Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
The typical result is that unsold inventory is destroyed, and damages are paid for retail sales already completed. I'm not sure from what is being written there whether manufacturers would be recalling from wholesalers and perhaps retailers(quite reasonable) or from consumers too(pretty harsh).
Damages would need to be paid on any devices sold and not destroyed. The damages can't be less than a reasonable royalty.
All of the above assumes, of course, that Mangequench would win.
Actually, it is even worse than that. It is like Dennis Rodman taking a fall in a Bulls-Pistons game resulting on a foul being called on Patrick Ewing in a Knicks-Celtics game.
Felton is not the issue in the 2600 case. The court is not going to rule on 2600's problem based on whatever is going on with Felton.
Ok, if I strip off the beginning and off the end the claim seems to cover that. If the claim were narrower, such as specifying content-versus non-content portions or the like, I could see how it was non-trivially narrowed from checksumming web pages.
This patent is targeted the way an atom bombs are surgical. Not.
When I'm karma whoring, I leave my freebie +1 off. That way it is easier to get a cheapo upgrade point. Geez, you think I'm a STUPID karma whore? Thanks a lot buddy.
I CLEARLY was not karma whoring. I hadn't noticed anybody else posting any of the patent claims or the right priority date so I thought I was adding information.
While I'm at it, I'll shoot for the 'Troll -1' moderation. You seem to be a bit slow mentally, and a bad speller too. I figure you don't smell too good either. So there.
a network connection for transmitting and receiving packets from a remote client and a remote document server;
a responder, coupled to the network connection, for communicating with the remote client, the responder registering a document for change detection by receiving from the remote client a uniform-resource-locator (URL) identifying the document, the responder fetching the document from the remote document server and generating an original checksum for a checked portion of the document, the checked portion being less than the entire document;
archival storage means, coupled to the responder, for receiving the URL and the original checksum from the responder when the document is registered by the remote client, the archival storage means for storing a plurality of records each containing a URL and a checksum for a registered document;
a periodic fetcher, coupled to the archival storage means and the network connection, for periodically re-fetching the document from the remote document server by transmitting the URL from the archival storage means to the network connection, the periodic fetcher receiving a fresh copy of the document from the remote document server,
a checksum generator, coupled to receive the fresh copy of the document from the periodic fetcher, for generating a fresh checksum of a portion of the fresh copy of the document and comparing the fresh checksum to the original checksum, the checksum generator signaling a detected change to the remote client when the fresh checksum does not match the original checksum,
whereby a change in the document is detected by comparing a checksum for the checked portion of the document, wherein changes in portions of the document outside the checked portion are not signaled to the remote client.
So, the usual flame-before-reading crowd isn't entirely unjustified. (That's not to endorse flaming before reading, much less thinking, but hey, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.)
Oh, btw, the priority date is January 14, 1997. Leave it to the guys who do the press release to give the wrong impression of when the thing was invented. Not that doing a checksum and not recording non-changes wasn't just as obvious in 1997 as 1999.
First, the person who wants to protect the documents has to show that they were in communication between an attorney and a client regarding legal advice. That establishes the existence of the privilege. The judge may or may not need to look at the documents ("in camera" inspection) to do this.
Second, the person who wants to break the privilege has to show why the privilege does not hold. The most common reason is that the document was shown to somebody who other than the attorney or client.
In this case that reason is the "crime-fraud" exception. This is what was used in the tobacco cases to get some of those documents. You have to make a showing that the client was using the attorney's advice to commit a crime or a fraud. That's a fairly hard showing without the document. You can't get the document before you make the showing required to get the document. However, the judge might look at it, and then decide you can have it.
Well, if you fail to disclose details necessary for operation, that is called non-enablement, and invalidates the patent.
If you fail to disclose how your "best mode" you also have an invalid patent. (It is theoretically possible to enable and disclose your best mode, but leave something out.)
Abusing a patent can result in antitrust suits. Automatically trebled damages. We can see the hurt and distraction Microsoft is in. Wandering into that territory can be very bad.
