What is Digg?50 Comments
- dodger2020, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"no president before bush has used this in as blatant a fashion, as the article says, this administration is the 1st to use it in a systematic way."
Nice way to take something out of context and twist it around. The only part of that statement that's true is the part that says "this administration is the first to use it in a systematic way" i.e. regularly. It's been in use LONG before bush was president. This isn't an administration issue for anti-republican/bush/pissed-because-you-lost dorks to use. It's not an issue for anti-democrat/yaaaay-we-won-you-suck dorks to use either. It's a government issue and it would be used as it is even if a democrat was the president right now. If you don't like it....CHANGE IT. Quit your bitching.
from TFA:
"Never passed by Congress, the privilege has its roots in English common law and was cemented into American jurisprudence by a landmark 1953 Supreme Court case titled U.S. v. Reynolds."
"the government invoked the privilege only four more times in the next 23 years."
"But following the Watergate scandal, the executive branch began applying state secrecy claims more liberally. Between 1977 and 2001, there were at least 51 civil lawsuits in which the government claimed the state secrets privilege -- in every case successfully." - Somato_Gastric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So we now live in a time when spotty kids downloading movies from their bedrooms can get busted by the FBI for intellectual property infringement, but its OK for the government to essentially steal someones bright idea.
Wake up people. Information is fast becoming controlled. And not for our advantage. - andyd273, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Actually, he should still sell the technology to Lucents competetors... they didnt buy exclusive rights to it, they didnt buy it at all.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1> I have a feeling the real people that ***** up are Lucent.
Oh, there's no question about that.
Executing a "state secrets privilege" block is the patent attorney's equivalent of successfully appealing a death row inmate's sentence; not many will even get the chance and even fewer will be successful. It is most definitely a notch on an attorney's bed post. It's a line item on a resume, in the same way that a patent would be a line item on an inventor's resume.
For every grand herbivore that grazes on the plain of human intellect, there is a pack of apex predators who are more than willing to take it down. - dtatom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For all you Bush bashers out there: read the damn article. It has nothing to do with Bush. In this case it was the secretary of the navy that exercised executive privilege, and moreover it happened between 1995 and 1996.
As for the matters of the case, it does suck. Not because government needs to keep secrets, but because they used it as an excuse to forgo payment. Although arguably the inventor was stupid not to ask for investment upfront.
When a government places its need above those of its people only bad things can happen. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that really sucks...
- mkjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great story, really feel for the poor guys.
Reminds me of the scene in Armageddon where Mr Willis finds out his drill design has been used by the government without asking or paying for it. They claim that "Patents do not exist in space" but its the same idea. - brickbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The little guy screwed over again...What's new.
- Tomato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'd have to agree with how information is quickly becoming controlled. Foreign countries already censor information in the news, and even electronically. Big Brother is watching which is supposed to be good... but is it?
- fnord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hmm... Just spit-balling here, but...
Didn't most of the events reported occur during Clinton's tenure in the Oval? If you look at the dates listed in the article, they all predate the Bush administration, except for the latest ruling which simply upheld the lower court ruling. - kcappraiser, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That is BS. They don't need to know what it is used for, just give them some cash. How many billions was Lucent's contract worth? It is very scary to me when people don't get compensated for something they invent or do, where is the incentive for anybody else who takes a risk?
- thatotherguy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Well I don't see bush doing anything to help this guy out, so neener neener neener"
?
Sure, he'll just put the "trivial" issues (Katrina, Iraq, Iran, China, North Korea, Rita, Court replacements, sagging polls, etc.) on the backburner, hold all calls, and launch a huge investigation for this guy.
No problem. Get right on it. Consider it done. Sure thing. - shade73, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I must be missing the point. If the government is not telling the guy what his device is being used for, why does it matter? I don't think we should give away national secrets b/c some patent holder is curious. That's about as stupid as the idiotic media telling every move the president made on 9/11. At any rate, I guess I'm just missing the point
- pophysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The patent-infringement portion of the case has since been dismissed, under a federal law that says a company can't be sued for infringement if the development was for the exclusive use of the government." -- That is messed up.
- nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This man should simply move to another country, and begin to disseminate his idea to other countries that respect patent law. Baring that he should just give the technology to all of the United States' competing countries. The point of the technology is to create communications that are resistant to interception. He should spite them and invent a way to intercept it.
- Great_Wizard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Interesting, very interesting indeed. But I have to agree with the inventor here: "If it had been war time, World War II, I'd have given it to them. But if they're hiding behind some friggin' law, basically to screw somebody..."
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dtatom: Actually, it happened in March 1999, not "1995 or 1996".
The initial work they did with Lucent happened in 95-96. The order from the Secretary of the Navy to kill the lawsuit happened in 1999. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0His invention allowed not only a new way to splice fiber optic but a good way to tap a fiberoptic cable to monitor "secure" third party communications. whoopideedoo...
