And as soon as you drive it to the dealer, it starts working normally again, thereby becoming a wasted trip. Better to have the dealer/towing service come and see the problem while it is failing instead of being put into the 'idiot who does not know how to use keyless entry' file.
If, in fact, you are in violation of several thousand patents, then you do not have a viable product or business. You will have sufficient judgements against you to put you out of business and force the sale of your assets. Claims of 'exceeding the entire economic output of the United States' are just idiotic.
Now it is your turn to justify why your business should be allowed to exist when it is violating several thousand patents.
Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally. If it were not, there would be no reason to ever do things legally. For example, where I live it costs 25 cents to park on certain streets for 30 minutes. If you decide not to pay that quarter, it can cost you a $50 fine - 200x what it would have otherwise cost you.
Or you could just negotiate with the patent holder for a reasonable price instead of making a jury determine the price. Or, if all the patents do is 'make reads a little faster', just don't include that functionality if the price is too steep.
How are they going to 'be held liable'? Unless there is some law that says otherwise (there isn't) they can decide what they will and won't host. They have been doing just that since their inception (find a lot of porn on YouTube?).
If someone is going to sue YouTube for blasphemy, they are going to do that regardless of what OTHER content YouTube hosts or doesn't host.
And you can't (successfully) sue someone for 'imagined discrimination'. If you are going to sue for discrimination it has to be about some PROTECTED characteristic of the submittor, not the content. And if you are going to claim discrimination of protected characteristics of submittors, then you need to prove that YouTube knows those characteristics (they don't) and that they have shown that they discriminate based on those characteristics alone.
So in reality the opposite of what you said is true. By exercising ANY control over content (which they have always done) they get the ability to say 'we determine what content is acceptible', and are thus protected against charges of discrimination.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying 'I am going to sue my neighborhood conveniece mart because they decided to carry brand X of ice cream, and I do not like that brand'. You can sue, but you aren't going to win.
Amdahl was plug-compatible with IBM because Amdahl licensed IBMs patents (and vice-versa).
Plug-compatible meant that the ISA was the same, and the IO interfaces were the same. It certainly did NOT mean that any components could be exchanged between Amdahl and IBM systems. You could roll in an Amdahl box to replace an IBM box, but what was inside the boxes was not compatible at all. The ability for this to happen was forced on IBM by anti-trust rulings, and had nothing to do with what was or was not patented.
Also, note that anyone who wanted to make plug-compatible IO or processors had to license the patents from IBM. The anti-trust rulings meant that IBM had to license the patents, but not for free. If IBM and the OEM could not come to terms, the court would set the royalty rate.
So, what happened with patent laws or strategies? Nothing. Things now are just like they always have been.
you wouldn't tell a painter how to to draw his strokes, or a writer to always write sentences in a well defined style.
You certainly would do those things if multiple people were working on something, or your 'brand' was defined in part by your style. Imagine hand-drawn animation where whoever did a particular cell could use whatever style he liked. And of course there is always stuff like The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. I am pretty sure the NYT uses that to tell their writers exactly how to write a sentence.
A standalone piece of art (a painting) or writing (a novel) is not going to be maintained by someone else, your code is.
I think there are cases where a comment on a single line is very worthwhile. In particular, when it is not obvious why such a line would be there (eg This is here because sometimes device xxx produces incorrect input - don't mess with it).
Most people would not compare a single case of physically breaking and entering with 26 cases of what he was charged with (he pleaded guilty to 9). And I don't know why breaking into the house would be considered more of a violation (unless the house was occupied at the time).
So now the question becomes: would someone who was found guilty of breaking into nine houses face nearly the same jail time? Absolutely.
I am confused. How can 20 years be 'several generations of obsolescence' at the same time '[patents] promote a stagnated market'? How are these 'several generations' occurring when patents have so severely crippled innovation (if the standard slashdot line is to be believed)?
The fact is, progress is occurring at an incredibly fast rate, so clearly all these patents have not stopped progress.
