Slashdot Mirror

Lov om rettergangsmaten i straffesaker (Straffeprosessloven) [The Criminal Procedure Code] section 307 provides that

Any person who has been acquitted may not appeal unless the court has found it proved that he committed the unlawful act referred to in the indictment.

Any person acquitted by a judgement of the Court of Appeal in a case that is tried with a jury may not appeal unless the issue of guilt has been decided against him.

I.e. you may not appeal because you are not happy with the reasonings of the court, ot because you'd like to have a higher court take a look at the case (such as to render a more authoritative ruling), as long as you were acquitted. This goes for civil cases as well.

This case was not tried before a jury, but with a combined court of three judges and four lay judges (in this case: two exptert lay judges and two regular lay judges), since the maximum sentence that could applied was less than 6 years, see the Norwegian Criminal Code section 352. The Norwegian Penal Code section 145 only provides for a maximum jail term of two years if damage is caused or the felony took place for an ulawful gain. Otherwise the maximum prison sentence would be six months.

One of the judges (Stavang) holds a Norwegian (research) doctorate in law, and a minor degree in economics, and was quite interested in the antitrust implications of the DVD region system. In an answer to a question by Glyn Ford, Mario Monti answered that "... the Commission has obtained significant amounts of information relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the regional coding system from a broad range of film studios, DVD equipment manufacturers, and commercial retailers. The Commission is now completing its analysis of the file with a view to ascertaining the system's compatibility with the Community competition rules." See Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E of 12 June 2003 (page 34[pdf file]).

The whole criminal procedure act is available translated into Engilsh as a large PDF file. The General civil penal code is also available translated into English as a PDF file.

Or alternatively, could his supporters?

His supporters? Who are they? No, only parties to the case may appeal; you must have "legal standing".

No, Switzerland is a member of EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. Switzerland is also the only member of EFTA that is not a party to the EEA (European Economic Area), which it is usually called, not EEC. EEC stands for European Economic Community, which is now EC, the European Community. (The name was altered by the Maastricht treaty establishing the European Union.)

The EFTA members which are parties to the EEA are Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Sweden, Finland and Austria were previoulsy members of EFTA before joining the EU in 1995.

The Norwegian "green paper" on the implementation of the EUCD/Infosoc is available online, as a PDF file, but it is in Norwegian. This is just draft-draft legislation, asking for the opinion of various affected parties (a "hearing"). The final draft has yet to been issued. Norway has not yet implemeneted the EUCD in its copyright act.

The decision-making process leading up to the passing of the directive 2001/29/EC (EUCD) can be found at PreLex.

The status of the passing of the EUCD in various nations can be tracked.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible on legal grounds (i.e. wrongful interpretation of the penal code) and faulty legal proceedings, however, the acquital stands unless the case is remanded and a whole new trial takes place.

No, Switzerland is a member of EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. Switzerland is also the only member of EFTA that is not a party to the EEA (European Economic Area), which it is usually called, not EEC. EEC stands for European Economic Community, which is now EC, the European Community. (The name was altered by the Maastricht treaty establishing the European Union.)

The EFTA members which are parties to the EEA are Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Sweden, Finland and Austria were previoulsy members of EFTA before joining the EU in 1995.

The Norwegian "green paper" on the implementation of the EUCD/Infosoc is available online, as a PDF file, but it is in Norwegian. This is just draft-draft legislation, asking for the opinion of various affected parties (a "hearing"). The final draft has yet to been issued. Norway has not yet implemeneted the EUCD in its copyright act.

The decision-making process leading up to the passing of the directive 2001/29/EC (EUCD) can be found at PreLex.

The status of the passing of the EUCD in various nations can be tracked.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible on legal grounds (i.e. wrongful interpretation of the penal code) and faulty legal proceedings, however, the acquital stands unless the case is remanded and a whole new trial takes place.

No, Switzerland is a member of EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. Switzerland is also the only member of EFTA that is not a party to the EEA (European Economic Area), which it is usually called, not EEC. EEC stands for European Economic Community, which is now EC, the European Community. (The name was altered by the Maastricht treaty establishing the European Union.)

The EFTA members which are parties to the EEA are Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Sweden, Finland and Austria were previoulsy members of EFTA before joining the EU in 1995.

The Norwegian "green paper" on the implementation of the EUCD/Infosoc is available online, as a PDF file, but it is in Norwegian. This is just draft-draft legislation, asking for the opinion of various affected parties (a "hearing"). The final draft has yet to been issued. Norway has not yet implemeneted the EUCD in its copyright act.

