up for reconsideration, apparently: O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War
Designers like Diane Von Furstenberg, Narciso Rodriguez and Zac Posen have been journeying there to lobby for copyright protections like those governing books, music and other creative arts. Mr. Posen was in Washington on Tuesday with Steven Kolb, the executive director of the council, who said a bill could be introduced in Congress as early as today by Representative Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican.
[…] Copyright law protects a creator of original material â€” like a songwriter or screenwriter â€” for her life plus 70 years. But clothing is not protected. In 1998 Representative Howard Coble, a Republican from North Carolina, introduced a revision to the copyright law that classified boat hulls as a design protected for 10 years. Citing the boat hull statute, fashion designers are asking for similar protection for clothing designs for three years.
Hypothetically that would mean that Allen B. Schwartz, the owner and designer of ABS, the leading brand in the $300 million business of Oscar knockoffs, would be restricted to selling copies of the embroidered beige Elie Saab gown worn by Halle Berry in 2003, not the latest Vera Wang yellow butterfly ruffles for Michelle Williams.
“That is the most ridiculous thing,” Mr. Schwartz said. “There is no such thing as an original design. All these designers are getting their inspiration from things that were done before. To me a spaghetti strap is a spaghetti strap, and a cowl neck is a cowl neck.”
Well, good luck with that argument; it hasn’t really worked in the past.Â Here’s a little more from the article:
The reason clothing design is not protected under copyright or trademark law in the United States is that it is considered foremost as a utilitarian item, not an artistic expression or scientific invention. (Logos, however, and some design signatures â€” like the three stripes on Adidas track suits â€” are protected from copying under trademark statutes.)
But the designers’ trade group argues that the legal principle exempting fashion from copyright protection â€” a 200-year-old idea that useful objects should be unregulated to encourage the growth of industry â€” is outdated in this era of sophisticated mass copying.
“The whole underpinning of that 200-year-old law of functionality was to promote creativity and innovation,” said Alain Coblence, a lawyer hired by the Council of Fashion Designers and by fashion trade groups in Paris and Milan, which also promote the legislation. “Yet the situation is exactly the reverse because designers now must ask what is the incentive to innovate if you know your creation is going to be stolen within days and your designs are going to be used before you have a chance to use them for yourself?”
Although designers have occasionally pursued cases of design piracy in court, only the most egregious cases have been successful. In 1980 a federal appellate court held that a pair of belt buckles by the accessories designer Barry Kieselstein-Cord were not ordinary buckles but had reached the level of creative art. (A dissenting judge argued, “Innovations of form are inseparable from the more important function they serve â€” helping to keep the tops of trousers at waist level.”)
The courts have a proven track record of fashioning balanced remedies for the copyright challenges created by new technologies. But when Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in 1998, it cut the courts out of this role and instead banned any devices that “circumvent” digital rights management (DRM) technologies, which control access to copyrighted content.
The result has been a legal regime that reduces options and competition in how consumers enjoy media and entertainment. Today, the copyright industry is exerting increasing control over playback devices, cable media offerings, and even Internet streaming. Some firms have used the DMCA to thwart competition by preventing research and reverse engineering. Others have brought the weight of criminal sanctions to bear against critics, competitors, and researchers.
The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holdersâ€”and the technology companies that distribute their contentâ€”the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates.
Fortunately, repeal of the DMCA would not lead to intellectual property anarchy. Prior to the DMCA’s enactment, the courts had already been developing a body of law that strikes a sensible balance between innovation and the protection of intellectual property. That body of law protected competition, consumer choice, and the important principle of fair use without sacrificing the rights of copyright holders. And because it focused on the actions of people rather than on the design of technologies, it gave the courts the flexibility they needed to adapt to rapid technological change.
PDF link to the full report
Related, at Slashdot: DRM and the Myth of the Analog Hole
The various summaries and discussions of yesterday‘s Supreme Court hearing:
- Washington Post: High Court Considers EBay Case On Patent [pdf]
Some patent experts said yesterday that eBay v. MercExchange, No. 05-130, is likely to spur action on Capitol Hill. A House bill introduced by Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R-Tex.) would essentially back software companies’ interests by allowing permanent injunctions only in cases in which the patent holder could prove it would suffer irreparable harm without one. But the bill is on hold, stymied largely by opposition from the pharmaceutical industry.
“I think the biggest issue this is going to result in is a more urgent push for patent reform” among legislators, said Brian Ferguson, a patent attorney in Washington who did not represent either side in this case. “There is a concern that the patent office is overwhelmed and it isn’t doing as good a job as it could” in reviewing existing technologies or issuing patents in new technology areas, he said.
