Digsby is a nice cross platform, multi-protocol IM client. I use it at work with XPpro and at home with Vista and Ubuntu to connect to Yahoo, MSN and Google Talk networks. Works flawlessly so far...
Supports the requested ICQ and AOL networks.
The 1984 case is different. The main reason is that the defendants in the prior case had "copied" the Apple software. Here, Psystar is not copying the software, they are re-selling you a copy of Apple's software, which they have already legally purchased. I'm not saying Psystar is in the clear, however the 1984 case is not dispositive.
Blueport's attorneys are quite familiar with the FTCA, as they mention it in their appeal, but only used FTCA cases as analogies.
Yes, Blueport's attorneys are quite familiar with The FTCA. I know since I have worked with both the attorneys who represented Blueport.
Additionally, what most people miss about this issue is that it's not about the courts condoning the Air Force's actions. It's about the courts refusing to enforce the law against the Air Force when the federal government has not consented to being sued under the law the plaintiff is seeking to enforce. The concept of sovereign immunity is very old and was a major issue to both the states and the proponents of the federal government when the constitution was ratified. As has been pointed out, various states and the feds have waived their sovereign immunity for various causes of action. However, as the Federal Circuit points out, not for the alleged copyright infringement claim or the DMCA violation claim.
But if a non-lawyer can find this information after about two minutes of searching, why didn't Blueport's attorneys find it?
The point of a patent is not to provide a safe harbor so the inventor can profit from his invention, but to incentivize the inventor to "teach" the public how to make and use his invention. This is the heart of the trade between society and the inventor. You teach the public what you figured out and the public lets you "own" it for a short time.
Without this trade off, inventors and all the big companies they work for would protect their research and developments by trade secret, which would limit the amount of knowledge which is funneled into the public domain by filing patent disclosures.
Slashdot Mirror
you'll turn 360 degrees
...
and walk away
?? At which point you would bump right back into the 360.
opps, I read your post as wanting ICQ and AOL support...Digsby still should do what your looking for though.
Digsby is a nice cross platform, multi-protocol IM client. I use it at work with XPpro and at home with Vista and Ubuntu to connect to Yahoo, MSN and Google Talk networks. Works flawlessly so far... Supports the requested ICQ and AOL networks.
The 1984 case is different. The main reason is that the defendants in the prior case had "copied" the Apple software. Here, Psystar is not copying the software, they are re-selling you a copy of Apple's software, which they have already legally purchased. I'm not saying Psystar is in the clear, however the 1984 case is not dispositive.
Blueport's attorneys are quite familiar with the FTCA, as they mention it in their appeal, but only used FTCA cases as analogies.
Yes, Blueport's attorneys are quite familiar with The FTCA. I know since I have worked with both the attorneys who represented Blueport. Additionally, what most people miss about this issue is that it's not about the courts condoning the Air Force's actions. It's about the courts refusing to enforce the law against the Air Force when the federal government has not consented to being sued under the law the plaintiff is seeking to enforce. The concept of sovereign immunity is very old and was a major issue to both the states and the proponents of the federal government when the constitution was ratified. As has been pointed out, various states and the feds have waived their sovereign immunity for various causes of action. However, as the Federal Circuit points out, not for the alleged copyright infringement claim or the DMCA violation claim.
But if a non-lawyer can find this information after about two minutes of searching, why didn't Blueport's attorneys find it?
Wow, you really did your homework on that one.
The point of a patent is not to provide a safe harbor so the inventor can profit from his invention, but to incentivize the inventor to "teach" the public how to make and use his invention. This is the heart of the trade between society and the inventor. You teach the public what you figured out and the public lets you "own" it for a short time. Without this trade off, inventors and all the big companies they work for would protect their research and developments by trade secret, which would limit the amount of knowledge which is funneled into the public domain by filing patent disclosures.