The decision-making process leading up to the passing of the directive 2001/29/EC (EUCD) can be found at PreLex.

The status of the passing of the EUCD in various nations can be tracked.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible on legal grounds (i.e. wrongful interpretation of the penal code) and faulty legal proceedings, however, the acquital stands unless the case is remanded and a whole new trial takes place.

According to the official European Union web site,
E.U. Online, Norway is neither on the typed-out list of nations, nor is it on the map. Perhaps this site is out of date.

Red Hat have handed Mandrake the desktop baton. The failure of US Justice department to get anywhere near solving the antitrust issues with current desktops pretty well spoiled the opportunity for Linux desktops in the US. Maybe Lindows will fight the defence on behalf of the US consumer.

Mandrake is delivering on the financials. Now lets see what the EU Commission on competition does on helping to create a level playing field. Will the rights of consumers prevail ? Munich is an important proving ground but expect some serious payola to flow to stop other cities. Whats 40 Billion USD work out to be in Euros now ?.

Swedish is similar to German. I know german and english, and this helps me a lot to understand most written swedish text - the other way may be true for you, if you know swedish and english. I know some swedes, and they usually speak rather well german.

However, if you don't understand german, there's hope for you: the swedisch version of the same text.

:-)

It's known as the database directive.

Being european doesn't make it good though - it seems as if USA and the EU are competing for the title of "worst knowledge legislation". Any "advantages" one party might have is quickly "harmonized" away.

A well-written introduction to how it came this far is "Information Feudalism" by Drahos and Braithwaite.

Euro-zone: Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland.
E15: euro-zone countries plus Sweden, Denmark and UK.
CC-13: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia,Bulgaria,Romania,Turkey (Three last ones are uncertain, others will probably become members in 2004).

* us trillion = billion for other people. Also, your figures were probably in dollars... Source: Eurostat

Except that there are only 58,789,194 people in the UK according to the 2001 Census so 50 million paying the license fee is probably a little high. There are 24 million households (EU DG Information Soc) which is proably a better number to estimate the number of people paying the license fee . So more like 24 million * ~12 quid a month = a lot of cash / ~2

The European satellite navigation project Galileo is at http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/index_en.htm.

That's what India and China are getting involved with. Airlines, not nations, get involved with Galileo.com.

Brief pedant point;
It doesn't really affect your argument in any way, but there's one fact wrong in your post - Norway isn't actually a member of the EU (It is, however, a member of Europe's 'other trading bloc', EFTA).

The copyright directive does not harmonize the basics of copyright. I cannot find anything like that there. There is no need for harmonizng this,all member countries of the EU are parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The personal (as opposed to public) use of a copyright protected work is something that falls outside of what I would call "copyright basics".

The directive therefore does not say anything about copyright basics and therefore cannot be read as banning acts falling outside the scope of copyright.

The European Council's Common Position on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society states that

43. In its amendment 47, the European Parliament [page 171] had suggested that it be stipulated in Article 5(4) (current Article 5(5)) that the legal protection of technological measures prevailed over the exceptions listed in Article 5. The Commission had addressed this issue under Article 6(3) of its amended proposal, providing that only technological measures preventing or inhibiting the infringement of copyright were protected under Article 6. This meant that technological measures designed to prevent or inhibit acts allowed by law (e.g. by virtue of an exception) were not protectable under Article 6. In other words, under the Commissions amended proposal, the exceptions provided for in Article 5 prevailed over the legal protection of technological measures provided for in Article 6.

The Council has taken a different approach, which it considers strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of beneficiaries of exceptions. It has adopted in Article 6(3) first sentence of its Common Position a definition of the protectable technological measures which is broader than the one provided for in the Commissions amended proposal or the one set out in Parliaments amendment 54. The terms ... designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright ... in the Councils definition make it clear that Article 6(1) protects against circumvention of all technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholder, regardless of whether the person performing the circumvention is a beneficiary of one of the exceptions provided for in Article 5.

Note the reference in the last paragraph. It is to article 5.

art 5 numbers 1 and 2 deal with exceptions from article 2. Article 2 deals with the "Reproduction right". This is a part of the "copyright basics".

art 5 number 3 deals with art 2 and 3. Article 3 is the "Right of communication to the PUBLIC of works and right of making available to the PUBLIC other subject-matter".

I cannot find anything in the directive dealing with a purely private use falling outside the scope of copyright.

