Slashdot Mirror

Looking at the graph on http://insight.ieeeusa.org/ins... there's no resemblance to the "hockey stick" graphs from which the term was coined.

At least in my state (Texas), however, they're undertaking a long-term approach to bring the practice of Software Engineering into full licensure, since the state offers a P.E. exam for Software Engineering (and have since 2013), and have the intention of eventually effecting a cultural shift that will make it a requirement.

When I graduated, there wasn't a software engineering-specific P.E exam, you took the standard P.E. exam, and only then could you call yourself an Engineer in the state of Texas. I've been Programmer ever since (I suck shit at thermodynamics and can't tell you which end of the Carnot cycle is up). Looks like I'd still have to learn thermo, materials, and fluid dynamics so I can pass the Engineering Fundamentals exam, so Programmer it is.

IEEE has a computing society that seems like what you're looking for:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/

http://www.computer.org/portal/web/swebok

Unbelievable. I can't even begin to understand how you can possibly get anything you said from the regs.

There is no mechanism to license an illegal activity.

You missed this part of your quote "..except under and in accordance with [the Communications] Act and with a license ...". Your operation must be in full compliance will ALL the provisions of the act as well as be licensed.

it doesn't flat-out say they're illegal. It just says they're illegal if they don't comply with the regulations.
They are not legal to "manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship ... or use" because they CANNOT comply with the regulations. That sounds pretty illegal to me.

1) Jammers are not eligible for certification because their primary purpose is jamming and cannot by design meet emission standards
2) Radio equipment that is not certified may not be imported, sold or used
3) All radio transmitters (a cell phone is most certainly a station) must be authorized or licensed.

In case you missed it, 47 USC 333 is part of the United States Code, you know, federal law? Title 47 CFR is also in play here, of course.

If Section 333 were to be taken literally, it would be illegal for people to build metal-sided buildings because that would be "willfully" blocking signals.

It says "interfere with or cause interference", not "block" - interference is caused by an interfering radiated signal, NOT structures. http://www.fcc.gov/guides/interference-defining-source http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/whitepapers/IEEEUSAWP-HarmfulInterference0712.pdf

I don't know if it's true but I heard of a case where a cell tower was required to be taken down when it was determined to be obstructing a point-to-point microwave link, so there is some precedent for protecting narrow RF paths.

There is quite a bit of variation to be found in the practices of companies with regard to this issue.

A good write up is found here: http://www.ieeeusa.org/members/IPandtheengineer.pdf

The article suggest there are two or three broad models of what is acceptable practice in this ares.

First

The Massachusetts Model is so called because it is prevalent in the northeastern United States. It was developed toward the end of the industrial revolution as a response to shop rights. Agreements written on this model tend to imply that the intellectual life of the employee is company property.

Never backed by law, this model is the most restrictive,

The cycle of innovation and renewal is fundamental to a healthy market economy. To foster this cycle, individuals require the same protections for non-work-related intellectual property that employers enjoy for work-related creations. In 1977, Minnesota formalized this concept with a law limiting the enforceable terms of pre-invention assignment agreements. The Minnesota Model adopts the philosophy that while the employer should enjoy protection, it should not come at the expense of today's employee to become tomorrow's new employer.

In California there are similar laws to the Minnesota system:

The State of California followed in 1980, by implementing protection for its famous entrepreneurial culture. As of this writing Utah, Washington, North Carolina, Kansas, Delaware, and Illinois have also promoted new business formation by means of
similar laws

The text of the California law is on the web here. Washington state Here.

Appendix B of the above linked article has a summary of legislation in various states and list of states where such agreements are already limited by state law.

IEEE-USA's analysis is http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/eyeonwashington/2011/documents/IPprotectAct.pdf

Agreed. I've had exposure to many managers who's "good attitude for the company" involves looking at employees only as a set of ROI figures. I've also worked under the minority of managers who are interested in developing both the product and skill-set base of employees. The line about "bad attitude" is exactly the attitude that likely founded tech companies in the past - take a new product on the road. Calling this a bad attitude goes against the ideals of several states which have passed provisions protecting the little guys like the OP from being squashed or taken advantage of simply because the company they works for issues the salary checks they get.

