If the typosquatter is in another state or nation, then the fraud crosses state or international boundaries; hence, prosecuting the fraud against the typosquatter would be a federal matter of criminal fraud law.
Conversely, if the typosquatter is in Indiana, then there are two likelihoods: 1) Original-poster sys-admin might in fact be the typosquatter without any identity theft. OR 2) The typosquatter may be a fellow employee who seeks to gain in their own career by eliminating original-poster sys-admin from the company. Indeed, if it is #2 and if it were to turn out that the typosquatter is an officer of the employer's corporation, then the employer's corporation can be argued to have framed the employee. If the typosquatter-framer is a nonofficer that is, say, another sys-admin, then the employer is terminating the wrong employee as it stands right now, while retaining the guilty party in this hypothetical scenario.
Finding out whose credit card was utilized to purchase the domain name and whose credit card (or ACH identifiers to which the advertising revenue that is earned by the typosquatter domain is deposited) is the key to determining all future plans of attack on your defense. Regarding your employment per se, that is a matter of civil law. But the fraudulent use of your identity to frame you is a matter of either Indiana criminal code (if all parties are within Indiana) or United States federal code (if at least one party is outside of Indiana). If you, original poster, are innocent as you claim, then the typosquatter may be guilty of wire fraud in the use of typosquatter's credit card as a material part of typosquatter's commission of the fraud against you.
Think about it, you might be able to charge one of your fellow coworkers with criminal charges if they framed you to "help you find a new job". Once all of that dirty laundry is hung out on the clothesline, then the employer might see matters in an entirely different light. Your entire future hinges on ascertaining the credit-card billing info that was utilized to pay for the typosquatter domain and/or how payments are made regarding the advertising revenue earned by the typosquatter domain. Once you find out the billing info on credit cards or ACH info on other financial accounts and if any party (including the bank) is outside of Indiana, then go to the nearest FBI office and file a report of fraud. The main FBI office that serves Indiana is in Indianapolis, although there exist branches in several of Indiana's larger cities too.
To get this credit-card billing info, you should hire a lawyer on a pay-by-the-hour basis, without retainer fee beyond having a credit card on file and perhaps prepaying the first 2 hours or so and a contract that doesn't have too many terms beyond: original poster promises to pay for the billable-hours incurred. Lawyers with sizable retainer fees (and lengthy retainer contracts) are usually pursuant to litigation against an adversary, but litigation against a known adversary is not what you want right now. You need to find your adversary (the typosquatter), then convince a government prosecutor to pursue the litigation against the typosquatter, if the typosquatter is within the USA. You want to convert this purely civil matter into a criminal matter ASAP.Hourly lawyers that do not require multithousand-dollar retainer fees up front are the kind of lawyer that you need: filing the magical paperwork to get accomplished the things that you need right now, such as subpeonaing the typosquatter's financial information from the domain registrar or from the hosting service at which the typosquatter domain is parked. Still, you are going to spend at least a four-digit sum for the no-retainer lawyer to file the magical paperwork for you. You can save money by being the investigator yourself, doing all the leg-work; you would delegate only the filing of legal paperwork in courts to the lawyer (instead of utilizing the lawyer as an expensive private investi
If the nontechie wants to make a webpage or if the nontechie wants to interface with hardware, then the choice of languages and knowledge differ markedly.
Why are you still buying Pintos & Vegas? Indeed, where are you still buying Pintos & Vegas? The junk yard?
As the Ford commercials from nearly 20 years ago (and on towards 20 years *after* your Pinto and Vega examples) said, "Have you driven a Ford lately?" As for GM, my wife & I have personally driven 2 Saturns up to 200,000 miles each.
It is "fora" when referring to more than forum that existed within the Roman Empire before its collapse (and perhaps within the Vatican, which technically is to this day a derivative work of the Roman Empire, its language, and its laws). But it is "forums" when refering to one than one forum that exist outside of the Roman Empire (or the Vatican) in time or space.
What goes around comes around. The ARPAnet was military. Now perhaps it may become so once again. (With apologies to Ash Wednesday in the Catholic Church for the subject line.)
I don't need any FSF priesthood who wrote the GPL to tell me what English words mean. The words of English alone tell me what the words of English mean without the aid of you or FSF or FSF's legal counsel or RMS himself to act as interpreter or translator of my own native language to me. The words of the GPL license contract mean what the words themselves mean without further explanation or spin or politicizing or propaganda or agenda or any other extraneous gratuitous distractions from parties who might have their own skin in the game and thus might like to see one interpretation or the other prevail. In the principles of Aristotle and Ayn Rand: A is A; it is what it is. The truth of the words in the GPL is the truth of the words in the GPL. Open your eyes & your mind and read the text of the GPL itself.
GPLv3sect6para0 any anyanyany kind of propagation that enables enablesenablesenables other otherother parties to make makemakemake... copies copiescopiescopies [obligates the propagator to make the source-code available in one or more of 5 listed ways]
What on earth do you think that "any", "enables", "other parties", and "make copies" mean in my scenario in a prior posting along this thread other than the following: A) If the OP's university were to have installed OP's binary Program on the local hard drive of the computer that the university authorized that user to utilize, and B) if the OP's university were to have granted read permission to OP's binary Program files on the local hard drive of the computer that the university authorized that user to fully utilize, and C) if there were to have not existed a side-agreement contract between the OP's university and that user that would have prohibited that user to make further copies of files on that local hard drive (especially copies that fall outside of the perimeter of the university), then under concomitant A & B & C the OP's university would have made a copy---where that act of copying is permitted only under the terms & provisions of the GPL---for which the university is legally responsible under the law (i.e., meeting the GPL's definition of "propagation"). In this scenario, did the OP's university lock down OP's binary Program out of sight of the user and throw away the key? No, in this scenario the university overtly granted read/copy permission to the files of OP's binary Program on the local hard drive that the university provided to the user.