For the process behind the passing of the directive, see PreLex

The copyright directive does not harmonize the basics of copyright. I cannot find anything like that there. There is no need for harmonizng this,all member countries of the EU are parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The personal (as opposed to public) use of a copyright protected work is something that falls outside of what I would call "copyright basics".

The directive therefore does not say anything about copyright basics and therefore cannot be read as banning acts falling outside the scope of copyright.

The European Council's Common Position on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society states that

43. In its amendment 47, the European Parliament [page 171] had suggested that it be stipulated in Article 5(4) (current Article 5(5)) that the legal protection of technological measures prevailed over the exceptions listed in Article 5. The Commission had addressed this issue under Article 6(3) of its amended proposal, providing that only technological measures preventing or inhibiting the infringement of copyright were protected under Article 6. This meant that technological measures designed to prevent or inhibit acts allowed by law (e.g. by virtue of an exception) were not protectable under Article 6. In other words, under the Commissions amended proposal, the exceptions provided for in Article 5 prevailed over the legal protection of technological measures provided for in Article 6.

The Council has taken a different approach, which it considers strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of beneficiaries of exceptions. It has adopted in Article 6(3) first sentence of its Common Position a definition of the protectable technological measures which is broader than the one provided for in the Commissions amended proposal or the one set out in Parliaments amendment 54. The terms ... designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright ... in the Councils definition make it clear that Article 6(1) protects against circumvention of all technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholder, regardless of whether the person performing the circumvention is a beneficiary of one of the exceptions provided for in Article 5.

Note the reference in the last paragraph. It is to article 5.

art 5 numbers 1 and 2 deal with exceptions from article 2. Article 2 deals with the "Reproduction right". This is a part of the "copyright basics".

art 5 number 3 deals with art 2 and 3. Article 3 is the "Right of communication to the PUBLIC of works and right of making available to the PUBLIC other subject-matter".

I cannot find anything in the directive dealing with a purely private use falling outside the scope of copyright.

For the process behind the passing of the directive, see PreLex

The copyright directive does not harmonize the basics of copyright. I cannot find anything like that there. There is no need for harmonizng this,all member countries of the EU are parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The personal (as opposed to public) use of a copyright protected work is something that falls outside of what I would call "copyright basics".

The directive therefore does not say anything about copyright basics and therefore cannot be read as banning acts falling outside the scope of copyright.

The European Council's Common Position on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society states that

43. In its amendment 47, the European Parliament [page 171] had suggested that it be stipulated in Article 5(4) (current Article 5(5)) that the legal protection of technological measures prevailed over the exceptions listed in Article 5. The Commission had addressed this issue under Article 6(3) of its amended proposal, providing that only technological measures preventing or inhibiting the infringement of copyright were protected under Article 6. This meant that technological measures designed to prevent or inhibit acts allowed by law (e.g. by virtue of an exception) were not protectable under Article 6. In other words, under the Commissions amended proposal, the exceptions provided for in Article 5 prevailed over the legal protection of technological measures provided for in Article 6.

The Council has taken a different approach, which it considers strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of beneficiaries of exceptions. It has adopted in Article 6(3) first sentence of its Common Position a definition of the protectable technological measures which is broader than the one provided for in the Commissions amended proposal or the one set out in Parliaments amendment 54. The terms ... designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright ... in the Councils definition make it clear that Article 6(1) protects against circumvention of all technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholder, regardless of whether the person performing the circumvention is a beneficiary of one of the exceptions provided for in Article 5.

Note the reference in the last paragraph. It is to article 5.

art 5 numbers 1 and 2 deal with exceptions from article 2. Article 2 deals with the "Reproduction right". This is a part of the "copyright basics".

art 5 number 3 deals with art 2 and 3. Article 3 is the "Right of communication to the PUBLIC of works and right of making available to the PUBLIC other subject-matter".

I cannot find anything in the directive dealing with a purely private use falling outside the scope of copyright.

For the process behind the passing of the directive, see PreLex

The copyright directive does not harmonize the basics of copyright. I cannot find anything like that there. There is no need for harmonizng this,all member countries of the EU are parties to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The personal (as opposed to public) use of a copyright protected work is something that falls outside of what I would call "copyright basics".

The directive therefore does not say anything about copyright basics and therefore cannot be read as banning acts falling outside the scope of copyright.