Odd. I quit IEEE-USA because they were opposed to H1B workers and supported lowering H1B limits. As an H1B worker, it did not seem prudent to I pay fees to an organization that was acting against my interests.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/POLICY/2003/index.html
http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/features/070703.htm

Odd. I quit IEEE-USA because they were opposed to H1B workers and supported lowering H1B limits. As an H1B worker, it did not seem prudent to I pay fees to an organization that was acting against my interests.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/POLICY/2003/index.html
http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/features/070703.htm

The rules adopted by the FCC are very close to the position recently approved by IEEE-USA and prepared by the IEEE-USA Committee on Communications Policy. The position can be found at http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/NetworkTrafficManagementNov10.pdf The position is on Network Traffic Management and not on "net neutrality".

From a white paper that preceded the position statement (http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccp/docs/NTM-whitepaper.pdf), there are multiple ways to define net neutraliry. One is to say "a bit is a bit". That is neutrality across applications, but is not technically accurate. A bit in file downloading has different quality-of-service requirements than a bit in streaming video. The alternative definition is to say that ISP's should be able to manage their networks for quality-of-service to different applications, but not to discriminate between users having similar applications, especially based on commercial considerations and side deals. That is neutrality across users running the same kinds of applications.

The IEEE-USA position is that quality-of-service should be stated and transparent. Higher QOS could be priced differently by ISP's. However, the parameters of QOS are well known (bandwidth, packet loss, latency, jitter, and availability/uptime) and users can figure out what they need for their applications. ISP's should be held to their stated QOS levels and should not be allowed to discriminate against content, applications, or services within a given QOS level.

That is substantially what the FCC decided yesterday and it is the proper policy.

Who writes that crap blog?

Here is the actual IEEE press release:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2010/062910.asp

They basically complain that there's still no clear litmus test for patentability because the decision was to vague on the definition of what constitutes "too abstract".

-- Terry

I can't find starting salaries though.

If you are an IEEE member, you can find that at the IEEE Salary Guide. It accounts for industry, employer type, and cost-of-living adjustment. I used it when negotiating my starting salary. I told them how I computed the number, and they gave me exactly what I asked, which my recently graduated peers considered high for the area.

I don't publish a newsletter. However, here are two relevant links on the subject:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband.asp

http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccp/docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

I don't publish a newsletter. However, here are two relevant links on the subject:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband.asp

http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccp/docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

Both I and the IEEE beg to differ. You might want to read this link.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/reverse.html

and

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_9/Sections_906_and_907

about reverse engineering , you will find it is indeed legal to reverse anything in the USA as long as its done for education and is not to be done for profit as well as to make a profit.

I'm afraid the IEEE has basically decided to sell itself out to the highest bidder. It used to be a credible organization. Unfortunately it no longer is.

I've been a member for years, until this year. I was under the impression that it was trying to represent ME. Nope. They've decided to sell out to the higest bidder.

In the latest example, the IEEE-USA has decided to ignore their individual members, and for the first time decided to team up with the Semiconductor Industry Association to promote the expansion of the H1-B program. Here's their press release:
http://www.ieeeusa.org/communications/releases/2007/101107.asp

The Programmers Guild has launched a petition to rebut this. It's not too late to get your signature attached to it. The petition is here:
http://www.programmersguild.org/docs/rebuttal_to_ieee_oct2007.html

I'm dropping my IEEE membership this year, as it's clear that the IEEE isn't interested in representing Software Developers.

So it's no surprise that they are pandering to the Russians. The IEEE has sold out.

End-user ownership is a cornerstone of a proposal and a more recent white paper by a committee of IEEE-USA. See

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband. asp

and

http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

The fact is that the US is being dumbed down with respect to broadband technology. The Washington Post recently had an article stating that Koreans feel like they are going back to the past, telecommunications-wise, when they come to the US.

Real broadband is gigabit or better, bidirectional, to the end user. Ownership by end-users may be the only way we can achieve it. Content and bandwidth should be separated, with nobody other than end users allowed to provide both.