The court of appeals for the FEDERAL CIRCUIT, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeal from patent infringement cases. I don't think the reporter got his court right in the story.
The Fourth Circuit does not show a disposition of a Rambus case. However, the Federal Circuit does show last weeks dispositions including a denial of mandamus "In Re Rambus Inc." (Sorry, no opinion on the site.)
As if anyone cares about the difference but me, but I needed to vent about the reporter apparently not even checking which court issued the ruling.
The University of Utah was a respected school in Chemistry, and Pons and Fleischman were respected researchers when the cold fusion thing was released.
I remember well the wait for someone to reproduce the experiments. Being at the James Franck Institute of the University of Chicago at the time [interdisciplinary institute for chemists and physicists], I knew that 1) chemists were pretty sure that Pons and Fleischman had seen something -- they weren't the sort to hallucinate energy; 2) physicists were sure within 24-48 hours or so that it couldn't have been fusion.
As it turned out, Cal Tech and other top schools failed to reproduce the experiments. Some schools did get something. However, the schools that could reproduce some heat were not top schools, unless you counted their football programs.
The idea that Pons and Fleischman weren't given fair treatment is pretty empty. Its just that there are enough conspiracy theorists out there that can't believe that if something sounds too good to be true -- it almost certainly is.
I think the fee is about $30, which is pretty cheap for insurance if you are engaged in serious commercial activity that would inspire you to hire a lawyer later.
Seed companies PREFER to sell hybrid strains, which is to say, seeds made by bringing together two separate fertile (and exclusively controlled) strains to make seed good for one growing only. This is old technology. For example it is not only done in growth seeds, but in plants as well. For decades, exotic appearing flowers (black african violets come to mind) are often sold that when bred just give you junk.
However, for the genetically modified seed plants, they have not succeeded with all plant varieties in making hybrids. That is why they try to use contracts to control it.
Also, there could conceivably be regulatory reasons. After all if the plants do not breed true, limiting them to one generation of growth without supervision could be required by those fearful of frankenfoods.
Here are a few points that I'd like to raise because they (for me) lead to the conclusion that the easy fingerpointing is pointless.
1) There have been a lot of guns in this country since it was founded. There have been a lot of guns that a teenager could use to kill a number of people since John Colt was in business. 2) As much as we idealize how good parents were in the past, there is a reason it took a long time to get child labor laws passed. Same thing with child abuse laws. The past was not filled with morally perfect people who spent all their time bringing Johnny up perfectly. 3) The overall indication from the events is not that these people had abnormally bad backgrounds. What I find odd about that is that one would expect that the people who have cause to be head cases, who have been really and awfully abused by their parents, are not the problem here. It is not some readily identifiable 'top tail' of a normal distribution.
I just think that we're going to be 20-50 years sorting this one out, and that as much as we like to vent and opine, everybody's desire to pick their knee-jerk cause/effect relationship isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Preparation of a mechanical application average around $4000-6000.
Preparation of a software, EE, or biotech application average ranges from $8,000-$20,000, but is more on the low end.
Inventors note: the better your disclosure, the easier it is to get the work done.
Filing Fee: $710
Hassling with the patent office: $3000 average. The closer the prior art you gave to your attorney at the beginning is to the true state of the prior art at the application phase, the lower this number will be.
Professional drawings up to PTO standards: $500.
Issue Fee: $1,240
3.5 year maintenance fee: $850
7.5 year maintenance fee: $1,950
11.5 year maintenance fee: $2,990
The maintenance fees need only be paid if you want to maintain the patent. If you can't commercialize it - don't pay the fees.
I said on the "order of $10,000", it might have been 15k. I doubt seriously that they paid 20k unless they were being reamed or self-screwing.
International applications can be really expensive. Why?
1) Hey, there are like 100 countries to get patents in. If you get a patent in each, each wants its issue fee.
2) For some reason each country wants the patent in its native language. That means, yep, lots and lots of translations. For getting technical documents (like a patent) accurately translated, you can be looking at $100 a page.
Let me get this straight. Some guy spends on the order of $10,000 to get a patent.
