Michael L. Slonecker 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (424) comment rss

  • On the post: Some Quotes Of Note: Politicians Damning New Technologies/Cultural Artifacts

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 14 Jun, 2009 @ 09:52am

    While not a political quote, I am quite fond of the following quote that in my view generically reflects may of the quotes contained in the article

    "In case you're worried about what's going to become of the younger generation, it's going to grow up and start worrying about the younger generation."

    Roger Allen

  • On the post: EMI Loses Lawsuit To Prevent John Lennon's Imagine From Appearing In Expelled

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 11:29am

    Re: Re:

    Then it is fair to say that the moviemaker also lost since several of his arguments before the court were rejected as well.

  • On the post: Microsoft Sued Over User Editable Toolbar Patent

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 11:22am

    Just a couple observations...

    Mr. Odom provides services that include performing searches for prior art. It is doubtful he filed his initial application without having performed such a search.

    Some attorneys on another site have noted that a single reference was cited against this application during prosecution. What they have not done is also look at the original application. During the prosecution of his two applications (he filed one initially, but at a later date was split into two...likely because of a requirement imposed by the USPTO) 12 references were cited as prior art, 9 of them patents and 3 of them printed publications.

    Please note that I am not expressing any opinion on the validity of the patents. I am merely making two observations that may prove helpful.

  • On the post: Microsoft Sued Over User Editable Toolbar Patent

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 11:13am

    Re: Nothing new here

    His original application was filed November 6, 2000.

    BTW, you do not need QT to view USPTO documents. The site refers people to a small utility than permits viewing of the entire document.

  • On the post: EMI Loses Lawsuit To Prevent John Lennon's Imagine From Appearing In Expelled

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 09:38am

    Re:

    Merely as an aside, this case does not involve copyright infringement under federal copyright law. It involves infringement under New York State copyright law, as well as some unfair competition claims likewise governed by New York State law.

    I daresay few people are aware that "works" created prior to January 1, 1978 may be protected under both federal and state law. On January 1, 1978 continued state copyright grants were truncated by the newly enacted revisions to federal copyright law.

  • On the post: EMI Loses Lawsuit To Prevent John Lennon's Imagine From Appearing In Expelled

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 09:30am

    This article is plainly inaccurate and misleading. EMI did not lose and the moviemaker did not win.

    This matter involved a pre-trial motion for a preliminary injunction. The court decided, as it has the discretion to do, not to grant the motion and that trial on the merits would continue.

    This litigation is only in the "first inning" and has a long way to go before it concludes...by either a court entered judgement or a settlement between the two parties.

  • On the post: NTP Can't Leave Well Enough Alone Concerning RIM

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 20 Aug, 2008 @ 07:55am

    Re: Re: it also occurs to me

    "I'm stuck trying to work around you instead of doing something useful..."

    It seems to me that by crafting a work around you are doing something useful.

  • On the post: Yes, Marketing Matters To Innovation Too

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2008 @ 02:58pm

    Re: Re: whatever MLS said

    Point #1: Good marketing matters and is important

    Point #2: Numerous disciplines come into play to create and take a product to market, and in some industries even the law can be beneficially used...especially when your chief competitior is your customer.

  • On the post: Yes, Marketing Matters To Innovation Too

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2008 @ 10:46am

    As difficult as you may find this to believe, marketing (what I have always termed "business development") is in my view a critically important part of the product development process...including up front as the process starts. While my view certainly applies across a wide spectrum of industries, I have seen it play out on a daily basis in the aerospace industry, and particularly that portion of the industry associated with product development and manufacture (including follow-on product support) for the US and other government customers.

    I will say, however, that given the types of the goods and services associated with product development and manufacture for government customers, the nature of the business is such that in a large number of cases various combinations of patent, copyright, trade secret, trademark, and sensitive business information protection are an important adjunct to the achievement of business goals. To a significant degree this is due in part to the US Government's propensity to try and enter the market, typically internationally...but many times even domestically, in direct competition with the private developer/manufacturer.

  • On the post: Why Treating Patents As Property Is A Bad Idea

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 13 Aug, 2008 @ 09:08am

    As unintuitive as it may seem to some, every lawyer I know who practices extensively in the IP area starts off each discussion with the following:

    "Let's talk in detail about what you have done."

    As hard as it may be for some to believe, in my experience most of these discussions conclude with recommendations other than the preparation and filing of a patent application. Patents are merely one legal "tool" among many "tools". They are not a panacea.

