Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Silences Amateur Roaming Number List
An anonymous reader writes: "Verizon Wireless has silenced a tech-savvy user's web site for publishing the PRL content of Verizon phones. The PRL revealed that Verizon's popular and "expanding" America's Choice Plan has actually been shrinking in coverage in the latest few phone updates. Verizon of course, doesn't want this to tarnish their image, so they threaten legal action. Here is the usenet announcement. Can they hear us now?" PRL stands for Preferred Roaming List, and since roaming agreements can greatly influence the worth (and cost) of a particular calling plan, it's information I'd rather have available.
A trade secret is only secret if nobody knows about it. If Verizon failed to protect that secret it's their fault, and they can't do anything about it once it's revealed.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The only thing that really bugs me about this is that intellectual property rights are being asserted over a collection of information from multiple sources, all public. This would indicate, if it stands and sets a precedent, that public information is only public in its original format. If I make every third cell of a table of radio frequency assignments bold to highlight an interesting trend, am I now guilty of infringing the intellectual property "rights" of the users of the associated spectra?
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I got a phone/plan with Verizon for one simple reason: I could go 'anywhere' within a 6 state area and have my phone work. Verizon was the only plan that allowed local coverage both in Minnesota (where I live) and rural Iowa (where many of my friends/family live). The last 2 times I've driven back and forth, I've noticed about a 70-mile gap in Verizon coverage along my main route, which wasn't there when I originally got the plan almost a year ago. I called Verizon, but never got a straight answer. You know, if they would TELL customers about things like this, they just might be willing to accept it. As it is, I'm currently searching for a new phone plan.
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
Google's cache
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Copyright is granted to the author of a work for the express purpose of enhancing the creation of work destined for the public domain.
Patents are a temporary monopoly issued to inventors for the express purpose of enhancing the creation of technology destined for the public domain.
If the use of the term "property" implies permanent ownership, it is a LIE, and should be treated as such. There is NO SUCH THING AS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
--Mike--
Although the parent was moderated as "flamebait" due to the tone of the post, ka9dgx does make a valid point: "intellectual property" is a societally-created fiction, just like a "corporate person" is.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Just goes to show you how laws against trade secrets are obviously unconstitutional.
For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there are a couple of other concepts within the rubric of IP: trademarks and trade secrets.
Trademarks, IIRC, are valid so long as you make a reasonable attempt to enforce them. "Reasonable" is vague, which is why things like this happen. They aren't evil; they're just worried their trademark will be ruled abandoned.
Trade secrets (such as in this case) are valid so long as they remain a secret. You can use contracts to allow some people to access them on the condition everything stays mum, but once a third party gains access to the data, you're up a creek.
I would say Verizion should be burried, but Verizion is also going after a Ralksy, a big time spammer.
Fight Spammers!
Trademarks, IIRC, are valid so long as you make a reasonable attempt to enforce them. "Reasonable" is vague, which is why things like this happen. They aren't evil; they're just worried their trademark will be ruled abandoned.
Replying to oneself is gauche, but I made a mistake and no one has called me on it. The *zilla case isn't about abandonment, but about generics. You can't trademark a generic term, so they're worried that if enough people start calling things Foozilla, then Godzilla becomes generic, and loses its value as a trademark.
For all you amateur lawyers stating Verizon has no case in blocking the site from deseminating its information, might I point out that the sight has taken the info offline.
Verizon's lawyers' letter had the desired effect, even if just temporarily.
Big companies can successfully bully you into shutting up, just like any mafia thug.
evanchik.net
That won't work any better than being outside the US has helped foreign companies from dodging the DMCA in the past. . .