The university rolled out the royal red carpet to the user to enact the very purpose of the GPL: to get the source code so that the user can maintain the user's own software freedom herself. Let us count the threads in this red carpet. The university funded the development of a GPLed Program. The university continued funding the development of that GPLed Program after being advised of the underlying GPLed libraries that cause the whole binary Program to be GPLed, rather than replace the GPLed libraries with non-GPL analogues. The university provided the user with a separate univerisity-owned computer, rather than merely an account on a time-share minicomputer, which could have permitted the university to avoid making the local-hard-drive copy by utilizing a single shared instance of the binary Program. The university provided that computer with local hard drive, rather than merely a diskless-booted remote filesystem, which likewise could have permitted the university to avoid making the local-hard-drive copy by utilizing a single shared instance of the binary Program. Did the OP's university make a policy prohibiting the use of OP's binary Program punishable by the death penalty? No, the university overtly authorized university personnel to copy the GPLed binary Program onto that hard drive, which can be performed legally only via compliance with
GNUv3sect6para0You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: [5 methods of providing the source code]
Why are you fixated on the word "distribute"? Instead, you should be fixated on the word "convey" as actually used in GPL as quoted above. Legally "conveyance" does not need an underlying "distribution", even though usually "distribution" needs an underlying "conveyance". Please read the GPL itself. But don't take my word. Let's use the GPL's own definition of "convey" and "propagate" to see whether there exists a method of conveyance in which no distribution occurs or whether there exists a method of propagation in which no distribution occurs.
GPLv3sect0para5 To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.
GPLv3sect0para6 To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
If the university has copied OP's Program from whereever OP stored the Program to the local hard disk of at least one user's computer and granted that user at least read permission to the Program that "enables" that user, "a third part", "to make... copies", then by GPLv3sect0para6 the OP's university by an overt act of its own volition has triggered the source-code obligation to that user via mere copying/conveyance to that user's local hard disk without any distribution whatsoever outside the OP's university. That user shall now be in possession of all members of the set {OP's university-paid-for/university-copied binary, OP's university-paid-for source code, OP's pre-employment source code, underlying GPLed libraries' source code}. (Unless that user has consumated a signed side contract with the OP's university outside of the GPL as per GPLv3sect2para1sentenceFinal), under the freedom-rights granted transitively by the chain of copiers via the provisions of the GPL, that user then may now publicly distribute to humankind the OP's binary and OP's source code from which this binary is derived as a derivative work.
Source-code freedoms preserved transitively without distribution performed by OP's university itself or by OP herself. QED. The bits & information want their freedom. IANAL.
Ah, finally low-NRE logic circuits on an immense and cheap scale a la programmable logic, but with real (not emulated) logic gates. EEs of the world unite!
GPLv2sect3para0 You may copy... the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [3 ways of making source code available]
Let us reword that quotation: OP's university may copy the Program only if the OP's university enacts one of the GPLv2's 3 ways of accompanying that copy with source code or the offer to obtain the source code. Via the wording of this quotation, no distribution outside of the of the OP's university is needed to trigger this provision. Copying of any kind triggers the source-code obligation.
GPLv3sect6para0 You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: [5 ways of making source code available]
Let us reword that quotation: OP's university may convey the Program only if the OP's university enacts one of the GPLv2's 3 ways of accompanying that copy with source code or the offer to obtain the source code. Via the wording of this quotation, no distribution outside of the of the OP's university is needed to trigger this provision. Conveying of any kind triggers the source-code obligation.
Yes, I agree, and means AND. Under that provision of the GPL, A) the recipient of the Program may copy the Program and B) the recipient of the Program may distribute the Program. The meaning of "and" neither overtly states nor implies that if the recipient copies the Program, the recipient must also distribute the Program beyond the perimeter of recipient's legal authority. "Right A and Right B is conferred" means: "Right A is conferred" and in addition "Right B is conferred". Exercising Right A does not force the anyone to exercise Right B or vice versa, as if the wording had been "Right A iff Right B is conferred" instead. I have various rights under the U.S. Constitution, all effectively conjoined by "and". Just because I exercise my free-speech rights does not require me to exercise my right to bear arms. They are separate rights that are both conferred to me, which I may exercise or not independently at my own free will.
I agree that copyright enforcement itself is a matter of federal law under US Code. But the precise meaning of the license is a matter of contract law. Except in federal-zone territory (DC and territories) and litigation involving the federal government as a party, contracts are interpreted under state law, based largely on British common law predating the formation of the USA in 1776 (Decl of Independence) or 1781 (Art. of Confed. ratification) or 1792 (Constitution ratification), take your pick, because contract interpretation was a right of the Crown that the states inherited that was not explicitly conferred on the federal government by the federal Constitution. Yes, of course, doling out the civil remedies & criminal penalties for infringement are a matter for the federal courts, but, as I was consistently showing in my prior posts along this thread, the interpretation of contracts must be conducted in every court (including the federal courts) under some single state's law in any one court case. This is why the federal government always wants all 50 states to enact the same edition of the Uniform Commercial Code so badly, to iron out some (but not all) of the wrinkles among the 50 states' codes of contract law. In proprietary EULAs, it is often considered wise for the wording of the EULA to overtly pick the county & state & nation to serve as the single jurisdiction's code of law is to be used to interpret the contract. Instead, (other than calling out WIPO in GPLv3) the GPL omits any overt choice of jurisdiction of whose code of law is to be utilized to interpret the contract. This omission does not restrict the interpretation of the terms of the contract to only the federal courts; rather, this omission opens up the possiblity that either party may initiate litigation in any (or all) of a wide variety of different courts among a wide variety of different codes of law. So the choice of which code of law to use to interpret the GPL's contract itself is its own separate dispute (in addition to the merits of the case) that can arise in some future GPL litigation.
The GPL FAQ's "internal distribution" section is best a friend-of-the-court brief and at worst an extraneous statement outside of the court in which the OP's parties would be litigating, if in a conservative-/constructionist-law state. Unless the copyright of the OP's GPLed libraries is owned by the FSF (e.g., GCC, Emacs), then FSF has, of their own volition, no standing in OP's would-be court case other than filing friend-of-the-court briefs.
Under the code of law in multiple states in the USA (i.e., the more conservative ones, such as Texas, Indiana), the contract or license says what the written words of it say. No other material may be brought in unless there is a demonstrated ambiguity within the wording of the contract or license. What I am showing via the trace of statements is the legal debugger in my post earlier in this thread is that the legalese of the GPLv2 (and GPLv3 without the OP's university having a side contract with the 100 users) is not ambiguous at all! Even the layman can follow it quite easily in my trace of statements in the legal debugger. The wording of the GPL is quite clear and the wording of the GPL stands as is without supplement. Hence, FSF can talk themselves blue in the face outside of the GPL about so-called internal distribution, because much of the GPL is based, not on distribution, but on copying, conveyance, and propagation. (All of) copying, (all of) conveyance, and (much of) propagation have nothing to do with the internal versus external nature of distribution that you & FSF's GPL FAQ are focusing on, because. they. are. not. the. word. "distribution".
