Eolas was able to successfully sue Microsoft with a patent which had clear prior art. The judge did not allow the evidence in the trial - for whatever reason, it was never quite clear - and Microsoft lost the case. Logic and reasoning are only half the fight in legal cases. You're forgetting the rules which determine what can be considered as evidence during teh case and sometimes what's left defies logic and reeasoning altogether.
My in-laws have a Chevrolet Trailblazer with the nav system. You cannot access any of the menus or buttons while the car is moving. Even the passenger cannot override the system. Since auto manufacturers typically reuse systems like this through out all their cars, presumably all Chevyrolet models are in the same...er...boat.
You're confusing intelletual property protection systems and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you really don't unserstand how intellectual property law works.
First of all, mathematical expressions are facts and thus cannot be copyrighted. Einstein's theory is safe from being copyrighted. Only the presentation of facts may be copyrighted so a math bok can be protected from unauthorized copying.
Programs can be copyrighted because there are a myriad fo ways a function can be written even if only a small haldful are the most efficient. They are distinct enough to warrant protection. besides, you are always free to license libraries to build your applications or develop your own method to work around what you may consider unreasonable terms.
Automobiles are protected by patents. Companies are free to license patents as the need. The development of new science and technological breakthroughs has moved beyond the individual though they are still free to develop new ideas if they so desire, just don't expect a free-ride because you don't have the funding. The problem with the patent system is not that it's expensive, the problem is it's litered with minefields of bogus or submarine patents owned by IP companies who se sole purpose is to lie in wait of technologies they own spurious patents on are developed and mature under the guidance of very wealthy corporations. The IE patent dispute between Eolas and Microsoft is a great example of this system gone horribly wrong.
No, he wasn't and you fail to comprehend the basic difference betwene copying someone elses work and basing your own work on someone elses ideas. Note the word ideas here. Isaac Newton expressed old ideas in new ways, he did not just copy someone elses expression of those ideas and claim them for himself.
Let me put it this way. I can learn how to pay guiter by picking up a copy of BB King's boxed set and play all his songs over and over and over until I understand the mechanics of the guitar. This even works for art, I could paint the Mona Lisa, studying Da Vinci's understanding of light and shadows until I'm a competent painter. However, in both cases I have not made society any richer intellectually. TO do so I would have to take my understanding of the guitar or painting and express the same ideas (common themes in blues music for instance) in new and different ways by writing my own blues tunes or trying to paint the next Mona Lisa.
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
on
Source Code & Copyright
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. It is the expression of the idea which creates value for the copyrighted work. Anyone can write a 4-bar blues progression in a-Major, just don't rip off B.B. King's lyrics or melody while you're doing it. We become richer, intellectually, as a society when creators are forced to think beyond what's already been done, to create their own expression of common cultural ideas, not by letting a bunch of hacks monkey around with things which they would otherwise not be able to create on their own.
Steve Jobs also said no one wanted to watch video on iPods. Lo and behold we now have the video iPod. Take what Steve jobs says with a grain of salt. I'm amazed Steve has held out for so long releasing a tablet mac.
...integration. Photoshop works well with InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere, After Effects, EncoreDVD, GoLive and soon it will have flawless compatibility Dreamweaver and Flash/LiveMotion. While laying out a document in InDesign I can easily click on teh PSD documetn linked to my page and edit the file in Photoshop, save the changes, and have those changes updated in InDesign. AfterEffects works the same way. In both LiveMotion and EncoreDVD I can use Photoshop to create the base artowrk to add visual effects and inteactivity to, all the while alowing me to easily and conveniently link back the original Photoshop. Premiere picks up on alpha channels embedded in the PSD file (as do AfterEffects and InDesign) making it easy to create masks for layering elements in these apps. It is insanely easy to jump between these apps and be creative without the UI getting in the way.
Actually, no it wasn't, it was meant to apply to the searches and seizures themselves. It was ten left to juries to determine if teh search was unreasonable or not. The language is very clear here, as it is throughout the entire doucment, being argued completely before all state delegates would agree to its terms. There was no spirit of the law because there was no room at the time the Constitution was written for spirit of anything. If it wasn;t spelled out clearly then it was gong to fail utterly. The Articles of Confederation was clearly not going to be a very lasting legal basis for the colonies to maintain a sustainable seperation from England and something had to be done about that. But don't believe me, read America's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and arguably onf of the foremost Constitutional scholars.
