micks56

I will not pay for AP stories or similar ones. Usually the headline contains as much content as the story.

What I will pay for are those incredibly written expose stories that appear in magazines from time to time. I do not care enough about music to purchase a subscription to Rolling Stone. I do want to read their longer essays though, for example the one on McCain a couple months ago.

I never would have thought to read Gourmet. But I loved David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster. I would have paid for that article alone. The rest of the magazine doesn't interest me much.

I would also pay for newspaper stories that are more than just daily reporting. I want the investigative stuff. Stories with insight.

I would consider a monthly subscription to the WSJ so I could get their daily news.

I would pay for the WSJ and NYT op-ed pages so I could read the letters written by CEO's. big time politicians, etc.

It would be a good learning experience to see an experienced lawyer in action. Sure beats reading hundreds of pages of trial transcripts. Reading a transcript is not the same as seeing the play in person.

My friend told me in 1999/2000 that his father had declining sales. More and more papers were either not buying the next version, putting off purchasing decisions, or simply going out of business or consolidating.

So the 1999-2000 time frame is obviously not pre-internet. But I think there are other factors besides people reading the newspaper on the internet instead of buying a print version.

I canceled my subscription because the delivery person couldn't get it to my front door. Sometimes the paper landed on the roof of my house. Sometimes he put it in the snow in front of my house. Other times it simply got rained on.

I also think the custom of reading the daily paper is going away. People aren't just reading the paper online instead of in print. They are watching the 6pm news instead of reading the print paper. Maybe even more people aren't doing that.

Your best bet is to ask around at the Chamber of Commerce or other business meetups near you.

Whether you are infringing depends on how the patent claims are drafted. That I cannot tell you because I can't give legal advice.

If you want to learn for yourself before going to a patent attorney, pick up a law school textbook and start reading. The law isn't hard. You just need to understand how the courts have interpreted the Patent Act.

I used this one in law school (used copy will be fine): http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Trademark-Copyri...

Get the supplement, too (supplement gives you the recent updates to the law): http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Materials-Supple...

You have knowledge of an existing patent and knowledge that you appear to be infringing.

Again, you need a lawyer. Get an IP attorney.

I didn't attempt to distinguish between trade dress and trade mark. It is difficult for a person studying IP to understand. I thought it would only confuse things.

But yes, you are right. And you explained it better than I would have.

There is no way to know in advance that your look and feel doesn't accidentally resemble some of the existing millions of websites.

I agree with you and so does the law.

The first required element of proof in any copyright claim is that the alleged infringer had access to the plaintiff's copyrighted work. Basically if you never saw the copyrighted work you are not infringing if your work is substantially similar or appears to be a derivative work.

For another reason why copyright probably (I say probably because you can never predict how a jury will decide) does not apply is the merger doctrine. That is when an idea and the expression of the idea become one. That is not copyrightable.

For the UI to have a trademark, and it could, the 37S UI would have to cause a person to recognize that the UI is by 37S. This will be very difficult for them to achieve. The Nike swoosh is trademarked because it immediately causes a person to know that it is by Nike. Same with the Reebok symbol. A person knowing who designed a UI on a web app by its colors is a stretch.

Also, functional elements cannot be trademarked. So an excellent screen layout that improves usability cannot be part of a trademark. But the colors and artistic arrangement could be.

Lastly, yes, you do need to register your copyright to sue. No, mailing yourself a copy does not work at all. Do not do it. Read 17 U.S.C §412 for the reason. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode17/usc_sec_17_000005...

Then go read §504 and §505 for more reasons.

Jon also worked on the Deval Patrick campaign for governor in Massachusetts, too. Jon wrote his speeches, too.

And the US cannot bail out the Federal Reserve. The United States borrows from the Federal Reserve and pays the Federal Reserve interest on that money. In other words, the US gets its money from the Fed.

A bailout of the Fed would require the US to borrow money from the Fed, who doesn't actually have any money because they need a bailout.

My notes are better because I can edit without crossing out. I can insert, delete, and copy+paste.

I make bold, italics, larger print, etc.

My notes are in outline format from the beginning. There is no need for me to waste time by typing my notes at a later date. Trust me. In law school you need a very comprehensive outline to take a final. Handwritten notes won't get you there. Also, when it comes time to take the bar, you want your old outlines. They will get lost in print form.