  • On the post: Tiffany Still Confused About How Liability Works; Appeals eBay Decision

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2008 @ 01:01pm

    Re: Re: by MLS

    "Pre-chewed" is what happens when one allows someone else to think for them. It is intellectual laziness personified.

  • On the post: Why Treating Patents As Property Is A Bad Idea

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2008 @ 07:57am

    "It's quite a list... At this point, this post is long enough not to get into whether or not this is a good or bad proposal (suffice it to say, I think some of it makes sense, while other parts are troubling -- and I'd bet that patent system supporters will say the ones I think are good are bad, and the ones I think are bad are good), but wanted to post it up here for discussion."

    I would be interested to learn which ones you think are good and which ones you think are bad...and why.

    Since you crafted and posted the article for comment, perhaps you may want to consider the below paper and do the same:

    http://www.stanford.edu/dept/law/ipsc/pdf/barnett-jonathan.pdf

  • On the post: Why Treating Patents As Property Is A Bad Idea

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 12 Aug, 2008 @ 07:44am

    Re: Re:

    Your's is an interesting reaction since my comment was not directed to Mr. Lemley. Might I suggest that you re-read my comment and Mr. Lemley's paper, and then reflect for a moment on whether or not your editorial comments are truly accurate?

  • On the post: Tiffany Still Confused About How Liability Works; Appeals eBay Decision

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2008 @ 09:36pm

    Personally, I find it much more useful and informative to read a brief versus relying on select quotes contained in a news account.

  • On the post: Why Treating Patents As Property Is A Bad Idea

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2008 @ 09:29pm

    No attorneys I have ever met who are intimately familiar with US Patent Law have ever suggested that patents and real property are "kissing cousins", and Lemley's comments are consistent with the conventional wisdom among practitioners with many years of experience under their belt.

    The title of your article is inaccurate in the sense that Lemley is not talking in the least about error in classifying patents as some form of property, but only about viewing it as analogous to real property. His example of why this is so is manifestly self-evident, something that I and those of my colleagues who have considered this matter long ago concluded.

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 11 Aug, 2008 @ 08:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Okay, what was it again that each of us believes is appropriate for Copyright law?

    Perhaps if you read the entire comment you would understand what it is I am trying to say. If you take the time to read the work of Messrs. Epstein and Mossoff (among many others who explore the concepts of law associated with the term "property") you may better appreciate my references to "liberty" and "property".

    Likewise, if you read the comment in its entirety you will discover it was made in response to a post by Mr. Mohanon, who was generally commenting on the the positions proferred by many of the people posting comments on this subject in this and other threads. Like him I find many of these positions very confusing and not at all clear.

    In a post above I ask why a person used the plural "we" instead of the singular "I". Since you do the same perhaps you may wish to explain why this is so.

    As I stated on several prior occassions, I do have substantial concerns over the scholarship of those upon whose work you rely upon as evidence of the opinions you express. This is so because in each instance I have studied their work and I was immediately struck by the inadequacy of many of their initial assumptions, not to mention their reliance on raw numbers without any attempt to look behind those numbers. Merely by way of a single example, some of them have pointed to Italy and the number of drug compies existing pre and post enactement of patent laws. In my view raw numbers are essentially meaningless without further analysis. For example, what was the nature of the products manufactured by each such companies pre and post patent? Were mergers taken into account in calculating the raw number post-patent? Was there a change in R&D investment pre and post patent? Was there an increase/decrease in revenue pre and post patent? Etc., etc.

    Let me reiterate. If at any time you have [a] question(s) about any of my comments, please feel free to ask for clarification.

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2008 @ 10:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Okay, what was it again that each of us believes is appropriate for Copyright law?

    "We don't think..."
    "We think..."

    I am not at all clear on why you have chosen to use the plural "we" in lieu of the singular "I".

    "...monopolies privileges infringing on private property rights."

    Please try and overlook my ignorance, but I am at a loss trying to understand the point you are making. For example, if I were to recieve a patent covering an improved method for manufacturing a "flex circuit board", what private property right would I be infringing by virtue of having received a patent? Obviously, I may very well infringe the rights of one or more persons who hold patents on prior methods associated with the manufacture of "flex circuit boards", but since you have stated your opinion that such pre-existing patents are not rightfully characterized as private property, then precisely what do you consider to be private property rights that I would be infringing?

    The very same thing can be said for other government grants of the type I noted above that do not involve either patent or copyright law. Here in Florida the state each year holds a lottery and issues a limited number or alligator hunting licenses authorizing each license holder to "harvest" about two alligators. Each hunter has been granted a very limited government authorization that is denied to every other member of the public. These other members of the public can look at gators, but they cannot hunt them and profit from an unlicensed "harvest".