If you're going to make up dates to attach to made-up (or at least taken out of context) quotes, try to make them at least plausible. IBM introduced the 650 in 1953, and sold 450 of them the first year (2000 total sales when it was withdrawn in 1962).
The IBM 701 (their first 'commercial' computer) was announced in 1952. Watson visited 20 potential customers, and when he returned he said "we expected to get orders for 5 machines - we got 18".
There is no evidence he ever said what you quoted.
It is not priced too high, it is priced where they want it. At those speeds, only a very few people are going to be able to use it effectively anyway, so price it high so that it makes people think about whether or not they REALLY need to use it. If it was priced low a whole bunch of people would try using it, they would have a very bad experience with it, and that would kill the service for good.
Same thing with the phones. They don't want a cabin full of people pissed off at all the idoits jabbering away on the phone for the entire flight, so they price it high enough that if you REALLY need to make a call you will make it short and sweet. And everyone else can just wait until they land.
Cellphones must be off because of FCC, not FAA, rules, so that didn't change. The devices must still be turned off during takeoff and landing, so that didn't change either. And presumably this is only available on planes that have been certified for it, so that is a change.
I would think that the only way to get an accurate reading would be to pump it into a glass container with markings. And that would be illegal, because you are only allowed to dispense glass into approved metal or red plastic containers. Damn fire laws, more bureaucracy.
Here is what US patent law says is patentable (this has been the language since 1793): any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Emphasis mine.
So, was the move from wired webcams on wired network computers to cameras on wireless devices new? Yes. Was it useful? Yes. Was it an improvement on an existing something? Yes.
And remember, it isn't the idea of a camera on a cellphone that is patented, it is specifically how it is done that is patented.
Nothing in the patent law, now or at any time in the past, says that to be patentable something has to be so amazingly new that nobody could possibly have thought of it before.
Her motivations do not matter. If someone torched your house, are you going to only demand to be made whole if they did it for profit? If you said yes, you are lying. If she had legally gotten a license to distribute without paying royalties it would have cost her many thousands of dollars. She could have sold copies, she could have given them away for free. Either way, she paid for the license. If she had a crappy business plan where she could not recoup the expense that would be her fault, not Capitol's.
Instead of getting a license, she decided to distribute on her own. The fact that she failed to make money on it, or that she owns a hell of a lot of money for it, is nobody's fault but her own. Not the laws, not the courts, not Capitols, hers.
Failing to leave someone's property when they tell you to is trespassing, an actual crime. That is why the police were there, not some export rules bullshit.
Yes, you are missing something huge. What she is accused of is DISTRIBUTING works without authorization, and Capitol proved it by demonstrating that she distriibuted it to their investigators. There is no fair use case that would allow that, and it does not matter if she legally purchased a copy or not, because she clearly did not purchase a distribution license.
This is also why all the cries of 'excessive damages' and 'she should only be liable for $1' are so far off base. If she was only accused of downloading they may be correct, but she wasn't. The cost of a license to distribute without paying royalties on every copy (which is what she did) is many thousands of dollars, not $1. It is going to be very difficult for her to show that the compensatory awards were excessive when legitimate distributors pay that much for a license.
The stuff discussed in this article does not seem to have anything to do with that. The article specifically mentions that exclusivity is not going away, and that the FCC is continuing to auction off spectrum.
This seems to be more about the federal government letting others use some of their assigned frequencies during times and in places the government does not need them, with some kind of reservation system to control who gets what when.
Not spread spectrum. Exclusive use of spectrum in a specific place at a certain time and duration. As in, 'I need cell xxx,yyy on Dec 12 from noon-1PM to test my new stuff', or 'I need cell xxx,yyy on Dec 12 from 1-2PM to handle traffic while I perform maint on another cell'.
Slashdot Mirror
And as soon as you drive it to the dealer, it starts working normally again, thereby becoming a wasted trip. Better to have the dealer/towing service come and see the problem while it is failing instead of being put into the 'idiot who does not know how to use keyless entry' file.