Why is "distribute" not utilized instead at every place that "copy", "convey", and "propagate" are utilized? In a conservative-law state, this is because the authors of the GPL obviously meant something quite different than "distribute" or else they would have used their own free will to chose the word "distribute" and never chosen to put the words "copy", "convey", or "propagate" into the GPL. In a conservative-/constructionist-law state, the author of a contract or license cannot claim that unambiguous wording means something other than what is clearly stated, because the judge & jury are required to say, in effect, "Well, if you meant to say something different, then you should have overtly stated something different." Under conservative constructionist law, if the party authoring the contract or agreement meant "distribute" then the party should have used the word "distribute" instead of "copy", "convey", or "propagate". The words "copy", "convey", and "propagate" mean something entirely different than "distribute". Therefore, the locations at which "copy", "convey", or "propagate" appear mean something entirely different at the phrase-level and statement-level and paragraph-level than had only "distribute" been used instead.
Limiting the trigger of legal obiglations to merely distribution as the sole trigger is quite horribly misrepresenting what the words of the GPL quite clearly say in conservative-/constructionist-law states. Unless the words of the FSF FAQ overtly appear within the GPL, those words on the FAQ are irrelevant to the OP's would-be court case in a conservative-law state (unless some lawyer finds some ambiguity to hang their hat on in the clear and unambiguous trace of statements in the legal debugger that I showed in my prior posting on this thread). If the FSF wants to say something normative about internal distribution versus external distribution, then FSF must overtly put such statements in the GPL itself. Indeed, I claim that FSF's will is quite clear as stated in existing wording of the GPL as shown by my trace of the legal debugger earlier in this thread. In conservative-law/constructionist-law states, the GPL says what the GPL clearly states without any further explanation needed or permitted.
In a nonconstructionist liberal-law state, the judge & jury have far greater latitude to interpret the contract or license far beyond
IANAL. Let's step through the rights-to-copy exactly as we would step through lines of code in a debugger.
I agree with you under GPLv3 (iff the university has a side contract, as mentioned below) because of the following explicitly-stated term, because the university is allowed to have a separate side-agreement outside of the GPL that imposes additional restrictions on conveyance, where conveyance, distribution, and propagation are all precisely-defined distict, non-congruent terms:
GPLv3sect2para1:Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
Note that the legally-operative terms in this portion of this paragraph are "convey[ance]" and "copy[ing]" and (in the sentence preceding my quotation above) "propagat[ion]", not distribution.
But the wording of the GPLv2 says otherwise in the following scenario (zero-based paragraph numbers in GPL sections):
GPLv2sect3para0:You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Note the "and" in the first sentence quoted above. This sentence parses in many states of the USA as "You may copy the Program in object code or executable form" and separately "You may distribute the Program in object code or executable form". Let's for this entire posting of mine use the prior poster's (PP's) school of thought that distribution occurs only when the Program leaves the perimeter of the university's legal enity. Let's focus entirely on non-distributive (PP's definition) copying within the university.
In my scenario (which might not be exactly the OP's scenario, but which might be enlightening to OP nonetheless), the author's manager has some university employee install the OP's GPLed executable on each of 100 university-owned machines' local hard disk, as as officially mandated act of the university not involving the original author, so that the university is clearly performing the act of copying under their own right-to-copy. The program is copied onto 100 computers' local hard drives instead of being served from a single copy on a remotely-mounted filesystem. The university was permitted to perform this copying via the university's own separate right-to-copy (which is distinct from the OP's right-to-copy, and which is clearly not a distribution, using PP's definition) quoted above only if the university does a, b, or c below.
GPLv2sect3para0.a: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
GPLv2sect3para0.b: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
GPLv2sect3para0.c: c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
Oddly under PP's definition of "distribute", observing the clear basis of a, b, and c on "distribut[ing]" "source code" rather than merely "conveying" or "copying" source code, the university is now required to distribute the Program outside the confines of the university even though all origin & destination parties to the 100 copies are within the university. Wow! But I digress, let's
There exists multiple scopes of distribution: distribution to people within the university (to which the rest of this posting refers) versus distribution to humankind (to which you are referring). The users of the executable in the university are entitled by the GPL to request and obtain the source code to the entire now-GPLed executable. No user of this executable, now in possession of the source code, needs to comply with any more-restrictive legal terms than were contained in the GPLed libraries. Then, neither the university nor the author can restrict that user from distributing the executable and source code worldwide, because no one can further restrict copying of the executable or its source code beyond the restrictions on the GPLed libraries. Effectively, there is no such thing as "internal use" that is not "distribution" (FSF's not-legally-binding statements to the contrary not withstanding).
On what basis in the GPL (or some other body of legal obligations that could somehow supersede the terms of the GPL) would the court use to find in favor of Claire and Alice? Using the terms of the GPL, the court would find in favor of the opposing party in each of your posited court cases. You must be thinking that there exists an effective legal argument that dismantles the terms of the GPL. Please reveal your legal logic.
Why can't that employee use the GPL to demand the source code to that supposedly "internal only" executable? Then, why can't that employee say "The GPL prohibits adding more-restrictive terms to the executable than the terms of the GPLed libraries." and then say "Prohibiting me from distributing this now-GPLed executabile and its source code worldwide is itself an additional restriction that neither the author nor the university can impose on me." And then convey/propagate/distribute the executable and its source code worldwide. The bits & information want to be free.
Then "internal use only" that supposedly lacks distribution effectively does not exist unless all members internal to the organization enter into (and never violate) an agreement to never convey/propagate/distribute the GPLed code, which is the entire executable and all of its source code now (not merely the GPLed libraries).
But then again entering into such an agreement is itself a violation of either GPLv2 or GPLv3 because neither you nor your university can impose more-restrictive legal terms than was contained in the GPLed libraries, even for users within your department or your university. So any person in the university who has access to the binaries can request the source and then convey/propagate/distribute both the binaries and the source code worldwide without any restriction whatsoever (until the GPLed libraries are replaced by nonGPLed libraries). Effectively, legally (FSF's nonbinding legal advice notwithstanding), there exists no such thing as "internal use" that assures a lack of conveyance/propagation/distribution in an attempt to not comply with the GPL's terms.