Wow, yet another Slashbot who apparently has never read the U.S. Constitution. What a shock. For your education, and hopefully hundreds of thousands of other clueless Slashbots worldwide:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis mine because you apparently missed that word)
Note the word unreasonable. In the case of a federal job, it is not unreasonable to expect that the persons working there be required to undergo some form of background security check and be required to pass through one or several layers of security before entering the premises. There is no subversion of the U.S. Constitution here and no need for the Supreme Court to become involved. It is also quite likely that this situation could never be used to track terrorists or subversives because they would likely fail the security check before even getting the job.
"As a shareware developer, I could care less about kids cracking my software, but I'm getting damn sick of the charade going on as the BSA cries (to its own benefit only) about the evils of piracy."
And I'm getting sick and tired of every slashbot telling me how we're headed for one great utopia once the RIAA dn MPAA get out of the way; file sharing is going to bring world peace, solve world hunger, and begin a new age of enlightenment the likes of which have never been seen. Yeah, right. Let me know when you have figured out how this is all going to work. Until then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
...but I find it rather hypocritical when many slashbots trash corporations for creating genetically modified foods yet they see absolutely no problem creating genetically modified people. Either genetic modification is OK or it isn't, do we really need decisions made on the basis of how much you hate someone?
"Did the Mozilla team copy all those features? Or did users feel the need to have them and implemented them as extensions? How exactly is it a bad thing to be able to bring any feature you want in your favorite browser?"
So, you're telling me that when Microsoft adds features from other OSes or applications it's blatant copying but when Firefox or [place app name here] copies features, it's the users who are to blame and the developers are just responding to market demand? Are you really that fucking stupid? If you are, please kill yourself and do so before reproducing.
While it wasn't in Internet Explorer, Microsoft had tabbed browsing in their help browser (based on IE) for Visual Studio long before even Opera had tabbed browsing. You do know Opera had tabbed browsing before Firefox don't you? Firefox, contrary to Slashbot mythology, did not invent tabbed browsing, extensions, nor any of the other features that are common to the application. In fact, Firefox, while a competent browser, is nothing more than a shining example of the lack of innovation in the open source community. It clearly deomnstartes the lengths that open source developers will go to in aping features and design conventions from other apps and claiming them as their own, going as far, in some cases, as to claim they were invented by the open source application.
As a matter of fact, yes he should believe the guy. That's what the evidentiary process is all about. You can claim you're innocent, at least in criminal cases, and it's up to the prosecution to prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you honestly suggesting we move to a "I don't lke the way this guy said 'not guilty, your honor', so I don't believe him" justice system?
It's not popularity per se, it's really a desire to do harm to something geeks believe did not earn its popularity honestly. I think it's also a sort of "not invented here" syndrome as well. Geeks want their creations to succeed at the cost of all others.
You are probably the same jackass who goes around crying "why doesn't Microsoft just do things like UNIX" and when they finally borrow a couple riffs you're crying"boo hoo, Microsoft is copying UNIX". It's clear they're damned if they do and damned if they don't do it's really no wonder they don't care very much about what the Slashdot community wants or thinks.
...(at least the summary anyway). How fucking stupid are you people? Nissan URGE concept car, it was even in the summary. This means Nissan is pushing the boundaries of what a car is but doing so in a completly experimental environment. This will never see the light of day as is but who knows what sort of interactivity it may produce in the future?
Boy, if this isn't a complete load of bullshit. I run Windows XP SP2, Outlook 2003, Access, IIS (HTTP, FTP, and SMTP), IE, MS AntiSpyware, and Windows Firewall and I also have an MN-700 Router/Firewall (Microsoft -sadly discontinued) and I've only ever had one "intrusion" on my system. I forgot to close off anonymous FTP and someone decided to use the open server to dump their warez and moviez. I am not a techie by any stretch of the imagination, I'm a graphic designer who likes to have a little more control over my web site than your average bear. None of this stiff was terribly difficult to lock down nor were picking up a few good habits of surfing the internet or reading e-mail (one of the reasons I have Outlook 2003 but still have older MS Office software despite the constant crap I hear about MS forcing people to upgrade Office with each and every version). And before anyone asks, I run IIS because I can develop small web sites using Dreamweaver that target ASP, ASP.Net, and PHP.
Well, yeah, considering this the World Trade Organization. Did you honestly think the WTO handled human rights abuses? Their mission is to facilitate trade and open markets worldwide, not to police the actions of governments based on their human rights records.
"...who argue the deputies only wanted to show their independence from the government..."
Or possibly this is an attack on the U.S. economy. If they made it legal to freely distribute intellectual property online then either the U.S. media companies would need to pull out of the french market altogether or take the hit in sales due to widespread distribution without compensation.
Slashdot Mirror
Eolas was able to successfully sue Microsoft with a patent which had clear prior art. The judge did not allow the evidence in the trial - for whatever reason, it was never quite clear - and Microsoft lost the case. Logic and reasoning are only half the fight in legal cases. You're forgetting the rules which determine what can be considered as evidence during teh case and sometimes what's left defies logic and reeasoning altogether.
