In connection with the Chants and Prayers practice group, I've been suggesting that we come up with a hymnal-type compendium of something that can be contributed to and edited on our wiki. This also makes it easier for someone who has not yet participated in the emergent chants and prayers this initial group may come up with and be able to catch up in not too long or at least reasonably pretend to do so with a device that can access the Internet.
Relatedly, one of the most impactful things that I've imagined the Sudo-Kopimism branched effort can have is on the liturgical publishers markets. These are often very lucrative publishing houses because you need to have a whole bunch of these books at every congregation that's the latest edition and accredited by the belief system association that approve such things.
It would be neat to provide a wiki platform for canonical religious prayer books and texts. It could serve as the repository for the public domain and creative-commons licensed alternatives of prayers books or ritual compilation volumes in the wide variety of different denominations, ritual communities, belief systems, etc. - whatever the community standards in Oakland would consider spirituality.
By slicing off the layer of excess licensing profits - maximized by frequent edition updates and a lack of competition - churches and temples and prayer centers in Oakland could spend a lot less money on these publications. In fact, the extensibility created by having the core texts for a wide range of organized services could make for more meaningful experiences by being more easily customized to the relevant congregation.
On Apr 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Romy Ilano <romy(a)snowyla.com> wrote:
> Hello the Kopimism sect is now defunct.
>
> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/page/Kopimism
>
> Even though I'm not a full religious convert yet (personal reasons) I think this is really important and the SudoRoom family will benefit from the creation of
>
> RITUAL CHANTS AND PRAYERS
>
> -===anyone interested in contributions? These will most likely be published in small handbooks jack chiclet style and recited aloud at meetings with members holding hands and looking upwards with solemn facial expressions
>
> I will speak to the public school poetry class about potential ideas for the creation of SudoRoom Kopimistic ritual chants and prayers.
>
> All chants will most likely be recited
>
> Potential phraseology
>
> 510 is nottabout just tha dough
> sudo is a do-ology
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
thought this selection from a thread on Cyber-Profs might be of curious interest to kopimists. I'm with my friend Laura just below that this totally misses the point of the problem. From a Kopimist perspective, this further demonstrates the gross misapplication of strong regulatory rules on copying as a means of solving all social problems through technical proxy rather than dealing with what's so messed up about it - like intrusion of privacy and obscene defamation.
>> From: Laura Quilter <lquilter(a)lquilter.net>
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> Date: April 9, 2013 8:01:06 AM PDT
>> To: "cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu" <cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu>
>>
>> The problem with using copyright on these issues is not that sometimes some victim will get redress. It is that copyright is not a good fit for the problem. It is overbroad, so it will allow takedowns of all kinds of materials that are not the ones that are obviously injurious; it doesn't have the right kinds of corrective actions, to cover the times when the action isn't the obvious bad action; and it is too narrow to cover a lot of the folks who need redress cannot get it (those who are nonconsensually photographed or those who consented to the photography but not the distribution, and joint authors who want to stop the distribution rather than seek accounting for any profits).
>>
>> As a matter of development of law, the ability of copyright to be so very broadly used hinders or at the least does not help us come to a solution that would actually fit the problem more closely. The more folks use copyright to meet privacy (and other) needs, the more copyright's purposes & function are distorted. But also, if we are meeting half the victim's needs with copyright, then half the need for privacy law is diminished. It's good for those individual claimants, to the extent that their actual needs are met by a klugey solution, but what about all the others who don't have recourse to copyright law?
>>
>> I really like the idea of a narrowly-tailored statute that gets at the harms, at least for the majority of states that have poorly-developed privacy or IIED torts. I'm not worried about the First Amendment getting in the way of doing it. There's nothing in the current law that would prevent the relatively minor extension of First Amendment exceptions for tort claims by private individuals beyond defamation/false light to IIED/public disclosure of private facts. And I see no reason why a reasonably well-drafted and narrowly tailored statute wouldn't survive. At least, I applaud the legislators for trying; if they get it wrong and we get a well-reasoned decision saying how & why it's wrong and overbroad, then we can try again.
>>
>> Trying to cram all the world's ills into copyright law -- although it almost works, since copyright is so broad! -- is not going to serve either the purposes of copyright law or the needs of individuals for privacy and autonomy and control over certain kinds of information about themselves.
