History & Background

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution states that "The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". With that, the US patent system was born.

When the USPTO was first created, the length of a patent term was a 14 year term. The first patent statute stated that a patent would be issued for "[an] invention or discovery sufficiently useful and important."
Over the years, the scope of patents granted by the Patent Office has increased, mostly due to decisions that affirmed "anything under the sun that is made by man" could be patented, and to allow the patenting of methods of doing business.

The Problems Of The Patent Office

The patent office has evolved from an organization that verified patent claims and followed it's mission closely - to provide protection for new, useful, and non-obvious (to someone in that field) inventions. It has turned into little more than a thinly-veiled way of making more money for the government. Patent inspectors are expected to meet quotas for approved patents; oftentimes this quota is beyond anyone's capability to even investigate the claims. It seems that the Patent Office has taken a rubber-stamp attitude towards approving patents, letting the courts decide which are valid and which are not. And since the patent office has almost no accountability, nothing is done to reprimand it for it's (in)actions.

Not Just The Patent Office

The problems with patents extend far beyond the Patent Office. While the root of all these problems may lie with the office, the abuses of it that we see are all done by those applying for the patents.
There are countless examples of companies (and even individuals, in some cases) applied for patents on anything and everything they've done, just to prevent a competitor from doing something similar. These defensive patents, as they're known, most certainly do not 'promote the progress of science'; they serve only as leverage to those seeking to dominate a market. This is expressly not the purpose or intention of patents.

Other problems lie with the things that are patented. Knowing that anyone with the money can most likely receive a patent, companies are seeking out patents on things just so they can take others to court and receive damages from patent infringement.

Another abuse of the patent system is donating patents and writing off the expense, as this NY Times article covers. Companies are applying for (and receiving patents) for the $4,000 in filing fees and the like, a company can obtain a patent, claim it's worth millions, and then donate it, writing off the value.

Patently Absurd

Some of these points can best be reinforced with some examples. So, here's a few, with some explanations of what qualifies them as abuses of the patent system.

6,368,227 - A method of swinging on a swing
This patent covers swinging by alternately pulling the chains of the swing. This is not new (it has been done many times), it may be useful (it can be fun), and it certainly fails the non-obviousness test (I know many people who have done it this way). This patent was granted about a year ago.

6,004,596 - Sealed Crustless Sandwich
This patent covers creating a peanut butter & jelly sandwich without an outer crust. This hardly needs explaining - PB&J sandwiches without crust were a part of many people's childhoods, certainly before the 1997 filing date of this patent. Useful seems to apply (though this is often the case), and again, it's obviousness is glaring. This patent was granted in 1999.

6,505,212 - System and method for website development
This patent covers the use of a source-control and versioning system as part of creating a website. The amount of prior art for this is staggering, and should have served as a clear sign this is not new or obvious (see the Slashdot discussion for examples of prior art, such as CVS [Concurrent Versions System]). This patent was granted this January.

6,430,602 - Method and system for interactively responding to instant messaging requests
This patent, granted to ActiveBuddy, covers any form of script or program that responds to any user request sent to it. Prior art for this goes back to at least 1993 (with the creation of Eggdrop bots for IRC), and no doubt goes back even further than that. This patent provoked this letter from me. The letter should address the reasons this patent should be considered an abuse. This patent was granted in Aug. 2002.

6,513,042 - Internet test-making method
This patent basically covers giving a test online. This patent brings up something I'll mention later, namely, patents granted for old inventions/ideas but applied to the Internet. This patent was granted this January.

Numerous other examples exist; too many of them to list even a small part of them here.

Patents And The Internet

Here's a question that I feel should be asked more by patent inspectors. Does applying an existing idea or invention to the Internet make the result new or unique? Through the actions of the Patent Office, it would seem the answer is yes; but logic would seem to dictate the opposite. In fact, some patents granted relating to the Internet are absolutely nothing more than someone else's work applied to the 'Net. There's no innovation, just a sense that they could 'own' something on the 'Net. Patents aren't being used to promote innovation, they're being used to create and maintain monopolies; to generate revenue.

Wrapping Up

The US Patent System has strayed from it's original mission to promote scientific progress, and has now found itself promoting monopolies, which it was never intended to do. By moving the burden of validating patents from itself to the already overworked court system, the Patent Office has made itself nothing more than a rubber stamp, facilitating corporate greed.

The patent office needs a complete restructuring. It needs to have both its limits and its procedures carefully defined, and available as public knowledge. It needs to adhere to its mission. Most of all, it needs to be accountable for its mistakes.

Around 9:30 ET last night, the US launched several cruise missiles at a 'target of opportunity' in Bahgdad, believed to have been a possible location for Saddam Hussein and/or senior government officials. The US campaign of terrorism has now begun.

Terrorism. Not war. The dictionary defines terrorism as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." I think the definition explains exactly why this attack was an act of terrorism and not one of war.

