Slashdot Mirror

When was the last time you read the Declaration of Independance?

Life is filled with exceptions, and that includes the use of guns too. (there are other US documents in such support)

Perhaps the failure here is the court system (AGAIN).

What do the people want? Oh wait, they aready said that they want freedom from corporate abuses.

this was too easy.

Declaratiuon of Independance

When was the last time you actually read it and understood how and why its the publics right and duty to correct such injustices?

if MSN can make the blogs disappear I'll suck down big Microsoft banner ads all day long. I prefer my search results without the spin and commentary.

For the utterly benighted, here's a little primer: Thomas Kuhn

I take great exception to your laying much of the blame for the bubble on all those individual investors (I prefer to call them gamblers), which I assume you are doing when you say "largely the fault of the unreasonably [...] optimistic investors".

Those investors certainly relied upon a financial information system for their optimism. But more and more this system turned to outright fraud in order to continue to pull investment money (from whatever source, large and small, centralized and diffused) out past any barrier of hesitation or consideration.

A good book has been recently released called "Buy, Lie and Sell High" (available here, here and here), which more than emphasizes this point. There is also enough information out on various news services about the too-cozy relationships between investment banks, regulators and institutional investors. The bubble was a period of burning investment capital like is was so much cord wood ... and there were many financial professionals who threw morals, guidelines and law books to the wind in order to fan the flames.

To sum up: The yokel doing the the day-trading I could chalk up to simple stupidity ... but the professionals behind the financial information system operated in full knowledge of the fraud.

Sorry, but they have been tested in court, at least a few times, and have stood up...

M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp. & Softworks Data Systems
PROCD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATTHEW ZEIDENBERG and SILKEN MOUNTAIN WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

Well, my attorney says that case law supports them (I own a small software company)... so technically I suppose my information is hearsay.

However, looking around reveals a couple of cases: M. A. Mortenson Company, Inc. v. Timberline Software Corp. & Softworks Data Systems and PROCD, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MATTHEW ZEIDENBERG and SILKEN MOUNTAIN WEB SERVICES, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

At least these two basically affirm what I have been lead to believe, they may not hold up if you are "signing your life away" (i.e., if they are unconscionable), but they do work at securing IP rights and lack-of warranty.

it worked!

Commercial software from the shelf of Best Buy is different because the initial contract you create when you pay for the package is between you and Best Buy, not between you and Microsoft

In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, a case referenced in Sprecht v. Netscape, the decision reads "Transactions in which the exchange of money precedes the communication of detailed terms are common...A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance....ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods."

In addition, in this case there was no exchange of software. The OEM version of Windows XP does not include the media required to install the software on another computer, only a "recovery disk" which can be used to restore the Dell machine to its factory state. The seller did not transfer this CD to the buyer, as required by copyright law, and the buyer would have needed to use a different version of XP (the non-OEM version) to install the software on another computer - one which requires a different license than the one he purchased.

ProCD vs. Zeidenberg is the most cited case.

That document also states that Congress can make no law which takes effect before it was passed ( ex post facto ). Plainly, extending copyrights on an already published work does this (just as surely as extending jailtime for an already-convicted felon would)

Further, the Constitution forbids the government from seizing private property without fairly compensating the owners. I had been in possesion of some "futures" on copyrights for a variety of works published in the 1920s, such that I would today be able to publish my own editions.

Congress has taken away that intellectual property from me- not only can I no longer publish my own versions, but I must pay money if I wish to read "Detective Comics #1". They've deprived me of something of measurable dollar value, yet I have recieved no compensation.

Where can I send my bill for 1/284,000,000th of the total worth of all publications from 1921-1941?

That document also states that Congress can make no law which takes effect before it was passed ( ex post facto ). Plainly, extending copyrights on an already published work does this (just as surely as extending jailtime for an already-convicted felon would)

Further, the Constitution forbids the government from seizing private property without fairly compensating the owners. I had been in possesion of some "futures" on copyrights for a variety of works published in the 1920s, such that I would today be able to publish my own editions.

Congress has taken away that intellectual property from me- not only can I no longer publish my own versions, but I must pay money if I wish to read "Detective Comics #1". They've deprived me of something of measurable dollar value, yet I have recieved no compensation.

Where can I send my bill for 1/284,000,000th of the total worth of all publications from 1921-1941?