>>
>> To be honest, this seems like the sort of thing that I would like someone to craft some model legislation on. Why can't those of us concerned about intellectual freedom *and* privacy rights draft some model legislation? It seems these days that any two-bit organization with an ideological bent can draft model legislation and get it successfully passed with the right backing. Maybe some of our fine legal clinics and law professors could work on this. I'd help.
>>
>> Laura
>>
>> ----------------------------------
>> Laura Markstein Quilter / lquilter(a)lquilter.net
>> Librarian, Geek, Attorney, Teacher
>>
>>
>> Copyright and Information Policy Librarian
>> University of Massachusetts, Amherst
>> lquilter(a)library.umass.edu
>>
>> Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
>> laura.quilter(a)simmons.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Bartow, Ann M. <abartow(a)law.pace.edu> wrote:
>> Joint authors cannot sue each other for copyright infringement, so if one joint author is victimizing the other by distributing a work, copyright law might not have anything to offer the victim. But at least in the Seventh Circuit one joint author has standing to sue third parties for copyright infringement, see http://www.loeb.com/files/Publication/3c77768b-359e-4ec8-8082-69fb241e39f7/…
>> But see: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1393420.html
>>
>>
>> Ann Bartow
>> Professor of Law
>> Pace Law School
>> 78 North Broadway
>> White Plains, New York 10603
>> (914) 422-4097
>> *****************
>> Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> Tongji University
>> Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 9:28 AM
>> To: Bartow, Ann M.; cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: RE: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> I was just responding to the "Has anybody suggested otherwise, Fred?" question.
>>
>> Also, if the subjects of the revenge porn are joint authors (with the photographers who then post the material), I would think that this means the subjects may *not* use copyright law to block distribution of the photographs: As I understand it, each joint author is allowed to distribute the work on his own say-so, without the coauthors' permission.
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Bartow, Ann M.
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:03 AM
>> To: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> Eugene, I am not sure if you are suggesting Rob is wrong about copyright authorship/ownership, or that Fred thinks Rob is wrong about copyright authorship/ownership. In any event, a sizeable portion of "revenge porn" is comprised of videos and photographs taken by victims and shared with their romantic partners. After the relationships end, the former partners distribute works with the names and contact information of their copyright holding exes, to humiliate and punish them. I don't understand why using the notice and take down provisions of the DMCA would be any less legitimate for these copyright holders than it is for anybody else.
>>
>> There is also a possibility that subjects of revenge porn could in some circumstances be considered joint authors, as Derek Bambauer explains here: https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2013/01/25/beating-revenge-porn-with-…
>>
>>
>> Ann Bartow
>> Professor of Law
>> Pace Law School
>> 78 North Broadway
>> White Plains, New York 10603
>> (914) 422-4097
>> *****************
>> Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> Tongji University
>> Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 10:33 PM
>> To: Bartow, Ann M.
>> Subject: RE: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> I take it that Fred's copyright point was in response to Rob Heverly's suggestion that, "A useful strategy might be to pursue suits against these sites under copyright law (where the victim made the photograph/video)and bring suit for infringement."
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Bartow, Ann M.
>> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 5:22 PM
>> To: Fred von Lohmann
>> Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> Has anybody suggested otherwise, Fred?
>>
>> This case highlights the potential impact of copyright law pretty effectively: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/11-3445/11-3445-20…
>> The photos are not "dumped lover" revenge porn but they are "put an uppity woman in her place" porn, which perhaps fits within a broad definition of revenge porn.
>>
>> And fwiw here is a short article that discusses gaps in the law in the general legal neighborhood of revenge porn: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223226/Lindsey-Boyd-sues-Girls-Gon…
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ann Bartow
>> Professor of Law
>> Pace Law School
>> 78 North Broadway
>> White Plains, New York 10603
>> (914) 422-4097
>> *****************
>> Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> Tongji University
>> Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Fred von Lohmann [fred(a)vonlohmann.com]
>> Sent: Monday, April 8, 2013 7:57 PM
>> To: Bartow, Ann M.
>> Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>>
>> While I have strong feelings about the First Amendment issues here, I will leave that commentary to those who are much more expert than I am. Just a quick reminder, however, on the copyright front, that many "revenge porn" situations will be complicated by questions of authorship. Generally speaking, it is the person taking the photo who holds the copyright, not the subject of the photo. In those cases, using copyright tools may be inappropriate (and in some cases under 17 USC 512f, actually actionable).