Iraq was not without a response to this provocation. Within hours of the first US attack, Iraq reportedly launched anywhere between 2 and 5 missiles towards US forces in Kuwait. That manifestation of honest reporting and journalistic integrity, CNN, is claiming the missiles were Scuds, which were supposed to have been destroyed as part of the 1991 agreement. Kuwaiti officials echoed this claim, but both US officials and the Iraqi government deny the claim, with the US theorizing instead that the missiles were the permitted al Samoud I, according to an MSNBC reports.

In a pathetic indication of what our society has become, one of the major headlines being reported is 'War to cost millions in Oscar revenues'. What does that say about a society when one of the most important things about a war is its impact on an awards show?

"Poll: Two-thirds of Americans support Bush ultimatum"

Quoted directly from that CNN report (emphasis mine): "With the nation on the brink of war, two-thirds of all Americans say they approve of President Bush's stark ultimatum to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and say they believe he did all he could to resolve the crisis diplomatically, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll."

A poll of n people is just that; a look at the opinions of those n people. A poll is not, however, a reflection of what "all Americans" think. I wasn't polled for this, no one I know was, and so right there is isn't 'all Americans'. 2/3 of those surveyed may have supported Bush, but we don't know that it's 2/3 of 'all Americans'.

Polls, and statistics in general, can easily be manipulated to obtain whatever result you want. In this case, we don't know 2 things, first, what the question asked of these people was, and second, just what sort of demographic was targeted. It's very possible, and quite likely, that either of these factors here could show a bias toward obtaining that result.

For some reason, this (satire) seems all to appropriate given the media's coverage of the world lately.

As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, President Bush gave a speech the other night giving Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq and go into exile, or else the US & UK would commence military operations. The speech itself was more of the same from Bush, consisting mainly of lies and unfounded allegations designed only to stir up support.

Some of the points I wanted to address from the speech:

Bush says: "For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war."
Reality: Iraq was neglected for the most part after the Gulf War, with no 'patient' or 'honorable' effort made to enforce any UN resolutions against Iraq.

Bush says: "We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned."
Reality: However reluctantly, Saddam has been cooperating with every request or demand made by the inspectors.

Bush says: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Reality: I don't know that this isn't true, but at the same time, I've seen no evidence to indicate that it is true. The only source I have heard make this claim is the Bush staff.

Bush says: "The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda."
Reality: Prior to the Gulf War, Iraq was an ally of the US. And there has never been a connection made between al Qaeda and Iraq, though it has been attempted .

Bush says: "The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Reality: As with the last few points, there is no evidence to show that Saddam even has such weapons, and if he did, that he has ties to terrorist organizations that could get them from him.

Bush says: "The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat."
Reality: What threat? Iraq has taken no aggressive action towards the US or any of our allies, and in fact, is showing nothing but complicance with our demands for disarmament.

Bush says: "The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security."
Reality: I agree with this part, though it being applied in the wrong way here. I have no problem with us acting against a government after we are attacked by them, or acting to stop a KNOWN threat, but we do not and should never have the 'sovereign authority' to wage war on a country because we simply don't like them, and they have done nothing to provoke any attack.

Bush says: "Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction."
Reality: Neither resolution 678 nor 687 authorizes the use of force against Iraq unless Iraq acts aggressively towards Kuwait. Since it has not done so, these resolutions do not provide authorization to use force against Iraq to enforce disarmament.

Bush says: "Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq."
Reality: Resolution 1440, unanimously approved by the Security Council, compels Iraq to disarm. The countries threatening veto were not doing so to stop Iraq from disarming, but to stop the use of force to effect this disarmamemt.

Bush says: "Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it."
Reality: The US has most certainly not taken every measure to avoid war. Bush, in fact, has been pushing for a war, back since when his staff said he did not need Congressional approval to wage a war with Iraq. When it comes to the Security Council, this same sentiment is reflected by choosing not to propose a new resolution authorizing force, since they knew it would be voted down.

Bush says: "As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country."
Reality: A measure opposed by France, Germany, Russia, Canada and a whole host of other countries is now the 'just demands of the world'?

Bush's commitment to a war, no matter who supports it, it almost certain to get the US into a bad situation. Whether it be needless troop deaths in Iraq, or increasinly negative foreign opinion, our entire country will pay the price for a single man's failings.

Addition: Check out GNN's take on the speech.

Last Thursday, John Malcolm (Deputy Asst. Attorney General For The Criminal Division of the US DOJ), Joan Borsten (President of Jove Films), Rich LaMagna (Senior Manager of Worldwide Anti-Piracy Investigations at Microsoft Corporation), and Jack Valenti (President & CEO, MPAA) gave testimony to the House Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The matter at hand was connections between piracy and organized crime/terrorism. In general, the focus was on large-scale, international piracy groups.

According to Mr. Malcolm, most of these groups are backed by organized crime. While not making a connection between these groups and terrorism, he did say that the DOJ would be working to prevent money from these operations to fund terrorism.