Your reply contains nothing about whether a finite state machine is a machine in the In Re Bilski sense of a machine-or-transformation test. If someone can patent an FSM, then the patent applies to any implementation: mechanical, electronic analog circuit, electronic digital circuit, or sequential imperative thread of execution. If an FSM is not patentable, then: Why is an FSM not a In-Re-Bilski machine? and How can any digital circuit be patentable? and hence: How can any processor or ASIC or subsystem thereof be patentable if not via their FSM?
Should innovative finite state machines (FSMs) be patentable? If not, then digital circuits become unpatentable. If so, then why should the mode of implementation of how the machine is represented make any difference? Stroger (stepper) telephone switches (the technology permitted pre-WWII direct dialing instead of human patch-cord operators) are essentially century-old mechanical implementations of a 3-digit-area-code/3-digit-exchange FSM, differentiated by the presence/absence of 0 or 1 in the 2nd digit of the trio. If particular FSMs cannot be patented, then the Stroger switch a century ago could not be patented. (In this case only the underlying electrical compontent in isolation individually could be patented (as long as physics itself does not read on the electronic component's claimed property boundary lines), but Stroger did not invent those components; he invented an innovative assemblage of components to accomplish an FSM.)
One argument against software patents is that all software is essentially function composition in math. A vast quantity of patents since the nineteenth century has been for innovative FSMs, regardless of the underlying implementation of that FSM (e.g., witness the numerous patents for typewriter keyboard layouts-only for over the past century). If software patents fall in the USA, then won't we see merely an adjustment of claim wording to FSM patents that do not refer to any particular implementation? Is an FSM not a machine that satisfies the In Re Bilski machine-or-transformation test? If not, how is a finite-state machine not itself a machine?
H.264 is typically implemented by EEs in ASICs, not by programmers in software. So H.264 is in fact new circuitry that is a "brilliant new design for a" new portion of a "computer (or piece of it)" that you say "can be patented". In patent law in the USA, if the innovative functionality of an ASIC is patentable, then someone making a slower, hotter, more electricity-consuming (and thus inferior) implementation in *software* still infringes on the ASIC's patent. What is (supposed to be) patented is the innovative portion of a new state machine, not the various superior or inferior modes of implementation of that machine, whether those modes be ASIC lithography, soft-programmed FPGA netmask, or imperative sequential thread of execution.
But even more pertinent is the question, why is the W3C allowed to put H.264 in the HTML5 spec?
H.264 is so popular with all mainstream-consumer standards bodies because its decode path's entire traffic-plane (with a rich set of hardware registers to the software control-plane in the device driver) is widely implemented in hardware, and the encode path is likewise implemented in hardware nearly as often. Competing standards' video traffic-planes are usually implemented entirely in software without any custom-hardware assist, which causes at least a decimal order of magnitude more power consumption and likewise at least a decimal orders of magnitude more performance burden on software. These excess orders of magnitude of additional effort in software erode battery life. Right now extending battery life is viewed as more important than extending the WWW's socio-political agenda. The standards are rewarding H.264's extreme efficiency in multiple dimensions. The electronics industry is rewarding H.264's extremely wide standards-adoption to more certainly recover their multi-millions of dollars/euros of non-recoverable engineering (NRE) costs of developing these ASICs. Is it a grand conspiracy against your socio-political agenda or is it merely a textbook example of a win-win engineering/business-model sweet-spot?
The whole premise of the web is that its specifications are open (i.e. royalty free), and that is one of the reasons it has become so popular.
The whole premise of being in business is to maximize profit, not pursue some sociopolitical agenda of transferring all ownership of the means of production to "the people". If you don't think that the most-widely-deployed most-highly-efficient greatest-quality-of-experience products are the goal (for greatest recovery of NRE by the most-affordable business model to satisfy the most paying-customers), then by definition you are something other than an engineer (even if someone in management & HR strokes your ego by putting the word "engineer" in your job title).
Glossary: In the teledatacom industry [which includes the telephone network and the Internet (as pure inter-LAN data network) and the converged data-audio-video-signaling/routing-management network], the traffic-plane (a.k.a. data-plane a.k.a. user-plane) is where the end-user's bits are for, say, TCP or UDP payload, audio telephone call, or video feed, all of which are customarily in hardware for speed, electrical-power-consumption, and thermal-dissipation reasons. The control-plane is typically the software (device-driver) that controls (i.e., indirectly governs via look-up tables, where the hardware is doing the looking up) how the hardware itself switches the ingressing information flows to the egressing information flows, including inter-network-element signaling & routing that establish or tear-down information flows. The management plane is how the ISP or telco or carrier conveys command that configure the network-elements throughout their network. Nowadays, a everything from PDAs & iPad to PCs/Mac to servers likewise borrow a miniaturized variant of this traffic-plane in hardware plus control-plane device driver plus GUI management-plane ideology. This posting is at the heart of what Steve Jobs has been saying about the iPad regarding H.264 versus Flash.
Not quite. Numerically, you will still have the same "public" IPv4 address that you have today (either dynamic or static). It is just that it will be like that _Star Trek NG_ episode where, upon hearing something munching on the Enterprise's hull, Dr. Crusher asks the ship's computer "What is the nature of the universe?" to which the answer comes back "The universe is an oblate spheroid one kilometer in diameter." In the IPv4-lives-on-forever world, "public" will be redefined to "among all of the subscribers of the same ISP" (not "worldwide" anymore). Then *all* IPv4 addresses (other than loopback and test ranges) will be NATed between ISPs/carriers. In other words, there will not be one Internet address-space anymore, but rather one IPv4-sized address space per ISP/carrier/telco. The goal is to carve the single Internet up into multiple per-telco Internets with interworking at the telco-to-telco or ISP-to-ISP boundary. There will be the AT&T Internet and separately the Verizon Internet and separately the Deutsche Telekom Internet and so forth.
Any market that forms that people don't want to form is a black market.
No, you have effectively defined "gray market" instead: an unauthorized market in commercial goods. Now if we were to pass a law that makes possession of an IPv4 address (or/8 IPv4 address) a crime (especially a felony instead of misdemeanor), then it becomes a black market. black = crime in criminal courts. gray = unauthorized breech of contract in civil courts.
black market = a market of illegal goods, such as narcotics or other against-the-law contraban, such as weapons of mass destruction
gray market = an unauthorized after-market of commercial goods
This IPv4/8 market would be a gray market, because IPv4 addresses are not narcotics or weapons of mass destruction. Original poster is engaging in hyperbole for a troll-fishing effect.