Now the body that is going to shape how international domain name resolution happens is going to refuse to seriously look into challenging the patent.
Sure, investigating the validity of the patent could cost tens of thousands of dollers. Sure, a patent lawsuit can cost a million dollars. But nobody seems to be asking: WHAT IS THE COST OF ACCEPTING A SECOND-BEST SYSTEM? Even the people in charge do not seem to care. Maybe they don't have money to fight. A good question would be "Why not?"
If geeks can't confront solving problems regarding DNS in rational, cost-effective ways, then who will? Whether that patent is a good one or a bad one, or whether the patent system is beside the point. The point is that the patent is there, and the problem should be dealt with to lead to a good technical system.
Your description seems to lack attention to maintaining a consistent view. Working with the origins of "zero" or positional number systems on the one hand, and worrying about the a study of a subculture of *nix users is too rapid a move from the view at 50,000 feet and 5 feet. Is this a big-picture course or a detailed examination of modern culture?
The first, in many ways, is a history of mathematics. The second, modern cultural anthropology. There may be connections and contacts between the two, but not enough to meld courses on those subjects.
Since you include ANALOG computing you open the door to non-positional number system computing. The ancient Greeks (and others) made substantial use of geometry to calculate lengths, areas, etc without a positional number system. I can only guess at what the Chinese might have done.
One does wonder if the 'culture' of the slide rule as well as the 'technology' of the slide rule culture would be included in your course. I can see the chapter now: "the slide rule and the pocket protecter."
Various people, Professor Sunstein at times among them, have always feared systems that are not designed to promote the messages they like, and supress the messages they dislike. They don't like political systems that seem to let the wrong kind of people 'win' and do not like systems that let the 'right' kind of message get filtered.
Democracy in a fundamental way requires a desire among a people for a common destiny. The idea of community can be an inclusive or exclusive thing. For example, the 'melting pot' theory of America is an inclusive model. The communities of the Amish are fundamentally exclusive. An Amish community does not desire a common destiny with the non-Amish community that surrounds it, it is designed to promote a separate, perhaps compatible destiny.
Democracy should be inclusive through reciprocity. That is to say, I include you and you include me. It should not be designed to be controlling. Slavery systems 'include' slaves in the society, but not in a democratic way.
The content regulation of media is primarily based on the concept of the right to not hear something. That is why there are certain words that can't be used during prime time television. One solution would be to tell people that if they don't like the media, TURN IT OFF. Then listening is not forced. The alternative, is to determine what is ok to say or not ok to say to avoid forced listening. This is Sunstein's preferred mode -- after all, he is afraid of people turning other people off, or having the freedom to do so. [Ok, maybe they aren't against the FREEDOM to do it, merely the EXERCISE of that freedom. That seems to be a distinction without a difference to me.]
Online communities are not exclusive by design. One can certainly be a member of multiple ones, and use that to cross-pollinate. SLASHDOT shows a fair bit of that. Filtering and moderation biases messages to be sure. However, filtering and moderation within one community does not mean that all communities share the same biases.
The kalidescope of viewpoints is complete when viewing the many pieces out there, not one piece in isolation. The ability to bring messages from many places in a short period of time or to filter and refilter make it possible to enjoy that kalidescope of views more easily. However, it does not readily submit to control of messages and results, which does seem to be what Professor Sunstein wants. I do not fear as he does.
Getting a lot of nights with Spike doesn't require making money, at least in the U.S.
17 U.S.C. 506 - (a) criminal infringment
Any person who infringes a copyright wilfully either --
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18...
The "American Rule", that in general each side bears its own costs in a lawsuit might have changed the financial impact of this case.
The other side is usually referred to in the United States as the "English Rule" (though it applies in many, many countries other than England). I don't recall the rule for Sweden, but for example in Germany, they have "loser pays" with limits on reimburisable fees and amounts that can be expended in a lawsuit. (My understanding is that courts set budgets for cases.) The amounts of money being attributed to attorneys fees here do not seem so high as they might be in the U.S., so there does seem to be some limit to the fees in this case.