Ms. Borsten testified that intellectual property (IP) infringement is a growing problem in Russia. She makes the statement that she does not connect piracy to organized crime or terrorism, and presents her case on how IP infringement in Russia hurts the US.

Mr. LaMagna's case centered around software counterfeiting, and how it is primarily managed by organized crime syndicates.

Which brings us to the testimony of Mr. Valenti. He first lashes out at digital piracy, eventually settling on the subject of physical piracy and counterfeiting. He, too, tells of connections between piracy and organized crime, and also claims the government has made a link between piracy and terrorism. His purported 'claim' by the government is nothing more than a single article in an issue of US Customs Today, and is not backed by any other sources. He quotes the article's claim that international counterfeiting funds a majority of all terrorism, a claim which I have seen no other evidence to support. He also cites the conclusion of the article, which states: "September 11 changed the way Americans look at the world. It also changed the way American law enforcement looks at Intellectual Property crimes." This is simply wrong. In the wake of 9/11, I cannot think of a single law-enforcement agency in this country that suddenly focused on IP crimes. In fact, at the time, such crimes were likely at the farthest edge of consideration, with allaying people's fears and providing physical security paramount to all else. An aricle with a bold lie and a single unsubstantiated fact would seem to carry very little weight, though Mr. Valenti uses it like it's some divine word. His testimony ends with the statement that "Large, violent, highly organized criminal groups are getting rich from the theft of America's copyrighted products."

Can anyone please show me ANYTHING which provides evidence that such groups are violent (I have no doubt that they exist), or that they are 'getting rich' from their activities? Mr. Valenti's false claims, coupled with his invocation of the word 'terrorism', shows that he is doing little more than sensationalising the problem, calling for stricter measures that will undoubtedly provide no benefit, and very likely harm, to the consumer and their rights to use a copyrighted work.

It's no secret that the entertainment industry is striving only to increase it's own profits, no matter what the expense to the American public. The DMCA, the CTEA, and a whole host of other proposals all show that groups like the MPAA have no interest in what's legal; they want to break laws to get those who are breaking laws; but these groups lobby for legislation to legalize what they want to to. Case in point, a proposed bill headed by Rep. Howard Berman and backed by the RIAA, would have given copyright holders the right to hack the machines of suspected copyright infringers to seek out any copyrighted works on their machine.

It's my understanding that the government exists to serve the people, and to do what is in their best interest, not to cater to large corporations who throw money at them. Under the euphemism of 'campaign contributions', we all look the other way as our elected officials are bribed. And this corruption of our elected leadership leads to diminishing rights to the citizens of this country, while corporations benefit. There is absolutely no reason why any company should be legally granted the right to hack into a citizen's machine, especially without any sort of warrant or due process. It's fortunate that bill did not pass, for it would have allowed companies to become vigilanties; to take the law into their own hands, but not have to answer to anyone if they exceeded their authority. There would be little recourse for those unfairly or wrongly made a victim of such a law; the companies behind it having no accountability for their actions.

The Constitution of the US opens with this "We the People of the United States". We the People, not the corporations, not the slaves to the dollar. The entire basis of the government in this country was to have a government for the people, a government by the people. The Bill of Rights was passed to explicitly give certain freedoms to the people, with the understanding that the people were not to have only those mentioned there.

However, it seems that more and more the rights of the individual are being taken away so that the corporations and the government have more freedom and more power. Laws have been passed that completely disregard Constitutional freedoms; others have been upheld as complying with the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

This brings up an interesting question. Since the founders could not have forseen the future and what it would bring, and as such were somewhat vague with parts of the Constitution, is it better to follow the letter of the law (what's written), or the spirit of the law (the way it was intended to be)? In the case of the CTEA, it's clear that the spirit of the law was to provide a short period of limited monopoly for a work; the letter of the law, however, doesn't provide for a specific time, saying only that it need be a 'limited' time.

This truly is, as Greg Palast wrote, the best democracy money can buy.

Rep. Lofgren's BALANCE (Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations) Act seeks to make amendments to Title 17 of the US Code, which governs copyrights. There are a few points of interest about the Act, some good, some bad, and I will elaborate on these as I come to them.

Section 2 establishes what copyright is and why we need it, and that the DMCA was to secure copyrights in a digital world. It is pointed out, however, that the DMCA has been used in ways not intended, namely that it prevents lawful use of legitimately purchased material. Cited is a report to the House's Judiciary Committee (along with the DMCA), stating that "an individual [should] not be able to circumvent in order to gain unauthorized access to a work, but [should] be able to do so in order to make fair use of a work which he or she has acquired lawfully." This section closes by declaring that consumers should not all be treated as though they were criminals.

Section 3 begins the amendments to Title 17. Situations of legitimate use are laid out, so that they are protected by the law. Any nonnegotiable license on copyrighted material that went against the aforementioned situations are declared to be unenforceable (though it is unclear whether this means the whole license, or just the specific terms in conflict with the protected uses). The term 'digital work' is defined, and an important exception is made. Simply, the definition is that a digital work is any copyrightable work in a non-analog form, with the exception of computer programs. This exception is important, as it leaves a very large loophole in the Act, which I'll discuss later.