You can purchase educational versions of most apps which students will likely need so cost of software is not really much of an issue.
My in-laws have a Chevrolet Trailblazer with the nav system. You cannot access any of the menus or buttons while the car is moving. Even the passenger cannot override the system. Since auto manufacturers typically reuse systems like this through out all their cars, presumably all Chevyrolet models are in the same...er...boat.
You're confusing intelletual property protection systems and I'm not sure if it's on purpose or if you really don't unserstand how intellectual property law works.
First of all, mathematical expressions are facts and thus cannot be copyrighted. Einstein's theory is safe from being copyrighted. Only the presentation of facts may be copyrighted so a math bok can be protected from unauthorized copying.
Programs can be copyrighted because there are a myriad fo ways a function can be written even if only a small haldful are the most efficient. They are distinct enough to warrant protection. besides, you are always free to license libraries to build your applications or develop your own method to work around what you may consider unreasonable terms.
Automobiles are protected by patents. Companies are free to license patents as the need. The development of new science and technological breakthroughs has moved beyond the individual though they are still free to develop new ideas if they so desire, just don't expect a free-ride because you don't have the funding. The problem with the patent system is not that it's expensive, the problem is it's litered with minefields of bogus or submarine patents owned by IP companies who se sole purpose is to lie in wait of technologies they own spurious patents on are developed and mature under the guidance of very wealthy corporations. The IE patent dispute between Eolas and Microsoft is a great example of this system gone horribly wrong.
No, he wasn't and you fail to comprehend the basic difference betwene copying someone elses work and basing your own work on someone elses ideas. Note the word ideas here. Isaac Newton expressed old ideas in new ways, he did not just copy someone elses expression of those ideas and claim them for himself.
Let me put it this way. I can learn how to pay guiter by picking up a copy of BB King's boxed set and play all his songs over and over and over until I understand the mechanics of the guitar. This even works for art, I could paint the Mona Lisa, studying Da Vinci's understanding of light and shadows until I'm a competent painter. However, in both cases I have not made society any richer intellectually. TO do so I would have to take my understanding of the guitar or painting and express the same ideas (common themes in blues music for instance) in new and different ways by writing my own blues tunes or trying to paint the next Mona Lisa.
Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. It is the expression of the idea which creates value for the copyrighted work. Anyone can write a 4-bar blues progression in a-Major, just don't rip off B.B. King's lyrics or melody while you're doing it. We become richer, intellectually, as a society when creators are forced to think beyond what's already been done, to create their own expression of common cultural ideas, not by letting a bunch of hacks monkey around with things which they would otherwise not be able to create on their own.
Which would you rather be charged with, tax fraud or contempt of court, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice?
Steve Jobs also said no one wanted to watch video on iPods. Lo and behold we now have the video iPod. Take what Steve jobs says with a grain of salt. I'm amazed Steve has held out for so long releasing a tablet mac.
I think we should all give him his medication in another place.
...integration. Photoshop works well with InDesign, Illustrator, Premiere, After Effects, EncoreDVD, GoLive and soon it will have flawless compatibility Dreamweaver and Flash/LiveMotion. While laying out a document in InDesign I can easily click on teh PSD documetn linked to my page and edit the file in Photoshop, save the changes, and have those changes updated in InDesign. AfterEffects works the same way. In both LiveMotion and EncoreDVD I can use Photoshop to create the base artowrk to add visual effects and inteactivity to, all the while alowing me to easily and conveniently link back the original Photoshop. Premiere picks up on alpha channels embedded in the PSD file (as do AfterEffects and InDesign) making it easy to create masks for layering elements in these apps. It is insanely easy to jump between these apps and be creative without the UI getting in the way.
Actually, no it wasn't, it was meant to apply to the searches and seizures themselves. It was ten left to juries to determine if teh search was unreasonable or not. The language is very clear here, as it is throughout the entire doucment, being argued completely before all state delegates would agree to its terms. There was no spirit of the law because there was no room at the time the Constitution was written for spirit of anything. If it wasn;t spelled out clearly then it was gong to fail utterly. The Articles of Confederation was clearly not going to be a very lasting legal basis for the colonies to maintain a sustainable seperation from England and something had to be done about that. But don't believe me, read America's Constitution by Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and arguably onf of the foremost Constitutional scholars.
Ctrl-E. Wow, that was so difficult. Either that or you go to the layers palette menu and it's one of the options listed.