- andyd273, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually, I think this is a better moral for the story: Get the money up front. He should have gotten the licensing money from lucent before even starting to work with them on it.
Then if they had pulled that crap in the beginning, he could have been like, "well, do what you want with it then", and then sold the technology to lucents competitors and gotten paid. - PunkOfLinux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Such complete hypocrisy in the world of patents.
- Zuhaib, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is very bad practice on part of the government not to pay the people who inverted this tech that they are so much protecting. How did they know that these people would not turn around and sell there tech to someone else, or just make it public domain. You would think the government would pay these people a great deal of money just to keep there mouth shut.
I have a feeling the real people that ***** up are Lucent. More then likely they never even told the government that this was someone Else tech and i bet pitched it as there own. The Government is messed up, but it never burns you in DoD Contracts because the government knows it important to keep them happy or they can walk. So when these guys sued, the Government scared that information would leak out more then it already did invoked this right. I just think if any inventor is every finds himself in a position like this, HOLD OFF! tell them your not showing anything or selling anything till you receive the clearance or the OK to know more. - futhark21, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you think that this is the only administration that has ever done anything horrible in a systematic fashion, then go back to school. Just look at JFK, he is touted as being this all perfect guy yet he had both the Mafia and CIA trying to kill Castro.
People claiming that this administration is doing something worse than any other is simply ludicrous.
And before you flame me. I am NOT by any means a Bush loving Republican. In fact I'm Libertarian. - 5blocksfree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0FTA: "But if the outcome sometimes seems unjust, it's a necessary trade-off to preserve national security, says Washington attorney Shannen Coffin, a lawyer at Steptoe and Johnson and a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general from 2002 to 2004."
This is pure spin. Most people with at least some intelligence KNOW why it's being used. I'm willing to entertain the notion that a growing number of politicians have come to embrace a covert form of cowardice- they want all the glory and all of the perks that go with it, but none of the accountability. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Uh, there's a reason they call it "The Company".
Somebody, somewhere should be taking note: Lawyer as Lucent gets spanked, NOW!
Remember guys, when you're relying on a core piece of technology to tap those undersea cables (yes, we know you do that), it is *ALWAYS* better to option-in the inventor. Look the forms to do this are almost boilerplate these days... fscking armatures.
...and now it looks like you're about to get your little sekret squril plans plastered all over the legal system and mainstream news. Way to go Lucent.
Funny point of convergence: submarine technology to reach undersea cables is easily obtainable (reference: the slack problem). Turnabout is fair play past +400 miles and the puzzle pieces are starting to fall in place. Expect major intercontinental telecommunication outages in the very near future. - spare_brain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"uh, is it just me, or does ^ this ^ post have nothing at all to do with the topic"
If you did not understand the comments - go back and read the article again, and again. Eventually, it will seep in, perhaps...! - pox05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a great injustice has happened here, and the US government (as a whole, not rep. or dems.) is to blame. i think the best solution for this is to pay the inventors behind closed doors.
FTA
"'Although there may be areas of such sensitivity that no judicial exposure can be countenanced -- such as, perhaps, the formation of the Manhattan Project -- there is no suggestion that the sensitive information concerning the Crater Coupler cannot be protected by well-established judicial procedures for preserving the security of sensitive information,' Newman wrote."
i have to agree with this judge. - ThePikey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Of course as soon as they told Lucent to pony up the cash before proceeding, they would have told them the same thing they told the first half dozen contractors, "Thanks, but no thanks."
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> This man should simply move to another country, and
> begin to disseminate his idea
Bad Idea Alert!
How much do you think it costs to lay undersea cable? How many international institutional inventors are involved? How many intelligence services rely on the relative security of undersea cable? In the bigger, Machiavellian scheme of things, they guy is at more risk than Bull. Sure, from a "moral" or "ethical" point of view, he may be more in the right than Bull, but that doesn't really lessen the risk. - unmarked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is a great way to encourage those with patents to not work with the government (or their contractors) in any way, for fear of basically becoming a slave of the government (you do the work, they take it from you for no compensation)!!
More importantly, our government has become more and more secretive with less and less public oversight -- this should scare everyone. - wired4christ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my idea on this is if you do invent something then don't sell it to the government directly coz they'll rip you off.
- min_t, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The moral is... if you want to make money from your invention, sell it to the public. The job of government is control. If you sell your invention to them, guess what, turn around, bend over, and say thank.
- iroute, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Did everybody miss this part of the story ... no offense screw the guys with the bad sense, they should simply write 100 times " never *ever* give away an idea without a signed contract, wash, rinse, repeat".
" And in perhaps the most disturbing case, this year the Justice Department asserted the privilege to kill a lawsuit by Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian citizen who, in 2002, was picked up by U.S. officials as a suspected terrorist while changing planes at JFK, and promptly shipped off to Syria for a year of imprisonment and torture."
I feel more for this guy, than some old coots who managed to get *themselves* taken for a ride. - hypeiv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0So if I invented a new type of pen do you think I would have the right to see what everyone ever writes with it?