Section 4 covers the doctrine of First Sale with regard to digital material. First Sale means that if you bought something, you are able to sell it (without keeping any copies or parts) without requiring permission from the original owner/copyright holder.

Section 5 allows for circumvention of protection mechanisms, provided certain conditions are met. If a copyright holder releases a work with a protection mechanism, and does not 'make available' a means to enabling non-infringing use of the work (or obtaining such a means is an additional cost or burden on the consumer), then circumvention of that mechanism is explicitly allowed for the purposes of non-infringing uses. The meaning of 'make available' is missing here, and this provides another loophole. The section also allows import, distribution, etc. of tools which circumvent protection to enable non-infringing uses.

Plusses

• Expresses sentiment that the DMCA is being abused
• Qualifies fair uses and provides that they must be allowed
• Enforces the doctrine of First Sale
• Allows circumvention when it leads to non-infringing uses

Minuses

• Definitions are incomplete
• Several areas are based on implications, and could bear further explanation
• Two major loopholes that could render the Act all but useless

As I mentioned, there are 2 major loopholes in the Act, that could be used and render the Act's protections useless.

Firstly, the exception of a 'computer program' as a digital work covered by this act is very significant. It is possible that any copyrighted content will no longer be distributed as a file, and viewed with a separate application, but instead distributed only as an application containing the content and the means to view it. Such a bundle would not be covered by any of the provisions of this Act.

Secondly, the lack of a definition for 'mak[ing] available' means to non-infringing uses could also be used to work around the Act. The additional qualifiers that such a means must not put any additional cost or burden on the consumer somewhat addresses this, but the terms 'available' and 'burden' are vague. What constitutes 'made available', and what exactly constitutes a 'burden'? Publishing tools for a single platform (possibly a very obscure one) could be considered 'available', and if obtaining and installing the tool is simple, wouldn't constitute a burden, but the tool itself would still have a very sharply limited utility.

This Act is a good first step towards addressing the myriad of problems created by the DMCA, but it is not a solution. With the loopholes it has, it is of very limited benefit to the general public, and is no significant threat to copyright holders.

Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor who served as lead counsel on the Eldred v. Ashcroft case, has finally updated his blog with some info about the case, namely that a petition for rehearing has been denied. He notes that 'such petitions are never granted any more', but are commonly filed anyway, so that the case doesn't just fade into nothingness. This marks the end of the Eldred case; one can only hope this end brings about a new beginning in perception of copyright law. More of my thoughts of the case will come soon.

Also on the Eldred front, whilst reading Code and Other Laws Of Cyberspace, I became compelled to finally finish my letter to Congress about the Eldred decision. The versions sent to Sen. Corzine, Sen. Lautenberg, and Rep. Chris Smith have been added to the Files section. The content of each letter is the same; they differ only in the addressee and the greeting, so if you've read one, there's no need to read either of the others.

As previously mentioned, I am working on a synopsis of the BALANCE Act, which should be posted sometime tonight or tomorrow.

Lastly, I've added to the files section a piece by Geoffrey Heard about what a war with Iraq might be about. It's a lengthy read, but it's very well written and most definitely worth the time.

For the first time since his arrest, Jose Padilla is being allowed to talk with a lawyer, after being held without access to counsel since June 2002. The government's argument for continued detention without a lawyer was that Padilla would be convinced by an attorney not to share knowledge of future attacks with the government. The practice of holding American citizens without the Constitutional right to a lawyer was defended by John Ashcroft, saying that giving these people the trial they are Constitutionally guaranteed could 'reveal intelligence secrets, sources and methods.'

This is yet another part of our Constitution that has been ripped to shreds by the Bush administration, who puts a few government secrets over the very rights and principles on which this country was founded.

18 judges were sworn in at the International Criminal Court today. Missing from the event is any representative of the US, since Bush withdrew support for the court in 2001, claiming that it would unfairly target Americans. Bush has sought treaties with other countries so that US citizens would not face a trial at the hand of the court, which deals primarily with handling war crimes and crimes against humanity. By shunning the court, and by then signing treaties with countries to prevent the trial of US citizens, it seems Bush is nervous that someone is going to be put before the court and convicted of war crimes. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that would be Bush himself.

From the this-just-in department, the Austin American Statesman is reporting that the US & UK may push back their deadline for Saddam to disarm by a month. From the stupidest-things-ever department, 3 restaurants serving the House Of Representatives will be changing the names for French fries and French toast to 'Freedom Fries' and 'Freedom Toast' to protest the French opposition to war with Iraq. The French had no comment, except that french fries come from Belgium.