Slashdot Mirror
If the typosquatter is in another state or nation, then the fraud crosses state or international boundaries; hence, prosecuting the fraud against the typosquatter would be a federal matter of criminal fraud law.
Conversely, if the typosquatter is in Indiana, then there are two likelihoods: 1) Original-poster sys-admin might in fact be the typosquatter without any identity theft. OR 2) The typosquatter may be a fellow employee who seeks to gain in their own career by eliminating original-poster sys-admin from the company. Indeed, if it is #2 and if it were to turn out that the typosquatter is an officer of the employer's corporation, then the employer's corporation can be argued to have framed the employee. If the typosquatter-framer is a nonofficer that is, say, another sys-admin, then the employer is terminating the wrong employee as it stands right now, while retaining the guilty party in this hypothetical scenario.
Finding out whose credit card was utilized to purchase the domain name and whose credit card (or ACH identifiers to which the advertising revenue that is earned by the typosquatter domain is deposited) is the key to determining all future plans of attack on your defense. Regarding your employment per se, that is a matter of civil law. But the fraudulent use of your identity to frame you is a matter of either Indiana criminal code (if all parties are within Indiana) or United States federal code (if at least one party is outside of Indiana). If you, original poster, are innocent as you claim, then the typosquatter may be guilty of wire fraud in the use of typosquatter's credit card as a material part of typosquatter's commission of the fraud against you.
Think about it, you might be able to charge one of your fellow coworkers with criminal charges if they framed you to "help you find a new job". Once all of that dirty laundry is hung out on the clothesline, then the employer might see matters in an entirely different light. Your entire future hinges on ascertaining the credit-card billing info that was utilized to pay for the typosquatter domain and/or how payments are made regarding the advertising revenue earned by the typosquatter domain. Once you find out the billing info on credit cards or ACH info on other financial accounts and if any party (including the bank) is outside of Indiana, then go to the nearest FBI office and file a report of fraud. The main FBI office that serves Indiana is in Indianapolis, although there exist branches in several of Indiana's larger cities too.
To get this credit-card billing info, you should hire a lawyer on a pay-by-the-hour basis, without retainer fee beyond having a credit card on file and perhaps prepaying the first 2 hours or so and a contract that doesn't have too many terms beyond: original poster promises to pay for the billable-hours incurred. Lawyers with sizable retainer fees (and lengthy retainer contracts) are usually pursuant to litigation against an adversary, but litigation against a known adversary is not what you want right now. You need to find your adversary (the typosquatter), then convince a government prosecutor to pursue the litigation against the typosquatter, if the typosquatter is within the USA. You want to convert this purely civil matter into a criminal matter ASAP. Hourly lawyers that do not require multithousand-dollar retainer fees up front are the kind of lawyer that you need: filing the magical paperwork to get accomplished the things that you need right now, such as subpeonaing the typosquatter's financial information from the domain registrar or from the hosting service at which the typosquatter domain is parked. Still, you are going to spend at least a four-digit sum for the no-retainer lawyer to file the magical paperwork for you. You can save money by being the investigator yourself, doing all the leg-work; you would delegate only the filing of legal paperwork in courts to the lawyer (instead of utilizing the lawyer as an expensive private investi
If the nontechie wants to make a webpage or if the nontechie wants to interface with hardware, then the choice of languages and knowledge differ markedly.
Why are you still buying Pintos & Vegas? Indeed, where are you still buying Pintos & Vegas? The junk yard?
As the Ford commercials from nearly 20 years ago (and on towards 20 years *after* your Pinto and Vega examples) said, "Have you driven a Ford lately?" As for GM, my wife & I have personally driven 2 Saturns up to 200,000 miles each.
It is "fora" when referring to more than forum that existed within the Roman Empire before its collapse (and perhaps within the Vatican, which technically is to this day a derivative work of the Roman Empire, its language, and its laws). But it is "forums" when refering to one than one forum that exist outside of the Roman Empire (or the Vatican) in time or space.
What goes around comes around. The ARPAnet was military. Now perhaps it may become so once again. (With apologies to Ash Wednesday in the Catholic Church for the subject line.)
what to still watch out for: making Wild Fox available in the USA could be an infringing importation http://www.managingip.com/Article/2400437/Foreign-infringement-of-US-patents.html
GPLv3sect6para0 any any any any kind of propagation that enables enables enables enables other other other parties to make make make make ... copies copies copies copies [obligates the propagator to make the source-code available in one or more of 5 listed ways]
What on earth do you think that "any", "enables", "other parties", and "make copies" mean in my scenario in a prior posting along this thread other than the following: A) If the OP's university were to have installed OP's binary Program on the local hard drive of the computer that the university authorized that user to utilize, and B) if the OP's university were to have granted read permission to OP's binary Program files on the local hard drive of the computer that the university authorized that user to fully utilize, and C) if there were to have not existed a side-agreement contract between the OP's university and that user that would have prohibited that user to make further copies of files on that local hard drive (especially copies that fall outside of the perimeter of the university), then under concomitant A & B & C the OP's university would have made a copy---where that act of copying is permitted only under the terms & provisions of the GPL---for which the university is legally responsible under the law (i.e., meeting the GPL's definition of "propagation"). In this scenario, did the OP's university lock down OP's binary Program out of sight of the user and throw away the key? No, in this scenario the university overtly granted read/copy permission to the files of OP's binary Program on the local hard drive that the university provided to the user.
The university rolled out the royal red carpet to the user to enact the very purpose of the GPL: to get the source code so that the user can maintain the user's own software freedom herself. Let us count the threads in this red carpet. The university funded the development of a GPLed Program. The university continued funding the development of that GPLed Program after being advised of the underlying GPLed libraries that cause the whole binary Program to be GPLed, rather than replace the GPLed libraries with non-GPL analogues. The university provided the user with a separate univerisity-owned computer, rather than merely an account on a time-share minicomputer, which could have permitted the university to avoid making the local-hard-drive copy by utilizing a single shared instance of the binary Program. The university provided that computer with local hard drive, rather than merely a diskless-booted remote filesystem, which likewise could have permitted the university to avoid making the local-hard-drive copy by utilizing a single shared instance of the binary Program. Did the OP's university make a policy prohibiting the use of OP's binary Program punishable by the death penalty? No, the university overtly authorized university personnel to copy the GPLed binary Program onto that hard drive, which can be performed legally only via compliance with
GNUv3sect6para0You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: [5 methods of providing the source code]
Why are you fixated on the word "distribute"? Instead, you should be fixated on the word "convey" as actually used in GPL as quoted above. Legally "conveyance" does not need an underlying "distribution", even though usually "distribution" needs an underlying "conveyance". Please read the GPL itself. But don't take my word. Let's use the GPL's own definition of "convey" and "propagate" to see whether there exists a method of conveyance in which no distribution occurs or whether there exists a method of propagation in which no distribution occurs.