Mind you, a copyright case is one of the few areas in US law where you can get your legal fees if you win. That puts sort of a bug in things because the same thing MIGHT have happened here.
Please understand, not all religions are trying to convert the whole world to an open text of beliefs. Christianity is an evangelical religion, generally trying to grow the body of believers. Judiasm, on the other hand, is perhaps better understood as trying to do so within a limited ethnic community.
However, religious power has often been framed in terms of secrets that make those who obtain them more powerful. Part of remaining powerful is to keep these secrets from others. Freemasonry operated on such a model. The higher you went, the more secrets you learned. George Washington was a high-ranking freemason, go visit the freemason's monument to him in Virginia (Arlington, I believe).
There are many more ancient cults that operated this way. The Greeks had a bunch of them about the time that Christianity was spreading. The Oracles of Delphi weren't in the business of trying to convert people. (Don't think of their real effect as being these vague predictions of various historical events, think of them as colonization coordinators who had a good act.)
Please remember, for most of human history, people have considered knowledge to be power, and not something to be shared. The "openness" gig is the new, strange one.
Now that it is clear that Napster has to try to stop the swapping, nobody seems to be interested in trying to do a really good job of it. Letting renaming of a file get around the swapping ban is just too lame.
Shouldn't the filter for copyrighted stuff be like an antivirus? Changing the name, or even making insubstantial changes to the content should not evade the filter.
Every place has annoying laws. Here in Chicago, I remember I went shopping one morning, and wanted to restock the slug traps that protect our rose bushes. We load cheap beer into the slug traps because it attracts them and kills them.
However, I found out that I couldn't buy before 11am. No beer for slugs before 11am in Chicago. Oh well.
1) Teach. That is educate about the field, and let the person he taught draw better conclusions from other testimony.
2) Opine. Give his opinion, and explain the basis for the opinion.
Independent experts have been used for both purposes by judges. The first has a much reduced risk of bias, since the expert is not committing to a position and getting himself into the rough and tumble of the case as much.
The second has some risks. If the independent expert gives his opinions to a judge in such a way that the parties can't comment on the opinions, they've been unfairly cut out of their opportunity to have a say in how their case gets decided.
Two things sort of prevent the "paid gun" aspect. First, most people don't testify very well when they don't believe what they are saying. There are some that do, I am sure, but not the vast majority. Second, if the expert has a reputation, odds are long against him being paid enough to give that up just for the witness fee in one case.
The issues surrounding scientific evidence have been getting heightened attention for at least ten years in the courts. There are a number of other instances of courts using independent experts to try to get a grip on the scientific truth of a case. In a recent biotech patent case, the judge picked from a list of scientists agreed upon by the parties to get someone to act as a background resource. A panel of court-appointed experts was used in the silicone breast implant litigation.
I expect that the AAAS lists won't be used by judges without input from the parties, just because the parties are the ones who have stuff on the line in the case.
I think that the AAAS's move is a positive one. I would like to think that other scientific, medical, and engineering societies could follow suit. Such lists would help in one significant way -- identifying which experts are willing to work on court cases or not.
This move by the AAAS was made a couple of years ago in response to Supreme Court cases that changed the standards for the acceptance of scientific testimony. Among scientists, the Supreme Court actually has a very high reputation, perhaps in part because of the seriousness that the Court has approached issues relating to scientific evidence.
One thing that will limit the use of such experts by the courts may well be money. Courts do not have a lot of funding to pay for experts. Courts might try ordering the parties to split the cost, but that is not always fair to a little guy who is having a hard enough time getting by in the litigation.
I hope judges will make more use of independent experts, especially in cases like the breast implant case, where large numbers of people's rights regarding their health are potentially dependent on expert opinion. It is more important to get a case right when a million people have a stake than just one.
Slashdot Mirror
The limit is 6 years. 35 USC 286
286. Time limitation on damages
Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action.
The typical result is that unsold inventory is destroyed, and damages are paid for retail sales already completed. I'm not sure from what is being written there whether manufacturers would be recalling from wholesalers and perhaps retailers(quite reasonable) or from consumers too(pretty harsh).