US airlines would have to cut up to 70,000 jobs and face a loss of up to $7 billion if there's a war with Iraq, they say. The airlines are seeking help from Congress in the form of tax breaks and loans, on top of the relief they're getting to try and recover from an estimated $20 billion loss since 9/11. Wonder why there's a federal budget deficit now? War and corporate welfare.

Last week, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren introduced H.R. 1066, the "Benefit Authors without Limiting Advancement or Net Consumer Expectations" (BALANCE) Act. The bill seeks to amend the DMCA to allow more exceptions for non-commercial uses and for fair-use. I will be writing a summary of the act sometime this week, until then, check out some of the other info about it (Lofgren's press release or the Slashdot discussion, for example).

A prime contender for the Darwin Awards, SCO is suing IBM for $1,000,000,000 (one billion dollars), alleging IBM misappropriated proprietary UNIX technology into their Linux offerings. SCO's basis for the accusation? They say that there's no way IBM could have done what it has without the use of the other technology. No conclusive evidence, just a very weak circumstantial claim that I'm sure can and will be easily defeated. While SCO (who is also one of the partners of UnitedLinux) says this lawsuit has nothing to do with Linux, it's clear that there will definitely be an effect. Sun is positioning Solaris as an alternative to IBM's AIX, making the claim that they control all the code in Solaris and so this would never happen. It's rumored that Suse, whose distribution is the basis for UnitedLinux, is considering pulling support for it based on the actions of SCO. I'm going to sit back, laugh, and watch SCO be crushed under the weight of their own stupidity.
(Additional links: interview with Linus, SCO page about the suit, speculative comment from Bruce Perens)

In what can only be considered hypocrisy of the worst kind, Wired is reporting that the US is stocking depleted uranium bombs to be used against Iraq. Despite the fact that depleted uranium is 40% as radioactive as pure, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years, and that the particles from an explosion can carry in the wind away from the impact zone toward civilian populations, and the reports of 'Gulf War Syndrome' from the use of depleted uranium in the Gulf War, the Pentagon claims that it is completely harmless to both military and civilian personnel. So it would seem it's ok for the US to kill innocent Iraqis, when we don't even have any business in the country in the first place, but not for Saddam.

This leads me to something I mentioned a while back, regarding the effectiveness of the UN. Who watches the watchers? What country will take any action against the US should we decide to do something that would be against the principles of the UN? Who has stopped us so far for the things we have done? The answer is no one. There's not a single country in the world that has both the capability and the desire to take us on, and as long as that's the case, people like Bush will be able to get away with whatever they want, without any fear of repercussion. This means that the UN is little more than a puppet for whoever has the most power. Since the US has veto power on the Security Council, it could (and no doubt would) veto any resolution calling for some action against them, and the same would go for the General Assembly. The UN cannot be effective so long as any of it's members can act with impunity, and then have the power to veto any calls to action against them.

CNN apparently thinks it knows more about what Russia will do if a vote comes than the Russian minister or president do. This report, with the headline 'Russian minister vows Iraq veto', very concise and very clear. Yet, reading just 3 paragraphs into the article, we see that "The minister, however, did not use the word 'veto' and his boss, President Vladimir Putin, who has the ultimate decision on the matter, has not said what Russia will do.", making the headline completely wrong, and blatant sensationalism. Further evidence that the mass media cannot be trusted.

Congressman Ron Paul has a list of questions that won't be asked about Iraq. 35 questions without answers; 35 questions that deserve answers.

Yesterday, Adam Kosmin had his first day in court against Toshiba. Adam, with about 6 others in support of his case, were present at the Queens County Courthouse, particularly Small Claims Court. The night was rather uneventful, after waiting to find out where we were going, we ended up waiting in a long line outside one of the courtrooms. After waiting for a while, we were moved to a different courtroom, where Adam and the lawyer from Toshiba discussed their side of the case with 2 women, who I assume were there to try and talk them into taking the case into arbitration. Since any agreement reached in arbitration would be binding, without the possibility of appeal, and that an arbitration agreement wouldn't set any precedent for future cases like this, Adam wisely decided that he wanted the case to be heard before a judge. Before the night was through, he and the Toshiba lawyer had a brief conference before a judge, where they each presented their side of the case. Since this was the first time the case had come up in court, and since there is a backlog of older cases still waiting for a hearing, this hearing was postponed until April 23, 2003.

It was not a wasted night, however. We did find out what the major arguments of the Toshiba case are. Number one, they claim that they have a contract with the buyer that supercedes the EULA provided by Microsoft, two, the Microsoft EULA is not their responsibility (seems to contradict their argument for point 1), and that the customer has express knowledge that Windows came installed on the machine but bought it anyway. We also know that we need to be a little better prepared for next time, and to help that, a couple of suggestions were made, like looking for pro bono help, or seeing if any law students would be interested in helping with the case. Also, the possibility of seeking an expert witness to demonstrate that the OS is not tied to the hardware was mentioned, and this avenue may be pursued if needed.