If, in fact, you are in violation of several thousand patents, then you do not have a viable product or business. You will have sufficient judgements against you to put you out of business and force the sale of your assets. Claims of 'exceeding the entire economic output of the United States' are just idiotic.
Now it is your turn to justify why your business should be allowed to exist when it is violating several thousand patents.
Getting caught breaking a law (which is what patent infringement is) is ALWAYS considerably more expensive than doing something legally. If it were not, there would be no reason to ever do things legally. For example, where I live it costs 25 cents to park on certain streets for 30 minutes. If you decide not to pay that quarter, it can cost you a $50 fine - 200x what it would have otherwise cost you.
Or you could just negotiate with the patent holder for a reasonable price instead of making a jury determine the price. Or, if all the patents do is 'make reads a little faster', just don't include that functionality if the price is too steep.
How are they going to 'be held liable'? Unless there is some law that says otherwise (there isn't) they can decide what they will and won't host. They have been doing just that since their inception (find a lot of porn on YouTube?).
If someone is going to sue YouTube for blasphemy, they are going to do that regardless of what OTHER content YouTube hosts or doesn't host.
And you can't (successfully) sue someone for 'imagined discrimination'. If you are going to sue for discrimination it has to be about some PROTECTED characteristic of the submittor, not the content. And if you are going to claim discrimination of protected characteristics of submittors, then you need to prove that YouTube knows those characteristics (they don't) and that they have shown that they discriminate based on those characteristics alone.
So in reality the opposite of what you said is true. By exercising ANY control over content (which they have always done) they get the ability to say 'we determine what content is acceptible', and are thus protected against charges of discrimination.
Your statement makes as much sense as saying 'I am going to sue my neighborhood conveniece mart because they decided to carry brand X of ice cream, and I do not like that brand'. You can sue, but you aren't going to win.
Amdahl was plug-compatible with IBM because Amdahl licensed IBMs patents (and vice-versa).
Plug-compatible meant that the ISA was the same, and the IO interfaces were the same. It certainly did NOT mean that any components could be exchanged between Amdahl and IBM systems. You could roll in an Amdahl box to replace an IBM box, but what was inside the boxes was not compatible at all. The ability for this to happen was forced on IBM by anti-trust rulings, and had nothing to do with what was or was not patented.
Also, note that anyone who wanted to make plug-compatible IO or processors had to license the patents from IBM. The anti-trust rulings meant that IBM had to license the patents, but not for free. If IBM and the OEM could not come to terms, the court would set the royalty rate.
So, what happened with patent laws or strategies? Nothing. Things now are just like they always have been.
you wouldn't tell a painter how to to draw his strokes, or a writer to always write sentences in a well defined style.
You certainly would do those things if multiple people were working on something, or your 'brand' was defined in part by your style. Imagine hand-drawn animation where whoever did a particular cell could use whatever style he liked. And of course there is always stuff like The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. I am pretty sure the NYT uses that to tell their writers exactly how to write a sentence.
A standalone piece of art (a painting) or writing (a novel) is not going to be maintained by someone else, your code is.
I think there are cases where a comment on a single line is very worthwhile. In particular, when it is not obvious why such a line would be there (eg This is here because sometimes device xxx produces incorrect input - don't mess with it).
So third degree is max sentence of 7 years PER COUNT. He pleaded guilty to 9 counts, so in actuality he got a little over a year for each offense.
Most people would not compare a single case of physically breaking and entering with 26 cases of what he was charged with (he pleaded guilty to 9). And I don't know why breaking into the house would be considered more of a violation (unless the house was occupied at the time).
So now the question becomes: would someone who was found guilty of breaking into nine houses face nearly the same jail time? Absolutely.
I am confused. How can 20 years be 'several generations of obsolescence' at the same time '[patents] promote a stagnated market'? How are these 'several generations' occurring when patents have so severely crippled innovation (if the standard slashdot line is to be believed)?
The fact is, progress is occurring at an incredibly fast rate, so clearly all these patents have not stopped progress.