Damages would need to be paid on any devices sold and not destroyed. The damages can't be less than a reasonable royalty.
All of the above assumes, of course, that Mangequench would win.
Actually, it is even worse than that. It is like Dennis Rodman taking a fall in a Bulls-Pistons game resulting on a foul being called on Patrick Ewing in a Knicks-Celtics game.
Felton is not the issue in the 2600 case. The court is not going to rule on 2600's problem based on whatever is going on with Felton.
Ok, if I strip off the beginning and off the end the claim seems to cover that. If the claim were narrower, such as specifying content-versus non-content portions or the like, I could see how it was non-trivially narrowed from checksumming web pages.
This patent is targeted the way an atom bombs are surgical. Not.
When I'm karma whoring, I leave my freebie +1 off. That way it is easier to get a cheapo upgrade point. Geez, you think I'm a STUPID karma whore? Thanks a lot buddy.
I CLEARLY was not karma whoring. I hadn't noticed anybody else posting any of the patent claims or the right priority date so I thought I was adding information.
While I'm at it, I'll shoot for the 'Troll -1' moderation. You seem to be a bit slow mentally, and a bad speller too. I figure you don't smell too good either. So there.
Claim 1 of the patent reads:
1. A change-detection web server comprising:
a network connection for transmitting and receiving packets from a remote client and a remote document server;
a responder, coupled to the network connection, for communicating with the remote client, the responder registering a document for change detection by receiving from the remote client a uniform-resource-locator (URL) identifying the document, the responder fetching the document from the remote document server and generating an original checksum for a checked portion of the document, the checked portion being less than the entire document;
archival storage means, coupled to the responder, for receiving the URL and the original checksum from the responder when the document is registered by the remote client, the archival storage means for storing a plurality of records each containing a URL and a checksum for a registered document;
a periodic fetcher, coupled to the archival storage means and the network connection, for periodically re-fetching the document from the remote document server by transmitting the URL from the archival storage means to the network connection, the periodic fetcher receiving a fresh copy of the document from the remote document server,
a checksum generator, coupled to receive the fresh copy of the document from the periodic fetcher, for generating a fresh checksum of a portion of the fresh copy of the document and comparing the fresh checksum to the original checksum, the checksum generator signaling a detected change to the remote client when the fresh checksum does not match the original checksum,
whereby a change in the document is detected by comparing a checksum for the checked portion of the document, wherein changes in portions of the document outside the checked portion are not signaled to the remote client.
So, the usual flame-before-reading crowd isn't entirely unjustified. (That's not to endorse flaming before reading, much less thinking, but hey, even a blind pig finds the occasional acorn.)
Oh, btw, the priority date is January 14, 1997. Leave it to the guys who do the press release to give the wrong impression of when the thing was invented. Not that doing a checksum and not recording non-changes wasn't just as obvious in 1997 as 1999.
The way it works is that:
First, the person who wants to protect the documents has to show that they were in communication between an attorney and a client regarding legal advice. That establishes the existence of the privilege. The judge may or may not need to look at the documents ("in camera" inspection) to do this.
Second, the person who wants to break the privilege has to show why the privilege does not hold. The most common reason is that the document was shown to somebody who other than the attorney or client.
In this case that reason is the "crime-fraud" exception. This is what was used in the tobacco cases to get some of those documents. You have to make a showing that the client was using the attorney's advice to commit a crime or a fraud. That's a fairly hard showing without the document. You can't get the document before you make the showing required to get the document. However, the judge might look at it, and then decide you can have it.
Well, if you fail to disclose details necessary for operation, that is called non-enablement, and invalidates the patent.
If you fail to disclose how your "best mode" you also have an invalid patent. (It is theoretically possible to enable and disclose your best mode, but leave something out.)
Abusing a patent can result in antitrust suits. Automatically trebled damages. We can see the hurt and distraction Microsoft is in. Wandering into that territory can be very bad.
The court of appeals for the FEDERAL CIRCUIT, has exclusive jurisdiction over appeal from patent infringement cases. I don't think the reporter got his court right in the story.