The important thing to take note of is that this case is no longer simply about the monetary value of the refund, it's the precedent that a case like this would set, and the floodgates it could potentially open. I wish Adam the best of luck with any future proceedings (which I hope to be able to attend), and I ask that you help to spread the word about the case and just about the Windows refund provision in general.

Please note, by 'we' I refer to Adam's side, which I support. Any opinions expressed here are mine and not necessarily those of anyone else supporting Adam.

Tonight, I will be in attendance at the Small Claims Court of the Queens Couny Courthouse. Why? To witness a hearing on a case brought by Adam Kosmin against Toshiba. The issue in the case? Toshiba's failure to uphold the following provision of the Windows 2000 EULA:

YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

In this case, Toshiba failed to provide a refund despite Mr. Kosmin's attempts to obtain it. I feel this is a very important issue, as if Toshiba is found to not have to provide a refund, the Windows EULA will be an entirely one-sided contract, and you are effectively forced to pay for Windows whether or not you use it.

I've decided to close the current poll, with the result an even tie at 14 votes. No doubt there was some ballot-stuffing taking place, but not on such a large scale as to change the outcome: neither side enjoys a generous lead in opinion.

In other site news, the port of the entire backend to C++ is making progress, if all goes well it should be unveiled within 2 weeks.

There's also a new file in the Files section, an email from myself to Zoe Lofgren, the California Congresswoman who is behind H.R. 1066, the Digital Choice and Freedom Act.

A few days ago, mkomitee cited this page as 'an excellent rebuttal to the standard "war is bad mmkay" we've been seeing in the words and actions of predominantly european groups, and also in the american anti-war movement.' The page itself is little more than an author's elitist and ad hominem attacks on a (presumably) Dutch writer. If that is an "excellent" rebuttal to an anti-war view, then I would hate to see what a poor one looked like. People like that serve only to lower the standing of their cause, no matter what it may be, when they cannot or do not address the issue, instead stirring up emotion and anger, and claim they're right because they are somehow better than the person they're addressing.

Delta Airlines will begin a 'trial run' of CAPPS (Computer-Aided Passenger Pre-Screening), a program which checks on passenger's backgrounds to determine who is a 'risk'. One of the checks is on a person's credit history. For most of the others, no one outside the program knows. The program provides 3 threat levels, Green, Yellow, and Red, and this rating is encoded on your boarding pass when you check in. This is nothing more than discrimination against people who are suspected (without cause) of being a potential threat. Additionally, the lack of information available about the program leaves a number of other questions, like the length of time that the information will be stored, what factors are checked, and what recourse there is for those who suffer some harm at the hands of this.

Business 2.0 has an article about 'advertainment', which I railed against in this rant. The view there is primarily the business view, so it's a more favorable look, but in any event, it's worth reading for the info it provides, and also a glimpse into the mentality of those who are behind this like that.

Russia, France, and Germany decided today that they will not allow a UN resolution allowing force against Iraq to pass. Colin Powell said that the latest compliance by Iraq is only 'a diversion', a point which the Daily Show mocked, by showing the Bush administration diverting attention away from the economy and Bin Laden with the Iraq showdown. Rumsfeld is quoted as saying Saddam can avoid war, but "[t]o do so, he will have to disarm or leave." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he disarming right now?

It should make for amusing rhetoric and lies from the Bush administration, but the humor is dampened by the gravity of the situation. It makes a person wonder, when did we the 'right thing' to do become whatever was on the mind of the President of the US?

It has been brought to my attention that some of what I said in my update last night could easily be taken the wrong way, due to inadequate explanation on my part. Since I would prefer not have an opinion about me formed simply by some potentially misleading statements, I'm going to address the major things that need it.

First, I am not against programs like welfare and social security on their principles. Since a big deal was made about the welfare program, I think that it does have a definite place, and there are a number of people out there who are alive today only (partially, at least) through the welfare program. The same goes for social security. The problem I have with these programs isn't even with the programs themselves; it's with the abuses and mismanagement of them. I feel a very strong sense of anger towards those who abuse a program like welfare, which was designed to help people who had no other source of income to eat while they looked for a job, instead using it to cater to expensive tastes they otherwise wouldn't partake it. And the mismanagement of Social Security is at fault for the fact that the program is running at a loss, not those who receive the money from it. If you have any other questions, comments, etc, about my views on this, let me know.

Yesterday, it was reported that Iraq has destroyed 10 of its estimated 120 resolution-infringing al-Samoud 2 missiles. We're talking actually destroyed, not just said they would. And Tony Blair claimed that it was 'a game' by Saddam. This raises the question, exactly what does Iraq have to do to avoid a war?