Wow, yet another Slashbot who apparently has never read the U.S. Constitution. What a shock. For your education, and hopefully hundreds of thousands of other clueless Slashbots worldwide:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis mine because you apparently missed that word)
Note the word unreasonable. In the case of a federal job, it is not unreasonable to expect that the persons working there be required to undergo some form of background security check and be required to pass through one or several layers of security before entering the premises. There is no subversion of the U.S. Constitution here and no need for the Supreme Court to become involved. It is also quite likely that this situation could never be used to track terrorists or subversives because they would likely fail the security check before even getting the job.
"As a shareware developer, I could care less about kids cracking my software, but I'm getting damn sick of the charade going on as the BSA cries (to its own benefit only) about the evils of piracy."
And I'm getting sick and tired of every slashbot telling me how we're headed for one great utopia once the RIAA dn MPAA get out of the way; file sharing is going to bring world peace, solve world hunger, and begin a new age of enlightenment the likes of which have never been seen. Yeah, right. Let me know when you have figured out how this is all going to work. Until then SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
...but I find it rather hypocritical when many slashbots trash corporations for creating genetically modified foods yet they see absolutely no problem creating genetically modified people. Either genetic modification is OK or it isn't, do we really need decisions made on the basis of how much you hate someone?
"Did the Mozilla team copy all those features? Or did users feel the need to have them and implemented them as extensions? How exactly is it a bad thing to be able to bring any feature you want in your favorite browser?"
So, you're telling me that when Microsoft adds features from other OSes or applications it's blatant copying but when Firefox or [place app name here] copies features, it's the users who are to blame and the developers are just responding to market demand? Are you really that fucking stupid? If you are, please kill yourself and do so before reproducing.
While it wasn't in Internet Explorer, Microsoft had tabbed browsing in their help browser (based on IE) for Visual Studio long before even Opera had tabbed browsing. You do know Opera had tabbed browsing before Firefox don't you? Firefox, contrary to Slashbot mythology, did not invent tabbed browsing, extensions, nor any of the other features that are common to the application. In fact, Firefox, while a competent browser, is nothing more than a shining example of the lack of innovation in the open source community. It clearly deomnstartes the lengths that open source developers will go to in aping features and design conventions from other apps and claiming them as their own, going as far, in some cases, as to claim they were invented by the open source application.
As a matter of fact, yes he should believe the guy. That's what the evidentiary process is all about. You can claim you're innocent, at least in criminal cases, and it's up to the prosecution to prove this fact beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you honestly suggesting we move to a "I don't lke the way this guy said 'not guilty, your honor', so I don't believe him" justice system?
It's not popularity per se, it's really a desire to do harm to something geeks believe did not earn its popularity honestly. I think it's also a sort of "not invented here" syndrome as well. Geeks want their creations to succeed at the cost of all others.
You are probably the same jackass who goes around crying "why doesn't Microsoft just do things like UNIX" and when they finally borrow a couple riffs you're crying"boo hoo, Microsoft is copying UNIX". It's clear they're damned if they do and damned if they don't do it's really no wonder they don't care very much about what the Slashdot community wants or thinks.
...(at least the summary anyway). How fucking stupid are you people? Nissan URGE concept car, it was even in the summary. This means Nissan is pushing the boundaries of what a car is but doing so in a completly experimental environment. This will never see the light of day as is but who knows what sort of interactivity it may produce in the future?
Boy, if this isn't a complete load of bullshit. I run Windows XP SP2, Outlook 2003, Access, IIS (HTTP, FTP, and SMTP), IE, MS AntiSpyware, and Windows Firewall and I also have an MN-700 Router/Firewall (Microsoft -sadly discontinued) and I've only ever had one "intrusion" on my system. I forgot to close off anonymous FTP and someone decided to use the open server to dump their warez and moviez. I am not a techie by any stretch of the imagination, I'm a graphic designer who likes to have a little more control over my web site than your average bear. None of this stiff was terribly difficult to lock down nor were picking up a few good habits of surfing the internet or reading e-mail (one of the reasons I have Outlook 2003 but still have older MS Office software despite the constant crap I hear about MS forcing people to upgrade Office with each and every version). And before anyone asks, I run IIS because I can develop small web sites using Dreamweaver that target ASP, ASP.Net, and PHP.
Well, yeah, considering this the World Trade Organization. Did you honestly think the WTO handled human rights abuses? Their mission is to facilitate trade and open markets worldwide, not to police the actions of governments based on their human rights records.
Ummm, it's Belgium not Belgian. Those are the waffles.
Or possibly this is an attack on the U.S. economy. If they made it legal to freely distribute intellectual property online then either the U.S. media companies would need to pull out of the french market altogether or take the hit in sales due to widespread distribution without compensation.