The Fourth Circuit does not show a disposition of a Rambus case. However, the Federal Circuit does show last weeks dispositions including a denial of mandamus "In Re Rambus Inc." (Sorry, no opinion on the site.)
As if anyone cares about the difference but me, but I needed to vent about the reporter apparently not even checking which court issued the ruling.
The University of Utah was a respected school in Chemistry, and Pons and Fleischman were respected researchers when the cold fusion thing was released.
I remember well the wait for someone to reproduce the experiments. Being at the James Franck Institute of the University of Chicago at the time [interdisciplinary institute for chemists and physicists], I knew that 1) chemists were pretty sure that Pons and Fleischman had seen something -- they weren't the sort to hallucinate energy; 2) physicists were sure within 24-48 hours or so that it couldn't have been fusion.
As it turned out, Cal Tech and other top schools failed to reproduce the experiments. Some schools did get something. However, the schools that could reproduce some heat were not top schools, unless you counted their football programs.
The idea that Pons and Fleischman weren't given fair treatment is pretty empty. Its just that there are enough conspiracy theorists out there that can't believe that if something sounds too good to be true -- it almost certainly is.
Somebody moderate the parent post up to 5. It's the real deal, as anyone who does x-ray dispersion will tell you. Don't believe me - believe NASA.
The page for the registrar of copyrights is here.
I think the fee is about $30, which is pretty cheap for insurance if you are engaged in serious commercial activity that would inspire you to hire a lawyer later.
Seed companies PREFER to sell hybrid strains, which is to say, seeds made by bringing together two separate fertile (and exclusively controlled) strains to make seed good for one growing only. This is old technology. For example it is not only done in growth seeds, but in plants as well. For decades, exotic appearing flowers (black african violets come to mind) are often sold that when bred just give you junk.
However, for the genetically modified seed plants, they have not succeeded with all plant varieties in making hybrids. That is why they try to use contracts to control it.
Also, there could conceivably be regulatory reasons. After all if the plants do not breed true, limiting them to one generation of growth without supervision could be required by those fearful of frankenfoods.
Here are a few points that I'd like to raise because they (for me) lead to the conclusion that the easy fingerpointing is pointless.
1) There have been a lot of guns in this country since it was founded. There have been a lot of guns that a teenager could use to kill a number of people since John Colt was in business.
2) As much as we idealize how good parents were in the past, there is a reason it took a long time to get child labor laws passed. Same thing with child abuse laws. The past was not filled with morally perfect people who spent all their time bringing Johnny up perfectly.
3) The overall indication from the events is not that these people had abnormally bad backgrounds. What I find odd about that is that one would expect that the people who have cause to be head cases, who have been really and awfully abused by their parents, are not the problem here. It is not some readily identifiable 'top tail' of a normal distribution.
I just think that we're going to be 20-50 years sorting this one out, and that as much as we like to vent and opine, everybody's desire to pick their knee-jerk cause/effect relationship isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Preparation of a mechanical application average around $4000-6000.
Preparation of a software, EE, or biotech application average ranges from $8,000-$20,000, but is more on the low end.
Inventors note: the better your disclosure, the easier it is to get the work done.
Filing Fee: $710
Hassling with the patent office: $3000 average. The closer the prior art you gave to your attorney at the beginning is to the true state of the prior art at the application phase, the lower this number will be.
Professional drawings up to PTO standards: $500.
Issue Fee: $1,240
3.5 year maintenance fee: $850
7.5 year maintenance fee: $1,950
11.5 year maintenance fee: $2,990
The maintenance fees need only be paid if you want to maintain the patent. If you can't commercialize it - don't pay the fees.
I said on the "order of $10,000", it might have been 15k. I doubt seriously that they paid 20k unless they were being reamed or self-screwing.
International applications can be really expensive. Why?
1) Hey, there are like 100 countries to get patents in. If you get a patent in each, each wants its issue fee.
