Arnoud Engelfriet

Possibly. I found this doing a quick search. I don't know how credible a source it is, but it sounds reasonable. (Better, more reliable sources would be interesting to see). "Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark."[1] There may well be an argument that the confusion about who's behind this and that it actually deals with the company holding the trademark, I would think GitHub has a case. I'm not sure it would be worth pursuing, unless not doing so threatens the enforce-ability of trademark. [1]http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/

My favourite example of prior art, from a Donald Duck comic: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/

Actually, that's the law: if you're employed as a programmer, any programming you do in your free time is copyrighted by your employer. At least in the Netherlands. (More info at http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/ownership/ .) And yeah, that's pretty sick from an employee perspective, but great if you want to protect yourself as a company. When I was employed, I actually read my contract, so I had a side-note added with exceptions. If you're involved in any open source project, that's probably a smart thing to do. (Again, at least in the Netherlands, but I'm pretty sure that's not unique, since copyright laws tend to be very old.)

There's largely no such thing as "closed source" data. Many of the restrictions people claim on publicly distributed data are bogus: you cannot claim copyright on a comprehensive collection of facts. http://www.iusmentis.com/databases/us/ http://blog.infochimps.org/2008/04/02/good-neighbors-and-open-grazing/ I don't think baseball is cracking down on people making money on this, unless they infringed their (quite reasonable) hot news claims to the real-time data. Baseball is the leading example of why giving away most of your data is the best use of it. The sport of baseball -- the way it's played on the field, the way players are scouted and trained, and the way it's enjoyed as a fan (Moneyball? Fantasy Sports?) -- have been revolutionized by amateurs making use of free open data. If you give out the great bulk of your data, people will be enhancing it with metadata, building tools on top of it, and most importantly connecting it to the rest of humanity's knowledge store and mining it for connections you'd have never conceived. Giving out "up to last month" or "daily intervals" will grow sharply the market for "real time" or "second-by-second". Baseball's mission statement concerns bats, bases, butts and seats -- not visualizing correlations among heterogeneous data stores. By releasing their data for free they let the smartest people in the world have the opportunity to perform that second task for free. We're about to enter the age of ubiquitous information. …

It is different thing. When you copy data into computer's RAM, that might be copying as defined in law [1]: > Using software almost always involves creating copies, even though many of these copies only exist for a very short time. For example, executing a program means copying it from the hard disk into RAM so that the CPU can interpret the instructions. Because of this, the right to run a program is considered to fall under the copyright of the author. For comparison, when a human looks at the letters, there is no copying. Also, models can reproduce text verbatim which proves that they store it. So it is unfair when ordinary folks got sued for this and Zuckerberg wants to get away with a million times larger violation. He must go directly to jail. [1] https://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/rights/

US Copyright law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102 (b)In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. Thus, if it is simply the description of the algorithm to accomplish a process, it isn't copyrightable (functional processes are the domain of patent law, not copyright). But creative ways of describing an idea or process could be copyrighted... Further discussion https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf https://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/

Usefulness of the question aside, dismissing it as stupid is at the very least, shortsighted[1]. [1] - https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/

I getting downvotes for reporting simple fact? That's the spirit. Never let the facts get in a way ... Here: "US law is more strict. It forbids anyone from making, using or selling the invention, even when the use is strictly personal." - https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/

At least in USA. See http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/

It has at least been suggested in the "Donald Duck cartoon raising a ship" patent: http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/ At the very least, it strikes a serious blow against the novelty aspect.

It's a legal distinction. Code which is 'trivial' or 'functional' cannot be copyrighted, so therefore the GPL doesn't apply.[1] The example given there is a Hello World dialog, but certainly I have written tons of DOM manipulation JS which is purely 'functional'. The contents of underlying HTML elements might have more copyright protection than the code. (As to what it actually means, the case law is complex and the FSF would probably tell you to go ask a lawyer if you really want to know. Otherwise they will just offer you some arbitrary guideline, somewhat like their prohibition on linking to GPL C programs.) [1]http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/software/protection/