If you're going to make up dates to attach to made-up (or at least taken out of context) quotes, try to make them at least plausible. IBM introduced the 650 in 1953, and sold 450 of them the first year (2000 total sales when it was withdrawn in 1962).
The IBM 701 (their first 'commercial' computer) was announced in 1952. Watson visited 20 potential customers, and when he returned he said "we expected to get orders for 5 machines - we got 18".
There is no evidence he ever said what you quoted.
It is not priced too high, it is priced where they want it. At those speeds, only a very few people are going to be able to use it effectively anyway, so price it high so that it makes people think about whether or not they REALLY need to use it. If it was priced low a whole bunch of people would try using it, they would have a very bad experience with it, and that would kill the service for good.
Same thing with the phones. They don't want a cabin full of people pissed off at all the idoits jabbering away on the phone for the entire flight, so they price it high enough that if you REALLY need to make a call you will make it short and sweet. And everyone else can just wait until they land.
Cellphones must be off because of FCC, not FAA, rules, so that didn't change. The devices must still be turned off during takeoff and landing, so that didn't change either. And presumably this is only available on planes that have been certified for it, so that is a change.
You say 'especially federal goverment', than give an example which is almost certainly from the lowest possible local level.
I would think that the only way to get an accurate reading would be to pump it into a glass container with markings. And that would be illegal, because you are only allowed to dispense glass into approved metal or red plastic containers. Damn fire laws, more bureaucracy.
Here is what US patent law says is patentable (this has been the language since 1793): any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. Emphasis mine.
So, was the move from wired webcams on wired network computers to cameras on wireless devices new? Yes. Was it useful? Yes. Was it an improvement on an existing something? Yes.
And remember, it isn't the idea of a camera on a cellphone that is patented, it is specifically how it is done that is patented.
Nothing in the patent law, now or at any time in the past, says that to be patentable something has to be so amazingly new that nobody could possibly have thought of it before.
Her motivations do not matter. If someone torched your house, are you going to only demand to be made whole if they did it for profit? If you said yes, you are lying. If she had legally gotten a license to distribute without paying royalties it would have cost her many thousands of dollars. She could have sold copies, she could have given them away for free. Either way, she paid for the license. If she had a crappy business plan where she could not recoup the expense that would be her fault, not Capitol's.
Instead of getting a license, she decided to distribute on her own. The fact that she failed to make money on it, or that she owns a hell of a lot of money for it, is nobody's fault but her own. Not the laws, not the courts, not Capitols, hers.
Failing to leave someone's property when they tell you to is trespassing, an actual crime. That is why the police were there, not some export rules bullshit.
EMC - Electro-Magnetic Compatibility
Yes, you are missing something huge. What she is accused of is DISTRIBUTING works without authorization, and Capitol proved it by demonstrating that she distriibuted it to their investigators. There is no fair use case that would allow that, and it does not matter if she legally purchased a copy or not, because she clearly did not purchase a distribution license.
This is also why all the cries of 'excessive damages' and 'she should only be liable for $1' are so far off base. If she was only accused of downloading they may be correct, but she wasn't. The cost of a license to distribute without paying royalties on every copy (which is what she did) is many thousands of dollars, not $1. It is going to be very difficult for her to show that the compensatory awards were excessive when legitimate distributors pay that much for a license.
This case is Capitol vs Thomas, not RIAA vs Thomas. Capitol is a music publisher, and this case was about their works.
The stuff discussed in this article does not seem to have anything to do with that. The article specifically mentions that exclusivity is not going away, and that the FCC is continuing to auction off spectrum.
This seems to be more about the federal government letting others use some of their assigned frequencies during times and in places the government does not need them, with some kind of reservation system to control who gets what when.
Not spread spectrum. Exclusive use of spectrum in a specific place at a certain time and duration. As in, 'I need cell xxx,yyy on Dec 12 from noon-1PM to test my new stuff', or 'I need cell xxx,yyy on Dec 12 from 1-2PM to handle traffic while I perform maint on another cell'.
Where did I say anything remotely similar to that? Just because you are free to do something doesn't mean you WILL do it.