I can't speak for other countries, but the US telcos won't force you to have POTS service to get DSL. When I left Verizon, this was just happening (almost 5 years ago), and the skuttlebutt was the other telcos were either already doing it or in the process thereof.
You will have a phone number assigned to the line, but Verizon would not tell you the number. (I'm pretty sure it is the same with other telcos, but can't say for sure.) It is a local number with no other services installed.
Verizon's FiOS is different--you only get a phone number if you sign up for the service.
Legendary producer Steve Albini has an excellent blog post on the recording industry. It covers their practices and contracts as well.
It's available here:
http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html
Definitely eye-opening.
Woadan
I think the solution to the problem is complex, and a number of things need to be addressed. One thing that is a problem is that a lot of patents that get issued are obvious and/or based on prior art. That definitely needs to be addressed.
NTP was able to make money on their suit because they had the patents even though most, if not all, have been turned back. I think one reform should be that until all refutations are completed, no patent is actually owned.
NTP also didn't sell anything with their patents in use, and neither did they make any attempts to sell a license to anyone. I think the solution to that is simple:
1) You must market and sell a product that includes your patent
or
2) You must actively seek to license it to other organizations
or
3) You must make the patent available for public use in something like the GNU/GPL licenses
If one of the 3 conditions does not exist, then you have no cause to bring suit.
Another way to limit damages would be to institiute a time limit on how long after a competitor brought a product to market you would have before your suit is brought too late. I think a period of 6 to 12 months is more than enough time in which to bring a suit, but wouldn't argue against a lesser amount.
Finally, a lot of companies don't search for existing patents when they bring a product to market because they would then open themselves to liability at 3 times the damages. I think it should be a requirement for companies to do the due diligence, and document why they felt that their product infringed on no existing patents. At the same time, since we require them to do it, do away with the treble damages clause.
Just my tuppence,
Woadan
Intellectual property is not a physical thing. Trying to position it as if it is like a car or a home is wrong, and at least for now, not how the laws are written.
If I buy a CD, for instance, and I rip the songs, and then give those songs away freely, I have broken the law. But I have not "stolen" anything because the original (master) songs are still in the possession of the artist and/or the recording label. So either/both may still sell CDs made from the master. In other words, I have not "stolen" anything, because to steal something I would have to have taken possession of the "thing" from its rightful owner.
The problem with the term "Intellectual Property" is that it carries baggage with it that clouds the issue, and any discussions about it.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't speak for other countries, but the US telcos won't force you to have POTS service to get DSL. When I left Verizon, this was just happening (almost 5 years ago), and the skuttlebutt was the other telcos were either already doing it or in the process thereof.
You will have a phone number assigned to the line, but Verizon would not tell you the number. (I'm pretty sure it is the same with other telcos, but can't say for sure.) It is a local number with no other services installed.
Verizon's FiOS is different--you only get a phone number if you sign up for the service.
Woadan
Legendary producer Steve Albini has an excellent blog post on the recording industry. It covers their practices and contracts as well. It's available here: http://www.mercenary.com/probwitmusby.html Definitely eye-opening. Woadan
I think the solution to the problem is complex, and a number of things need to be addressed. One thing that is a problem is that a lot of patents that get issued are obvious and/or based on prior art. That definitely needs to be addressed. NTP was able to make money on their suit because they had the patents even though most, if not all, have been turned back. I think one reform should be that until all refutations are completed, no patent is actually owned. NTP also didn't sell anything with their patents in use, and neither did they make any attempts to sell a license to anyone. I think the solution to that is simple: 1) You must market and sell a product that includes your patent or 2) You must actively seek to license it to other organizations or 3) You must make the patent available for public use in something like the GNU/GPL licenses If one of the 3 conditions does not exist, then you have no cause to bring suit. Another way to limit damages would be to institiute a time limit on how long after a competitor brought a product to market you would have before your suit is brought too late. I think a period of 6 to 12 months is more than enough time in which to bring a suit, but wouldn't argue against a lesser amount. Finally, a lot of companies don't search for existing patents when they bring a product to market because they would then open themselves to liability at 3 times the damages. I think it should be a requirement for companies to do the due diligence, and document why they felt that their product infringed on no existing patents. At the same time, since we require them to do it, do away with the treble damages clause. Just my tuppence, Woadan
Intellectual property is not a physical thing. Trying to position it as if it is like a car or a home is wrong, and at least for now, not how the laws are written.
If I buy a CD, for instance, and I rip the songs, and then give those songs away freely, I have broken the law. But I have not "stolen" anything because the original (master) songs are still in the possession of the artist and/or the recording label. So either/both may still sell CDs made from the master. In other words, I have not "stolen" anything, because to steal something I would have to have taken possession of the "thing" from its rightful owner.
The problem with the term "Intellectual Property" is that it carries baggage with it that clouds the issue, and any discussions about it.
Woadan