>>
>> Fred
>>
>> On Apr 8, 2013, at 1:46 PM, "Bartow, Ann M." <abartow(a)law.pace.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > This is just one (compelling to some of us) example of law
>> > interfacing with the complicated feelings people have about bodily
>> > autonomy; see also
>> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234476
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Ann Bartow
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Pace Law School
>> > 78 North Broadway
>> > White Plains, New York 10603
>> > (914) 422-4097
>> > *****************
>> > Fulbright Scholar '11 - '12
>> > Tongji University
>> > Shanghai, People's Republic of China
>> >
>> >
>> > From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew
>> > Gilden
>> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 4:20 PM
>> > To: Neil Richards
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu; Laura Quilter
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > Just to add another data point to this discussion, the NJ statute was used successfully in the prosecution of Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who used a webcam to spy on his roommate Tyler Clementi. Ravi was convicted under the statute based on a rather broad reading of "sexual contact": Clementi and his friend were seen shirtless and kissing, for only a few seconds.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Neil Richards <nmrichards(a)wulaw.wustl.edu> wrote:
>> > I'm pretty sure that true revenge porn could be (and should be) punished consistent with the First Amendment, and the Pamela Anderson/Lee case suggests that this might be true even for celebrities. By "true," I mean the intentional disclosure of a sex tape or pictures, usually by an ex, for no purpose other than inflicting harm.
>> >
>> > I made a similar argument here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1862264, which I am revising for my forthcoming book on these and related issues (Intellectual Privacy, OUP 2014).
>> >
>> > I think the law would be on stronger ground if it carved out public figures, and if it added an element of intentionally intending injury (ie limiting itself to true revenge porn, which seems analogous to true threats). But I agree with what's been called the "realist" trend in the thread describing the law in practice. Especially post-Stevens, the Court has been very unwilling to create new exceptions to the First Amendment, for many of the reasons Eugene points out. But I think if a true revenge porn against an ordinary person case came up, even such a "realist" court would find liability. Even Phelps reserved the question of internet publication of non-newsworthy facts.
>> >
>> > Neil
>> >
>> > Neil M. Richards
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Washington University in St. Louis
>> > One Brookings Drive
>> > St. Louis MO 63130
>> > (314) 935-4794
>> > Fax (314) 935-5356
>> >
>> > website: http://law.wustl.edu/faculty/index.asp?id=314
>> > ssrn page:
>> > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=400644
>> > twitter: @neilmrichards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Laura
>> > Quilter
>> > Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:43 AM
>> > To: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> >
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > I'm not sure why revenge porn per se would be unprotected under the Miller test for obscenity.
>> >
>> > Prurient is probably easy; and maybe lacks SLAPS value is not too hard (especially for the non-Anthony Wiener variety), although I would want to think more about it.
>> >
>> > But the middle prong, "depicting or describing ... sexual conduct" seems like it would not be a good match for a lot of the nude photos that end up on revenge porn shots, many of which would be still photos and not "sexual conduct".
>> >
>> > Just from a common sense approach, the problem is not that these photos are per se "obscene"; it is that they are non-consensual either in distribution or in production. That's more like the harms from child porn, which are to the subject primarily.
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------
>> > Laura Markstein Quilter / lquilter(a)lquilter.net Librarian, Geek,
>> > Attorney, Teacher
>> >
>> >
>> > Copyright and Information Policy Librarian University of
>> > Massachusetts, Amherst lquilter(a)library.umass.edu
>> >
>> > Lecturer, Simmons College, GSLIS
>> > laura.quilter(a)simmons.edu
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 7:59 AM, David Opderbeck <dopderbeck(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I don't know that language of "exception" or "slippage" is appropriate. Revenge porn is not protected under Miller. That which involves minors, as much of it does, is unprotected under Ferber.
>> >
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 10:09 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, that may be what you think. But many people might be happy to carve out a Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment exception for crimes that they see as particularly heinous, just as you're happy to carve out a First Amendment exception (perhaps correctly) in this instance, if they thought that the exception would be kept sufficiently narrow. What has kept many Justices from carving out such exceptions, I think, is precisely the worry of slippage to much broader restrictions.
>> >
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 6:45 PM
>> > To: Volokh, Eugene
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > All those examples are already over the hill. Those aren't slippery slope examples at all.