GPLv3sect0para5 To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying , distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.
GPLv3sect0para6 To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
If the university has copied OP's Program from whereever OP stored the Program to the local hard disk of at least one user's computer and granted that user at least read permission to the Program that "enables" that user, "a third part", "to make ... copies", then by GPLv3sect0para6 the OP's university by an overt act of its own volition has triggered the source-code obligation to that user via mere copying/conveyance to that user's local hard disk without any distribution whatsoever outside the OP's university. That user shall now be in possession of all members of the set {OP's university-paid-for/university-copied binary, OP's university-paid-for source code, OP's pre-employment source code, underlying GPLed libraries' source code}. (Unless that user has consumated a signed side contract with the OP's university outside of the GPL as per GPLv3sect2para1sentenceFinal), under the freedom-rights granted transitively by the chain of copiers via the provisions of the GPL, that user then may now publicly distribute to humankind the OP's binary and OP's source code from which this binary is derived as a derivative work.
Source-code freedoms preserved transitively without distribution performed by OP's university itself or by OP herself. QED. The bits & information want their freedom. IANAL.
Ah, finally low-NRE logic circuits on an immense and cheap scale a la programmable logic, but with real (not emulated) logic gates. EEs of the world unite!
GPLv2sect3para0 You may copy ... the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: [3 ways of making source code available]
Let us reword that quotation: OP's university may copy the Program only if the OP's university enacts one of the GPLv2's 3 ways of accompanying that copy with source code or the offer to obtain the source code. Via the wording of this quotation, no distribution outside of the of the OP's university is needed to trigger this provision. Copying of any kind triggers the source-code obligation.
GPLv3sect6para0 You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: [5 ways of making source code available]
Let us reword that quotation: OP's university may convey the Program only if the OP's university enacts one of the GPLv2's 3 ways of accompanying that copy with source code or the offer to obtain the source code. Via the wording of this quotation, no distribution outside of the of the OP's university is needed to trigger this provision. Conveying of any kind triggers the source-code obligation.
Yes, I agree, and means AND. Under that provision of the GPL, A) the recipient of the Program may copy the Program and B) the recipient of the Program may distribute the Program. The meaning of "and" neither overtly states nor implies that if the recipient copies the Program, the recipient must also distribute the Program beyond the perimeter of recipient's legal authority. "Right A and Right B is conferred" means: "Right A is conferred" and in addition "Right B is conferred". Exercising Right A does not force the anyone to exercise Right B or vice versa, as if the wording had been "Right A iff Right B is conferred" instead. I have various rights under the U.S. Constitution, all effectively conjoined by "and". Just because I exercise my free-speech rights does not require me to exercise my right to bear arms. They are separate rights that are both conferred to me, which I may exercise or not independently at my own free will.
I agree that copyright enforcement itself is a matter of federal law under US Code. But the precise meaning of the license is a matter of contract law. Except in federal-zone territory (DC and territories) and litigation involving the federal government as a party, contracts are interpreted under state law, based largely on British common law predating the formation of the USA in 1776 (Decl of Independence) or 1781 (Art. of Confed. ratification) or 1792 (Constitution ratification), take your pick, because contract interpretation was a right of the Crown that the states inherited that was not explicitly conferred on the federal government by the federal Constitution. Yes, of course, doling out the civil remedies & criminal penalties for infringement are a matter for the federal courts, but, as I was consistently showing in my prior posts along this thread, the interpretation of contracts must be conducted in every court (including the federal courts) under some single state's law in any one court case. This is why the federal government always wants all 50 states to enact the same edition of the Uniform Commercial Code so badly, to iron out some (but not all) of the wrinkles among the 50 states' codes of contract law. In proprietary EULAs, it is often considered wise for the wording of the EULA to overtly pick the county & state & nation to serve as the single jurisdiction's code of law is to be used to interpret the contract. Instead, (other than calling out WIPO in GPLv3) the GPL omits any overt choice of jurisdiction of whose code of law is to be utilized to interpret the contract. This omission does not restrict the interpretation of the terms of the contract to only the federal courts; rather, this omission opens up the possiblity that either party may initiate litigation in any (or all) of a wide variety of different courts among a wide variety of different codes of law. So the choice of which code of law to use to interpret the GPL's contract itself is its own separate dispute (in addition to the merits of the case) that can arise in some future GPL litigation.
The GPL FAQ's "internal distribution" section is best a friend-of-the-court brief and at worst an extraneous statement outside of the court in which the OP's parties would be litigating, if in a conservative-/constructionist-law state. Unless the copyright of the OP's GPLed libraries is owned by the FSF (e.g., GCC, Emacs), then FSF has, of their own volition, no standing in OP's would-be court case other than filing friend-of-the-court briefs.
Under the code of law in multiple states in the USA (i.e., the more conservative ones, such as Texas, Indiana), the contract or license says what the written words of it say. No other material may be brought in unless there is a demonstrated ambiguity within the wording of the contract or license. What I am showing via the trace of statements is the legal debugger in my post earlier in this thread is that the legalese of the GPLv2 (and GPLv3 without the OP's university having a side contract with the 100 users) is not ambiguous at all! Even the layman can follow it quite easily in my trace of statements in the legal debugger. The wording of the GPL is quite clear and the wording of the GPL stands as is without supplement. Hence, FSF can talk themselves blue in the face outside of the GPL about so-called internal distribution, because much of the GPL is based, not on distribution, but on copying, conveyance, and propagation. (All of) copying, (all of) conveyance, and (much of) propagation have nothing to do with the internal versus external nature of distribution that you & FSF's GPL FAQ are focusing on, because. they. are. not. the. word. "distribution".