Also, several classes require you to have the text of large volumes of statutes. I am talking 1000 pages of statutes per class. I have electronic copies of those. That saves me from having to carry extra books (not to mention the tress).

Also, I can search my notes, cases, and statutes to find the information I need. I am not flipping through a book with 1000 pages of statutes. I can simply search for "notice" in UCC Article 9 and it will bring me to every single statute where notice matters. Very awesome.

I also search my notes and outlines from classes I already took to serve as a refresher when outside issues arise. Very handy.

Of course the computer can be a distraction. But it is a damn good learning tool, too. When it is time to listen, I stop taking notes. When a student or professor says something important, I write it down, just as if I used paper.

I stand corrected. Lamborghini and Toyota would have valid copyrights in their design, even if the Toyota is relatively boring.

Personal use defenses still stand however...

And I agree about trademark being the biggest issue, perhaps coupled with infringement on design patents held by Lamborghini.

No matter what this guy has an extremely strong personal use defense. He has zero effect on the market and is not distributing.

What I was trying to explain is that the people buying the T-Bills aren't individuals looking to put their money some place safe. These are large institutional investors looking to park millions (hundreds of millions?) of dollars in a safe place till they can figure out what to do.

That would be my guess as to why they want to stash their money away for 90 days. After 3 months the buyer can find out which bank still exists to even take a cash deposit. Cash in the T-Bill and decide what to do. In the meantime, buyers have 3 months to figure out what to do in this market. Its almost like hitting a pause button with your money and giving yourself time to think this out.

ps. Not a finance guy here by any means.

These are a few notable settlements in the software patent field:

1. $106 million to Acacia from various companies throughout all computer industries in the first nine months of 2007.

2. $100 million from Apple to Creative for the iPod’s user interface.

3. $133 million paid by Microsoft and Autodesk for their software registration systems.

4. $80 million from Vonage to Sprint-Nextel for the right to use Vonage’s own telecommunications software.

5. “At least” $80 million from Vonage to Verizon for same; perhaps as much as $117 million.

6. $612 million paid by Research in Motion to NTP for the Blackberry email system.

Also, I am not sure spending $250k to defend a patent lawsuit is a compliment. I agree that worrying now is premature optimization, but the $250k to defend doesn't cover your potential damages.

I am not sure RIM took NTP suing them as a compliment.

The Supreme Court of the US has ruled that patents can be obtained for "anything under the sun." Exceptions carved out by the same court are for laws of nature, maths, and abstract ideas.

So you can't patent F=ma, but things in web e-mail clients could be patented.

There is no way to tell if you are infringing without actually reading the patent claims. So until the patents are granted, you don't have anything to analyze.

Also, their patented claims do not have to be identical to what you are doing. If it is obvious to someone skilled in the art that what you are doing is a modification of what your competitor is doing, then that could also be infringement. This is why you see the language "in one embodiment" in patents. The drafters are not limiting themselves to the claimed implementation, but are trying to do a land grab that people skilled in the art would do after reading this application.

In legalese this is called the doctrine of equivalents. The United States section on the wikipedia page for doctrine of equivalents is currently accurate. You will see the standard there.

But from reading this it appears this may be one of the best examples of why not to play around with lawyer stuff if you are not a lawyer.

Don't write a partnership agreement. Form a corporation and then you are not liable for the debts of others. That is law 101.

Am I missing something to this story?

The use in the case you are referring to had several extra elements which prompted the court to not find copyright infringement.

2 Live Crew was fair use because their work was transformative. They took a beat and changed words to a Roy Orbison song. They did not blindy copy, as the question asker will be doing. They took the score, not the words.

The poster is taking the story, not quotes. His site is not transformative, and therefore his commercial use is not fair

Examples are an ISP that merely provides access to the internet. The ISP cannot be sued for copyright infringement just because infringing bits passed through its servers.

Also, a message board that posts whatever a user writes would obtain DMCA safe harbor. They just provide a service and don't screen out for content. An example is Craigslist.

This person's site DOES NOT enjoy DMCA safe harbor. He scraped the other site and populated his own. He is not even acting as a service provider as the DMCA statute prescribes.