It seems for every demand that Iraq complies with, it's called a 'joke' or a 'ploy', and 2 more requirements are imposed. An important point seems to be missing from this though, namely that destroying missiles and other weapons takes time. Disarmament is not something that can be expected to occur overnight, nor is it something that should be demanded under the threat of war. What motivation is there for Iraq to disarm itself, when the Bush administration has stated that it will go a war with Iraq alone, seemingly even without a reason like the WMD that Iraq is alleged to have. So if Iraq were to disarm, there is the very possible threat that they'll still be attacked by the US, except that Iraq won't have a way to defend itself. The fact that the Bush administration is now calling for a regime change as a condition to avoiding war shows that the Bush administration seems to be hiding their true motivations, and only revealing them when they feel there is enough public support for an existing, similar measure to begin on their new path. Or, should I say, enough of a chance to mislead the public with fallacious arguments and baseless fear-mongering to drive 'support' of a war.

It certainly appears though, that Bush feels that it takes a war to create peace, saying that a democracy in Iraq will benefit the Middle East as a whole. I fail to see how toppling the government of one of the area's largest countries is going to suddenly make the entire area a more peaceful place. If anything, it would create a greater amount of chaos and increase the likelihood of something happening just due to the massive shake-up that would be happening. Assuming, of course, that Iraq has anything to do with a long-standing conflict that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

An interesting link (first linked on omlette's site) compares the US government to Iraq's. Who has weapons of mass destruction? The US does, Iraq may or may not. Who's preparing to wage an offensive war and invasion? The US is, Iraq is not. While there are no doubt points which this doesn't address (fair & balanced reporting is very hard to come by, and many of those who profess it merely lower the standard for those who actually try and provide it). That comparison, when viewed in close temporal proximity with this short presentation by the Democrats of the House Appropriations Committee, show that Bush is quite willing to say something to appease a large group, and then in his next move, go against everything he said to further his own agenda.

The Bush war machine suffered a setback today, as Turkey failed to pass a vote to allow use of Turkish bases by US forces to attack Iraq. I wonder how long until Bush's post 9/11 'you are either with us, or you are against us' statement is applied and Turkey accused of supporting Saddam and terrorism.

Enough about the war though, another issue has been in the news a lot lately, and I would definitely like to express my feelings on this. The issue is that of Jesica Santillan, the 17 year old girl who received a botched heart/lung transplant and eventually died after a second transplant was ineffective. Did I mention that she was an illegal immigrant from Mexico? Her family paid someone to smuggle them into the US three years earlier to increase her chances of getting a transplant. And indeed, she received two heart and lung transplants, which are the rarest form of transplant. So now, 2 deserving, legal American citizens are forced to wait, and possibly die, because it was felt every effort had to be put forth to save someone who had absolutely no right to be here in the first place. This brings up the question, what created such a media frenzy about this? The first I remember seeing about this issue was about the botched transplant, nothing before that, so I'm going operate on the assumption that's the impetus for all the attention this has drawn. Could the fact that many news programs seem to have it out for hospitals and health care system in general have any effect on this?

I'm sure there are those who are going to say that she deserved that chance at life, even more so after it was bungled the first time. To which I say, if Jesica were to have received the correct transplant the first time, and still died, virtually no one outside of her family and the hospital staff involved would have known or cared about it. But since the operation was messed up once, it was all over the news, and somehow a dying illegal immigrant became the focus of so many people's sympathies and prayers. It's my feeling that if you want to receive public health care in the US, you should, at the very least pay taxes to us. I would very much like for it to be only open to citizens and legal immigrants; people who have legal reasons to be in this country, and who just aren't here because something or other isn't perfect in their country. I find the widespread acceptance of this, and the widespread sympathy people expressed for this girl, to be absolutely wrong. Because of someone who offers absolutely nothing to the US, the government health programs that we the taxpayers fund has spent money which should have been earmarked only for those who paid money towards those same programs. We the taxpayers, the supporters of all government programs, should not have to bear the burden of those seeking a free ride at our expense. The fact that our country still distinguishes between legal and illegal immigrants, has a Border Patrol to keep people from illegally entering our country, and makes efforts to return those who do to their native countries, says that our country is not open to anyone who comes by and asks. It is open to those who will contribute to it; those who put their efforts in to this country are the ones who should see the benefits of their labors.

This line of thought is worthy of elaboration. If I look back at pay stubs from all the jobs I've worked, they all have one thing in common, and that is the taxes that I am forced to pay out of them. Things like unemployment, and in particular, welfare programs. One of my previous jobs was as a cashier for a supermarket. In the year that I worked there, I never once rang up a customer who used food stamps or welfare checks who actually deserved to be getting them. When you see the same people coming back after 6 months, I became very angry at the fact that part of the compensation work I was doing was forcibly going toward programs that give people no reason to ever do anything with their lives. I've seen people who purchase large, expensive steak with their food stamps. If you can use them to buy steak, then you certainly didn't need them in the first place, since steak is hardly something that could be considered anything close to a necessity. And there was the guy who paid for what he could with food stamps, and then use a gold credit card to pay for the rest. These are stories and sentiments I've heard echoed from my co-workers there, and from others who have worked as supermarket cashiers. The sentiment goes beyond that though, many people I've talked to have similar feelings. The problem is the loud and obnoxious 'human rights' groups who feel that the lazy have some sort of natural right to benefit from the work of the willing. Such groups badger politicians with their views, oftentimes making their cause seem far larger than it actually is, in the hopes of convincing this politician that their cause is what a majority of people want, without actually taking the time and effort to find out just what it is the majority actually wants. And even if they did, would that stop them from misreporting those views?

