That part at least is not new, it has been a feature of DJI agreements for some time now, doesn't mean it is enforceable of course...
- Status
That part at least is not new, it has been a feature of DJI agreements for some time now, doesn't mean it is enforceable of course...
I agree completely with you Mark, it's analogous to Ski Area Operators lift tickets "we are not responsible for injury" just because it's stated doesn't mean it has legal validity....I was not aware that it was on previous boilerplate...since only until the recent draconian measures I didn't pay attention to agreement.
You were clear... however, the ruling states no such thing. It states _nothing_ about a manufacture changing a product after it's sold. Absolutely nothing. What it does state is that a _customer_ is allowed to change the product in that this is not a violation of patent laws.
Just like pretty much everyone else, these 'T&C' pop up on screen and people just scroll to the end and hit accept because who has time to read it all and what are you going to do if you don't like something in there anyway, you have no opportunity to negotiate the terms...
This is of course what makes most of them 'contracts of adhesion' and while not a certainty that a court will strike anything in particular that you don't like, the more outrageous it is the more likely it is to be struck.
To your earlier point, fortunately in the case of patent law 'transformative use' isn't likely to become a thing.
The patent gives protection until the thing is sold, and then it ends in respect to the item that was sold.
If you buy it, change it and then resell it, patent law has noting to say on the matter, your patent protection ended with the sale.
You may have other conditions around the sale which will be subject to contract law, but not patent law.
That was the bind that Lexmark found themselves in with this case, they had no contract with the company doing the re-manufacturing so their only basis for a claim was patent law.
They had a contract with the consumers who purchased the original cartridges from Lexmark but to enforce it they would have to go after the consumers individually which is unappealing both on a numbers basis and the impact it might have on customer sentiment.
I did wonder why Lexmark didn't try for tortious interference and claim that the re-manufacturing company knew of the contract between Lexmark and their customers and induced the customers to breach the contract...
Anyway, drifting off topic for here, but yes, the DJI agreement remains completely untested as far as I know and is likely to remain so as long as DJI don't do anything too stupid...
I beg to differ regarding the chances of transformative use not being able to seep into patents. The basic premise that "the creator shall solely determine usage" has been completely eroded away in copyright law by "fair use"...as I personally discovered in a case which was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court and I can't help but think that attorneys will utilize some of the same arguments that the patent is somehow fettering development of new products as has been argued with some of the stem cell processing patents...I hope you are correct Mark but my own experience with how completely eroded the rights have become taken away from the creators of copyrighted work leads me to believe otherwise. Sorry to those who feel this drifts away from drones and original topic...I will stand mute at this point and keep all my thoughts "in camera"
I think the ruling means that if a 3rd party company wanted to modify or sell a add-on product that replaces an original product that the OEM (DJI) created, the OEM does not have any patent claims against the 3rd Party.
So, if a 3rd party company creates a new firmware and software to mod the MAVIC which adds features or circumvents NFZ or registration, then DJI can't do anything to the 3rd party. OEM may be able to void warrenty.
So, if a 3rd party company creates a new firmware and software to mod the MAVIC which adds features or circumvents NFZ or registration, then DJI can't do anything to the 3rd party. OEM may be able to void warrenty.
The most direct analogy would be if a company buys 2nd hand Mavics in China, refurbishes them and then sells them in the USA, DJI would have no grounds for suit under patent law according to the current ruling. (although I still prefer Justice Ginsberg's dissenting view on that).
The firmware/software side of things is a bit more complicated as parts of it involve licensing and related contracts and while it may be possible to dance around all of that it would take some careful effort and this sort of thing wasn't address in the SCOTUS judgement.
Rbruz
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2017
- Messages
- 258
- Reactions
- 130
- Age
- 48
hoggdoc
Well-Known Member
Read the briefing linked at the bottom of the first post then it will make sense...
