"17 Reasons Why The Kids Don't Like Facebook Anymore"

Usually when I post a list, I say which items on the list are the best ones.  But these are all great.

My Latest EFF Amicus Brief: WildTangent v. Ultramercial

Today EFF filed the latest amicus brief that I helped write.  Our brief supports WildTangent's request that the Supreme Court hear a lawsuit brought by Ultramercial LLC.  Ultramercial owns U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545. The patent claims, in essence, showing a consumer copyrighted video over the Internet, provided that the consumer is shown advertising first.  If that sounds like it shouldn't be patented, EFF agrees:  EFF's blog post about today's amicus brief is here.  That post contains links to many previous posts about the case, which has been going on for some time.

The district court had dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the patent claims were impermissibly abstract under 35 U.S.C. §101.  That statute prohibits patents on abstract ideas.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, but WildTangent asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.  The Supreme Court ordered the Federal Circuit to reconsider in view of a Supreme Court case interpreting §101, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories.  The Federal Circuit issued a new opinion again reversing the district court.

In plain English:  The patent takes an abstract idea -- showing people copyrighted content if they watch an advertisement first -- and adds limitations such as "the Internet." The Federal Circuit's view is that adding "the Internet" to an abstract idea somehow makes it patentable.  Along with many other people, EFF disagrees.  We hope the Supreme Court will hear this case and invalidate this patent.

UPDATE:  Techdirt has this story on Public Knowledge's fine amicus brief also supporting the cert. petition.

Do You Enjoy TED Talks?

Do You Enjoy TED Talks?  Here is how they are made.

The 2013 Ig Nobel Prizes

The 2013 Ig Nobel Prizes are out. Best ones:

• The Medicine Prize, for "assessing the effect of listening to opera, on heart transplant patients who are mice"
• The Psychology Prize, for "confirming, by experiment, that people who think they are drunk also think they are attractive"
• The Physics Prize, for "for discovering that some people would be physically capable of running across the surface of a pond — if those people and that pond were on the moon." 
• Finally, the Peace Price, to the "president of Belarus, for making it illegal to applaud in public, AND to the Belarus State Police, for arresting a one-armed man for applauding."

Monty Python and The Holy Grail Trailers: Then and Now

Monty Python and The Holy Grail is a 1975 comedy classic.  Typical of that oddball comedy troupe, the 1975 trailer for the movie was, shall we say, a bit strange.

Someone has now created a 2013 "modern" trailer for the movie.  As Monty Python's Eric Idle tweeted, "it's really good."

How Do You Know When You're Middle-Aged?

"How Do You Know When You're Middle-Aged?"
Sample answer: "You struggle with new technology such as the heavy plough and the longbow."

Best Response Ever to a Cease-and-Desist Letter?

Apparently the American Bankers Association (ABA) thinks it owns the copyright in federal bank routing numbers.  These are the numbers that appear on the bottom and sometimes the top right of checks that identify the check writer's bank. 

The ABA sent a cease-and-desist letter to Greg Thatcher, whose web site listed and indexed the routing numbers, and demanded that he take down the numbers. (After a 1991 Supreme Court decision, most competent copyright lawyers would never even have made such a claim, but never mind.)

Mr. Thatcher obtained pro bono counsel to represent him.  That lawyer, Andrew Delaney, wrote one of the best responses to a cease-and-desist letter ever.  On the merits, the letter points out that (1) things like routing numbers aren't subject to copyright protection, (2) since the numbers were published without a copyright notice starting in 1911, any copyright would be lost for numbers published during the time the 1909 Copyright Act applied, and (3) Thatcher's use of the numbers would be fair use anyway.

But the best part is the humor in the letter.  Especially the footnotes.  Such as footnote 7:  "And we went to law school, which just illustrates how gullible we are."  And then there's the closing offer to accept service of process on behalf of Thatcher:

If you do feel it's necessary to sue our client, we are open Monday through Friday from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and we have lollipops for people who serve process.  So if you do file a complaint and send someone over with a summons, please have them wear something with a bit of purple . . . we all like purple.

A Mathematician, a Physicist, an Engineer, a Computer Scientist, and an Economist Attempt to Split a Check

A mathematician, a physicist, an engineer, a computer scientist, and an economist attempt to split a check.  Nobody looks good, but perhaps the economist gets the worst of this story:

Economist: Let’s each write down the amount we’re willing to put in, then auction off the remainder at some point on the contract curve.

Physicist: Huh?

Mathematician: Like most economics, that’s just gibberish with the word “auction” in it.

"3 Reasons Why Every News Story Should Be About Ducks"

Cracked has a great article, "3 Reasons Why Every News Story Should Be About Ducks."  As the story says, "Yes, duck news is the perfect news."  We already knew that.  Here are the reasons:

     #3. Ducks Are the Roombas of the Animal Kingdom
     #2. Ducks Drain Humans All of Dignity
     #1. Duck News Represents an Ideal World

The explanations are worth reading -- they include some great stories about ducks.

Interesting TED Talk on Some Problems With IP Law

Here is an interesting TED talk on some problems with IP law.  It starts out by singing "Happy Birthday to You."  Don't sing along, though, you might get into trouble.

Opening Round Briefs in Second Viacom v. YouTube Appeal

The long-running saga of Viacom v. YouTube continues.  As you may remember, Viacom v. YouTube involves the liability of user-generated content (UGC) websites such as YouTube when their users post allegedly infringing content, and specifically how UGC sites can defend such liability using the "safe harbor" of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. §512.  In June 2010, the district court granted summary judgment to YouTube on its safe harbor defense.  In April 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed much of the district court's reasoning, but remanded the case for further fact finding.  In April 2013, the district court again granted summary judgment to YouTube, and Viacom appealed yet again.