If there's no license, it is not 'freely distributed'. Copyright is automatic.[1] Under the Berne Convention, this implies all rights reserved.[2] I'm assuming you're the author. Good work, but please choose a license for your code so others can use your code as you see fit. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#Content [2]: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/allrightsreserved/

> I'm pretty sure the 'home copy' law doesn't allow you to copy stuff from the library But it does. :) It is explained here: http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/nl/thuiskopie/ but it is in Dutch. It states that: - You may make only a few copies but it's unspecified how many that is. - The copy has to be for personal use - You may make the copy for someone else, but this is not true for music - You don't have to own the material you want to copy - There are some exceptions, namely electronic databases (paper database are allowed), physical structures (no copying other buildings please!) and computer software

IANAL but US patent law does not have a personal use exception. 35 USC § 271 covers "makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells" (with some exceptions). http://www.bpmlegal.com/patqa.html#1 http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/ http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271

I think so. There is a myth about a Donald Duck comic being used as prior art when denying a patent application. It could be true since the patent was indeed denied, but sadly the records of why has been lost. http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/

Of course the US laws on copyright only apply to the US, but the idea behind the first-sale doctrine exists elsewhere. I just looked up the Dutch rules[1], and it turns out it’s very much the same. When a work is sold, the copyrights are “exhausted” and can no longer be invoked for that copy. 1: http://www.iusmentis.com/auteursrecht/spoedcursus/beperkingen/ (Dutch)

Though if you can use a less common language than English, you might get an even better passphrase. I know the Passphrase FAQ says using another language doesn't make your passphrase harder to guess[0], but having worked a bit with language tech, I'm pretty sure that's only true under certain "ideal conditions". Most lang. tech is extremely English-focused, if there's a new development, it always happens with English first. In non-English languages, OTOH, it can be a challenge simply to find a good dictionary, and finding the corpora to do the kind of rating done by lsb's algorithm is even harder. Of course, if the "other language" is French/German/Spanish, sure, it's probably not much safer. But if you're lucky enough to know a more marginalised language, I'd say go with it. [0]: http://www.iusmentis.com/security/passphrasefaq/practical/#WhatifIusea…

I really do hope I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure that you can't do that. EDIT: First section here ( http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/rights/ ).

http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/ 'The story is usually told as relating to the Dutch patent (NL 6514306) Krøyer applied for. This application was not approved. According to the story, the Dutch Patent Office found an old issue of the Donald Duck magazine which showed the same invention. Since an invention has to be new to be patentable, the application was refused.'' Life imitates art- life imitates life- life uses art as defense

Yes it is! It is illegal in the Netherlands to download pirated software! It's only for music & movies where this doesn't count! See e.g. http://www.iusmentis.com/maatschappij/juridisch/magdatopinternet/#Soft… , whose author is to put it mildly not known for being pro strong IE laws.

Prior art has to pre-date the filing date[1]. And even if they did have prior art, proving so in court could be expensive if the patent holder decides to pursue it. [1] http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/

Good point, I was wondering about that myself. Portrait rights? From: http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/limitations/#portraitri… "Photographic works often are portraits of specific persons. They may, but need not necessarily be, commissioned by the portrayed persons. Many copyright laws contain provisions that require the author to get permission from the portrayed person when publishing the portrait. In case the portrait was not commissioned, e.g. a photo taken on the street, the portrayed person should demonstrate some likelihood of damage that can arise from the publication. A famous person could for instance argue that he normally charges for photos, and so the unauthorized portrait robs him of this income."

Facts are not copyrighted, but a collection of facts as such may be copyrighted, assuming there is some creative activity involved in compiling the collection. So, a list of the most common English words would be copyrighted, since there is creative effort involved in deciding whether a word is common. http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/protection/