Rogat19
Well-Known Member
I must admit there were moments during reading all the comments of this post I may have dozed off ( but only for a second!) Not being from the States I find it so interesting this mentality of "its my inalienable right" to do do what ever it may be, Own a gun that can kill a dozen people in a dozen trigger pulls ( I'm sure they didn't think of that scenario when the 2nd amendment was drafted) to how dare DJI restrict what I can do with MY drone I should be able to do what I like fly where I like, how I like, when I like, if the mood strikes me, who cares if someone then flies into a passenger jet or worse case a nut job or terrorist ( probably no distinction between these two ) can strap an explosive on one and fly it into a jet on landing etc thats terribly bad luck/sad/tragic/etc etc but my rights have not been encroached on! that is the important thing always! who cares about safety and keeping the 1 percenters restricted and yes I know the many get restricted because of the few, but lets face it there will always be the occasional **** the world type of guy out there that doesn't care for safety or rules so in some small way to defend against that I think some inbuilt restrictions are not a bad idea in the long run. anyway thats the way I look at it and I'm sure there are many out there that will definitely disagree with me haha. happy flying everyone
You sound fairly close to confusing those who dislike restrictions on their legally purchased equipment, with those who are careless or would attempt an evil deed if given half a chance.
Most of us simply want unhindered performance from the devices we pay for. We want something to perform without hesitation, or erroneous delay, from some overseas authority, especially in a professional setting. And within reason, most of us take responsibility, and reserve the right, to make the decision as to whether something is safe, appropriate or legal.
If that means an occasional tragedy will occur, then whether gun or drone, most of us here in the U.S. have accepted that, as the price we pay for additional freedom and self reliance.
I get it that many cannot understand that, especially from other places, and that is also fine with most of us.
Rogat19
Well-Known Member
If you call 75.000 non fatal firearm injuries and 37000 deaths due to "injury by fire arms" an "occasional tragedy or occurrence" then I'm going to save my breath for someone that has a sane and rational grasp on things and please don't take that personally you are just a refection on American society and its warped views on "freedom" and taking your "own Responsibility" and (here's that word again) "right" to make those type of decisions, Its such a shame that these rights and freedoms are taken away from the 40.000 people killed last year by firearms last year in America I wonder what they would say about that? anyway as history time and time keeps showing the rest of the world it doesn't matter how many people are killed by guns in the hands of " responsible - sane - reserve the right to make their own decision " you guys will keep on making your own "fake news" an alternative realities and now some people want to carry that across drones as well, well I'm hoping it will never happen and it probably won't although I am talking about America here and who is your President again? that alone feels like a completely off the wall type of TV show called " what if the world went mad " Haha and I was going to save my breath.
hookalakupua
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 304
- Reactions
- 100
I know I should just let this go and not take the bait but I can't help myself. Where 'o where to begin.
- The Australian Gun Ban Conceit
- Here in the U.S. it's a Constitutional Right.. PERIOD!
- The Second Amendment: A Primer - The Truth About Guns *If you don't read anything else, ready this and then we can discuss "Guns in America."
Hypocrisy, Drunk Driving, and Gun Control December 16, 2012
Disclaimer: The point of this article is not to argue for or against gun control. The point is to illuminate
inconsistencies in the way humans think, and to make you stop and think about your own thought processes.
In the United States in 2007 there were 12,632 homicides with a firearm. This does not include
firearm related suicides (another 17,352). Accurate statistics of gun ownership is not available, but
most estimates are around 200-250 million legally owned firearms in the U.S. Also in the U.S.
during 2007 there were 247 million registered automobiles, and 13,041 fatalities from drunk
driving. In 2006 there were 22,073 alcohol related deaths (I assume this includes deaths from DUI).
For our purposes today, the homicide rates from firearms and guns/DUI is identical. Of course they
are not perfectly identical, and they flip flop on which has more depending on the year. But the
numbers are close enough for this discussion, as absolute accuracy is not required.
Every life is precious. Every life has untold value left untapped. The loss of every life has a ripple
effect on family, the community, and society. So why do we not treat fatalities from DUI the same
value that we treat fatalities from mass shootings?
When people talk about gun control they talk about banning certain types of guns, banning certain
features of guns, or banning all guns outright. We never hear about car bans. We never (lately) hear
about banning all alcohol sales. We even give people with DUI convictions second chances, and
return their drivers licence after some period. If we banned all private cars or alcohol, would we not
save as many lives as if guns magically ceased to exist in the U.S.?