End-user ownership is a cornerstone of a proposal and a more recent white paper by a committee of IEEE-USA. See

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband. asp

and

http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

The fact is that the US is being dumbed down with respect to broadband technology. The Washington Post recently had an article stating that Koreans feel like they are going back to the past, telecommunications-wise, when they come to the US.

Real broadband is gigabit or better, bidirectional, to the end user. Ownership by end-users may be the only way we can achieve it. Content and bandwidth should be separated, with nobody other than end users allowed to provide both.

The IEEE , Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO and researhers such as Norm Matloff speak up against the H-1B abuse.

Lots of folks speak up against it.

The hired gun lobbyist Harris Miller loses to Jim Webb. Miller ran an unaplogetic pro H-1B and pro-outsourcing campaign. Seems the voters in Virginia don't like Harris Miller's record.

Heck, even Milton Friedman calls it a subsidy.

The big telco's and cable companies have been dumbing down our understanding of broadband. Their offerings are legacy broadband. Real broadband is gigabit and has equal speeds bi-directionally, so any subscriber can be a content/service provider.

The US is headed toward becoming a third world telecommunications country. Other countries are putting in the gigabit broadband. I have used the analogy of animal power versus engine power. An innovator who knows only animal power (i.e., where one horsepower is a fundamental limit, and you have to figure out how to get two horses to generate double the energy) will not think of innovations that are relevant to engine power.

Take a look at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

The key to becoming a first world telecommunications power is net neutrality. As for the opponents' claim that web providers are trying to "stick the consumer with the bill for the next Internet," perhaps it is on target but spun the wrong way. End user ownership of the last mile is one way of ensuring that no content/application/service provider can monopolize the Internet and exploit users. The other way is to require bandwidth providers to be common carriers, a.k.a net neutrality.

The US is headed toward being a third-world telecommunications country because the American public is being dumbed down about what is really high speed Internet. Megabit speeds are legacy technology, regardless of what the cable and DSL providers say. Other countries are going to gigabit technology -- to the home and at reasonably low cost (say $50 per month for Internet, telephone, and cable TV combined).

Take a look at the white paper at:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

However, we must have net neutrality to do it, which means that bandwidth providers can't also be content/applications/services providers. Under such a gigabit Internet concept, you would separately negotiate for content, applications, and services. That blows away the business models of present cable providers and what the telcos are lobbying to get.

This is where we need to head, and the FCC and Congress need to stop listening to incumbent providers and start thinking about what is best for everyone.

Its not that I don't mind competing with other engineers and programmers, its that many companies don't follow the rules, putting those who do at a disadvantage. Maybe I'm still looking through rose colored glasses, but I think there should be some fairness in enforcing what rules are on the books.

Don't even get me started on the hand ringing from Bill Gates and many other tech. leaders about not having enough trained engineers in the US. Why should my kids go into engineering when they can have a more secure career elsewhere. It would be tough for me to recommend my kind of career to students today.

Well, doh... we're talking about core duties of his work (!= core business for company), on company time using company resources here, there's not much doubt that by default that'd belong to the employer. What they are basicly negotiating about here is transferring IP rights as a form of wage.

Internal company information should already be covered by the work contract. So if they want a blanket rule, it can be as simple as this:

"EMPLOYEE shall own all right, title and interest in any work product, Invention or copyrightable material based on, related to or making use of the EMPLOYEE's work provided hereunder. EMPLOYEE grants EMPLOYER the non-exclusive right and license to make, have made, use and sell products in EMPLOYER's field which are based on, related to, or making use of the EMPLOYEE's work provided hereunder."

(slight variation on this which was linked in another post. Personally I think that one sounded awfully kind for the employee (originally intended for a consultant, same applies there), but that is just my opinion.

Kjella

By not divulging salary information, I avoid painting a lucrative target on myself for scams.

Talking about salary across diverse areas (e.g. on Slashdot) is not as useful as talking about it with people you trust in the local area. A better source is something of a salary survey. My preference is for IEEE's Salary Survey (I am a member). My reason for this is that IEEE is a non-profit organization which includes engineering managers, tech writers, and various engineers. Because of that, I beleive the bias is lower.