The European Council's Common Position on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society states that

43. In its amendment 47, the European Parliament [page 171] had suggested that it be stipulated in Article 5(4) (current Article 5(5)) that the legal protection of technological measures prevailed over the exceptions listed in Article 5. The Commission had addressed this issue under Article 6(3) of its amended proposal, providing that only technological measures preventing or inhibiting the infringement of copyright were protected under Article 6. This meant that technological measures designed to prevent or inhibit acts allowed by law (e.g. by virtue of an exception) were not protectable under Article 6. In other words, under the Commissions amended proposal, the exceptions provided for in Article 5 prevailed over the legal protection of technological measures provided for in Article 6.

The Council has taken a different approach, which it considers strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of rightholders and those of beneficiaries of exceptions. It has adopted in Article 6(3) first sentence of its Common Position a definition of the protectable technological measures which is broader than the one provided for in the Commissions amended proposal or the one set out in Parliaments amendment 54. The terms ... designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject matter, which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright ... in the Councils definition make it clear that Article 6(1) protects against circumvention of all technological measures designed to prevent or restrict acts not authorised by the rightholder, regardless of whether the person performing the circumvention is a beneficiary of one of the exceptions provided for in Article 5.

Note the reference in the last paragraph. It is to article 5.

art 5 numbers 1 and 2 deal with exceptions from article 2. Article 2 deals with the "Reproduction right". This is a part of the "copyright basics".

art 5 number 3 deals with art 2 and 3. Article 3 is the "Right of communication to the PUBLIC of works and right of making available to the PUBLIC other subject-matter".

I cannot find anything in the directive dealing with a purely private use falling outside the scope of copyright.

For the process behind the passing of the directive, see PreLex

I would believe you are misundertstanding Danish law (ophavsretsloven section 19). Probably what you are referring to is the fact that the copyright directive (EUCD) has a provision on the exhaustion of copyrights (article 4) which states that unless you have the copyright holder's permission, you cannot distribute materials protected by copyright put onto the market outside of Europe (EU). (Which could also get you in trouble should you try to sell DVDs bought in the US to someone who is not your acquaintance.)

The directive does not do away with "first sale".

You may still sell your books and CDs, and you may still import books, CDs, DVDs etc all by yourself. I've seen stores based in the EU complain that they no longer can import a DVD from the US and sell it in for example Denmark. Supposedly this will result in higher prices than ever here in Europe since parallell imports from countries outside of the EU are banned.

But. Hello?! These are the MOST EXPENSIVE stores there are. It is MUCH CHEAPER to import yourself. And it is VERY EASY in these web days. Those are just crocodile tears you are seeing.

This however, dos not have anything to with whether the DVD is region 2 or not. South Africa and the Middle East are both in region 2. So is Japan.

Disclaimer: IANADanishL

"Copyright law in the UK has never allowed people the automatic right to make back-ups."

Actually this is not true, Directive 91/250 explicitly recognises the right to make a backup copy.

"We have no written Constitution, in the sense that the US does, so the usual mechanism for overturning silly laws across the pond is out. There's nothing inherently wrong with this law in a legal sense: what it says sucks, but it was passed by the usual means."

You won't be able to challenge it under the Human Rights Act 1998, because it doesn't infringe on any fundamental right. The American case is a bit different because the Constitution talks about copyright explicitly. Our Human Rights Act is only interested in fundamental political rights such as freedom from torture. Much as we don't like the outcome in this case, this is the right answer. Democracies are governed by politicians, not the courts.

"Sure, we can hope that in time copyright law in the UK will be changed to reflect common sense (in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does)..."

Our copyright law works differently; it has a fixed list of fair-use type rights, rather than a generic doctrine that gets extended by the courts. Our law is more certain but less flexible, so it's hard to know which is best I think.

On march 28th, italy implemented the EU copyright directive, which is modeled after the DMCA, but with fewer exemptions. All 15 EU members were supposed to adopt this by last december, but only a handful of countries have done it yet. The UK just became the sixth to adopt.

How did I get so interested in the DMCA? I recently interfaced the Ritz disposable digital camera to my computer, and didn't like how the DMCA has been used to stifle competition.

Text of the EUCD (eu copyright directive)

eEurope 2005 hits hard by not only requiring a secure infrastructure by 2005 (automatically ruling out the current line of MS tools), but also by ensure that there is competition and interoperability. The latter, interoperability, requires use of open standards, some thing which Microsoft could do but has consistently chosen to corrupt or pervert. See its treatment of HTTP, LDAP or Kerberos for three of many examples. In the former, MS is the subject of numerous anti-trust, anti-competition and anti-freemarket cases.