At this point those in favor of gun control will be saying something like, “but the only purpose of a
gun is to kill, and cars have other purposes”. To which I say, “All life is precious”. Is your right to
drive 3 minutes to the store more valuable than someones life? Is the inconvenience of public
transportation more valuable than the life of a child?
I am not seriously proposing banning of cars and alcohol, but it does make one pause and reflect on
what is important to us.
The truth is that we value our cars much more than those 13,041 people killed by DUI in 2007. We
value our alcohol much more than those 22,073 people killed by alcohol. But we value some lives.
We value those 12,632 people who were shot in 2007, because they are the easy ones to value.
Because banning guns does not inconvenience our daily lives, but banning cars does. We have to
drink that beer or wine at that party, so we are unconcerned with those that die from alcohol.
Aren’t we the hypocrite for wanting to ban guns, yet not banning alcohol or cars? Shouldn’t we be
ashamed for only valuing the “low hanging fruit”?
So let’s go back to the “guns only purpose is to kill” statement. There are many purposes for a gun
that do not involve killing of people. Of course there are the shooting sports (target shooting,
shooting competitions, etc.). People use guns for hunting, which in some areas and for some animals
is an important method of population control to maintain healthy wildlife. Guns are used for
survival, especially in remote areas. And of course guns are used for protection from human and
non-human threats. All of these are legal uses for a firearm.
The people who are pro gun control do not see the value in these legal uses for a gun. That’s not
really a fault of theirs, because maybe they live in a relatively safe urban environment where they
don’t need to worry about bears invading their home, or they don’t need to protect themselves from
intruders. The shooting sports is of no interest to them (much like I don’t care for the Ballet).
So lets talk about something that strikes closer to home: rape. In the U.S. there are approximately
208,000 sexual assaults a year. That is one every two minutes. 84% of rapists used physical force
only (no weapons). If you are a woman, your chances of being raped are near 4% by the time you
turn 40.
Statistics on rape are hard to find. Research on rape prevention are even harder. But this paper has
some interesting numbers. When a sexual assault occurs, women who used non-aggressive methods
(crying, pleading, etc.) to deal with their attacker were raped 96% of the time. Women who used a
forceful verbal resistance (screaming) were raped 44-50% of the time. Running away resulted in only
15% of the victims being raped. Hitting, punching, etc. resulted in 14% of the women raped. And
women who used guns or knives were raped only 1% of the time. No statistics were available for
the use of pepper spray.
Guns have their place in society. They have legal uses. In some cases there are no non-gun
alternatives. The vast majority of gun owners law abiding citizens, just like the vast majority of car
drivers or beer drinkers.
Conclusion:
We are hypocrites for valuing some lives more than others, simply because we view them as “low
hanging fruit”. We are essentially arm-chair-quarterbacks when we want to make policy decisions
on things that really have little to no effect on our lives. We are cowards for yelling the slogans of
political and social change without getting involved ourselves.
If you want to save lives, then learn the issues and go out and save lives. Don’t just put a “Coexist”
bumper sticker on your car and call it good. Volunteer at a homeless shelter. Do some hard labor
with Habitat For Humanity.
If you want to ban guns, fine. But get involved with a rape prevention program too. Do what you
can to provide young people with alternatives to joining gangs. Help with suicide prevention
programs and try to prevent some of the 35,000 suicides per year in the U.S..
When a mass shooting happens, it is easy and even fashionable to join the rally for change. But what
does that change really mean? Is it just lip service, or is it real and meaningful change? Sadly, most
of the time it is just lip service.
Get involved. Become a boot on the ground for saving lives. Learn the facts about whatever topics or
social issues that are important to you, and learn the facts that put those issues in perspective. Make
sure that the change you want will have the desired effect. And above all, understand that all life is
valuable– not just the low hanging fruit.
Last edited:
hookalakupua
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 304
- Reactions
- 100
Not all is well in your Country so maybe you should concentrate on fixing things at home first. Don't worry about us Americans as we'll be just fine. And yes, this is only 1 of dozens of stories we can debate if you want to compare our 2 countries. Only 1 of us is the greatest country in the world so it won't really be a fair debate but what the heck.