Various other places often have alternative reasons for reporting a salary as low or high. For example consultants looking to hire often report high average salaries to increase an employee's dissatisfaction with the current job. Alternatively, in-house salary reporting typically report low averages for the opposite reason.

Accessing real salary information is typically expensive. Though IEEE offers access for an individual through a model to some data, obtaining more advanced access to the data for more significant statistical analysis (to aid HR in making salary offers, for example) is more expensive ($400-$600 depending upon need). You will find similar trends at other places, too.

IEEE-USA has two statements on this matter. The first is a position statement posted at http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband. asp and the second is a recently issued white paper at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

In summary, real broadband (gigaband) starts at 100 Mbps. Cable modem and DSL are legacy speed technologies, and even BPL is a brand new technology at legacy speed.

The key to making real broadband work is separating the provision of bandwidth from provision of content, applications, and services.

If the US can't get the vested interests out of the way, we will become a third world telecommunications country. That's where we are headed now.

IEEE-USA has two statements on this matter. The first is a position statement posted at http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/positions/broadband. asp and the second is a recently issued white paper at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

In summary, real broadband (gigaband) starts at 100 Mbps. Cable modem and DSL are legacy speed technologies, and even BPL is a brand new technology at legacy speed.

The key to making real broadband work is separating the provision of bandwidth from provision of content, applications, and services.

If the US can't get the vested interests out of the way, we will become a third world telecommunications country. That's where we are headed now.

Nice three year old article to back up your argument.

My bad. After six years, they all look alike, since they all say the same thing.

" ... do not expect to see a significant turnaround until 2004."

Well, it doesn't look like there was a turnaround. This uses more recent official figures from the BLS (you can download the BLS PDF yourself), and EE unemployment was still 5.3%. Unfortunately, the site is undergoing improvements, and I can't get to the article I want. The latest BLS figures (2nd quarter) show the number of employed EEs in 2004 less than that in 2003. Subsequent surveys I've seen show no improvement, but if you were really interested in the subject, you'd know that already. Anything else I can do for you?

Just FYI - the Bureau of Labor Statistics does not agree with your assessment that programming and engineering unemployment is at an all-time high.

FYI, an engineer employed as a truck driver does not count as unemployed, nor does an unemployed programmer working as a clerk. Neither do those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits but may still be unemployed count in government figures. I can't link to the data I'd like for non-members, but there's (pdf alert) this If you believe everything the government tells you . . . well, nevermind.

If you look at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf
you will see that BPL operates at legacy speeds. The US needs networks that operate at gigabit speeds to the end user.

Take a look at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ccip/ docs/Gigabit-WP.pdf

The document there provides additional details and analysis on this.

The first question: is it consistent to include current US immigration practices under the definition of Corporate Welfare Nader uses. You can say that Nader's definition is a bad concept-the first question is it consistent to exclude those immigration practices from that term.

Also, the H-1b immigration rights _were_ sold. Congress sold their offices over the objection of over 80% of the US public. Now, you say all you want about "freedom"--but freedom that involves de facto bribery and subversion of the democratic process is a pretty questionable "freedom".

I'm familar with the economic arguments that you can have open borders and broad based economic prosperity. I see little truth to these arguments-the idea you can have open boarders between the US and India or Mexico without having negative effect on US wages is nutty(yet respeced economists suggest that is the case). From my perspective, open borders benefits larger property owners-many of whom use political means to defend their property at the expense of people that have little more than their labor to sell.

I find it curious that some "free market" advocates are so quick to defend property rights that tend to concentrated into the hands of few-and have relatively little concern for those infringements of freedom that tend to affect folks at a broader scale.

BLS reported a decline of 131,000 employed computer software engineers in the second quarter vs. the first quarter (725,000 vs. 856,000). Employed computer scientists and systems analysts have fallen 51,000 (621,000 vs. 672,000) during the same period, while computer hardware engineers dropped 3,000 (83,000 vs. 86,000). Computer programmers experienced a fall of 16,000 (575,000 vs. 591,000).