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:55 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > Say that someone suggests allowing warrantless searches of people's homes for child pornography - would we also say "slippery slope arguments don't persuade [us] at all when we are talking about something so morally heinous as child porn"? Or allowing compelled self-incrimination in such cases? How about allowing convictions of the alleged child porn possessor without confrontation of the witnesses against him? Or perhaps allowing convictions without jury trials in some hate crime cases, on the theory that bigoted juries might refuse to convict, and the behavior is so "morally heinous"? Or allowing restrictions on songs that advocate murder of police officers, on the theory that such songs are also morally heinous, and certainly counsel extremely heinous behavior?
>> >
>> > Indeed, slippery slope risks from relaxation of constitutional rights are especially strong when the case involves "morally heinous" behavior, precisely because the perceived need to act seems so urgent. And then some years or decades down the pike, one sees the relaxation of the right expanding to a broader and broader range of behavior.
>> >
>> > Again, as I mentioned, I think that limits on the publication of sexually explicit photos of others might be constitutional. But I think that this should be considered with serious attention to the risk of slippery slopes, rather than ignoring this risk because the behavior is so "morally heinous."
>> >
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > From: David Opderbeck [mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:48 PM
>> > To: Volokh, Eugene
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > Slippery slope arguments don't persuade me at all when we are talking about something so morally heinous as revenge porn.
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 7, 2013, at 7:38 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH(a)law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm on the record as arguing that limits on the publication of social security numbers are indeed constitutional, see http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/facilitating.pdf, and that limits on the publication of sexually explicit photos of others might be constitutional, too, seehttp://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/privacy.pdf . But the worry about such limits is precisely how - in a system built on precedent and analogy - such restrictions will become the foundations for restrictions on other kinds of speech as well, often with little attempt to cabin those analogies. Arguments that, because limits on the publication of social security numbers are permissible, limits on the publication of sexually themed images of others are permissible, too, make me wonder what the next step in the chain of analogy will be (especially given that this step in the chain seems so large).
>> >
>> > Eugene
>> >
>> > From: cyberprof-bounces(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > [mailto:cyberprof-bounces@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf OfDavid
>> > Opderbeck
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:34 PM
>> > To: Peter Swire
>> > Cc: cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > Subject: Re: [CyberProf] "...revenge porn is under siege."
>> >
>> > From a "realist" perspective you might be right, but from a normative perspective that values both free speech and privacy, this would not be a good thing.
>> >
>> > David W. Opderbeck
>> > Seton Hall University Law School
>> > Professor of Law
>> > Director, Gibbons Institute of Law, Science & Technology
>> > 973.642.8496
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Andrew Gilden
>> > Stanford Law Fellow
>> >
>> > Crown Quadrangle
>> > 559 Nathan Abbott Way
>> > Stanford, CA 94305-8610
>> > (650) 721-2101
>> > agilden(a)law.stanford.edu
>> > --++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
>> > cyberprof mailing list
>> > cyberprof(a)lists.stanford.edu
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cyberprof
>>
>>
Running late - Filo speciality may not be part of today's session. Hopefully the Athenian Deli will be open (an uncertain assertion).
I propose we discuss Crowdfunding, as part of the effort to stimulate our exploration of these sorts of sources of revenue. The discussion will be continued on the Sudo-Crowd mailing list (sudo-crowd(a)lists.sudoroom.org)
The following blurb is also for the TechLiminal Lunch Box next Wed., Apr. 17. Please contact Evan Savage through Tech Liminal for more about that.
Crowdfunding. What does it mean and how does it work? Why is it the biggest buzz word since social media? Will it really circumvent the flow of investment capital to bypass Wall Street? Can it stimulate new jobs in the small business enterprise and contractors markets?
Is there anything more to this than passing around a hat for donations amongst your friends and family in order to do a project you and they know will never be completed? What is the Securities Exchange Commission worries about that is delaying their implementation of the Crowdfunding provisions of the JOBS Act, which was supposed to go into effect in January?
We will address these questions, more or less. We will at the very least read all of them out loud at the beginning.
Please also note the text below about the wiki, mailing list, and background resources I had sent around a few weeks ago.
>> We will be collecting background resources and commentary on crowdfunding to fill out the JOBS Act page on the Sudo wiki -http://sudoroom.org/wiki/JOBS_Act.
>>
>> To sign up for the list, please go to:
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-crowd.
>>
>> In addition to discussion, we will use the mailing list to collaborate on crowdfunding related projects. The first one being the drafting of public comments on behalf of Sudo Room (http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/jobsactcomments.shtml). You can see the comments currently submitted to the SEC athttp://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-iii/jobs-title-iii.shtml.
