CNET sued over LimeWire, blamed for "Internet Piracy Phenomenon"

Alki David, the wealthy film producer and entrepreneur behind sites like FilmOn, announced last year in aYouTube video that he intended to sue CNET and its

owner, CBS, for providing hundreds of millions of downloads of LimeWire P2P software over the last decade. Today, he made good on his threat, rounding up some rap and R&B musicians to join his case.


The plaintiffs argue that CNET had "direct participation in massive copyright infringement on peer-to-peer systems, such as LimeWire, that are used to copy and distribute songs, films and other artistic works," and that CNET's Download.com was the "main distributor" of the software. P2P software isn't illegal, though companies that use it to induce or encourage copyright infringement can be held liable. The principle, most famously articulated by the US Supreme Court in the Grokster shutdown, was extended to LimeWire last year when a federal judge shut down most of the company's activity.


I think this law suite is just another example of how the music industry is trying to hold on to the scraps of their former business. Suing CNET a desperate move to try to make money. CNET distributed fully legal software and never broke any laws. If you can make the connection to CNET and internet piracy then why not just Blame Apple or Mircosoft? Why does Apple allow illegal down loads on there OS?


There biggest argument is comparing them to selling guns. But guess what, no gun company has every been sued for making guns so it is a stupid analogy.

Breaking Law News!! The End of Class Action lawsuits?

Breaking Law New!!  The End of Class Action lawsuits?

The Supreme Court began a new term last month, and, as usual, its docket is filled with high-profile cases. Sometimes, however, the cases that are the most important keep the lowest profiles. That's true this term. This week, the court will hear what could be its most important case in years, and I'll bet you have never even heard of it.

Earlier this the Supreme Court rules that AT&T's terms of agreement, that states that they are exempt from class action lawsuits, will be upheld.  Basically they are talking about that annoying Terms of Service Agreement that agree too when you buy anything or and also that agreement you have to click when using anything on your computer.

AT&T snuck in a clause that stated that by using there products you are agreeing to waiver the right to sue them in a class action lawsuit.  This is illegal in most states and was turned down in all lower level courts un till it was taken to the supreme courts and was quickly overturned.

This is a huge case because they basically just got rid of class action law suits and have thrown out a large chunk of the legal code.  It is as if AT&T just magically wrote down that you cannot sue them and it become law.  So now the law is that you cannot sue AT&T because AT&T does not want you to sue them.  And now that this case was won every single companies will out the same thing in any of there documentation.

This does not only apply to computer related companies just because you did not actually read or sign anything.  When you buy anything on the market you are implying that you agree to there terms of service.

This is new pro large business and very bad for the consumer and will only make the price of living keep rising.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/idINIndia-56621320110428

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-deals-blow-to-consumer-class-actions-2011-04-28

In memory of Carl Sagan

I remember as a young child watching the Carl Sagan series Cosmos and i can remember that changed my life and expanded my view of the entire world.  Now the entire Cosmos series is streaming on Netflix and even though it was made in the 80's the content really hold up.  I it not only about outer space but he talks about the role of life and humans in the universe.

One great thing that he points out is about life in the universe.  Given the vastness of space and the time the universe has been around there must be life on other planets.  But here is the thing we are separated not only by distance but we are separated by time.  Even if there was plant with life on it across the universe right now and we launched a ship to go there, by the time we get there they may be all extinct or the planet may nat even exist anymore.

I would go as far to say that he is anti religion even though he does not say that directly.   He points out that how the dark ages and the rise of the western religions as held back societies potential.  The dark ages are called that because of the information black out.  Nothing was being learned and science was looked at as bad and all the Knowledge of Greeks and Romans was lost.  The ancient Greeks and Romans embraced  philosophy and science and promoted learning. Then from the start of the first century until  almost 2000 years later when Galileo and the people that came afterward that help society come out of the dark ages and look to the future.

Ok now what does that mean?  Well if you look at all the technology around us we can see that technology grows exponentially when it is free to evolve and move forward.  Just imagine how far we will advance in the next 1000 years.  What if science could get back that lost 1000 years of the dark ages?  What would our world be like to day?  What if scientist have figured out electricity 1000 years ago? We could have all had computers 1000 years ago if the power that be embraced science. and today we would live in a world that is a thousand year in our future.

Of course they know where you are!

If you were ever under the impression that the location of your cell phone is unknown then you have little comprehension of how cell phones work.