Fight back, Palm; Apple beat Xerox, so you can too.

s/beat/paid/g

Microsoft, on the other hand, beat Apple on the same score (demonstrating to Apple that they hadn't really needed to pay Xerox in the beginning). Amusingly, the FSF and related groups was supportive of Microsoft in those instances

I've never served (called 3 times -- twice in Mass, but told I didn't have to come in) and think I would like to for the experience.

IANAL, however I do like reading decisions from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Why that particular circuit -- aside from you probably live in it? (For the uninitiated, the system has 11 numbered circuits plus the DC circuit and the federal circuit. The armed services have their own appeals court.)

The 9th is unique, covering -- well, as their site says: "The Ninth Circuit is the largest of the 13 federal circuits and includes all federal courts in California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands." That must be about 50 million people?

Maybe because it is so large the 9th is known for internal divisions that can lead to some chaotic and even contradictory precedent. I worked as a staff attorney in another circuit and the informal rule was never to cite to the 9th unless distancing ourselves from it. I know that sounds very parochial, but there has been criticism from other quarters as you likely know.

It's past time to break the 9th up into two or three circuits similar to the others -- it's literally that big! This would hopefully improve the administration of justice, but when and how this will happen I don't know. The circuit itself says everything is fine as it is. The current situation places an unnecessary strain on the people in the circuit, and it must be quite expensive on those occasions all the judges must meet in one place. Aside from those meetings, some judges of the circuit rarely see and faintly know other judges. In other circuits, the court hears all its cases in one or maybe two locations, which does help generate some collegiality.

Whatever. I think it's cool an IANAL is reading and enjoying the decisions.

Try that in the social sciences - has anyone ever heard of a huge scandal where someone faked results in the social sciences?

Professor Bellesiles resigned from Emory in October after an independent panel of scholars strongly criticized his work. Their 40-page report accused him of "unprofessional and misleading work" and said that at times it "does move into the realm of falsification."

Hmmm, other examples of people protecting themselves with firearms? Should I name virtually every Ex-Soviet Union country? How about substantial chunks of the Middle East? Africa? Asia?

The US simply hasn't had a domestic land war since the Civil War. But as with every empire (including the US), there will be civil unrest again. Either the gov't will simply stomp on the unhappy unarmed people willing to revolt, or the people will make of their government what they want.

As the US Gov't continues to take away our rights, the people are becoming less and less happy..

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.htm l

Article I) freedom of religion, speech, press. Right of peaceful assembly. Right to petition the gov't.

Gone. Not as federal law, but federal law enforcement will use religion, speech, and published works to profile and arrest you.

Gone, you cannot have a group meeting without the potential of the gov't arresting everyone involved, or at least monitoring for future charges. (i.e., 2600 meetings, defcon)

Gone, petitioning the gov't. Try it sometime.

Article II) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Gone. New York you are prohibited from owning firearms. California just decided Amendment II is wrong, except for the gov't. Many other states have their own select laws.

Article IV) right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Gone, as long as they can say the word "Terrorist" when they're doing it. The FBI just announced that anyone with a wireless access point is a terrorist. Add that to the list of:

a) Is of Arabic descent
b) Knows anyone of Arabic descent
c) Belongs to any group with a member of Arabic descent
d) Owns a wireless access point (above)
e) Is in any way, no matter how irrationally, associated with any group that could be considered terrorists. This can include Americans who are part of survivalist groups, "militia", the NRA, and in some cases even American law enforcement.

And now thanks to President Bush, the CIA has the power to neutralize any terrorist threat, foreign or domestic. The CIA "accidently" killed an American citizen in a publicized hit recently, on foreign soil.

Article V) deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself

Ask the 1000 new citizens of Guantomo Bay, Cuba about this one. Over 1 year, and no charges filed.

Ask Mitnick about his what, 4 years of being held, uncharged.

Have you read the news lately? New York is being widely known for coercing confessions, even from the innocent. From this, I've learned to be a mute whenever speaking to any law enforcement. Even the simple question "Do you know how fast you were going?". If you answer that, it's a confession, no proof required. If you don't, they have to prove what you did.

Ask every person who's had property confiscated by any local law enforcement agency, to never have it returned. They have over $1000 of my property which was "misplaced", to never be seen again.

A friend of mine in Florida had her car confiscated and almost auctioned, for a 10mph speeding ticket. She had to pay over $2000 in bribe money (Donation to a local police group) to get it back.

Article VI) right to a speedy and public trial.
Once again, look down to Cuba.. Or any other person held on "terrorist" charges. Look at any inmate held in a city or county jail on small charges. They can spend months in jail, just to be proven innocent, unless an unreasonable bribe (bail) can be paid.