If the stated goal is to punish conduct only, as opposed to create a loophole to the Betamax test so that litigation may be used to effect technology regultion, there are many ways to do that. Indeed, responsive to requests from Senate staffers asking precisely the question you pose in the title to your piece, namely; "what might a viable induce act look like," IEEE drafted its proposal, which can be found at the end of my written testimony.

The patent Act has had conduct-based secondary liability coextensive with a "substantial noninfringing use" test since the 50s. The difference between Section 271 of the patent act, and S.2560, is a set of careful and narrowly circumscribed constraints. A recent federal circuit opinion by Judge Gajarsa discussed the interaction of the patent notion of induce and a Betamax exception.

If folks are honestly looking for a way to clear up the muck and mire that the trilogy of Napster, Aimster and Grokster opinions have created --the absolutely ridiculous proposition that secondary liability for infringing uses of neutral technology should be grounded in the right and ability to control users--, to adequately balance the interests of technologists and content owners, it can happen. It won't satisfy anybody seeking to protect their own interest to the exclusion of others, but it will provide sound, albeit incomplete, protections and avoid chilling innovation.

-- Scott McNeally September 2000 after the dot-con implosion was already in full swing.

I am disgusted by the IEEE position, by the way, and am considering renouncing membership of that organization whose vision I have been aligned with for years.
When you start drawing protective borders you risk much. Where do you draw the border? around a country? Around a state? Around a county? City?

For those who haven't bought into the "outsourcing is great for America" BS, check out this discussion about IEEE-USA's stance against outsourcing. The IEEE has also released a position paper on the topic.

Looking at the economic side of the argument, there is also a short article about a finance professor arguing against placing blind faith in outsourcing and the "externality" that companies are exploiting given the current labor and tax laws.

Want to do something about it? Try using your vote. Bush and Kerry have established their position on outsourcing (Bush is for, Kerry is against). Being unemployed does not mean you lose your right to vote, so make it count.

My own sense here: neither the spirit nor the letter of the law matter in this case. The expansion of H-1b over the objections of 82% of the American public is just what happens when a country allows things like political donations to play such a huge role in government-rule of law ceases to exist.

My opinion of The New NASA(TM) remains unchanged. Until they have actually awarded prize monies in a fair and open competition ($20M in prizes is pocket change for what should be the _bulk_ of NASA's budget) I'm convinced this is just a way to inhibit politically embarrassing events, such as the private prize awards that actually opening up the space frontier in the place of NASA. No one in power really wants this to happen lest they lose control of the pioneering (and therefore unmanageably independent) American populations they have so recently destroyed with their economic and technology policies.

The IEEE-USA is a USA specific organization. It was created to give IEEE's U.S. members a voice. Their mission is:

"To recommend policies and implement programs specifically intended to serve and benefit the members, the profession, and the public in the United States in appropriate professional areas of economic, ethical, legislative, social and technology policy concern."

U.S. Software Professionals need their own organizations, their own voice in Congress and elsewhere. Otherwise, groups representing corporations, such as the ITAA will be the only voice. ITAA was instrumental in the great increase in H-1B levels, which was good for Corporations but not for U.S. Information Technology Professionals.

National professional organizations are quite reasonable and rational for professionals. I am certain that Indian, European, and other Techonology Professionals are organized. So should we!

BTW, it is usually best to write your congresspersion, instead of calling. E-Mail can also be effective> One site that can help you get in touch with your legislators is http://www.congress.org. It can help you identify and e-mail your U.S. Federal, State, and Local legislators.

Larry Lessig articulates some infrastructure observations based on work by the IEEE & Cornell AFN Institute regarding 'end-user-as owner' (EUO) advanced fibre networks.

The claim that people that are rich get rich by doing remarkable things is bogus--some do, far more simply lie, cheat and steal effectively. Money is a poor measure of someone's contribution. Look at Kary Mullis-he built and entire industry and got $20K for a patent sold for over $100 Million(he got the Nobel Prize and Japan Medal-but that was inspite of Cetus management, not because of it).

