CS 3043 Social Implications Of Computing 8/29/2015© 2009 Keith A. Pray 1 Class 7 Intellectual...

CS 3043 Social Implications Of Computing

04/19/23 © 2009 Keith A. Pray 1

Class 7Intellectual Property

Keith A. Pray

Instructorsocialimps.keithpray.net


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 204/19/23

Overview

1. Quiz

2. Freedom Of Speech – Students Present

3. Intellectual Property – Students Present

4. Assignment


Quiz

For each for of IP protection below answer a - g.

1. Trademark

2. Copyright

3. Patent

4. Trade Secret

a) Use?

b) Restrictions?

c) Scope?

d) Owner?

e) Term?

f) Governed?

g) Example?

© 2009 Keith A. Pray 304/19/23


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 404/19/23

Overview

1. Quiz



4. Assignment


2Channel – Andrew Yee



Social phenomena and large events Densha Otoko / Train Man Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Memorial Neomugicha Incident



2Channel’s anonymity gives anyone and everyone a say, no matter who they are

Thoughts?



References: Japan Media Review – Q & A With the Founder of Channel 2

<http://ojr.org/japan/internet/1061505583.php> (8 Apr 2009)

2-Channel Gives Japan’s Famously Quiet People a Mighty Voice <http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2007/04/2channel> (8 Apr 2009)

Meet Hiroyuki Nishimura, the Bad Boy of the Japanese Internet <http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-06/mf_hiroyuki?currentPage=2> (8 Apr 2009)


COPA and Online Decency – Brian Bates Child Online Protection Act Originally passed in 1998 Federal crime for sites to provide content to

minors that was deemed harmful 2007 – U.S. District Court put out an injunction to

stop enforcing it


What Happened to COPA Since 2007? – Brian Bates ACLU Vs. Mukasey July 22nd, 2008 – Struck down in Third Appeals

Court Violated 1st and 5th amendment

January 21st, 2009 – Supreme Court denies appeal


The COPA Commission’s Study – Brian Bates Part of COPA was to do an investigative study 1% of indexed pages are sexually explicit Filters block 40 to 91% of material Roughly half of sites are outside of U.S. –

possibly outside of jurisdiction


Section 230 – Brian Bates Shields “interactive computer service providers”

from liability of information posted on their servers.

Practical Immunity Argument for:

“Legal cornerstone” for the internet freedoms we see today.

Argument against: Should companies be released from liability just because

they operate online?


Julie Doe Versus MySpace, Inc. – Brian Bates February 1st 2007 Julie Doe lied about her age on MySpace Julie ended up being sexually assaulted Julie’s mom sued MySpace for negligence MySpace won


Cook County Sheriff Versus Craigslist – Brian Bates Sheriff sued Craigslist, saying it was a “public

nuisance” Said it facilitated prostitution – “erotic services”

category Court ruled in favor of Craigslist


Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al. v. Roommates.com LLC – Brian Bates

FHC said Questionnaires violated Fair Housing Act

Ruled in favor of FHC! Why: Roommates.com populated the possible values of

the questionnaires. Ex: possible values for drop down boxes


References – Brian Bates Electronic Privacy Information Center. “ACLU v. Mukasey.” Accessed 4/6/2009.

http://epic.org/free_speech/copa/ Duncan, Geoff. “DOJ: The Web is One Percent Pornography.” Accessed 4/6/2009.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/news-article/11752/doj-the-web-is-one-percent-pornography

Thierer, Adam and John Palfrey. “Dialogue: the future of online obscenity and social networks.” Accessed 4/6/2009. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars

“Doe v. MySpace, Inc.” Accessed 4/6/2009. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Doe_v._MySpace,_Inc.

Ardia, David. “Cook County Sheriff Sues Craigslist for Creating a "Public Nuisance“”. Accessed 4/6/2009. http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/cook-county-sheriff-sues-craigslist-creating-public-nuisance

Samson, Martin. “Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al. v. Roommates.com LLC”. Accessed 4/6/2009. http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case484.cfm


Adrian MejiaChinese censorship overview Centralized Internet Access Providers Filter levels

Router Software Volunteers Businesses


Adrian MejiaGoogle and China, pre 2004 Search problems

Censored pages displayed Dead links

Disconnected

Difficult to use Competitor - Baidu Blocked in 2002

Two weeks Co-founder Sergey Brin: Popular demand


Adrian MejiaChinese-language Google News Launched 2004 Passive-censoring Criticism