2) For some reason each country wants the patent in its native language. That means, yep, lots and lots of translations. For getting technical documents (like a patent) accurately translated, you can be looking at $100 a page.
Let me get this straight. Some guy spends on the order of $10,000 to get a patent.
Now the body that is going to shape how international domain name resolution happens is going to refuse to seriously look into challenging the patent.
Sure, investigating the validity of the patent could cost tens of thousands of dollers. Sure, a patent lawsuit can cost a million dollars. But nobody seems to be asking: WHAT IS THE COST OF ACCEPTING A SECOND-BEST SYSTEM? Even the people in charge do not seem to care. Maybe they don't have money to fight. A good question would be "Why not?"
If geeks can't confront solving problems regarding DNS in rational, cost-effective ways, then who will? Whether that patent is a good one or a bad one, or whether the patent system is beside the point. The point is that the patent is there, and the problem should be dealt with to lead to a good technical system.
Your description seems to lack attention to maintaining a consistent view. Working with the origins of "zero" or positional number systems on the one hand, and worrying about the a study of a subculture of *nix users is too rapid a move from the view at 50,000 feet and 5 feet. Is this a big-picture course or a detailed examination of modern culture?
The first, in many ways, is a history of mathematics. The second, modern cultural anthropology. There may be connections and contacts between the two, but not enough to meld courses on those subjects.
Since you include ANALOG computing you open the door to non-positional number system computing. The ancient Greeks (and others) made substantial use of geometry to calculate lengths, areas, etc without a positional number system. I can only guess at what the Chinese might have done.
One does wonder if the 'culture' of the slide rule as well as the 'technology' of the slide rule culture would be included in your course. I can see the chapter now: "the slide rule and the pocket protecter."
Good luck with the course design!
Various people, Professor Sunstein at times among them, have always feared systems that are not designed to promote the messages they like, and supress the messages they dislike. They don't like political systems that seem to let the wrong kind of people 'win' and do not like systems that let the 'right' kind of message get filtered.
Democracy in a fundamental way requires a desire among a people for a common destiny. The idea of community can be an inclusive or exclusive thing. For example, the 'melting pot' theory of America is an inclusive model. The communities of the Amish are fundamentally exclusive. An Amish community does not desire a common destiny with the non-Amish community that surrounds it, it is designed to promote a separate, perhaps compatible destiny.
Democracy should be inclusive through reciprocity. That is to say, I include you and you include me. It should not be designed to be controlling. Slavery systems 'include' slaves in the society, but not in a democratic way.
The content regulation of media is primarily based on the concept of the right to not hear something. That is why there are certain words that can't be used during prime time television. One solution would be to tell people that if they don't like the media, TURN IT OFF. Then listening is not forced. The alternative, is to determine what is ok to say or not ok to say to avoid forced listening. This is Sunstein's preferred mode -- after all, he is afraid of people turning other people off, or having the freedom to do so. [Ok, maybe they aren't against the FREEDOM to do it, merely the EXERCISE of that freedom. That seems to be a distinction without a difference to me.]
Online communities are not exclusive by design. One can certainly be a member of multiple ones, and use that to cross-pollinate. SLASHDOT shows a fair bit of that. Filtering and moderation biases messages to be sure. However, filtering and moderation within one community does not mean that all communities share the same biases.
The kalidescope of viewpoints is complete when viewing the many pieces out there, not one piece in isolation. The ability to bring messages from many places in a short period of time or to filter and refilter make it possible to enjoy that kalidescope of views more easily. However, it does not readily submit to control of messages and results, which does seem to be what Professor Sunstein wants. I do not fear as he does.
Getting a lot of nights with Spike doesn't require making money, at least in the U.S.
17 U.S.C. 506 - (a) criminal infringment
Any person who infringes a copyright wilfully either --
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18...
The "American Rule", that in general each side bears its own costs in a lawsuit might have changed the financial impact of this case.
The other side is usually referred to in the United States as the "English Rule" (though it applies in many, many countries other than England). I don't recall the rule for Sweden, but for example in Germany, they have "loser pays" with limits on reimburisable fees and amounts that can be expended in a lawsuit. (My understanding is that courts set budgets for cases.) The amounts of money being attributed to attorneys fees here do not seem so high as they might be in the U.S., so there does seem to be some limit to the fees in this case.
