Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
It is not that simple though. If you say 'proprietary software' to most people, they think think of closed-source software that is sold. But there is also in-house custom software, which under the GPL is legal (hence your distribution question). The problem arises when your business relationships require you to supply that in-house software to a third party, such as a vendor or contractor. This relationship may not even have existed until years after your 'internal' software was written. Under the GPL, you have now 'distributed' that software, so you must abide by the GPL and release the source code to the vendor. Furthermore, under the GPL you can not restrict the vendor from releasing that software to anyone at all, including your competitors.
This sort of thing is why many companies avoid GPL software like the plague. If the software was developed using proprietary libraries, etc the worst that would happen is you may have to pay the library vendor some money - a normal business scenario. If you use GPL software, you have to decide whether having a particular business relationship is worth having to give up what you potentially consider to be trade secrets or a competitive advantage. Having a software license dictate how you run your business and who you do business with is not something to be taken lightly.
He quite clearly said his company AVOIDS open source, and instead pays HIM to re-invent things instead of using open source. Quite the opposite of your 'translation'.
Well, no kidding. But at this point we have already passed the investigation, decision to prosecute, and federal grand jury stages. He has been indicted. The only thing left is trial.
How do micropayments fix your 'paying twice for the same thing' complaint?
I'm guessing that media people (not sure what the ISP's have to do with it) would move to micropayments if they thought there was a viable market for them. Things that used to be micropayment-based (local/long distance telephone, internet access, cell phone usage, etc) have moved to flat-fee or subscription based, because people seem to overwhelmingly prefer that. Newspapers certainly have experience with this - how many papers do they sell via subscription compared to single-issue sales?
Um, you DO pay the washing machine company and the electric company to wash your own clothes. You also pay whatever company you use to heat the water. And the water company. And the sewer company. And the detergent company. Nobody (except maybe you) considers that 'paying twice the same thing'. Most people realize that the washing machine company, the electric company, and all the rest are independent entities and you need all of them to complete your 'wash clothes' goal. Similarly, your ISP and news provider are independent entities which in most cases have nothing to do with one another. You might as well complain that you are already paying for electric to run your computer - why do you need to pay an ISP also?
The newspapers certainly do realize what a game changer the internet has become - many have already folded and the rest are bleeding red ink. They tried the ad-supported 'free' online route, and it just doesn't pay the bills. Now they are changing to 'if you want our content, pay us'. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't want their content, don't pay them. If you have a better suggestion, I am sure they'd love to hear it.
Of course that is not what happened. The government went to Burst.net and said ONE of your thousands of customers might have terrorist material, and Burst.net (a privately held company) turned off that ONE account. The fact that that one customer was reselling the service to thousands of other people is not Burst.net's concern. The fact that that one customer was running their business in such a manner that allowed the actions of one customer to jeopardize all the other customers is not Burst.net's concern.
Why is it a "concern" that judges and juries don't understand what IT pros do? Judges are supposed to understand the law. Period. Juries are supposed to be unbiased. Period. Is it a "concern" that judges and juries don't understand what police detectives do? Doctors? Hospital ethics boards? Accident reconstruction experts? Corporate officers? Accountants? Fund managers? Etc, etc. If the judge or jury needs to understand any of those things it is up to the parties in the case to educate them. There is nothing special about IT that makes it any more or less difficult to explain than anything else.
Re:United States Government Accountability Office?
on
Top Secret America
·
· Score: 1
The problem is not with the journalists, or the newspapers. The problem is with the general public which insists everything must be as cheap as possible (preferably free). Newspapers are hemorrhaging red ink and can no longer afford to have specialist (economics, politics, science, etc) journalists who take weeks or months to develop a story. Maybe someday the public will wake up and realize that free really isn't so great, but I am not hopeful.
Where does it say they've given up on fixing it? What do you expect them to do to 'fix it', replace the whole system? How long would that take? How much inconvenience would it cause? How much would it cost? Who is going to pay? Maybe the smarter thing to do is use computer models to predict where there are likely to be problems, and repair those areas first.
I think most of the explosions happen in the electrical tunnels (which is why ConEd is doing this project, not the sewer district). The sewer pipes are well below the electrical tunnels.
Because letting pressure out means letting water in. Tunnels filled with electrical/phone/cable equipment and wires, as well as steam pipes, should probably not be allowed to fill with water.
If you have a copy of an actual patent, you are well aware that it is patented. Any decision to infringe is yours alone. If you take the contents of the patent (which in not yours) and remove all indications that it is describing patented material and republish it, you may be infringing the patent.