Viacom has now filed its opening brief.  Groklaw has a discussion of that brief here.  In addition, six amicus briefs have been filed in support of Viacom:

• Ronald A.Cass, Raymond Nimmer, and Stuart N. Brotman
• Copyright Alliance, Minority Media & Telecommunications Council, Inc. and the Media Institute
• American Federation of Musicians, Directors Guild of America, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, and Studio Transportation Drivers, Local 399, International Brotherhood of Teamsters
• MPAA and Independent Film & TV Alliance
• American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music, Inc., The Recording Industry Association of America, and Sesac, Inc. 
• Football Association Premier League Ltd., Bourne Co., Murbo Music Publishing, Inc., Cal IV Entertainment, LLC, X-Ray Dog Music, Inc., and Fédération Francaise de Tennis (this filing is actually a motion for leave to file the amicus brief)

Groklaw's discussion of those amicus briefs is here.

YouTube's opposition brief is due on October 25, 2013.

First Published Court Opinion to Mention "Sharknado" -- And It's Actually a Good Fair Use Opinion

The William Faulkner estate sued Sony Pictures for copyright infringement because the movie Midnight in Paris used a single line from Faulkner's book, Requiem for a Nun.  Fortunately, a Mississippi district court dismissed this case on the grounds of fair use. The opinion is well-reasoned, but that didn't stop the Judge from having a little fun.  The opinion begins as follows:

Presently before the court is the motion of the defendant, Sony Pictures Classics, Inc. (“Sony”), seeking dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The plaintiff, Faulkner Literary Rights, LLC (“Faulkner”) has responded in opposition. The court has viewed Woody Allen’s movie, Midnight in Paris, read the book, Requiem for a Nun, and is thankful that the parties did not ask the court to compare The Sound and the Fury with Sharknado.

This has to be the first court opinion to mention the movie Sharknado, already a Sci-fi classic.

My Interview With The Recorder

The Recorder, a San Francisco-based legal newspaper, recently published a report on intellectual property.  I am interviewed at pages 28-29 of the report (the last two pages of the PDF).

UPDATE:  Here is the video of the interview.

More "Smart People" Jokes

Following up yesterday's post, here are some more nerd jokes.  And still more.  There is some overlap.

UPDATE:  Reddit has a whole thread of these.

"Explanations To 15 Jokes Only Smart People Can Understand"

How many of these jokes can you get without the explanation?

How NOT to Babysit

The American Red Cross has released this helpful video on how NOT to babysit.  With lines such as, "Wait, you mean you have a THIRD kid?"

What Happens When a British Cricket Commentator Calls a Yankee-Red Sox Game

A British Cricket commentator calls a Yankee-Red Sox game.  This might be why we seceded from Britain.  Featuring  "Joseph Gordon-Levitt" playing baseball.

The Hitler "Downfall" Meme Explains Patent Trolls

Patently-O has uncovered this clever use of the Hitler "Downfall" meme video to explain patent trolls.  The native YouTube link is here.  Turns out someone got a patent for "a method and system for world domination."  Anyone who thinks business methods should be patentable must leave the room.

Supreme Court Decides "Reverse Payments" Case

Today the Supreme Court decided FTC v. Actavis, the "reverse payments" case. This case arises in generic drug litigation, where the patent owner pays the accused infringer to stay out of the market until the patent expires.  Because the settlement requires the patent owner to pay the alleged infringer, rather than the other way around, this kind of settlement agreement is often called a “reverse payment” settlement agreement. The lower courts have struggled with whether this violates the antitrust laws.

In today's opinion, the Supreme Court reverses the 11th Circuit, which had dismissed the FTC's antitrust complaint.  However, the Court declines to hold that reverse payment settlements are presumptively unlawful. Rather, they are to be reviewed under the rule of reason analysis. The FTC will be given a chance to prove its case. The vote was 5-3, with the majority opinion by Justice Breyer (Justice Alito is recused). 

SCOTUSblog reports that this potential antitrust exposure "is likely to essentially put an end to such payments in the future."  In the long run, this will hopefully make generic drugs more widely available.

Supreme Court Decides AMP v. Myriad (Breast Cancer Gene Patenting Case)

The Supreme Court just decided Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.   The case involved the patentability of genes used to detect breast cancer.

As was expected after April's oral argument, the court held that isolated DNA is not patentable, but synthetic DNA is patentable.  The holding is summarized as follows:

For the reasons that follow, we hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but that cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.

This reverses the Federal Circuit in part, in a unanimous decision by Justice Thomas (Justice Scalia joined the majority opinion only in part, and wrote a brief concurring opinion disclaiming any knowledge about the "fine details of molecular biology").  I had previously written about the Federal Circuit's two decisions here and here.  The Supreme Court agreed with the Patent Office that isolated genes are not patentable.

At one point, the Court repeated an interesting statement from its 2012 opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus:

As we have recognized before, patent protection strikes a delicate balance between creating “incentives that lead to creation, invention, and discovery” and “imped[ing] the flow of information that might permit, indeed spur, invention.” 

The Myriad decision will likely reduce the costs of breast cancer testing such as the type Angelina Jolie recently publicized.

UPDATE:  Here are posts about this case by EFF, SCOTUSblog (also in plain English), Patently-O, and Techdirt.