The Bush administration, faced with a division within the business community, weighed in on MercExchange’s side. But its cautious brief urged the court to address the specific issues in the case, instead of trying to address “general policy concerns respecting potential abuse of the patent system.”
[…] The district judge reasoned that, among other things, MercExchange was not practicing the patents and was willing to license its technologies to other companies.
The judge also cited “growing concern over the issuance of business-method patents” as a reason that an injunction would not be in the public interest.
- Others to be added as found….
MercExchange has a page of the district court orders.
EBay said it learned on March 27 that the Patent Office had dismissed arguments raised by MercExchange to a prior rejection of that company’s claims.
To the casual eye, the clothes’ graphics look like the latest in urban cool, but step a little closer and you’ll see words embedded in the designs. Each word translates into a secret code that when typed into the Edoc website (edoclaundry.com) unlocks a video that plays into a larger story. It’s a game â€” piece together enough clues, and the players solve a murder mystery.
Landing in boutique stores and online outlets last week, Edoc’s shirts, caps, wallets, belts and backpacks are the newest permutation in alternate reality games, or ARGs — games that blur boundaries between the virtual and real worlds using websites, blogs, instant messaging, e-mail, telephones, fax machines and more to bring players together in solving a multilayered puzzle. Conceived as marketing tools for movies, video games and other products, some ARGs are now becoming commercially viable in their own right.
It’s been five years since the first ARG sent players on a story-based scavenger hunt both on- and offline. Since then, thousands have joined in, and dozens of games have come and gone, doling out clues on the Web and sending players into the real world to pick up ringing pay phones, play poker in cemeteries and engage in acts of derring-do.
[…] “Our society’s become increasingly adept at filtering out all the marketing messages they’re barraged with constantly,” said [42 Entertainment’s Jordan] Weisman, whose company plans to branch out into non-product-pushing ARGs later this year. “Our premise was, maybe it’s time to whisper as opposed to scream. If you’re providing entertainment and they enjoy it, then they’ll seek it out as opposed to filter it out.”
This is not the language I would have hoped for from any lawyer, much less a Supreme Court Justice. Based on this account, anyway, it’s clear that the Court has no desire to tackle the hard question and, luckily for them, they have a nice narrow out to let them wriggle through — still, what an example of how “property” thinking has come to pervade this discussion! And from a “strict constructionist” justice! I wonder what the Founders would have to say about his construction of what a patent is: Justices question eBay patent arguments [pdf]
Several of the justices expressed skepticism during oral arguments about eBay’s contention that a federal appeals court had made it too easy for patent owners to get injunctions barring the use of their technologies.
“You’re talking about a property right, and the property right is explicitly the right to exclude others,” Justice Antonin Scalia told eBay’s lawyer. “That’s what a patent right is … give me my property back.”
I look forward to the analyses that we’ll find tomorrow. CNet’s (by Anne Broache and Declan McCullagh) is here: Supreme Court hears eBay’s patent appeal. They give a little more context to the Scalia quote, but it’s still an assertion that patents “are” property rights rather than “like” property rights:
Justice Antonin Scalia questioned eBay’s argument that companies should be treated differently if they don’t actually use the patents they own in business–such companies are often derisively called “patent trolls.”
“Why should we draw a distinction between the solo inventor who needs a patent speculation firm to market his invention and somebody else?” Scalia asked. “We’re talking about a property right here, and a property right is the exclusive right to exclude others.”
And a priceless quote from the new Chief Justice that suggests that there might at least be something in dicta about what ought to be patentable:
Chief Justice John Roberts drew laughter from the usually taciturn court audience when he made a quip about his interpretation of MercExchange’s patent. “It’s displaying pictures of your wares on a computer monitor and picking the ones you want. I might be able to do that.
“It’s not (like the patent describes) the internal combustion engine,” he added. “It’s very vague.”
FOR INCLUDING a 60-second piece of silence on their album, the Planets were threatened with a lawsuit by the estate of composer John Cage, which said theyâ€™d ripped off his silent work 4â€™33â€. The Planets countered that the estate failed to specify which 60 of the 273 seconds in Cageâ€™s piece had been pilfered.
[…] AFTER INTEL was sued for libel for calling someone a â€œpatent extortionist,â€ one of its lawyers coined the term â€œpatent troll.â€
[…] MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.â€™s estate charges academic authors $50 for each sentence of the â€œI Have a Dreamâ€ speech that they reprint.