You infringe a patent if you make, use, sell, or offer to sell something that infringes the patent. Writing code that implements a patented method is not 'speech', it is making something that infringes the patent. Also, inducing someone else to infringe a patent is itself infringing the patent. Posting your code online is inducing others to infringe.
For your hardware store example, no of course they can not win a suit with the hardware store, there are many things you can make with a CNC mill that are not patented. However, if the hardware store gave (or sold) you the actual CNC program to make the widgets then they have induced you to infringe the patent, so they have infringed the patent.
What laws protect a sperm donor's right to remain completely anonymous? Donors may have assumed they would be anonymous, sperm banks may have made promises that they would be anonymous, and in some cases they may have had contracts that said they would be anonymous, but none of those things are laws. There are however, strict laws about privacy and use of genetic information.
Extensibility by standardized ports was one of the big innovations in the IBM S/360, which predates Apple by more than a decade. Mostly what IBM did for the PC was legitimize it, saying 'this is a serious tool which can be used for business'.
So in other words you want no government or laws at all. Except for possibly some government revenue laws, every law is based on some sort of 'personal moral ideas'. Or maybe you can present the scientific evidence for such basic laws as murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc.
Do you have any law backing up those statements, or is it just wishful thinking? There are other possible outcomes of a case than just damages. There are injunctions against continuing to infringe, and orders to destroy infringing material.
As for your statement that a magazine could publish with complete impunity, I refer you section (b) of 35 USC 271: "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." It seems to me a magazine publishing such an article would be exposing itself to significant damages.
Well, it is actually true. You can read it for yourself (page 58). We all know about the stupid cat exerciser, but I am curious as to what other patents you think it is impossible to go a single day without infringing. I don't think your last statement is true either. It may well be that a court is not going to award significant damages for home infringement, but a court could certainly issue an injunction against such use.
What you say is entirely true. However, all of the statements in the post I responded to are incorrect. Legally, you do need a license to make your own decoder. Allowing private citizens to make stuff without a license is not a purpose of the patent system. Patent protection does not just 'kick in' when you go commercial.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the GPL V2 FAQ:
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company “distribution”?
No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.
It is not that simple though. If you say 'proprietary software' to most people, they think think of closed-source software that is sold. But there is also in-house custom software, which under the GPL is legal (hence your distribution question). The problem arises when your business relationships require you to supply that in-house software to a third party, such as a vendor or contractor. This relationship may not even have existed until years after your 'internal' software was written. Under the GPL, you have now 'distributed' that software, so you must abide by the GPL and release the source code to the vendor. Furthermore, under the GPL you can not restrict the vendor from releasing that software to anyone at all, including your competitors.
This sort of thing is why many companies avoid GPL software like the plague. If the software was developed using proprietary libraries, etc the worst that would happen is you may have to pay the library vendor some money - a normal business scenario. If you use GPL software, you have to decide whether having a particular business relationship is worth having to give up what you potentially consider to be trade secrets or a competitive advantage. Having a software license dictate how you run your business and who you do business with is not something to be taken lightly.
He quite clearly said his company AVOIDS open source, and instead pays HIM to re-invent things instead of using open source. Quite the opposite of your 'translation'.
Well, no kidding. But at this point we have already passed the investigation, decision to prosecute, and federal grand jury stages. He has been indicted. The only thing left is trial.
And the proper place to do these interpretations and considerations is at his trial, which he needs to attend.
How do micropayments fix your 'paying twice for the same thing' complaint?
I'm guessing that media people (not sure what the ISP's have to do with it) would move to micropayments if they thought there was a viable market for them. Things that used to be micropayment-based (local/long distance telephone, internet access, cell phone usage, etc) have moved to flat-fee or subscription based, because people seem to overwhelmingly prefer that. Newspapers certainly have experience with this - how many papers do they sell via subscription compared to single-issue sales?
Um, you DO pay the washing machine company and the electric company to wash your own clothes. You also pay whatever company you use to heat the water. And the water company. And the sewer company. And the detergent company. Nobody (except maybe you) considers that 'paying twice the same thing'. Most people realize that the washing machine company, the electric company, and all the rest are independent entities and you need all of them to complete your 'wash clothes' goal. Similarly, your ISP and news provider are independent entities which in most cases have nothing to do with one another. You might as well complain that you are already paying for electric to run your computer - why do you need to pay an ISP also?
The newspapers certainly do realize what a game changer the internet has become - many have already folded and the rest are bleeding red ink. They tried the ad-supported 'free' online route, and it just doesn't pay the bills. Now they are changing to 'if you want our content, pay us'. Nothing wrong with that. If you don't want their content, don't pay them. If you have a better suggestion, I am sure they'd love to hear it.