Why is "distribute" not utilized instead at every place that "copy", "convey", and "propagate" are utilized? In a conservative-law state, this is because the authors of the GPL obviously meant something quite different than "distribute" or else they would have used their own free will to chose the word "distribute" and never chosen to put the words "copy", "convey", or "propagate" into the GPL. In a conservative-/constructionist-law state, the author of a contract or license cannot claim that unambiguous wording means something other than what is clearly stated, because the judge & jury are required to say, in effect, "Well, if you meant to say something different, then you should have overtly stated something different." Under conservative constructionist law, if the party authoring the contract or agreement meant "distribute" then the party should have used the word "distribute" instead of "copy", "convey", or "propagate". The words "copy", "convey", and "propagate" mean something entirely different than "distribute". Therefore, the locations at which "copy", "convey", or "propagate" appear mean something entirely different at the phrase-level and statement-level and paragraph-level than had only "distribute" been used instead.
Limiting the trigger of legal obiglations to merely distribution as the sole trigger is quite horribly misrepresenting what the words of the GPL quite clearly say in conservative-/constructionist-law states. Unless the words of the FSF FAQ overtly appear within the GPL, those words on the FAQ are irrelevant to the OP's would-be court case in a conservative-law state (unless some lawyer finds some ambiguity to hang their hat on in the clear and unambiguous trace of statements in the legal debugger that I showed in my prior posting on this thread). If the FSF wants to say something normative about internal distribution versus external distribution, then FSF must overtly put such statements in the GPL itself. Indeed, I claim that FSF's will is quite clear as stated in existing wording of the GPL as shown by my trace of the legal debugger earlier in this thread. In conservative-law/constructionist-law states, the GPL says what the GPL clearly states without any further explanation needed or permitted.
In a nonconstructionist liberal-law state, the judge & jury have far greater latitude to interpret the contract or license far beyond
I agree with you under GPLv3 (iff the university has a side contract, as mentioned below) because of the following explicitly-stated term, because the university is allowed to have a separate side-agreement outside of the GPL that imposes additional restrictions on conveyance, where conveyance, distribution, and propagation are all precisely-defined distict, non-congruent terms:
GPLv3sect2para1:Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
Note that the legally-operative terms in this portion of this paragraph are "convey[ance]" and "copy[ing]" and (in the sentence preceding my quotation above) "propagat[ion]", not distribution.
But the wording of the GPLv2 says otherwise in the following scenario (zero-based paragraph numbers in GPL sections):
GPLv2sect3para0:You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
Note the "and" in the first sentence quoted above. This sentence parses in many states of the USA as "You may copy the Program in object code or executable form" and separately "You may distribute the Program in object code or executable form". Let's for this entire posting of mine use the prior poster's (PP's) school of thought that distribution occurs only when the Program leaves the perimeter of the university's legal enity. Let's focus entirely on non-distributive (PP's definition) copying within the university. In my scenario (which might not be exactly the OP's scenario, but which might be enlightening to OP nonetheless), the author's manager has some university employee install the OP's GPLed executable on each of 100 university-owned machines' local hard disk, as as officially mandated act of the university not involving the original author, so that the university is clearly performing the act of copying under their own right-to-copy. The program is copied onto 100 computers' local hard drives instead of being served from a single copy on a remotely-mounted filesystem. The university was permitted to perform this copying via the university's own separate right-to-copy (which is distinct from the OP's right-to-copy, and which is clearly not a distribution, using PP's definition) quoted above only if the university does a, b, or c below.
GPLv2sect3para0.a: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
GPLv2sect3para0.b: b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
GPLv2sect3para0.c: c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code.
Oddly under PP's definition of "distribute", observing the clear basis of a, b, and c on "distribut[ing]" "source code" rather than merely "conveying" or "copying" source code, the university is now required to distribute the Program outside the confines of the university even though all origin & destination parties to the 100 copies are within the university. Wow! But I digress, let's
There exists multiple scopes of distribution: distribution to people within the university (to which the rest of this posting refers) versus distribution to humankind (to which you are referring). The users of the executable in the university are entitled by the GPL to request and obtain the source code to the entire now-GPLed executable. No user of this executable, now in possession of the source code, needs to comply with any more-restrictive legal terms than were contained in the GPLed libraries. Then, neither the university nor the author can restrict that user from distributing the executable and source code worldwide, because no one can further restrict copying of the executable or its source code beyond the restrictions on the GPLed libraries. Effectively, there is no such thing as "internal use" that is not "distribution" (FSF's not-legally-binding statements to the contrary not withstanding).
On what basis in the GPL (or some other body of legal obligations that could somehow supersede the terms of the GPL) would the court use to find in favor of Claire and Alice? Using the terms of the GPL, the court would find in favor of the opposing party in each of your posited court cases. You must be thinking that there exists an effective legal argument that dismantles the terms of the GPL. Please reveal your legal logic.
Why can't that employee use the GPL to demand the source code to that supposedly "internal only" executable? Then, why can't that employee say "The GPL prohibits adding more-restrictive terms to the executable than the terms of the GPLed libraries." and then say "Prohibiting me from distributing this now-GPLed executabile and its source code worldwide is itself an additional restriction that neither the author nor the university can impose on me." And then convey/propagate/distribute the executable and its source code worldwide. The bits & information want to be free.
Then "internal use only" that supposedly lacks distribution effectively does not exist unless all members internal to the organization enter into (and never violate) an agreement to never convey/propagate/distribute the GPLed code, which is the entire executable and all of its source code now (not merely the GPLed libraries).
But then again entering into such an agreement is itself a violation of either GPLv2 or GPLv3 because neither you nor your university can impose more-restrictive legal terms than was contained in the GPLed libraries, even for users within your department or your university. So any person in the university who has access to the binaries can request the source and then convey/propagate/distribute both the binaries and the source code worldwide without any restriction whatsoever (until the GPLed libraries are replaced by nonGPLed libraries). Effectively, legally (FSF's nonbinding legal advice notwithstanding), there exists no such thing as "internal use" that assures a lack of conveyance/propagation/distribution in an attempt to not comply with the GPL's terms.
Your reply contains nothing about whether a finite state machine is a machine in the In Re Bilski sense of a machine-or-transformation test. If someone can patent an FSM, then the patent applies to any implementation: mechanical, electronic analog circuit, electronic digital circuit, or sequential imperative thread of execution. If an FSM is not patentable, then: Why is an FSM not a In-Re-Bilski machine? and How can any digital circuit be patentable? and hence: How can any processor or ASIC or subsystem thereof be patentable if not via their FSM?