>>
>> There are a bunch of them, so I think the most substantive comments to perhaps start with are the two Rockethub white papers on Regulation (http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-iii/jobstitleiii-39.htm) and Implementation (http://www.sec.gov/comments/jobs-title-iii/jobstitleiii-39.htm).
sent from eddan.com
> From: "Kapczynski, Amy"
> Date: April 10, 2013, 8:10:50 AM PDT
> Subject: [Ipprofs] Can you patent a steak?
>
> This from NPR today:
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/04/08/176570066/can-you-patent-a-steak-…
>
> "Price works at Oklahoma State University. The school says its researchers, working with an outside expert, discovered a new steak. They call it the Vegas Strip Steak. It's hidden somewhere inside a part of a cow that's now commonly used for hamburger, Price told me. The school is trying to patent the steak (and the method of cutting it out of the carcass of the cow) so it can license the process to big meat companies."
> From: Carl Oppedahl <carl(a)oppedahl.com>
> Date: March 16, 2013, 9:31:46 AM PDT
> To: "ipprofs(a)listserv.law.unh.edu" <ipprofs(a)listserv.law.unh.edu>
> Subject: [Ipprofs] FirstToDisclose.org
>
> My reaction as a patent practitioner is that this web site, despite the good intentions of its creators, is likely to do far more harm than good.
>
> The paradigm user is the inventor who gets the impression that he or she (a) can publish and (b) can now relax and postpone the pesky business of filing a patent application for almost a year (a so-called one-year "grace period"). As another poster (Ted Sichelman) points out, ill-advised reliance upon this one-year grace period can lead to the problem of a third party reading the publication and filing a prompt patent application on slight improvements thereof.
>
> But it is likely to be far worse than that for some inventors, due to a different problem, namely the irrevocable loss of any hope of patent protection in most countries of the world outside of the US. The great majority of countries around the world have a grace period that is not one year, but instead is negative one day. By this I mean that if the inventor publishes on a Monday and contemplates filing outside of the US on the subsequent Tuesday in a given country, it is (depending on which country we are talking about) too late to file the patent application and all possible patent rights will have been lost.
>
> A defender of this "disclose early and file your patent application later" approach might say "oh, don't you realize, the inventors that this approach is intended for are the inventors who won't ever want or need patent protection outside of the US, but will find their business needs more than fully served by US patent protection alone."
>
> Inventors who might imagine that they fall into this category are many, but most are mistaken.
>
> Example 1. The inventor who may eventually seek an investor to help commercialize the invention. The first or second due diligence question from the mouth of a potential investor will be "did you get your patent application filed chronologically prior to your first public disclosure?" The answer had better be "yes" or the potential investor will likely drop the inquiry and go find some other inventor who was not so unwise. Only if the answer is "yes" will the potential investor feel that foreign patent rights are still potentially available. The inventor who says "see how smart I was, I publicly disclosed my invention in a highly visible way that is easy to find, almost a year before filing my patent application" will be shown the door very quickly. Indeed the potential investor who sees that the inventor got this part wrong will figure that the inventor probably also got other things wrong that are not as easy to sniff out.
>
> Example 2. The inventor who looks to get rich by selling or licensing the invention. Suppose it's a better way to make paper clips. The would-be licensee who catches on that all foreign rights were lost will probably say "thank you for showing me a better way to make paper clips" and will set up the paper clip factory in Mexico or wherever.
>
> Yes I am aware that there are a handful of countries outside of the US where you get a very limited grace period (often much shorter than a year) for your own disclosures.
>
> The creators of this web site could do a great service to the inventing community if they wish. They could develop and post a detailed survey of the 180 or so countries of the world that have patent offices, listing for each country the nature and duration of the filing-after-publication grace period if any. Potential users of the publication feature of the web site would then have a clearer sense of how many countries' patent rights would be irrevocably lost by such publication and the relatively few countries' patent rights that might remain in prospect despite such publication.
>
An interesting development to follow for those interested in fundamental patent reform.
> Clinician Colleagues:
>
> I wanted to let you folks know that a team of students from the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy ("BLIP") Clinic and I have launched www.firsttodisclose.org today (in advance of America's move tomorrow,March 16, from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” patent regime). I’ve posted the announcement to the www.BLIPclinic.org blog.