    Since wild animals, so called animals "Feræ naturæ, are by law incapable of being considered "property" unless and until captured, and since only those with a duly issued license are authorized by law to attempt such capture, what possible private property right is at stake and infringed by the issuance of these very few hunting licenses?

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2008 @ 12:40pm

    Re: Re: Okay, what was it again that each of us believes is appropriate for Copyright law?

    By "monopolies" I presume you mean any grant by a sovereign government of a "right" to a specific member/group of the public. In the context of patent and copyright law this would embrace the 5 rights conferred under patents and the 6 rights conferred under copyright. In the context of other sovereign grants I presume this would similarly extend to the allocation of the broadcast spectrum, oil drilling grants, tree harvesting grants, land grants via land patents, mineral exploration grants, restricted licenses for hunting animals, etc. It is noteworthy that in all of these latter examples select individuals are enabled to exploit various resources to the exclusion of the public at large. Like authors and inventors, the holders of these various grants will naturally expend considerable time and effort to try and secure the resource. Like authors and inventors, no guarantee is provided from such grants that the time and effort will yield anything of value, but if perchance the time and effort pans out such that something of value is obtained, then they are positioned to exclusively exploit the fruits of their labor.

    Given the general tenor of remarks by those opposed to the concept of patent and copyright grants because they represent monopolies, then I presume that the same logic applies with respect to all other forms of government grants of the type as generally noted above.

    Let me take this one step further. It seems that many here seem to believe that somehow "property" and "law" are separate and distinct concepts. May I be so bold as to suggest they are not, for without the arm of the law being available for enforcing property rights the entire concept of property fails within those societies that eschew the notion that "might is right" and "self-help" should be the order of the day.

  • On the post: How Copyright Is Holding Back The Creative Class

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 10 Aug, 2008 @ 10:02am

    Re: Okay, what was it again that each of us believes is appropriate for Copyright law?

    "I can't figure out what each of us believes anymore, so I have no idea where the arguments are come from or are going to."

    An honest observation that I wish others would openly acknowledge as well. Perhaps then a debate could take place where reason rules and emotion is relegated to the sidelines.

    As a lawyer intimately familiar with copyright law at all levels (philosophical underpinnings, history, implementation by law, variations on an international level, treaties, etc.), I first took a look at this site in April or so to try and gain an understanding of how others view copyright law. For example, the attitudes concerning P2P were truly perplexing. I would like to think I am now better informed, but the truth of the matter is that this is far from the case. The "it's theft...no it's not", "it's property...no it's not", "I am being held back in my creativity because of copyright law...no you aren't", and other similar diagreements seem to be to overlook (or perhaps disingenuously ignore) a more fundamental question. Are there certain classes/groups in society who place a higher value on any restraint of their "liberty" than that of an author (e.g., a book, music, film, software, etc.) who only naturally seeks the opportunity to attempt to profit in some manner for their time and effort expended creating a new and original work of authorship (which for purposes of law have been characterized as "property".

    Professer Epstein at the University of Chicago several years ago published a paper entitled "Liberty versus Property" that delves into many of these issues. I would find it quite reassuring for a debate on the merits/demerits of current copyright law to take place with his comments foremost in the minds of those on both sides of the issue. The same can be said for the work of Professor Mossoff.

    To understand an issue one must be prepared to seriously entertain the views of those who what devoted their professional careers to carefully studying all sides of of an issue. Copyright is no exception.

    Personally, I find it much more informative to interact with experts in the field, as opposed to those who have merely a limited understanding of the issue and advance positions that are difficult to comprehend and chocked full of intellectual inconsistencies. It is indeed unfortunate that those with a limited understanding appear unwilling to accept that copyright law is filled with nuances, and it is by appreciating these nuances that a meaningful debate can take place.

    Until this happens I must agree with your sentiment.

  • On the post: Totally Misunderstanding Movie Downloading In France

    Michael L. Slonecker ( profile ), 09 Aug, 2008 @ 02:04pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Theft vs Infringement

    Mr. Masnick expresses the view he shares with others that "intangibles" (at least with respect to copyrights) should not be classified as "property", and then draws on his view to make the point that one cannot "steal" something that is not "property".

    My sole point is to note that such views notwithstanding, there are laws in place (Florida being one) that do declare intangibles as property, and then go on to declare that certain actions respecting such intangibles are deemed to fall under the law as constituting criminal acts.

    Importantly, I express no opinion on the wisdom, or lack thereof, of such laws.

Next >>