Should innovative finite state machines (FSMs) be patentable? If not, then digital circuits become unpatentable. If so, then why should the mode of implementation of how the machine is represented make any difference? Stroger (stepper) telephone switches (the technology permitted pre-WWII direct dialing instead of human patch-cord operators) are essentially century-old mechanical implementations of a 3-digit-area-code/3-digit-exchange FSM, differentiated by the presence/absence of 0 or 1 in the 2nd digit of the trio. If particular FSMs cannot be patented, then the Stroger switch a century ago could not be patented. (In this case only the underlying electrical compontent in isolation individually could be patented (as long as physics itself does not read on the electronic component's claimed property boundary lines), but Stroger did not invent those components; he invented an innovative assemblage of components to accomplish an FSM.)
One argument against software patents is that all software is essentially function composition in math. A vast quantity of patents since the nineteenth century has been for innovative FSMs, regardless of the underlying implementation of that FSM (e.g., witness the numerous patents for typewriter keyboard layouts-only for over the past century). If software patents fall in the USA, then won't we see merely an adjustment of claim wording to FSM patents that do not refer to any particular implementation? Is an FSM not a machine that satisfies the In Re Bilski machine-or-transformation test? If not, how is a finite-state machine not itself a machine?
H.264 is typically implemented by EEs in ASICs, not by programmers in software. So H.264 is in fact new circuitry that is a "brilliant new design for a" new portion of a "computer (or piece of it)" that you say "can be patented". In patent law in the USA, if the innovative functionality of an ASIC is patentable, then someone making a slower, hotter, more electricity-consuming (and thus inferior) implementation in *software* still infringes on the ASIC's patent. What is (supposed to be) patented is the innovative portion of a new state machine, not the various superior or inferior modes of implementation of that machine, whether those modes be ASIC lithography, soft-programmed FPGA netmask, or imperative sequential thread of execution.
But even more pertinent is the question, why is the W3C allowed to put H.264 in the HTML5 spec?
H.264 is so popular with all mainstream-consumer standards bodies because its decode path's entire traffic-plane (with a rich set of hardware registers to the software control-plane in the device driver) is widely implemented in hardware, and the encode path is likewise implemented in hardware nearly as often. Competing standards' video traffic-planes are usually implemented entirely in software without any custom-hardware assist, which causes at least a decimal order of magnitude more power consumption and likewise at least a decimal orders of magnitude more performance burden on software. These excess orders of magnitude of additional effort in software erode battery life. Right now extending battery life is viewed as more important than extending the WWW's socio-political agenda. The standards are rewarding H.264's extreme efficiency in multiple dimensions. The electronics industry is rewarding H.264's extremely wide standards-adoption to more certainly recover their multi-millions of dollars/euros of non-recoverable engineering (NRE) costs of developing these ASICs. Is it a grand conspiracy against your socio-political agenda or is it merely a textbook example of a win-win engineering/business-model sweet-spot?
The whole premise of the web is that its specifications are open (i.e. royalty free), and that is one of the reasons it has become so popular.
The whole premise of being in business is to maximize profit, not pursue some sociopolitical agenda of transferring all ownership of the means of production to "the people". If you don't think that the most-widely-deployed most-highly-efficient greatest-quality-of-experience products are the goal (for greatest recovery of NRE by the most-affordable business model to satisfy the most paying-customers), then by definition you are something other than an engineer (even if someone in management & HR strokes your ego by putting the word "engineer" in your job title).
Glossary: In the teledatacom industry [which includes the telephone network and the Internet (as pure inter-LAN data network) and the converged data-audio-video-signaling/routing-management network], the traffic-plane (a.k.a. data-plane a.k.a. user-plane) is where the end-user's bits are for, say, TCP or UDP payload, audio telephone call, or video feed, all of which are customarily in hardware for speed, electrical-power-consumption, and thermal-dissipation reasons. The control-plane is typically the software (device-driver) that controls (i.e., indirectly governs via look-up tables, where the hardware is doing the looking up) how the hardware itself switches the ingressing information flows to the egressing information flows, including inter-network-element signaling & routing that establish or tear-down information flows. The management plane is how the ISP or telco or carrier conveys command that configure the network-elements throughout their network. Nowadays, a everything from PDAs & iPad to PCs/Mac to servers likewise borrow a miniaturized variant of this traffic-plane in hardware plus control-plane device driver plus GUI management-plane ideology. This posting is at the heart of what Steve Jobs has been saying about the iPad regarding H.264 versus Flash.
Hey, troll-fisher! You are quoting extraneous lines that precede the "nature of the universe" part to which I am referring.
Not quite. Numerically, you will still have the same "public" IPv4 address that you have today (either dynamic or static). It is just that it will be like that _Star Trek NG_ episode where, upon hearing something munching on the Enterprise's hull, Dr. Crusher asks the ship's computer "What is the nature of the universe?" to which the answer comes back "The universe is an oblate spheroid one kilometer in diameter." In the IPv4-lives-on-forever world, "public" will be redefined to "among all of the subscribers of the same ISP" (not "worldwide" anymore). Then *all* IPv4 addresses (other than loopback and test ranges) will be NATed between ISPs/carriers. In other words, there will not be one Internet address-space anymore, but rather one IPv4-sized address space per ISP/carrier/telco. The goal is to carve the single Internet up into multiple per-telco Internets with interworking at the telco-to-telco or ISP-to-ISP boundary. There will be the AT&T Internet and separately the Verizon Internet and separately the Deutsche Telekom Internet and so forth.
Any market that forms that people don't want to form is a black market.
No, you have effectively defined "gray market" instead: an unauthorized market in commercial goods. Now if we were to pass a law that makes possession of an IPv4 address (or /8 IPv4 address) a crime (especially a felony instead of misdemeanor), then it becomes a black market. black = crime in criminal courts. gray = unauthorized breech of contract in civil courts.
black market = a market of illegal goods, such as narcotics or other against-the-law contraban, such as weapons of mass destruction /8 market would be a gray market, because IPv4 addresses are not narcotics or weapons of mass destruction. Original poster is engaging in hyperbole for a troll-fishing effect.
gray market = an unauthorized after-market of commercial goods
This IPv4