>
> Our objective is to provide a platform for small innovators to post their ideas for the world before a well-heeled enterprise can file a patent on the same idea with the Patent Office. One consequence of the move from “first to invent” to “first to file” is that it will likely be difficult for small inventors to beat larger enterprises to the patent office with their innovations. First-to-Disclose is an effort to counterbalance the burden imposed on small inventors.
>
> We’ll likely get some minor attention from the patent law community, but I hope the positive ramifications will resonate for years.
>
> Anyway, I thought you folks might appreciate it.
>
> All my best,
> Jonathan
>
> Prof. Jonathan Askin
> Founder/Director Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic
> Brooklyn Law School
> One Boerum Place Third Floor
> Brooklyn,NY 11201
>
> IMPORTANT - PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail communication and any attached documentation may be privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure and is intended only for the use of the designated recipient(s). If the reader or recipient of this communication is not the intended recipient,or an employee or agent of the intended recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any review,dissemination, distribution,copying or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by return e-mail and promptly delete the original electronic email communication and any attached documentation. Receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient is not a waiver of any attorney-client or work-product privilege.
> _______________________________________________
> LawClinic mailing list
> LawClinic(a)lists.washlaw.edu
> http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawclinic
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> A free service of WashLaw
> http://washlaw.edu
> (785)670.1088
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To the Sudo Kopimist congregation -
This week fort Friday Filosophy we will be having something from the Athenian Deli on Franklin off of Sudo Square. (http://www.atheniandeli.com/). Since last week's email got lost in the abyss of the mail server switch, I am also including last week's email as well below.
Following up on last week's discussion of manufacturing and consumer culture, we will be picking up the thread focusing on Planned Obsolescence. The excerpt below is from Giles Slade, Made to Break: Technology and Obsolescence in America (2006) pgs. 23-24. http://books.google.com/books?isbn=0674022033.
A bit of context for the quote - Slade describes the break-through in shifting cultural norms about disposable products with the popularity of sanitary napkins for women, in the inter-war period when women were exercising more control over family budgets. Slade digs up fascinating research on the explicit Anti-Thrift campaigns after World War I, when American advertisers linked together conspicuous consumption for social status and disposable products as patriotic support of the American economy.
> Anti-Thrift Campaigns
>
> Encouraged by the repetitive consumption of disposable paper products for both men and women, paper manufacturers developed toilet paper, paper cups, paper towels, and paper straws (rendering rye stalks obsolete). Gradually, the popularity of disposable personal products, purchased and used in the name of hygiene and health, caused Americans to generalize their throwaway habits to other goods. This was a significant development in the history of product obsolesence. As a throwaway culture emerged, an ethic of durability, of thrift, of what the consumer historian Susan Strasser calls "the stewardship of objects," was slowly modified. At first, people just threw their paper products into the fire. But as the disposable trend continued, it became culturally permissible to throw away objects that could not simply and conveniently be consumed by flames.
----
Friday Filosophy 3/8: Stuxnet & the Problem of Evil
Dear Sudo folk.
The spanakopita are just about ready to take out of the oven - ricotta & cheese (sorry, vegans). My daughter, Eva, will be coming today (home with a bit of a fever), but likely not participating in the discussion. She wants to be an epidemiologist, like her mom, and may chime in about viruses - which apparently kind of look like nasty little monsters and have crooked teeth.
We will be picking up the subject left off last time of the communicative value of executable virus software with a real-life example about which to ruminate. Stuxnet (see http://www.stuxnet.net/) will be the focus, with an emphasis on the implications for the techno-social role of programmers, and the future of cyberwarfare.
sent from eddan.com
Dear Kopimists and the People who Love Them.
For the featured Filo delicacy for Friday Filosophy, we will have potato burekas.
I propose we talk about the difference between source code, object code, and executable code in regards to 1st Amendment protection. In other words, when is code speech and when is it a speech-act subject to less legal protection?
Below is an excerpt from an essay by Lee Tien, a brilliant EFF attorney for more than a decade, on Software as Speech (2000). These two paragraphs are in the section: Viruses and other "dangerous" software.
Of course, as always, we can talk about whatever else. Such as conscience and the unconscionable, perhaps.
Lee Tien, Publishing Software as a Speech Act, Vol. 15 Berkeley Tech. Law Journal (2000)
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol15/tien/tien.html
> Let’s return to the virus hypothetical.192 The main concern lies in the fact that the software may be “diverted” toward unlawful purposes, regardless of the speaker’s intent. This concern is, however, not unique to software. It also applies to other types of information usable for mischief or harassment, whether highly technical like information about nuclear weapons, or utterly mundane like a person’s name, address or telephone number.