Mind you, a copyright case is one of the few areas in US law where you can get your legal fees if you win. That puts sort of a bug in things because the same thing MIGHT have happened here.
I ... will ... go ... as ... slowly ... as ... I ... can.
Please understand, not all religions are trying to convert the whole world to an open text of beliefs. Christianity is an evangelical religion, generally trying to grow the body of believers. Judiasm, on the other hand, is perhaps better understood as trying to do so within a limited ethnic community.
However, religious power has often been framed in terms of secrets that make those who obtain them more powerful. Part of remaining powerful is to keep these secrets from others. Freemasonry operated on such a model. The higher you went, the more secrets you learned. George Washington was a high-ranking freemason, go visit the freemason's monument to him in Virginia (Arlington, I believe).
There are many more ancient cults that operated this way. The Greeks had a bunch of them about the time that Christianity was spreading. The Oracles of Delphi weren't in the business of trying to convert people. (Don't think of their real effect as being these vague predictions of various historical events, think of them as colonization coordinators who had a good act.)
Please remember, for most of human history, people have considered knowledge to be power, and not something to be shared. The "openness" gig is the new, strange one.
Now that it is clear that Napster has to try to stop the swapping, nobody seems to be interested in trying to do a really good job of it. Letting renaming of a file get around the swapping ban is just too lame.
Shouldn't the filter for copyrighted stuff be like an antivirus? Changing the name, or even making insubstantial changes to the content should not evade the filter.
Every place has annoying laws. Here in Chicago, I remember I went shopping one morning, and wanted to restock the slug traps that protect our rose bushes. We load cheap beer into the slug traps because it attracts them and kills them.
However, I found out that I couldn't buy before 11am. No beer for slugs before 11am in Chicago. Oh well.
An expert can do two things basically:
1) Teach. That is educate about the field, and let the person he taught draw better conclusions from other testimony.
2) Opine. Give his opinion, and explain the basis for the opinion.
Independent experts have been used for both purposes by judges. The first has a much reduced risk of bias, since the expert is not committing to a position and getting himself into the rough and tumble of the case as much.
The second has some risks. If the independent expert gives his opinions to a judge in such a way that the parties can't comment on the opinions, they've been unfairly cut out of their opportunity to have a say in how their case gets decided.
Two things sort of prevent the "paid gun" aspect. First, most people don't testify very well when they don't believe what they are saying. There are some that do, I am sure, but not the vast majority. Second, if the expert has a reputation, odds are long against him being paid enough to give that up just for the witness fee in one case.
The issues surrounding scientific evidence have been getting heightened attention for at least ten years in the courts. There are a number of other instances of courts using independent experts to try to get a grip on the scientific truth of a case. In a recent biotech patent case, the judge picked from a list of scientists agreed upon by the parties to get someone to act as a background resource. A panel of court-appointed experts was used in the silicone breast implant litigation.
I expect that the AAAS lists won't be used by judges without input from the parties, just because the parties are the ones who have stuff on the line in the case.
I think that the AAAS's move is a positive one. I would like to think that other scientific, medical, and engineering societies could follow suit. Such lists would help in one significant way -- identifying which experts are willing to work on court cases or not.
This move by the AAAS was made a couple of years ago in response to Supreme Court cases that changed the standards for the acceptance of scientific testimony. Among scientists, the Supreme Court actually has a very high reputation, perhaps in part because of the seriousness that the Court has approached issues relating to scientific evidence.
One thing that will limit the use of such experts by the courts may well be money. Courts do not have a lot of funding to pay for experts. Courts might try ordering the parties to split the cost, but that is not always fair to a little guy who is having a hard enough time getting by in the litigation.
I hope judges will make more use of independent experts, especially in cases like the breast implant case, where large numbers of people's rights regarding their health are potentially dependent on expert opinion. It is more important to get a case right when a million people have a stake than just one.