Of course on a less serious note, the UK could get out of this one by secedng from the EU and joining the U.S. That woud have the side benefit of Tony Bliar becoming a natural born U.S. citizen and thus eligable to replace Bush.

Here is a link to some info on Brazilian use of sugarcane to make ethanol which is used as fuel for Brazilian cars. Renewable, provides jobs and doesn't pollute as much, and makes Brazil a lot less dependant on oil and oil companies.

Wierd thing is that they're the only country to ever have done this. This would give Africa and asia valuble export resource that is renewable.

The German article linked has more details on going from WinNT to Linux/FLOSS/Samba et.al, with less detail RedHat/Ximian/GNOME/SuSE/Mandrake/KDE.

The
EU article mentioned in Kurts mail, has more focus on RedHat/Ximian/GNOME than Suse/Mandrake/KDE.

The IDA Open Source Migration Guidelines

Given all that, even with 17.5% VAT in the UK I still save over GBP800.

On a side note it's even more expensive to order from the continent. In the French store it works out a GBP4077!

Other links in the pdf -
1. The OSS Fact Sheet
2. The Report on OSS usage
3. The Report on market structure and issues related to public procurement
All three of the above documents can be found here in other formats as well as PDF.
-B

Other links in the pdf -
1. The OSS Fact Sheet
2. The Report on OSS usage
3. The Report on market structure and issues related to public procurement
All three of the above documents can be found here in other formats as well as PDF.
-B

Other links in the pdf -
1. The OSS Fact Sheet
2. The Report on OSS usage
3. The Report on market structure and issues related to public procurement
All three of the above documents can be found here in other formats as well as PDF.
-B

Other links in the pdf -
1. The OSS Fact Sheet
2. The Report on OSS usage
3. The Report on market structure and issues related to public procurement
All three of the above documents can be found here in other formats as well as PDF.
-B

Essentially, whilst private companies stumped up the cash, it was the Government (along with the French Government) who accepted the bulk of the risk. However even with this guarantee it took a lot of convincing to get backers on board, which suggests that without this Government backing the tunnel would never have been built.

• Ip Justice
• EFF

ya, I got curious after I posted and went to Europa and found out for myself.

I have had this argument many times, and am still very skeptical about GPS transponders.

GPS (if that's being used, which is likely) is a one-way system, which means a passive device receives timing signals from a constellation of visible satellites, and uses the timing differences to estimate location and speed of the receiver.

The critical question is what happens next to that data. It can't be transmitted back to the GPS satellites, since they are only able to receive control signals from their operator (Loral?). In fact, it's unlikely to be any satellite-based system, due to the power requirements to punch a signal up to above the atmosphere (such as a satellite phone or VSAT terminal.) Such requirements mean a big heavy battery, and a very carefully aligned directional aerial (in most cases.)

So, what's the back channel? One example of a GPS transponder uses GSM to send the coordinates to a local cell network, probably via SMS. A European system (Galileo) being developed for tracking vehicles on roads throughout Europe, using UMTS or similar technologies.

Note that all of these devices so far require a package that is somewhat large than that which can be hidden inside a can of Cola!

• Directive proposed by the Commission
• Amendments passed by European Parliament Plenary
• Who voted what on roll call votes (MS Word :( )
• vote results (MS word :( )

FFII position

• Voting list
• Amendments analysis

You were more correct initially.

The current law is EPC and national laws that are based on the EPC. The European Patent Office is not related to the EU.

All EU states are EPC contracting states but not all EPC states are EU states, e.g. Switzerland and Turkey.

The EU cannot change the statutory definition of what is patentable because this would conflict with the member states obligations under the EPC or creating a situation where nation patents are granted on a different basis to European patents, which would not make things clearer. However, it can change the law in EU states that relate to enforcement and can exclude some acts from the definition of infringement, e.g. acts for ensuring interoperability as proposed and private non-commercial use in UK law.

Theoretically, the EPC member states are meant to harmonise their interpretation of Art. 52(2) EPC. However, in the absence of EPO Board of Appeal decisions being binding precedent, there is a tendency for different countries to interpret Art. 52(2) EPC differently. The UK is a real culprit in this respect and has some decisions that are out of step with the EPO Boards of Appeal but binding on the UK patent office and lower UK courts.

The EU legislation is aimed at harmonising the interpretation of Art. 52(2) EPC and equivalent national law provisions in respect of computer-implementing inventions in the patent offices and courts of the EU states.

