Awesome. That didn't format right at all. Take two:
No, you can open source patents. In fact, Google has used (at least) one before.
Wave Federation Protocol Patent License Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google and its affiliates hereby grant to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to you under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Now whether this counts as open source is a matter for debate...but only because the term invokes such passion from people. I think it sounds like it counts. It may be missing the viral aspect of the GPL, but it may also be in there when it says "for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification." I'm not familiar enough with patent law to say much more though.
No, you can open source patents. In fact, Google has used (at least) one before.
Wave Federation Protocol Patent License
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google and its affiliates hereby grant to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to you under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Now whether this counts as open source is a matter for debate...but only because the term invokes such passion from people. I think it sounds like it counts. It may be missing the viral aspect of the GPL, but it may also be in there when it says "for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification." I'm not familiar enough with patent law to say much more though.
Sure they can. They just have to be preloaded and appropriate for later serving. I just posted on this a second ago, but maybe by the time you see this there will be some discussion about my suggestion up above.
Although I agree that a 64 gig SSD smells like BS for all the reasons you've outlined, maybe Google wants to serve advertisements while you're offline. They still probably wouldn't need that much space, but conceptually this opens up downloading 'stuff' Google wants us to have, with a guarantee that the space is there to take advantage of whenever they desire. Hell, they could prepare a year's worth of ads with expiration tags set by companies. Then as soon as you get back online, the information is shared with Google, and companies are charged. Sure, this risks serving some free ads. And not being able to collect on all their receivables. But the benefits clearly would outweigh those losses.
Most of those publisher worries seem to be handled privately, through contracts, in the US. Otherwise, I think it's implied in exclusive ownership of your work as its author.
There are two general justifications for copyright: economic and moral.
In a digital world, the public domain of IP is perfectly competitive. There are no marginal costs, so each copy should be free. Because being free would disincentive people from creating, or creating and sharing, we need to incentive IP and create a legal structure that stops perfect competition so that creativity will happen. Whatever the associated benefits are, they must outweigh the costs to justify a copyright system.
This objective is only secondary to copyright's main objective, however. The main objective is to expand knowledge. This is why facts are not copyrightable. This is why historical accounts, although copyrightable, are extremely narrow in scope.
There's also a moral incentive to grant exclusive rights, though this is probably something that more people won't see eye-to-eye on. For example, Locke's Labor Theory (I own my body, my labor, and the fruits of my labor) goes to fundamental rights that cannot be outweighed by utilitarian principles. Copyright is intrinsically valuable, yet you cannot raid the world of all its resources, nor can you keep too much for yourself. Our creations are our own, and other people don't deserve to take advantage of them.
Nobody has to do it. This is just how the world works. You figure out what to do when/if somebody finds a problem/some non-compliance. The internet is such a different beast that you simply cannot (it's both a time and money issue) be assured of compliance. We tacitly accept this by using the internet. Throw in the fact that there are no reliable ways to find locations, and you really see the world the internet creates.
Also, your portrayal of the lawyers is kind of ridiculous. Lawyers aren't being lazy. These companies do not have unlimited budgets. So because there are no clean solutions (laws change all the time, all over the world), you have to hedge your bets a bit.
Finally, the casual user is the same person who makes Joe'sWebsite.com. You cannot hold corporations to a different standard, and these corporations have the same potential reach as the casual site owner: each jurisdiction in the world. And, believe me, just because you're a lawyer does not mean you have all the law down. Most lawyers never have even 1% of the law down. There's just too much of it. You're presented with problems (as a litigator) and you advocate. Or, if a transactional lawyer, you try to foresee problems, account for them, and then hedge your bets with some catchall language (which doesn't always work, mind you).
To be clear, I was responding to HangingChad's plea for credit to the Obama administration. It had nothing to do with whether I thought the policy should or shouldn't have been as it is or was, for either administration, but whether the administration was trying to do the right thing. Both tried. You agree that one got it right, and the other didn't. Fine. I probably even agree with you. But credit is deserved for anybody who tries to do the right thing, and both administrations deserve credit for that. If HangingChad wants to provide general praise for that sort of thing, he shouldn't talk out of both sides of his/her mouth.
Can we please give the government a little credit when they at least try to start trying to do the right thing? Is that too much trouble?
Neither a fan of Bush nor Obama here - pretty ambivalent. But you'd be kidding yourself if you didn't think each administration wasn't doing what they thought was the right thing with respect to issues like this.
Although it would be nice to be able to use this, I'd imagine there'd be lots of damage following from widespread release of this program without a quick turnaround on fixing vulnerable sites.