The user owns copyright to the article or story that he wrote. This ownership of copyright gives the user the right to decide how it is distributed. For you to use the material legally, you must get permission of the copyright holder. The user may be the copyright holder, or the site may be if the user transfers the ownership. Either way, someone owns the copyright and it is not you. You need permission.

There are two defenses to copyright infringement: 1) fair use, and 2) parody.

Parody probably doesn't fit here. So that means you need to make a case for fair use.

Fair use has 4 elements:

1: The purpose of the use (commercial vs. non-commercial/educational) - if you are going to make money on this, fair use is out.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work - This doesn't really apply here, so I won't go into the lengthy explanation.

3. Amount of portion used in relation to the whole - Did you extract a quote? That is probably ok. Did you copy the entire article? Probably not ok.

4. Effect upon the market - if your site harms the market of the other site, no fair use.

Businesses are supposed to register in each state that they do business in. This is easy to understand for brick and mortars. Any place you have a store, register with the state. It gets a little murkier with internet companies.

So, just incorporate for now. Get the limited liability. You do need limited liability so you don't lose your house, car, or anything else you may have an interest in. It is so easy to incorporate and pay the few hundred dollar fee each year, so do it.

"Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit has ruled that merely loading an algorithm onto a general-purpose computer and executing it transforms it into a patentable invention."

That is also true, and furthermore, which Lee doesn't point out, is that the Supreme Court has affirmed this. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

The often cited landmark case that affirmed this is State Street Bank. See State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Mass. 1998).

That decision ruled that an algorithm that is calculated by a computer meets the statutory subject matter of patentable inventions. The Federal Circuit in Massachusetts decided that case. The Supreme Court declined to review the decision because at that time the SCOTUS thought the Federal Court got it right.

I am still reviewing Lee's other analysis. There is lots of stuff there. It will take some more time.

I will re-iterate the points from my previous post. Extensive due diligence is a must. You need to make sure their goals are exactly in line with yours. It is very difficult to move a CM in a direction they aren't already going.

Here is what I would recommend based on my experiences:

1. Interview employees at the CM. Talk to the people that will be building your product. Talk to the bosses and their bosses. Talk to the people in the warehouse. Talk to the accountants. Talk to their suppliers. You need to find out how things are run. Try to see if you can shadow people in key departments at the CM.

2. Talk to their customers. Get a current and past customer list. Talk to the customers that walked away and find out why. Lots of good info here.

3. Find out when building starts. Show up unannounced and see how things are going. I recommend this throughout the relationship till you are confident that things are how you want them to be. This keeps the CM honest.

If you are making something for others to use, incorporate. It will cost you a few hundred dollars per year in filing fees, but that is just a type of insurance against times like this.

Mass. Rule 4: http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/mrcp4.html Federal Rule 4: http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule4.htm

Did you receive a summons or was it just a printout of what we saw in the TC article? Insufficient service is grounds for dismissal. The plaintiff has time to correct, though.

You should see if there are any users in Delaware. If not, I doubt you can be compelled to court there. Even if you do have users in Delaware, it is a stretch.

For everyone on YC News, this is a reason to incorporate in your home state, not Delaware. Incorporate in Delaware if you want VC funding. Otherwise, stay in your home state. If you incorporate in Delaware, or any other state for that matter, courts automatically grant personal jurisdiction in that state. Basically, that means you have to go to court there.

This is also a reason to incorporate. Right now shimon is personally liable for damages, if any.

If you and/or the other defendants don't litigate the validity of the patent well and lose that issue, future parties are barred from re-litigating that issue.

A strategy of a small guy is to try and bring in a large guy to litigate an issue that will be very important to them in the future (i.e. eBay, Amazon, or whoever else may be infringing the patent).

Where are you incorporated, if at all? If you are not incorporated in Delaware, do you have customers in Delaware? If not, did you advertise for customers in Delaware?

I read the filing. The person that filed it is really stretching to get Delaware as the place for all the suits. I don't think that many of these companies will be forced to litigate in Delaware. You are included in that assessment.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a second year law student. If you want more information, post here or feel free to send me an email. I relatively near you in Mass, too.