> Even if the virus author merely posts the source code and fails to release it in active form, the issue remains whether the posting was done with an intent to communicate. If the author claims that she intended it to communicate, we would need to examine the context to decide the plausibility of that claim. There will often be a plausible claim. There is no question that people study viruses and other dangerous software in order to prevent or relieve harm.193 One way to control a virus is to publish its source code so that systems operators can disable or protect against it. Communicating a virus’ source code as part of such an effort qualifies as a speech act because the publisher intends to communicate how the virus works in a conventional way. In fact, one could imagine entire journals or Internet sites devoted to viruses and other dangerous software.194 When such publications aim to alert the world to these dangers, their intent is clearly communicative.
sent from eddan.com
$5 from me too.
And BCC'ing a Joe who is also interested in Kopimism in general. Hello Joe.
What else can I do to see the Pews on Sunday?
- Jae
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:01 PM, hol(a)gaskill.com wrote:
>
> Awesome find! Now we can all toss a fiver in the collection plate and receive our blessed communion of subiir and corn chips in the church of kopimism. May information be with you, and also with you...and you...
>
> Hol
>
> Feb 22, 2013 01:56:00 PM, raymond.wm.lai(a)gmail.com wrote:
> Sudo Room, Patrik & Cyrus,
>>
>> Due to Patrik & Cyrus' generosity, Sam & I are renting the UHaul & going to the fine Folks at the Evangelical Temple.
>>
>> Sudo Room is getting some pews!
>>
>> Let's find a way to defray some of the cost; if u got a lil, give a lil. :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Raymond Lai
>> Ice Cream Man
>> Atomic Ice Cream
>> Facebook.com/MotoAtomico
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:34 PM, Cyrus Farivar cfarivar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can kick in $5.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> Cyrus Farivar
>>> +1 510 394 5485 (US)
>>> http://arstechnica.com/author/cyrus-farivar/
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:24, "sudo-discuss-request(a)lists.sudoroom.org"
>>> sudo-discuss-request(a)lists.sudoroom.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Send sudo-discuss mailing list submissions to
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>> sudo-discuss-request(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>> sudo-discuss-owner(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of sudo-discuss digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Re: 6 beautiful mahogany pews for sudo room. Free!
>>>> (Patrik D'haeseleer)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:24:33 -0800
>>>> From: "Patrik D'haeseleer" patrikd(a)gmail.com>
>>>> To: Ray Lai raymond.wm.lai(a)gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: Sudo room sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [sudo-discuss] 6 beautiful mahogany pews for sudo room.
>>>> Free!
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> CAKOjizOiMcFb3HnEndja9KqM3Y32_KF+ipuBZn8KkPmEkgW=7g(a)mail.gmail.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>
>>>> Sounds great! Do the U-Haul and go get them while they're still available.
>>>> I'm sure we can scrape together $110. If not, I'll cover it.
>>>>
>>>> Patrik
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Ray Lai raymond.wm.lai(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Heres the saga thusly:
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 6 pews for free in vallejo. They are a beautiful mahogany with
>>>>> orange/red seating. They are 16 feet long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marty was going to haul them with his truck but unfortunately the bed is
>>>>> too short. :(
>>>>>
>>>>> So we turned to Craigslist for a mover. We found one who would do it for
>>>>> $60! Woot! We had it set up for 9 this morning. He calls at 8 and says his
>>>>> truck bed is too small. :(
>>>>>
>>>>> So we looked up prices from U-Haul. $30 bucks for a 17' moving van. Sounds
>>>>> perfect. Unfortunately the fine print says U-haul charges $1 a mile.
>>>>> Vallejo is apprx. 30 miles away. So we are looking at something around
>>>>> $100-$110 with gas & bridge.
>>>>>
>>>>> So any ideas, Sudoers? Anyone have access to a flat-bed? Or want to chip
>>>>> into the cost of the U-Haul? The church lady was so nice; she said she
>>>>> would hold them for another day if we could get it together. When I
>>>>> remarked on her niceness she said it was the "Jesus" in her. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Tenacious) Ray Lai
>>>>> Ice Cream Man
>>>>> Atomic Ice Cream
>>>>> Facebook.com/MotoAtomico
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>