https://blog.usejournal.com/rethinking-how-we-interview-in-microsofts-… is the original post by a PM at Microsoft. It doesn't have any useful information about a pure technical interview for software engineering. >(Note: I started at Microsoft when we were still asking questions about why manhole covers were round, how many ping pong balls would fill a 747, and how to reverse a linked list. In 20 years here, I’ve yet to have to write the code to reverse a linked list (copy-paste anyone?) or fill a 747 with any kind of ball.) The manhole cover question is actually a valid industrial design or UX question even if it's not appropriate to ask for software interviews. The linked-list question is the equivalent of Fizzbuzz for data structures. And the 747 question is a valid Fermi problem. The exact number doesn't matter but the steps required to estimate the answer are similar to other estimation problems when mapping out a business strategy and trying to determine if it's profitable. Or maybe the company is interested in salvaging sunken planes: https://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/donaldduck/

a) is (technically) easily satisfied. In the USA, only persons can apply for a patent. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-conc… ”According to the law, the inventor, or a person to whom the inventor has assigned or is under an obligation to assign the invention, may apply for a patent, with certain exceptions.” and, more explicitly, http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/crashcourse/applicant/: ”When someone makes an invention, and does so as an employee of a company, usually the company owns the right to apply for a patent. The exception once again is the United States, where only natural persons may apply for a patent. In the USA, the employee will typically have a clause in his employment contract stating that he assigns all his patent rights to the company. The filing is then done on behalf of the employee, but the rights immediately go to the company.”

> I disagree, especially in non-US courts, largely because of the "commercial" nature of the site. Just run a Foundation / Charitable organization (Stichting) under Dutch law, which is not-for-profit. It's possible to gain money with ads, or sell products. So you can pay the hosting. It's even allowed to give people a monthly income. As long it's not making profit (in the end you'll need 0). A Charitable organisation (Stichting) is always 'non commercial' under Dutch law. Just to mention Inter IKEA Systems B.V. is a company from The Netherlands. Not sure what would happen if someone would host IKEAhackers.net from The Netherlands. To sue someone in the USA over "intellectual property rights" is quite easy, our system works quite different. We're allowed to use someones name (Reclame Code Commissie), Dreft is allowed to make ads which say Ajax makes bad dish-soap. But this falls under another category, since IKEAhackers is not advertising for DealExtreme products. http://www.iusmentis.com/merken/grappen-parodie/ Frew quotes: > Verwarring alleen is niet genoeg. Verwarring met een origineel merk is alleen inbreuk als het gebruik ook commercieel is. > Ook nietcommercieel gebruik van een merk kan merkinbreuk zijn. Het gebruik moet dan afbreuk doen aan de reputatie van het merk. Hier loopt een merkparodie al snel tegenaan. Which says in English, that parodies are forbidden if "commercial use" and has "undermine the reputation". IKEAhackers is a non-commercial (ads to pay…

I suggest contacting a trademark attorney and see if you can get a short pro bono consultation. I'd ask about what they thought about your classification. I'm not an attorney, but via http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/rights/ it says 'The most common type of trademark infringement probably occurs when somebody else sells a product or service under a name that in some way resembles a registered trademark, and the products in question are the same or similar to the registered products.' Zynga's classes are IC 041. US 100 101 107. and IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. I don't see dating services in there: http://tess2.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-brs?sect2=THESOFF&sect3=PLURON&… I'm no attorney, but I'd go talk to one about your classification. And if you take Paul's advice, make sure you make part of the deal that Zynga will do forwarding of the old domain for you for 2 years so you can transition your 75K users over. Impact to them and your business is non-trivial.

I'm on thin ice but I think it's true in the USA too - only source I can find (for USA) with a quick search is a Caltech IP law lecture PPT (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:35Cr_88udtsJ:https://co… this is good for the general case, http://www.iusmentis.com/copyright/crashcourse/requirements/). The issue is the burden of proof. In the tort of copyright in the UK I gather the burden is the balance of probabilities. Maybe in the USA courts the burden lies on the defendant proving they weren't able to copy (rather than on the plaintiff showing they [most likely] did). It's not only a defence where a work is uncreative (that might stop it being an "original work" in Berne Convention terms after all) - if it's impossible for one to have copied the other then there is no infringement (eg the alleged copied work was privately held in a different country to the defendant). --- Edit: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php?topic=1377.225;wap2 link surprisingly has a couple of good quotations in the response from '"The essence of copyright is originality [...]"'. In particular - and I'm quoting quotes here - are…