The basis of the standardisation is the interpretation established by the Boards of Appeal of the EPO.

The distinction is subtle. The aim is not to get everyone singing from the same song sheet, they do that already, but to get everyone singing in tune. Tbis is all explained here

Bullshit. Curvy cucumber (as any other deformed vegetables) must be sold as Class II vegetables, as described in the regulation concerning quality standards of cucumbers (PDF).

The class system for vegetables is basicly for large restaurants etc. which want standard quality raw materials.

Like you said, the application was not clustered, did you not make it clear to your client that they are not protected in that situation and they should accept the risk or else cough up some money.

Yes I did. There was a complete plan, the money was there as well, but because managment wanted to look good (read: Not spend money and come in "under budget") they never signed off.

In case your application ever gets clustered, you could perhaps lower the cost of the contract by taking something less critical like 'same day' repear instead of '2 hours' or something.

It is clustered now and the contract was (when I left) still the same. Why? Because Murphy, they want / need to get the cluster back in a sane state as quickly as possible, the DB is at the core of the business (call center, Web Interface, IVR) if they don't have it, they can't do business.

secondly, I have been dealing with sun support and it is nothing special compared to IBM or HP. I don't think it is 100% worth the money. although you almost have no other choice then to pay, going without support is impossible for serious businesses.

I've dealt with HP and SUN, not with IBM though.

What I can say about HP is that the company in itself is a little bit suspect. The last shop I worked for bought a VA7400 besides the XP512. The VA never really worked. Before I left it decided to croak pretty serisouly, the recommendation from HP?

"Well, the VA ain't supported anymore as it is EOL (now that we bought Compaq and they are better with medium sized Storage than we are). We can cut you a deal on it though!".

Yeah, great service, really.

Don't get me started on the XP512, it's basically a Hitchachi array with HP Logo and Firmware. It is beyond me why anybody would buy this (politics of course) as the only place you can get support from is HP. If you buy the Sun Array though (also Hitachi) it is Hitachi through and through and at least you can get support from several different vendors.

So no, my experience with HP support isn't all that glorious.


perhaps these things just don't happen in europe? i never saw a sun engineer that had to fly over some part from i don't know where. these guys get stuck in trafic jams and sometimes screw up the outage window.

Last time I checked Toronto was in Canada, not in Europe. You know, the thing on top of the USA?

We DO notice what is going on, it's just that we cannot do anything legal to stop it.

I've had this feeling for a long while now, that a revolution is brewing. It's time (again) to take the power back to the people.

It's not just illegal in Italy, it's illegal in the European Union as a whole: on May 20, 2002, the European parliament voted for a common point-of-view on spam and other forms of electronic privacy intrusion.

Then, on August 1 2003, the EU Directive 2002/58/EC came into effect, effectively granting member states until October 1 2003 to adjust their national laws to fit the EU directive.

The Dutch "Wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens" (law for the protection of person-related data) now has an article 13 that reads:

Artikel 13

Ongewenste communicatie

1. Het gebruik van automatische oproepsystemen zonder menselijke tussenkomst (automatische oproepapparaten), fax of e-mail met het oog op direct marketing kan alleen worden toegestaan met betrekking tot abonnees die daarin vooraf hebben toegestemd.

Roughly translated:

Article 13

Unwanted communication

The use of automatic paging devices without human intervention (automatic paging devices), fax or e-mail, aimed at direct marketing, can only be allowed with respect to subscribers that have given prior permission.

There you go: opt-in. A "do-not-call" list, that recently raised questions in the US, has been in effect for years now in the Netherlands. As far as e-mail is concerned, Dutch internet providers actually defend their customers and sue Dutch spam-perpetrators. If anybody has related stories from other EU member states, please do list them here.

Now, to put my previous remarks in perspective, it might seem that I'm being overly EU-zealous here. However, it is by no means my intention to adopt an attitude like that. But think about it: this legislation works: the only Dutch bulk email that I recieve comes from a site at which I have a free e-mail account; when obtaining that account, I actually did opt-in. And it's only about one message per week. So, without the intention of adopting an EU-superiority attitude, I'm just asking a plain and sincere question:

What, if any, is the big problem with disallowing companies in the US to send unsollicited bulk e-mail to customers?

Can anyone give a decent overview of interests at stake here, and (if any) US regulations on the subject?