Article VIII) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ya.. See the above. Check your local paper to see what the bail is for a non-incident related DUI (no harm, no foul?). How about an assult charge? Bar fights constitute those, and everyone's arrested.

How about cruel and unusual. We have a tremendous history of those. From jailhouse beatings, to bombing entire countries.. Do you think the citizens of Afghanastan really deserved to be killed from the actions of a few nuts?

Article IX) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If it's not in the constitution, you still have other rights.

I'll skip through a few more...

Article XV) Right to vote

Gone, if you're a felon, or otherwise detained. Do you think they were handing out ballots in Cuba? There are American citizens, never convicted of anything.

Gone, as in the voting is completely un-just. 30% of a population, and a large number of discarded votes does not constitute a fair election. The Gov't needs to establish a *GOOD* system for elections, rather than their half-assed attempt. You get more people driving with drivers licenses, and sending their kids to school daily, than you do voting.

Article XIX) The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

How many jobs does the US Gov't deny women? (don't think it's small). It's a sexist country, no matter what this article may say.

Article XVIII) Prohibition

It was later repealed, but they've expanded it's thought to cover other intoxicants (drugs), which may be perfectly legal in other countries. This includes perscription pharmacuticals, recreational drugs (such as Hash or Marajuana), and harder recreational drugs, such as Heroin and Opium. Look at a heroin junkie, a pot smoker, and a drunk.. Tell me how the stoner is going to be a menace to society to the point of making federal laws against him.. How is he worse than a drunk? Hash and Marajuana are perfectly legal in many other countries. Enforcement in the US varies by state. Possession of any Marajuana in Florida is cause for arrest and either misdeanor or felony charges. In California, you have to have substantial quantity to be even spoken more than a few words to. Some states simply won't touch you now for possession of Marajuana.

So, with that many articles of our constitution stomped all over, how long with the empire of the United States remain? Do you really want to be unarmed when it happens?

As for your question of mishandled firearms, there are currently laws for unlawful discharge, unlawful brandishing, and even improper storage. If you are charged, a judge can and will sign an order stating you will not be allowed to own or posses a weapon. If you are a felon, I don't believe there are *ANY* states where you are allowed to posses a weapon. If you are currently on probation in most states, you cannot drink or posses a weapon. You cannot even associate with known felons, and quite a few other restrictions depending on the charges.

I've known misdemeanor viloaters on non-violent charges who can no longer possess weapons based on their charge. Not hearsay, I've seen the court documents.

You're right, as long as the book was just under copyright and you didn't agree to any other license. If you did agree to some, say, shrinkwrap book license, you'd have to obey that license.

Here, the user is agreeing to a license before they have access to the files. They have to obey that license. Just by keeping and using the computer, they're agreeing to the licenses that came in the box, whether or not they read them. Hill v. Gateway 2000 decided this issue in 1997.

It's a good opinion, by a smart judge (Frank Easterbrook). Read it.

glesga_kiss asks:
Has MSG always been a natural component of East Asian food, or is it a modern additive?

Sort of both.

Glutamates are naturally occuring substances that "enhance" flavor (although the exact mechanics of how are subject to debate). They exist naturally in many foods, and some methods of processing foods generate more glutamates. Various seaweeds, which are high in glutamates, are commonly used in Japanese cooking; other Asian cuisines use them as well.

MSG is a refined glutamate salt discovered/developed in 1906 at the University of Tokyo. So, MSG itself isn't natural, but it's a refined version of something that is natural and common in East Asian cooking.

Some more info can be found at http://www.ecit.emory.edu/ECIT/chem_ram/receptors/ Emily.html

Incidentally, Italian restaurants and pizza places often use MSG as well, and tomatos are also high in glutamates.

ha! I just found another story from Cosmicomics online. It's damn funny, and somewhat geek-oriented. Worth a read: How Much Shall We Bet?

The original systems link show how the previous owner or appellant Lawrence B. Lockwood... lost a trial to uphold his patent.

His patent is quite out of context when compared to todays systems, and since his system was built with the intention of using them for travel-agents I do not see how far this company will get with their suits.

IMUHO (Uneducated),

Anonymous Coward

The text you point out was published in March 1999. Unfortunatlely, the court case it refers to was reversed on appeal in November 1999 (Full text of appeal decision here.) I can't find any records of CBS taking this to the Supreme Court. I would assume CBS just shelled out some blood money after losing.

