Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones
|
So, they are transparent in telling web site owners that they have to block googlebot if they don't want to be phormed. I don't really know who is being blackmailed the most here. Do BT really think that they can tell sites to stop trading with google: are they trying to put google out of business, or is it the sites that rely on their business partnership with the search engine to stay in business that they are trying to stop from trading?
If BT are so transparent about their requirement, where are the newspaper articles or full page adverts circulating around the world to publicize the need to block googlebot?
IF BT are so transparent, why have they failed to reply to emails requesting technical information relating to how blocking googlebot will block the phorm script from intercepting the site?
With googlebot, the webmaster can see googlebot requesting the robots.txt file and the logs will show that googlebot has honoured the robots.txt file by not visiting any pages. What audit trail is left by the phorm script?
Oh dear, Revenue Science and Tacoda use scripts and cookies, hosted on partner sites, which all web savvy people block, so BT can use scripts which don't require any partner sites and which no one can block. That is good logic
And the UID is safe because there won't be a coordinated market for harvesting the data. Oh, the innocence.
Can anybody find a s.28A in the Copyright Designs and Patents Act? The only reference I can find is as follows, and relates to an amendment to the Patents Act 1977 where section 28 relates to the restoration of lapsed patents.
Quote:
7 After that section insertâ€â€
“28A Effect of order for restoration of patent
(1) The effect of an order for the restoration of a patent is as follows.
(2) Anything done under or in relation to the patent during the period between expiry and restoration shall be treated as valid.
(3) Anything done during that period which would have constituted an infringement if the patent had not expired shall be treated as an infringementâ€â€
(a) if done at a time when it was possible for the patent to be renewed under section 25(4), or
(b) if it was a continuation or repetition of an earlier infringing act.
(4) If after it was no longer possible for the patent to be so renewed, and before publication of notice of the application for restoration, a personâ€â€
(a) began in good faith to do an act which would have constituted an infringement of the patent if it had not expired, or
(b) made in good faith effective and serious preparations to do such an act,
he has the right to continue to do the act or, as the case may be, to do the act, notwithstanding the restoration of the patent; but this right does not extend to granting a licence to another person to do the act.
(5) If the act was done, or the preparations were made, in the course of a business, the person entitled to the right conferred by subsection (4) mayâ€â€
(a) authorise the doing of that act by any partners of his for the time being in that business, and
(b) assign that right, or transmit it on death (or in the case of a body corporate on its dissolution), to any person who acquires that part of the business in the course of which the act was done or the preparations were made.
(6) Where a product is disposed of to another in exercise of the rights conferred by subsection (4) or (5), that other and any person claiming through him may deal with the product in the same way as if it had been disposed of by the registered proprietor of the patent.
(7) The above provisions apply in relation to the use of a patent for the services of the Crown as they apply in relation to infringement of the patent.â€Â.
|
and I see nothing in any of that text that nullifies infringement nor decreases the rights of the patent owner.