Is known as the database directive

When reading the directive, remember that the only the articles really have force, not the recitals. A quick selection of quotes:

'database` shall mean a collection of independent works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic or other means.
[...]
The copyright protection of databases provided for by this Directive shall not extend to their contents and shall be without prejudice to any rights subsisting in those contents themselves.
[...]
the author of a database shall have the exclusive right to carry out or to authorize:
(a) temporary or permanent reproduction[...]
(b) translation, adaptation[...]
(c) any form of distribution to the public[...]

Member States shall have the option of providing for limitations on the rights set out in Article 5 in the following cases:[...]
(d) where other exceptions to copyright which are traditionally authorized under national law are involved
[...]
SUI GENERIS RIGHT

Article 7

Object of protection
1. Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.
[...]
The right provided for in Article 7 shall run from the date of completion of the making of the database. It shall expire fifteen years from the first of January of the year following the date of completion.

http://www.ipjustice.org/081103codepress.shtml

"If this proposal becomes a reality, major companies from abroad can use 'intellectual property' regulations to gain control over the lives of ordinary European citizens and threaten digital freedoms", said Andy Muller-Maguhn.

http://www.ipjustice.org/ipenforcewhitepaper.shtml

---
:-) Please also look at the evidence of anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory:
discussion: sept 11 (WTC 2001)
issued by EUC at January 30 2003(Hitler's takeover of power 1933)

A quick search on google gives these two pages of relevant information:

schengen acquis

EU relationship with Norway.

A quick search on google gives these two pages of relevant information:

schengen acquis

EU relationship with Norway.

Read: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/indpr op/comp/alcatel.pdf

and who owns your thoughts?

just how disconnected must one be, to be safe???

The only way to undermine the direction of software patents (worldwide even) is to , to use an analogy. The Roman Numeral system was outdated and proven to be weak in power compaired to the Hindu-Arabic Decimal system. In essence it proved beyond doubt that the Roman Numeral system was greatly lacking the value of nothing as a place holder. It showed fault in the Roman Numeral system use in mathmatics.

In the same way, the software patent issue is like the Roman Numeral system in not showing a more complete and full scope picture of reality.

Most software patents are in fact in violation of even the three primary things you cannot patent, natural law, physical phenomenon and abstract ideas, and further violate the case of mathmatical algorythims not supposed to be being patentable, amoung other "cannot patent" facets.

What is lacking is genuine and validateable software engineering foundation upon which software can be tested against to see if it might qualify for patentability.

In other words, the skill of babeling abstractions from an industry focused on such skill has dumbfounded those outside of that industry, including offices of Intellectual property grants.

What is needed to undo this problems growing in wrongful IP rights is to establish the genuine science of the physics of abstraction creation and usage.

Or in the analogy of Roman Numeral vs. Decimal System, the Natural laws of the Physical Phenomenon of creating and using abstract ideas from "nothing" is a simply not a patentable process in a patent system that fully recognizes the physics of abstraction. Which the current IP granting system and psuedo science does not recognize. Once such genuine software science has recognized this "zero" of abstraction physics then a great deal becomes so undeniably easy and obvious (like what the decimal system did for mathmatics) that a great deal more of the "not patentable" factor comes undeniably into view for even the typical user/consumer.

Or perhaps you would rather only the professional experts be allowed use of teh decimal system of mathmatics and calculations.....?????

This is why he is safe in Italy

OK, OK, (calms down a bit). When you've marched in the street against something, you'll be a little bit miffed when someone tells you it never happened.

Flames aside, I'm curious where you came by your mistake. Are you American? Is there a common perception that the recent France-Germany anti-American alignment is "The EU" and that Britain (and maybe some other countries) are not part of it? That would be quite interesting.

The EU and the US both have very ambitious plans for a new Hydrogen economy. The Europeans plan to use renewables (wind power, hydro) to generate a significant portion of the electricity required to split Hydrogen from water, whereas the US (under GW) plans a massive expansion of coal and nuclear to do so. If the infrastructure is put in place, Hydrogen could be distributed and stored geographically, with the potential to feed fuel cells when needed, so no dependence on an electric grid being up 24/7. However, what troubles me is the EU model will reduce the use of fossil fuels, whereas the US one will generate more CO2 emissions and more nuclear waste.

From the EU IP FAQ (my underline):

Does this Directive overprotect intellectual property by taking on board the most repressive legislation found in EU Member States?

It is not right to say that the proposal simply takes on board the most 'repressive' legislation of each EU country. The Directive takes on board the best measures already adopted in various EU countries. Those are not always the most draconian and there are a number of measures currently available in certain EU countries which have not been included.