But that's not even the point. Copyright law is so incredibly confusing there is simply no way of knowing what is or isn't in the public domain. As this case shows, something that was public domain in March 1999 becomes private property again in November 1999. What happens when CBS or ABC realizes they lost something juicy that was released prior to 1923 and decides to get it back by changing the laws retroactively again?

I find it very troubling that MLK's speech would be licensed for use in commercials by his heirs. But, of course, they've systematically pimped MLK's legacy for profit.

I believe the orignal poster is referring to the State Street decision which expanded the range of patentable material significantly from the historical norm by minimizing the Business method and Mathmatical algorithm exceptions.

Although that decision was in 1998, not quite 10 years ago. However that was when the recent explosion in patent filings started oddly enough.

This is the second case to make it to the appeals court level, and so become interesting from a precedential point of view. The first was Procd v. Zeidenberg , in 1996.

What is relavant:

law.emory.edu/FEDERAL specifically the need to create a
Declaration of independance for the new borderless world of virtual
reality and the internet.

(quoting T.D. of I. July 4. 1776)

"WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People
to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another,
and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal
Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a
decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That
to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any
Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in
such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and
Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and
accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to
suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing
the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses
and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to
reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty,
to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future
Security. ...."

We all know this can be re-written in accord with the spirit of the above,
perhaps even better, but for the scope of the borderless world of Virtual
Reality and the Internet.

Meaning it is our right, our duty to make them go screw themselves.

If Laws are for sale, then when are we going to get a blue light special,
that we little guys can buy?

Well, could be, but there are questions and concerns to be raised.

IANAMD, but my mother is an infectious disease doctor (working, in fact, in a trial testing a prototype HIV vaccine). I have yet to ask her about this (seeing as I am at work), but one of the common concerns she has when she hears about antibiotics being used frequently is that strains of resistant bacteria may result faster due to overprescription of drugs.

There seems to be very little on the web about HPAs, but from what I've gathered, there seems to be conflicting, hazy theories about how they work on viruses. Now, HPAs very well may be resistance-proof: if a virus cannot replicate due to the physical constraints on retroviral replication, then they have little chance. However, evolution is a weird thing (to put it lightly). The most far-fetched mutation of a virus might just end up working, resulting in its proliferation.

Then there are the safety issues. Even though does not decompose in neutral solutions (and therefore compatable with the pH of blood), there are still the standard concerns about toxicity, carcinogenicity (is that a word?), and the like. One site I found seems to have a description of a HPA that worked....until it started causing cancer in the patients.

Of course, this all might work, too. I hate to sound like a nay-sayer, though, but it's got a ways to go.

non-US citizens here on vacation DO NOT enjoy the same rights as Americans do. Nothing in the constitution says we have to extend those rights to everyone in the world.It specifically specifies US citizens.

Actually the Bill of rights contains phrases such as "Congress shall make no law... right of the people...", "The right of the people...", "any house", "No person...", "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused...", "nor shall any State deprive any person of life... nor deny to any person...", etc.

Restrictions on citizenship are only in the articles about voting and representation.

Source: CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Is a government agency open-source or GPL?

I guess technically, the government could be considered open-source. Here's a website with the source code: http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html,

It's most likely buried in a EULA somewhere inside the box.

There is precedent for that kind of behavior. In the past companies have used the patent system to do it. For example, several printer companies filed design patents on the shape of their ink cartridges so they could have a little monopoly.

When one of these cases came to trial, the court ruled against this kind of use of design patents. Here's a link to the case. The company in the case was Epson.

I think MS would eventually lose in court if they tried to use the DMCA like that (who knows how long it could take though). Plus it would be terrible PR for MS since everyone is already screaming monopoly.

I think there's a dynamic at work that forces a lot of those professions to be, on average, less than humble, too.

On one end, basic monkey wiring dictates that we prefer following people who appear confident. (Check Chimpanzee Politics or any popular book on leadership.) This is doubly true in an emergency or in a high-stakes situation where the right path isn't obvious to all. So any politicians, doctors, or CEOs who are honestly willing to admit that they are muddling along like the rest of us are unlikely to rise (or perhaps even stay) in those professions.

On the other end, it takes quite a bit of self-confidence to say, "Out of a quarter-billion citizens, I am the best choice to lead the free world." It is hard to imagine that, say, George Bush, is a naturally modest man who came to that realization through careful introspection and honest-self assessment.