There is a reason things are kept secret... - mikeyj10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This really is not a good time to challenge this state secret doctrine because it in all likelihood would be upheld as an implied constitutional power for the executive. They would probably say that the constitution was adopted with this power being firmly rooted in the executive. I'd would wait for a liberal president to get elected and for some of the conservative justices to die off in the federal judiciary before assaulting this particular presidential power.
- spadin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It seems from your comments that most of you did not feel the need to read all four pages...
If I understood correctly, the part of the suit that was denied was the right to include some documents as evidence. The navy stepped in a blocked the introduction of 26,000 documents, most of which are openly available, however in this case they can not be introduced as evidence.
This is not a case of some guys trying to figure out what the government is doing with their invention, rather they need the information in order to prove that Lucent indeed made money from their invention as is not giving them enough compensation ($100,000 thus far.)
Lucent didn't want to pay more that $100K so they went to their contact in the Navy who then assured that their case would be stumped in court and let Lucent get away with not paying someone their due compensation. Remember that these 2 guys consulted Lucent for a year. - w3bsmith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"And before you flame me. I am NOT by any means a Bush loving Republican. In fact I'm Libertarian."
Futhark21. I'm glad to hear this. So am I. - Sazime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The use of States Secrets law has gotten out of hand. You should be able to get information that does not pertain to the direct use, but still says it was used, without divulging anything important.
- ahannemann, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's amazing to me that both sides would spend as much money on lawyers and such when Lucent (or the government) couldn't have re-countered at $250,000 and the whole issue would likely have gone away. I doubt the remaining group would have turned that down...
It sucks when the little guy gets bent over a chair. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 billyboobs34: are you kidding??? do you have any idea why the US is "splicing fiber obtic cables?" they have all of the undersea fiber optic cables wiretapped-- have you ever heard of Eschelon?!
- nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My point is simply he should release the patent, open source the invention.
- jarinudom, on 03/31/2008, -3/+2"incredibly depressing, "bush's is the first secrecy presidency", bloody hell - revenge of the chimp:("
no president has ever kept secrets before bush - grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1all you fools blaming Bush .. HAHA !
this happened in 1999 .. that was when Clinton was president ..
PWND - Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2|Warning, political rant ahead|
"all you fools blaming Bush .. HAHA !
this happened in 1999 .. that was when Clinton was president ..
PWND"
Um, yea - Go back to AOL. And if you don't go back, at least spare the rest of us from your leet talking, Bush administration defending ass.
I don’t need to tell you, but Bush is the one who put the director of FEMA in charge with very little qualifications, and practically no qualifications to be the head of "disaster relief." He is also the one who is going to be personally picking 2 Supreme Court justices, one being the chief justice. Seeing as it is a lifetime term kind of thing, any blunder this winner of a president makes in his selection is going to be with us for quite a while, as it seems the mentality of 52% of Americans at the time when this could have been averted was the same as George Bush, “I like him, so that’s who I’m going to pick.� People ignore certain issues, like oh.. say..
7,930,318,955,829.55
Does that^ look like a random number? Our national debt has soared under the leadership of president Bush. We’re in the middle of two wars with no end in sight - one wasn’t even necessary! At first, the war in Iraq was a war to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, but as the search for WMDs turned fruitless, it slowly changed from a war to protect the American people and its allies into a war of bringing democracy and freedom to the peoples of Iraq. How can the Republicans support him if not out of blind servitude? How can anyone?
You may retort by saying, “He supports pro-life.� or “Bush is leet� or even “Get over it, you bleeding heart liberal.� The point is, George Bush is a bad leader, and even if he didn’t accomplish many things other than ***** us over for generations to come, I don’t see how he has any support – And I don’t see how not knowing what your patent is being used for is the biggest issue by far.
|End political rant|
P.S. Check out my auctions
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZrealradiosglow - spare_brain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Any law put in place has a good intent, and then a lawyer finds out about it! Then Mr. Law and Mr Greed have a lunch meeting..
Fun part is that in a democracy we all get to voice our opinion and coerce a counterbalance to stop the misuse. Greed is not going away any soon, so keep swimming.. - geoboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Moral of the story: stop inventing.
- gpig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2no president before bush has used this in as blatant a fashion, as the article says, this administration is the 1st to use it in a systematic way.
- Billistic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Well I don't see bush doing anything to help this guy out, so neener neener neener
- gpig, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1incredibly depressing, "bush's is the first secrecy presidency", bloody hell - revenge of the chimp:(
- gerphimum, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0uh, is it just me, or does ^ this ^ post have nothing at all to do with the topic
- Joe_rigby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0Actually spare_brain, I think it was a comment on my comment which quickly got voted into flameitude and it pretty much was, but I should have just said there are worse things happening than an inventor being denied information about the government's use of their patent.
Check out my auctions:
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQsassZrealradiosglow
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is