ITAR is the State Department's regime for allowing technology transfer to other countries. Unfortunately, the State Department has not been able to balance technology transfer with the well-being of the American economy. According to Jeff Greason of XCOR Aerospace (a suborbital transportation company):

The situation is so delightfully Orwellian that it is almost impossible to believe. Currently any communication with anyone outside the U.S. or any non U.S. citizen working inside the U.S. is supposed to be approved, WORD FOR WORD, IN WRITING, with the State department in advance, with a delay which might be only a few months if you're a major aerospace corporation dealing with the U.K, and might be never if it has even the slightest risk of political fallout, as there is no time limit on how long State can (and does) sit on things. Pratt & Whitney's deal to pay Energomash to TEACH US HOW TO BUILD THEIR MOST ADVANCED TURBOPUMP was held up so long that the deal almost collapsed, just because it was percieved as politically sensitive. Great job protecting our national security, guys!

IEEE is actually seeking affirmative legislation regarding the enforceability of shrinkwrap agreements. The IEEE proposal would permit enforceability, but only to the extent the shrinkwrap conforms to certain reasonable norms, with some presently common overreaching provisions never permitted.

Preemption of a license agreement is a dead loss argument these days. The Federal Circuit took up that question in a far more important context: enforceability of a no-reverse-engineering provision. Their answer: no preemption.

In the Bowers v. Baystate opinion , the Federal Circuit considered the enforceability under Copyright preemption of a shrink-wrap no-reverse engineering provision. They held that there can be no preemption of a contract, even if it flies squarely into fundamental Copyright Policy like fair use and first sale doctrine. The Section 117 provision argument here is a far, far more attenuated argument.

Though it is pretty clear to me that provisions like the no-reverse-engineering clauses are clearly unconstitutional, I couldn't get the Supreme Court to get excited enough to take up the case in my Amicus brief on behalf of IEEE policy on no-reverse-engineering clauses. Maybe next time.

But in the meanwhile, Boies et al. are running squarely into the teeth of the most recent Circuit Court case addressing the point, and it won't be pretty for them.

Preemption of a license agreement is a dead loss argument these days. The Federal Circuit took up that question in a far more important context: enforceability of a no-reverse-engineering provision. Their answer: no preemption.

In the Bowers v. Baystate opinion , the Federal Circuit considered the enforceability under Copyright preemption of a shrink-wrap no-reverse engineering provision. They held that there can be no preemption of a contract, even if it flies squarely into fundamental Copyright Policy like fair use and first sale doctrine. The Section 117 provision argument here is a far, far more attenuated argument.

Though it is pretty clear to me that provisions like the no-reverse-engineering clauses are clearly unconstitutional, I couldn't get the Supreme Court to get excited enough to take up the case in my Amicus brief on behalf of IEEE policy on no-reverse-engineering clauses. Maybe next time.

But in the meanwhile, Boies et al. are running squarely into the teeth of the most recent Circuit Court case addressing the point, and it won't be pretty for them.

1. all of Canada
2. the IEEE statement on the title of engineer

Guess you've been caught talking out of your ass again (but that's what ACs do)

• http://www.ieeeusa.org/releases/2003/042803pr.html

The case was decided in the Federal Circuit almost a year ago, when the Federal Circuit held (contrary to a Fifth Circuit Decision in the 80s) that shrink-wrap provisions precluding reverse engineering are enforceable. The Supreme Court simply turned down (as they do most of the cases that apply) Baystate's petition for them to hear the case, which doesn't mean anything other than they had other things to do this year.

We filed a brief in this case on behalf of IEEE-USA and various library associations. The brief lays out our view, at least, of the importance of the case and the consequences of it remaining the law, at least, perhaps, in the First Circuit.

IEEE-USA quietly published two position papers asking the US Congress to re-examine and/or clarify sections of the DMCA last year

Actually, there are three papers:

• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Encryption Research Provisions
• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Notice-and-Takedown Provisions
• And perhaps most importantly:
• User Rights in Digital Copyright

IEEE-USA quietly published two position papers asking the US Congress to re-examine and/or clarify sections of the DMCA last year

Actually, there are three papers:

• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Encryption Research Provisions
• The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Notice-and-Takedown Provisions
• And perhaps most importantly:
• User Rights in Digital Copyright