And in the middle, training often doesn't help. Business school, politico schoool, and to a certain extent medical school seem to make ego inflation part of the curriculum. I've had friends go through all three, and they can be insufferable until they resume contact with the real world. If they ever do, that is. High corporate managers and politicians are so isolated from the effects of their actions, that they may never know whether or not they are doing anything useful. And my doctor sees me about four minutes a year, so I can't imagine he gets much useful feedback either.

Now, every once in a while I get asked this question: how is it that a VCR can record a TV show when the TV isn't turned on? Yeah, I can hear the snickers. But I get this from a lot of basically intelligent people. And the frustrating thing is, I've never found an explanation that makes sense to the asker. To me it's obvious, "You see, there's two tuners, the TV has one, the VCR has one...." But the eyes just glaze over.

So the whole idea of Making Systems User Friendly is just plain bogus. It assumes that people can come to terms with any system if you just find the right methaphro for them to use. Doesn't work.

In the real world, there are three solutions to this problem:

1. You do a better job of explaining the basic concepts of the system to your users. But only a few really brilliant teachers seem to have much luck with this approach.
2. You build systems that do a good job of hiding the unfamiliar paradigm with a simpler paradigm ordinary people can wrap their minds around. But again, this takes a certain brilliance on the part of the designer, who has to be at home with both paradigms.
3. You take the Kuhnsian approach. That is, instead of trying to bridge the nerd-mundane gap, you wait for both sides to die off, to be replaced by big-thumbed folks who've grown up with the technolgy and have no trouble coming to terms with it.

Bush said the ruling "points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

As you'd expect from that, the Presidential Oath or Affirmation in Article II.1.8 is "merely"

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Bush said the ruling "points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."

Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

As you'd expect from that, the Presidential Oath or Affirmation in Article II.1.8 is "merely"

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Sounds interesting...got some linkage you could share to elaborate?

After some searching on Google, it looks like he's probably referring to these cases, both of which involve attorneys filing patent infringement lawsuits without adequately investigating the infringement claims first:

Judin v. United States (1997)
Antonious v. Spalding (2002)

I did some searchs on the filer of the patents included on PanIP's website and found this interesting federal court decision .

Basically Mr. Lockwood tried to sue American Airlines over their SABRE system using the '359 patent and the district court found that SABRE did not violate the patents due to prior art (like the fact that SABRE has been around since 1962). The linked decision is an appeal that Mr. Lockwood made to the federal appeals court that was rejected. Worth a good read to see how it would apply here.

The single most successful online community I've seen is the one at Emory University, LearnLink. Not much of a website to look at, especially for outsiders. It's client-based -- uses FirstClass -- and really is the only thing that ties a very apathetic school together (this is a school without sports to speak of). I think the key factor is the client -- you can't have the same level of community with slow-loading web pages.

Ok, I think that's enough. Look, you need to be a little less naive. The evidence you're presenting is purely anecdotal. You assume the world everywhere is just like you've seen it where you grew up. It isn't. There are nutjobs all over the place, and yes, they can think and say some pretty idiotic things, not at all any more far-fetched than the idea of BSD being satanic because of its mascot. Fundies are notorious for coming up with insane theories about things. You just need to realize that, and realize that it is not the fault of your faith, it's just those particular people.

I agree with you that clickwrap licenses should not be considered a valid contract. Unfortunately, the courts, specifically the Seventh Circuit, does not agree. see ProCD vs Zeidenberg

Matthew Zeidenberg bought a consumer package of SelectPhone (trademark) in 1994 from a retail outlet in Madison, Wisconsin, but decided to ignore the license.

That's disturbing, but fortunately I don't live in Wisconsin or under the seventh circuit. Also, while the argument is sound in the case where the sale is directly between ProCD and Zeidenberg, the court for some reason failed to address the fact that the sale was between a retail outlet and Zeidenberg. What happens if I buy software, disagree with the license, try to return it, but the store refuses to accept the return?

Really I don't care all that much either way. If shrinkwrap licenses are enforcible, I'll just have to buy less software, and read the terms. But as of now I don't read the terms, because it is my opinion (for myself, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah) that shrinkwrap licenses are unenforcible (in my jurisdiction). It's sad that we have to be so informed on the law (or hire a lawyer) just to open a box of software, but that's the way it is.

has found a click thru license that has been upheld in court. They can demand all kinds of things but what the courts let them get away with is entirely a different matter

The case you're talking about is ProCD,Inc. vs. Zeidenberg, and your remarks are close but a bit off. Because white-page phonebook listings and similar "brute-force" database lists that are the product of hard work but no creativity are *not* protected by copyright (The Suprmeme Court's "Feist v. Rural Telephone" decision), ProCd was able to gather up phone books and create a national phone CD. Zeidenberg then took the CD, created a web interface to the data and was sued by ProCD.