Translation: Yes, this law is pretty damn repressive... but we could have made it even more repressive, so it's okay! {insert mandatory Orwell reference}

Fat chance. The EU is a huge bureaucracy. European don't even know the names of the EU commissars, and the Commission cultivates the virtue of secret and opacity with a success that would have made Beria jealous.

So public opinion has really no impact whatsoever on the bureaucrats. What matters is the lobbyists. According to the Wall Street Journal, there are about 10,000 lobbyists in Brussels. (I believe this doesn't include employees of the larger lobby cabinets).

Large companies are therefore overrepresented in Brussels. Contrary to what naive Americans can think, established companies love the thick layers of bureaucracy and the entanglements of redtape. Why? Because it allows them to:
1. Keep startup competitors out of their business by making it too difficult to enter the field,
2. Pass their pet legislations through coatroom deals.

Europeans wanted a super-state, they've got it. Oh wait... Cancel that. Nobody told the poor schmucks that they would eventually end up in a remake of the Ottoman Empire.

-- SysKoll

FAQ from EU IP directive


Quote :

The proposal has a number of safeguard clauses: * the proposal restates the general principles of intellectual property rights law, namely that procedures should be fair, not unnecessarily complicated, slow or costly and should not create barriers to 'legitimate trade' * any penalties applied to offenders should be 'effective, proportionate and deterrent' i.e. the penalty should fit the crime * where the Directive allows for seizure of suspect goods for evidence, the company or person whose goods have been seized can ask for a review of the seizure. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded * where the Directive allows for a court to force someone involved in handling infringing goods to reveal who they bought the illegal goods from, this can only be done under certain conditions (e.g. where this would not incriminate the person giving the information, so-called right to avoid self-incrimination) * where the Directive allows for 'interlocutory injunctions' (an injunction in advance of a decision on the merits of the case), the company or person who has been ordered to stop participating in the suspected infringement can ask for a review of the injunction. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded. In this case, the judge can also order the rightholder to compensate the suspected offender who is found innocent for any loss they have suffered as a result of the injunction * where the Directive allows for various measures following a decision on the merits of a case (e.g. recall, destruction of goods or disposal outside commercial channels), this will not be applied where the offender has acted in good faith (i.e. neither intentionally nor through negligence) and can agree a fair settlement with the rightholder whose rights have been infringed * legal costs are awarded also to the alleged offender, if they are found to be innocent The full text of the proposed Directive is available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/i ntprop/news/index.htm


IIRC, Please remark that there are already specific consumer protection law preventing abuse of such things, like enforcing the sdale of a specific tire with a chip inside it. Add it with the above and this doesn't seem so horrible as presented in the article summary above.

FAQ from EU IP directive


Quote :

The proposal has a number of safeguard clauses: * the proposal restates the general principles of intellectual property rights law, namely that procedures should be fair, not unnecessarily complicated, slow or costly and should not create barriers to 'legitimate trade' * any penalties applied to offenders should be 'effective, proportionate and deterrent' i.e. the penalty should fit the crime * where the Directive allows for seizure of suspect goods for evidence, the company or person whose goods have been seized can ask for a review of the seizure. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded * where the Directive allows for a court to force someone involved in handling infringing goods to reveal who they bought the illegal goods from, this can only be done under certain conditions (e.g. where this would not incriminate the person giving the information, so-called right to avoid self-incrimination) * where the Directive allows for 'interlocutory injunctions' (an injunction in advance of a decision on the merits of the case), the company or person who has been ordered to stop participating in the suspected infringement can ask for a review of the injunction. Furthermore, the judge can make the rightholder pay a refundable guarantee which will be forfeit if the case brought is unfounded. In this case, the judge can also order the rightholder to compensate the suspected offender who is found innocent for any loss they have suffered as a result of the injunction * where the Directive allows for various measures following a decision on the merits of a case (e.g. recall, destruction of goods or disposal outside commercial channels), this will not be applied where the offender has acted in good faith (i.e. neither intentionally nor through negligence) and can agree a fair settlement with the rightholder whose rights have been infringed * legal costs are awarded also to the alleged offender, if they are found to be innocent The full text of the proposed Directive is available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/i ntprop/news/index.htm


IIRC, Please remark that there are already specific consumer protection law preventing abuse of such things, like enforcing the sdale of a specific tire with a chip inside it. Add it with the above and this doesn't seem so horrible as presented in the article summary above.