Lets think about taking your energy and putting it towards helping to solve your inability to have a simple fuel efficiency standard.
Phony 'carbon tax' car debate highlights the sad state of our media and politics
P.S. In your little Utopia, I'm assuming we should blame spoons for making people fat as well. hahaha
Lets think about taking your energy and putting it towards helping to solve your inability to have a simple fuel efficiency standard.
Phony 'carbon tax' car debate highlights the sad state of our media and politics
P.S. In your little Utopia, I'm assuming we should blame spoons for making people fat as well. hahaha
hookalakupua
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 304
- Reactions
- 100
Sweet dreams and here's a little something for you to ponder:
The freedom to own and carry the weapon of our choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
For your benefit as someone who is having trouble with the concept of individual freedom, that last little bit means that it doesn’t matter if 50.1 or 99.9 percent of Americans agree or disagree. My rights aren’t subject to their whims.
*Taken from TheTruthAboutGuns - July 2017
Once you understand all of this, we can then begin a discussion on drones. FYI... Offer still stands on the public debate.
The freedom to own and carry the weapon of our choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
For your benefit as someone who is having trouble with the concept of individual freedom, that last little bit means that it doesn’t matter if 50.1 or 99.9 percent of Americans agree or disagree. My rights aren’t subject to their whims.
*Taken from TheTruthAboutGuns - July 2017
Once you understand all of this, we can then begin a discussion on drones. FYI... Offer still stands on the public debate.
hookalakupua
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 304
- Reactions
- 100
Oh Lord, I thought I was done and then came across this gem of a statement.
So, let me get this straight. If inbuilt restrictions are placed upon our drones and maybe some laws passed, then we don't have to worry about bad people or terrorists flying one into a passenger jet, strapping explosives to one or worse?
News flash at 11pm... The world is about to become a much safer place because we've apparently found a way to get terrorists to follow the rules! haha I'm pissing myself laughing!!!!! hahaha
Most of the modifications that are being used are completely legal based upon U.S. Law and have nothing to do with inalienable rights. You may disagree with them but a majority of them are legal. I don't have the time to go into it all, so please trust me on this. If you need the legal grounds, I'll provide them tomorrow.
FYI... The U.S. has already begun restricting drone use in a variety of manners.
*Ever wonder why cars have speedometers and capabilities that exceed the highest of designated speeds across the Country? Probably not, as I'm sure you never speed, text and drive or talk while on the phone. hahahaha!!
Rogat19
Well-Known Member
Gee have you got a camera on me or something ? its uncanny how accurately you describe me, I would never speed or talk on my phone or ummm whats this text thing? I am a perfect law abiding citizen thank you very much! and you obviously miss the whole thread of the post I didn't mention modifications that are legal did I ? No thats right I didn't because DJI is not restricting those are they hmmmm? interesting your take on what I said
hookalakupua
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2017
- Messages
- 304
- Reactions
- 100
G'Day Mate! Great to hear from you on this most wonderful day!
"Perfect law abiding citizen"... well that must be an unbelievable burden you carry and that now explains your thoughts entirely!
Actually, a little research will show that DJI is in fact restricting a lot of owners from flying in area's they've mis-labeled as NFZ's so yes... They ARE restricting "us". Would you like to discuss DJI's restrictions in regard to downloading past firmware as well? Please, let us know what onboard restrictions you're proposing and we can go from there.
More importantly, lets get back to the real topic at hand:
- You bashed our Country
- You dismissed our Individual Constitutional Freedoms and made light of them
- You ridiculed our Political System
- Misrepresented the issue of gun control
- Scoffed at our news make-up
Keep the topic on drones and I think we'll all have a good laugh and agree to disagree. Continue to attack our Country... we'll us good 'ole boys can't just sit around and not fire back now can we.
Off to take my 5 and 7 year old shooting this morning so we'll have to catch up later!
- Status
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
3 Koniarnika - cold and windy test flight- Started by alex_markov
- Replies: 0
-
Shipping used DJI Mavic 3E drone to a friend as a gift from Canada to USA
- Started by hafizur
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Forum statistics