Zeidenberg won in District Court, ProCd appealed to the 7th Circuit and lost there, and Zeidenberg did not appeal to the Supreme Court. In the 7th circuit ruling, Judge Easterbrook specifically reversed the trial court on the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses. The way courts do things, this precedent is binding in all the District Courts in the 7th Circuit, but not elsewhere.

From a copyright perspective, this decision is ludicrous, because it in essence says that any publisher can slap a "contract" on something (book, cd, etc.) and thereby void any rights consumers otherwise might have, but until someone with bucks take the matter to the Supreme Court, we lack a definitive answer to the problem...

If it wasn't so tragic, I'd make some quip about how London deserves this sort of result after turning themselves into a nation of disarmed victims. But no city 'deserves' a high crime rate, even if they have instituted the equivalent of "OSHA for criminals"

Maybe in your picket fence suburb you can afford to kick a criminal's ass, but over here it's becoming real risky business.

So even if I hear that laptop alarm go off I'm gonna ignore it and take the insurance.

Yes, Judge Saris' summary judgement on State Street Bank vs. Signature Financial Group applied common sense. Unfortunately, that didn't help, because her judgement was overturned on appeal, and the final disposition of the case is what established the patentability of software business methods.

To make any difference in our legal system, common sense must be allied with and supported by solid legal argument. Otherwise, we can easily end up with legal conclusions that are absolutely nonsensical. Yeah, that's often frustrating...

Here is one in the case of Adobe vs Softman

Of interest to me, was this quote:

"... the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the 'license.' The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license."

However, there are cases that don't side against an EULA, as in ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg

The courts don't appear to be able to make up their minds on the issue. What's new?

Both John Sperling and George Soros on the same Slashdot page and neither article is about their involvement in Medical Marijuana. Give me a Peter Lewis and we'll have the complete set.

Philip Kennedy did something similar in 1998 with humans. I witnessed an operation where he implanted an electrode in a monkey over 10 years ago. He also received a 1999 Discover Technical Innovation Award for the same work. Check out: http://www.emory.edu/WHSC/HSNEWS/releases/feb99/02 2399brain.html

I suspect you mean guppi the graphing program, not the graping program that Emory University offers.

So what's this DMCA about? IANAL, but I can see really clearly tell what it's doing to Alan Cox here. abridging freedom of speech. If I were an american I'd be ashamed of it...but I'm not one. I live in a free country.

The Eleventh Circuit did not hold that the cyberspace conduct wasn't *in* Tampa, they merely held that a particular Tampa zoning ordinance prohibiting offering of adult entertainment to members of the public presumes that the customers physically attend the premises so zoned and wherein the entertainment is performed.

It isn't a very deep or fundamental observation about technology to suggest that a person at the other end of a communications line from a source location isn't physically located at the source. Saying that it is "in virtual space," wasn't really more meaningful than that, except in the case where the other guy is also in Tampa, albeit at a different place.

Because the statute itself didn't expressly address regulation of sources of publication, the Court didn't address the First Amendment issues.

The number 19 also had some other signifigance to the Japanese but the reason escapes me at the moment.

The number 19 has attracted a large following, for a number. Maybe not as much as 7 or 13 or 666 but still respectable.

Nineteen squared equals 361, one degree more than a full circle

WAHD or ONE = NINETEEN

IT is the number of light.

Spherical Geometry & 19.5 Degrees throughout the solar system

19 is a prime number.

QURAN'S MATHEMATICAL CODE

Nineteen names of God (Bahá'í Calendar)

In Japan, 19 is a sign carrying misfortune because it is said JUKU, which means also "sorrows repeated"

this is an inaccurate perception of the Federal Circuit.

the Federal Circuit was created to handle federal cases, in general. before the federal circuit, there were several types of federal courts, each with their own specific jurisdiction. the specialized court for patent appeals used to be the CCPA (Court of Customs and Patent Appeals). it wasn't good either. the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was responsible for State Street, it's true, probably the worst patent decision in the history of U.S. jurisprudence, but the CCPA came up with plenty of doozies too (and the Supreme Court set it up pretty nicely on more than a few occasions).