Equal information opportunities

Response Better user experience Less likely to be blocked


Adrian Mejiagoogle.cn Launched 2006 Active-censoring

“According to local laws, regulations and policies, a portion of the search results do not appear”

CEO Eric Shmidt “Evil scale”

Self-censored service No service

Criticism google.com accessible

Not all the time Used more than google.cn

Extra censorship


Adrian MejiaPeople’s response Mixed Worry that google.com

would become blocked Occasional blockage “The person who makes it

impossible to access Google” “One click on this site

equals one pin prick”


Adrian MejiaReferences Bridis, Ted. “Brin Says Google Compromised Principles”,

SFGate, June 6th, 2006. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2006/06/06/financial/f161937D58.DTL (retrieved April 7th, 2009)

“Google Censors Itself for China”, BBC News, January 25th, 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm (retrieved April 7th, 2009)

“Race to the Bottom: Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship”, Human Rights Watch, August 2006. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/1.htm (retrieved April 7th, 2009)


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 2404/19/23

Overview

1. Quiz



4. Assignment


The Business Software Alliance (BSA)–Jennifer Hunt

Fights piracy and software license violations

Raises awareness about software piracy

Supports new legislation



Yearly global piracy study

Microsoft and Politics



Is the BSA too aggressive? Attacking small businesses Unintentional infringement

Supports Whistle Blowing BSA Reward Program

bsa.org provides tools to companies


Conclusion – Jennifer Hunt

The BSA helps protect software companies from software piracy

Some BSA policies are much to strict


References – Jennifer Hunt

BSA. Retrieved 04/08/2009 from http://www.bsa.org/GlobalHome.aspx

Chickowski, Ericka. “After 20 Years, Critics Question the BSA`s Real Motives” Retrieved on 04/08/2009 from http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Enterprise-Apps/After-20-Years-Critics-Question-the-BSAs-Real-Motives/


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 3004/19/23

Overview

1. Quiz



4. Assignment


Open Source? – Brian Tate

Shared IP Upstream/downstream Multiple vendors

Liability/Accountability “No merchantability” “No fitness for a particular purpose”


Open Source IP – Brian Tate


Software Patents – Brian Tate

Patent Spirit of inventiveness Is software a process?

Computability vs. Algorithm vs. Mathematics

Software Patents Apple IBM Microsoft


Economic Effect – Brian Tate

Does open source kill jobs and hurt income? Apple rebound Redhat vs. Microsoft


References – Brian Tate

Images: http://lindistros.com/images/categories/bsd-big.png (4/7/2009) http://http.cdnlayer.com/itke/blogs.dir/8/files/2008/02/gnu.png

(4/7/2009) http://www.thetechherald.com/media/images/200816/redhat_1

.jpg (4/7/2009)

http://www.itts.com.au/Portals/0/Partners/suse_2color.jpg (4/7/2009)

http://247wallst.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/apple-logo1.jpg (4/7/2009)

http://www.brawg.com/blog/images/tux.jpg (4/7/2009)


References – Brian Tate

Other Material: Bellis, Mary. What can be Patented?. 4.7.2009.

http://inventors.about.com/od/inventing101patents/f/can_be_patented.htm Google. Google Finance. 4.7.2009 http://finance.google.com Rusin, Zack. Open Source Licenses.

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/licensing/liceses_summary.html Larabel, Michael. Companies, Developers contributing to X server

<http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=x_server_contributors>

© 2009 Keith A. Pray 3604/19/23


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy Software Patents

The Supreme Court’s Stance The USPTO’s Actions

Apple’s Gesture Patents Gestures for touch sensitive input devices

USPTO Patent Application Numbers: 20060026521, 20060026536, 20080204426, 20080211775, 20080211783 – 20080211785, 20080231610, 20080316183


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy What Apple Claims:

Pinch to zoom



Pinch to zoom Two finger rotation



Pinch to zoom Two finger rotation Others


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy Can You Even Patent a Gesture?

What is required for a patent? What do the experts think?

What Would the Effect of the Gesture Patents Be? Use by other touch screen and touchpad

manufacturers.


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy Worst Case Scenarios

Violating the Principle of Consistency What about Windows 7?

