It's actually directly contrary to rulings in other states, circuits, etc.
Even the supreme court has held, consistently, since 1888, that the law is free.
'the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law, which, binding every citizen, is free for publication to all, whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an interpretation of a constitution or a statute' Banks v. Manchester (128 U.S. 244, 1888)
I don't think this could be more clear.
An argument that you get to lock it away by incorporating by reference is patently absurd and directly contrary to this.
You don't get to say
"page one of georgia annotated code:
for the text of pages 1-100000 of the georgia code, please see 'the real georgia annotated code', published by forprofitco,"
But that's just what is happening, since these standards are not "voluntary", but binding law that you can be charged with crimes or sued for violating.
If they wanted to charge money, they have a simple solution - don't make them law, don't charge people for violations, etc.
" Frankly, the arguments presented by Resource.org seem to be unpersuasive (the claim that these standards are "discovered facts" is just insulting to the engineers that worked on them) and completely unsupported by the law."
Except they (and others) have repeatedly won in pretty much every other case. This is in fact, the first case i'm aware of that they've lost (or that others have lost in similar situations).
Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional.
As mentioned, there is a simple solution - if you want to charge, don't give them binding force of law. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too.
Frankly, the idea that you can sue people or charge them with a crime, for a law they have to pay to read is insulting to everyone, and very clearly not constitutional.
My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard.
The answer is yes. :)
At best, it's a taking.
"My point exactly! They should be suing the State for doing that! Not trying to invalidate some company's copyrighted standard."
You have this very backwards, in the sense that the organization deliberately worked with the states to make this happen.
You would have a better argument if the states had forced it to happen.
In any case, you also have "who should sue who" wrong.
1. You can't sue the states in federal court they have sovereign immunity ;) But if you could ....
2. At best, this is a taking by the state. It's the problem of the standards folks to sue the state, not the problem of the rest of the world of trying to use the law.
Also, does ISO pay the C++ standards developers? And how much is the market for C++ standards? (Yes, compiler vendors are usually big firms/organizations, but I doubt all the money paid for the standards so far would be enough to cover all the expenses of the various working group meetings involved.)
And sure, the tools of the trade argument is valid, you don't get hammers for free if you want to build a house (or just fix up something), but we can make the mental categorical distinction between information that gains value as more and more people has access vs information that loses value as more and more people has access (trade secrets, hence the licensing cost of patents).
As an engineer, I don't see why. Discovery is still hard and valuable work.
I personally also think the use of terminology like "discovery" rather than "invention" reinforces that you don't have some divine, exclusive right to control what you've created, but that discoveries are to benefit all of humanity. The government gives you a time-limited exclusive license as a reward for taking the risk and doing the hard work to make these discoveries.
Creative work is a discovery, and this is trivial to see: you can write a program to enumerate all possible English texts, and so discover every possible written work that has, can or will ever be made.
So it's more correct to say that the government gives you a license for certain kinds of discoveries, and the EFF are saying that this sort of work does not belong in the protected category. That's not entirely unreasonable from what I can see.
If the facts are discovered or invented shouldn't have any importance.
oh, maybe we can use one of those automated lawyers! Do they support 'government sold you out' suits yet or is that a couple years off still?