In the last weeks there have been a loud uproar and even a few law suites about cell phones keeping location tracking data.  Many people think that the phone companies should not have access to the location of the user.  But of course they know exactly where you are  they are beaming a signal from outer space to hand.  They know exactly where you are at all times. it is the nature of the technology.

And especially with iphones and android phones that use the internet and use apps that clearly uses your geo data knowing your location is essential.  And the fact is you can easily turn off any saved location tracking.  And in i phones apps when you start apps that track location it clearly asks you before it runs.

So the fact that people are trying to sue google and apple for tracking their location is absolutely ridiculous


more reading

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/google-faces-50-million-lawsuit-over-android-location-tracking.ars

Tit for tat? Samsung sues Apple

While Apple is busy suing Samsung over Trade Dress infringement, Samsung decided to slap Apple with a law suit of there own and it is for a completely different reason.  Samsung is one of the lead suppliers of hardware for Apple.  Samsung is suing Apple for patent infringements on cell phone hardware.

The Samsung lawsuits don't directly respond to the Apple suit. Instead, they accuse Apple of violating patents covering cellphone transmission technologies.


I know this is getting all very confusing with everyone suing everyone from different angles.

They should both just drop there suites and call it even.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703983704576277863329446914.html#ixzz1KXWFikXt

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/tit-for-tat-samsung-sues-apple-in-europe-asia.ars

Apple sues Samsung

Apple sued Samsung yesterday, the latest in a long line of IP lawsuits against Android device manufacturers. The case is remarkable for several reasons, not least because Samsung is one of Apple’s critical component suppliers: the Korean giant manufactures everything from DRAM and SSDs for MacBook Pros to the A4 and A5 processors in the iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV, and iPad. That relationship doesn’t seem to have softened Apple’s tone; the company’s complaint bluntly says “Instead

of pursuing independent product development, Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights.” Oh boy.

Hardware and software trade dress claims

• a rectangular product shape with all four corners uniformly rounded; 
• the front surface of the product dominated by a screen surface with black borders; 
• as to the iPhone and iPod touch products, substantial black borders above and below the screen having roughly equal width and narrower black borders on either side of the screen having roughly equal width; 
• as to the iPad product, substantial black borders on all sides being roughly equal in width; 
• a metallic surround framing the perimeter of the top surface; 
• a display of a grid of colorful square icons with uniformly rounded corners; and 
• a bottom row of square icons (the “Springboard”) set off from the other icons and that do not change as the other pages of the user interface are viewed 

This law suit is a bit tricky to understand. You cannot claim a design that has is critical to a function. Basically you can only copy-write a design that is purely artistic and does not have anything to do with function. Apple is claiming that samsung is trying to confuse the buyers into thinking there product is the same as an iphone.

Samsung is claiming that these feature have become industry standard and is crucial to the function of the phone and is not purely a design ripoff.

So what do you think? As for the overall design of a full touch screen i think is industry standard just as all flat screen tv's look basically the same. The only real claim i think they have is about the itunes icon.

Internet Patent Trolls

In the 90's when the internet was getting started there where a few smart business men who tried to get ahead of the game and patent ides and concepts that were not even developed.  Sounds good right?  But what has happened was they were granted patents on very general concepts and on the technology that implements them.

What does this mean let me give you a few examples.  There is a legal battle right now over Amazon.com feature of "One Click Purchase". There are a few companies that claim they own the rights to this "One Click Purchase" because they thought of the idea. They did not create not the programming code or actual method of implementation and technology to do it.  Just the idea.   That is just ridiculous because you cannot patent the Wheel or a car with 4 wheels and 2 doors.  These are just general concepts and cannot hold a patent.  You cannot patent a Television. you can patent the way you make a television and the technology  and materials used.  But you cannot patent the concept of a television.

The reason these type of patents were allowed because at the time of the filling the technology did not even exist and we did not for see the future business model that the internet would become.

Another example of a patent troll is a company that claims the right to internet podcasts.  They don't claim the name 'podcast' they do not claim the technology that creates and distributes the podcast.  They claim to hold the patent on the idea of  "episodical content automatically downloaded to your computer".  That is such a broad concept that is is criminal to claim you own that idea.  That is as if I patent the idea of a flying car and the wait around for someone else to actually make one then claim i came up with the idea and i should get the credit.

These type of frivolous lawsuits may not hurt big companies like Apple and Amazon because they can afford to fight it legally.  But this will effect the ability for small business to start up because these type of litigation can cripple a small company.  So in the vain of net neutrality and open internet we need to follow the path to further innovation.