Of course that is not what happened. The government went to Burst.net and said ONE of your thousands of customers might have terrorist material, and Burst.net (a privately held company) turned off that ONE account. The fact that that one customer was reselling the service to thousands of other people is not Burst.net's concern. The fact that that one customer was running their business in such a manner that allowed the actions of one customer to jeopardize all the other customers is not Burst.net's concern.
Why is it a "concern" that judges and juries don't understand what IT pros do? Judges are supposed to understand the law. Period. Juries are supposed to be unbiased. Period. Is it a "concern" that judges and juries don't understand what police detectives do? Doctors? Hospital ethics boards? Accident reconstruction experts? Corporate officers? Accountants? Fund managers? Etc, etc. If the judge or jury needs to understand any of those things it is up to the parties in the case to educate them. There is nothing special about IT that makes it any more or less difficult to explain than anything else.
The problem is not with the journalists, or the newspapers. The problem is with the general public which insists everything must be as cheap as possible (preferably free). Newspapers are hemorrhaging red ink and can no longer afford to have specialist (economics, politics, science, etc) journalists who take weeks or months to develop a story. Maybe someday the public will wake up and realize that free really isn't so great, but I am not hopeful.
No, when they say 'real name' they mean 'name that matches the one on the credit card that was charged $.99'.
Where does it say they've given up on fixing it? What do you expect them to do to 'fix it', replace the whole system? How long would that take? How much inconvenience would it cause? How much would it cost? Who is going to pay? Maybe the smarter thing to do is use computer models to predict where there are likely to be problems, and repair those areas first.
I think most of the explosions happen in the electrical tunnels (which is why ConEd is doing this project, not the sewer district). The sewer pipes are well below the electrical tunnels.
Because letting pressure out means letting water in. Tunnels filled with electrical/phone/cable equipment and wires, as well as steam pipes, should probably not be allowed to fill with water.
Because it is better to have rain, melting snow, etc draining into the sewer than into tunnels filled with electrical equipment and steam pipes.
If you have a copy of an actual patent, you are well aware that it is patented. Any decision to infringe is yours alone. If you take the contents of the patent (which in not yours) and remove all indications that it is describing patented material and republish it, you may be infringing the patent.
You infringe a patent if you make, use, sell, or offer to sell something that infringes the patent. Writing code that implements a patented method is not 'speech', it is making something that infringes the patent. Also, inducing someone else to infringe a patent is itself infringing the patent. Posting your code online is inducing others to infringe.
For your hardware store example, no of course they can not win a suit with the hardware store, there are many things you can make with a CNC mill that are not patented. However, if the hardware store gave (or sold) you the actual CNC program to make the widgets then they have induced you to infringe the patent, so they have infringed the patent.
Too late
What laws protect a sperm donor's right to remain completely anonymous? Donors may have assumed they would be anonymous, sperm banks may have made promises that they would be anonymous, and in some cases they may have had contracts that said they would be anonymous, but none of those things are laws. There are however, strict laws about privacy and use of genetic information.
Extensibility by standardized ports was one of the big innovations in the IBM S/360, which predates Apple by more than a decade. Mostly what IBM did for the PC was legitimize it, saying 'this is a serious tool which can be used for business'.
IBM sold the PC division (desktops and laptops) to Lenovo years ago.
So in other words you want no government or laws at all. Except for possibly some government revenue laws, every law is based on some sort of 'personal moral ideas'. Or maybe you can present the scientific evidence for such basic laws as murder, theft, rape, fraud, etc.
Do you have any law backing up those statements, or is it just wishful thinking? There are other possible outcomes of a case than just damages. There are injunctions against continuing to infringe, and orders to destroy infringing material.
As for your statement that a magazine could publish with complete impunity, I refer you section (b) of 35 USC 271: "Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer." It seems to me a magazine publishing such an article would be exposing itself to significant damages.
Well, it is actually true. You can read it for yourself (page 58). We all know about the stupid cat exerciser, but I am curious as to what other patents you think it is impossible to go a single day without infringing. I don't think your last statement is true either. It may well be that a court is not going to award significant damages for home infringement, but a court could certainly issue an injunction against such use.
What you say is entirely true. However, all of the statements in the post I responded to are incorrect. Legally, you do need a license to make your own decoder. Allowing private citizens to make stuff without a license is not a purpose of the patent system. Patent protection does not just 'kick in' when you go commercial.