Case Study – The FAT file system: Windows file system up till Windows NT. Covered by Software Patents. Became de-facto standard for USB sticks. TomTom Lawsuit


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy Why It’s So Important

Apple isn’t alone Multi-touch and gestures are important.

Point of Interest Apple’s LISA


Patenting The Pinch – Christopher Pardy Conclusion:

Apple and others are trying to patent a link between their multi-touch gestures and program functionality.

If the patents are approved many multi-touch systems will have proprietary gestures, or worse identical gestures linked to different actions.

Because these gestures are become standard many companies will have to risk alienating users or pay Apple.


References USPTO PreGrant publication database: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=

%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Gestures&FIELD1=TTL&col1=AND&TERM2=Touch&FIELD2=TTL&d=PG01 accessed April 8th 2009

PC Magazine, Apple Applies For Touchscreen Gesture Patent: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1918674,00.asp accessed April 8th 2009

Wired Magazine, Can Apple Patent the Pinch? Experts Say It’s Possible: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2008/02/multitouch_patents accessed April 8th 2009

Engadget, Windows 7 multitouch: it’s a gimmick (for now): http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/05/windows-7-multitouch-its-a-gimmick-for-now/ accessed April 8th 2009

Tech Flash, Microsoft sues TomTom over Linux and other Patent Claims: http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_sues_TomTom_over_patents_in_case_with_Linux_subplot_40305732.html accessed April 8th 2009

CNN, Microsoft and TomTom settle GPS software lawsuit: http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/30/technology/microsoft_tomtom.reut/index.htm accessed April 8th 2009

Microsoft, FAT32 File System Specification: http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/fatgen.mspx accessed April 8th 2009


EULA – Sam Moniz

XKCD


Contracts that you cannot read until after the point of sale where money is transferred.

Clause usually is that if you do not agree to the EULA you must return the software within 30 days for a refund

EULA – Sam Moniz


EULA – Sam Moniz

Pro-EULA enforcement, New York

Brower v. Gateway 2000

Against EULA enforcement, Kansas

Klocek v. Gateway, Inc.


Microsoft v GNU – Sam MonizEULA GPL

% of License that limits rights

45% 27%

% of license that extends your rights

15% 51%

% of license that limits your remedies

40% 22%

http://www.cyber.com.au/about/

comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

CS 3043 Social Implications Of ComputingMicrosoft v GNU EULA-Sam Moniz

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

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a

copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work

occurring solely as a consequence of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not

require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not

accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered

work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.


Reverse Engineering Microsoft – Sam Moniz “4. LIMITATIONS ON

REVERSE ENGINEERING, DECOMPILATION, AND DISASSEMBLY. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.”

• a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer

program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are

necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer

program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any

such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute

infringement under this title.


Warranties – Sam Moniz MICROSOFT

DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND.

GNU

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED

BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER

PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,

EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE

IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

OF ANY KIND.


References – Sam MonizZymaris, Con. "A Comparison of the GPL and the Microsoft EULA".

Cybersource. 4/8/2009 <http://www.cyber.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf>.

"Faust 2.0". XKCD. 4/8/2009 <http://xkcd.com/501/>."GNU General Public License". GNU OS. 4/8/2009

<http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>."Microsoft Windows XP Home EULA". Microsoft. 4/8/2009

<http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/eula/home.mspx>.Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (New York Supreme Ct.

App. Div. [Aug.] 1998)"Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., et al.". Internet Library of Law and Court

Decisions. 4/8/2009 <http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm>.

"Shrink-Wrap Licenses - ". Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions. 4/8/2009 <http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm>.


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 6004/19/23

Copyright

Protects work in tangible form. Expression, not ideas

Holder US Default?

Exceptions?, Transferred? Regained? Rights: Controls distribution, Controls derivative work, Public

Performance, others? US Term?

How are they governed? Fair Use? Rationale?


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 6304/19/23

How Does Intellectual Property Protection Apply To Computers? Hardware design Programs Algorithms Look And feel Music And Text Sharing


© 2009 Keith A. Pray 6404/19/23

Protecting Software

Patented? Copyrighted? Trade Secret?

License agreements? Open source and free software?

CS 3043 Social Implications Of Computing 8/29/2015© 2009 Keith A. Pray 1 Class 7 Intellectual...

Documents

Transcript of CS 3043 Social Implications Of Computing 8/29/2015© 2009 Keith A. Pray 1 Class 7 Intellectual...