There are always jobs out there, no matter what the conditions may be like. A job at McDonalds may not be very appealing, but it's work, and it's a way of giving effort, and then getting compensating. The phrase 'beggars can't be choosers' comes to mind here. I'm not generalizing people on welfare to beggars. but rather, my point is that there's work out there, and if you need a job, you can't be picky about what it is you do. Unfortunately, we've given people an extra option. It would otherwise be the case that you would either work and get paid, or not work and have no source of income. But we've added programs like unemployment. You don't have to do anything, but you can still make close to $500 a week. That's $500 a week that's paid for by the people who actually are working. Social Security is the same way, those who work now are funneling money to those who didn't have enough foresight to plan on their financial future after retirement. There is absolutely no reason that the government should continue to pay retired workers. Especially not a rate greater than that with which money was put into Social Security. As it stands now, it's entirely likely that the funds for Social Security will no longer be adequate within 20 years. That is long before myself or any other member of my generation should plan to retire, and so we won't ever see a cent of this money that we continually feed into the bureaucracy of the federal government.

What else can I say, but this country is heading to hell in a handbasket; I have seen predictions of a major governmental collapse within 50 years. With the actions of the Bush administration, I have a feeling it won't take nearly this long; and the fact that very few people are expressing and kind of discontent with these policies (the war being the exception, there is quite a large upswelling of public opposition to that) is only serving to expedite the process. And if it were only the US, it might not be so bad, because there would be other places where freedom was still a right enjoyed by the people. The problem is the US pushing it's weight around in an attempt to 'harmonize' other countries to the US system. Threats of sanctions and embargoes by a major power such as the US is often enough to cause a smaller government to just give in, and abandon those things which made it different than the US. No country on this planet has any system of government that is well-suited for use on a global scale, the Unites States included. But yet we seem to have taken it upon ourselves to the humanitarians of the world, yet at the same time the warriors of the world. The same people who on one hand support unity and solidarity on certain issues are the same who turn around and then decide to wage a war.

I think 'Not in my name' (I refer the phrase, not the organization) sums everything up best; I am an American citizen, but I do not support a government action against Iraq (not without any provocation), and I have opposition to many, many parts of the inflated and unworkable behemoth that has become the federal bureaucracy. Not in My name, indeed.

As arsjerm noticed last night, and possibly others have, there's something different than a regulay copyright notice. Instead, there's mention of a Creative Commons license.

What's a Creative Commons license?
Creative Commons licenses are licensing options for creative works such as writings, but instead of reserving all rights, reserve only some rights to me as the author.

Some rights? Which ones?
Under the license I have chosen, anyone may use any content found on this site, so long as it is attributed to me. The same applies to any works derived from anything here, it's allowed as long as I am credited as the original author.

Why?
For those who know me well enough, you'll know that I've recently been reading the Supreme Court decisions in the Eldred v Ashcroft case, relating to the term of copyrights. I feel that placing the content of my site under a license such as this is very beneficial to the public at large, since it is a mere step above placement in the public domain.

What about comments?
When you post a comment, you have the copyright to it. Without explicitly transferring ownership to me, you own your comment. The license only applies to that content which is created by me.

If you have any questions or comments about this, please contact me.

I got this in my email last night, and for increased public consumption I'll pass it along here.

WHAT: CANDLELIGHT MARCH FOR PEACE
WHEN: Wed., March 5, gather at 5:30PM
WHERE: Assemble at Hillary Clinton's office, 780 Third Ave. (47th & 48th)
BRING: Candles, signs and drums
Sponsored by United for Peace and Justice NYC, NYC Forum of Concerned Religious Leaders, and Not in Our Name

We rallied on February 15 -- and NOW WE WILL MARCH IN PEACE to prevent this war! Our march will be in conjunction with a national day of action, including student actions taking place on over 300 campuses around the country.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer voted "yes" on the resolution to send our country into war on Iraq. They must be held accountable! Let's show them that New Yorkers say NO to war!

Join us for a legal candlelight march on the sidewalks of OUR city, led by community, religious, political and labor leaders. We will begin outside Hillary Clinton's office (780 Third Ave. @ 47th), proceed downtown past Chuck Schumer's office (757 Third Ave. @ 46th), and march peacefully from there to Washington Square Park for a candlelight vigil.

For more information, contact plaarman@judson.org or Chomsky17@aol.com

For more information on the March 5 student strike, see http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=662

For more information on the March 5 national moratorium, contact religiousforum@hotmail.com or see
http://www.notinourname.net/call_for_the_moratorium.html

I work right nearby, and may be going, if you're interested, let me know.