That's ridiculous. Why should people bend over to the way things are? The fact that people do anything to secure themselves and others is implicit recognition of risk. They key is not maximizing safety, but optimizing it. After all, we don't walk around with boomboxes on our shoulders to prevent people from running into us. It would help, but is not optimal.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome. That didn't format right at all. Take two:
No, you can open source patents. In fact, Google has used (at least) one before.
Wave Federation Protocol Patent License
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google and its affiliates hereby grant to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to you under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
Now whether this counts as open source is a matter for debate...but only because the term invokes such passion from people. I think it sounds like it counts. It may be missing the viral aspect of the GPL, but it may also be in there when it says "for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification." I'm not familiar enough with patent law to say much more though.
No, you can open source patents. In fact, Google has used (at least) one before. Wave Federation Protocol Patent License Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Google and its affiliates hereby grant to you a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this License) patent license for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification. If you institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the implementation of the specification constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses for the specification granted to you under this License shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. Now whether this counts as open source is a matter for debate...but only because the term invokes such passion from people. I think it sounds like it counts. It may be missing the viral aspect of the GPL, but it may also be in there when it says "for patents necessarily infringed by implementation of this specification." I'm not familiar enough with patent law to say much more though.
Sure they can. They just have to be preloaded and appropriate for later serving. I just posted on this a second ago, but maybe by the time you see this there will be some discussion about my suggestion up above.
Although I agree that a 64 gig SSD smells like BS for all the reasons you've outlined, maybe Google wants to serve advertisements while you're offline. They still probably wouldn't need that much space, but conceptually this opens up downloading 'stuff' Google wants us to have, with a guarantee that the space is there to take advantage of whenever they desire. Hell, they could prepare a year's worth of ads with expiration tags set by companies. Then as soon as you get back online, the information is shared with Google, and companies are charged. Sure, this risks serving some free ads. And not being able to collect on all their receivables. But the benefits clearly would outweigh those losses.
Copyright wouldn't serve any purpose here. Parent is talking about definitions. Not expression.
We all know that Facebook is afraid of Wave. Now why don't they behave like it?
Most of those publisher worries seem to be handled privately, through contracts, in the US. Otherwise, I think it's implied in exclusive ownership of your work as its author.
There are two general justifications for copyright: economic and moral.
In a digital world, the public domain of IP is perfectly competitive. There are no marginal costs, so each copy should be free. Because being free would disincentive people from creating, or creating and sharing, we need to incentive IP and create a legal structure that stops perfect competition so that creativity will happen. Whatever the associated benefits are, they must outweigh the costs to justify a copyright system.
This objective is only secondary to copyright's main objective, however. The main objective is to expand knowledge. This is why facts are not copyrightable. This is why historical accounts, although copyrightable, are extremely narrow in scope.
There's also a moral incentive to grant exclusive rights, though this is probably something that more people won't see eye-to-eye on. For example, Locke's Labor Theory (I own my body, my labor, and the fruits of my labor) goes to fundamental rights that cannot be outweighed by utilitarian principles. Copyright is intrinsically valuable, yet you cannot raid the world of all its resources, nor can you keep too much for yourself. Our creations are our own, and other people don't deserve to take advantage of them.
There's more to this than greed.
Just for the sake of precision, you cannot copyright an idea. Period. Copyright covers expression.
Nobody has to do it. This is just how the world works. You figure out what to do when/if somebody finds a problem/some non-compliance. The internet is such a different beast that you simply cannot (it's both a time and money issue) be assured of compliance. We tacitly accept this by using the internet. Throw in the fact that there are no reliable ways to find locations, and you really see the world the internet creates.
Also, your portrayal of the lawyers is kind of ridiculous. Lawyers aren't being lazy. These companies do not have unlimited budgets. So because there are no clean solutions (laws change all the time, all over the world), you have to hedge your bets a bit.
Finally, the casual user is the same person who makes Joe'sWebsite.com. You cannot hold corporations to a different standard, and these corporations have the same potential reach as the casual site owner: each jurisdiction in the world. And, believe me, just because you're a lawyer does not mean you have all the law down. Most lawyers never have even 1% of the law down. There's just too much of it. You're presented with problems (as a litigator) and you advocate. Or, if a transactional lawyer, you try to foresee problems, account for them, and then hedge your bets with some catchall language (which doesn't always work, mind you).
Ahh I understood it too.
To be clear, I was responding to HangingChad's plea for credit to the Obama administration. It had nothing to do with whether I thought the policy should or shouldn't have been as it is or was, for either administration, but whether the administration was trying to do the right thing. Both tried. You agree that one got it right, and the other didn't. Fine. I probably even agree with you. But credit is deserved for anybody who tries to do the right thing, and both administrations deserve credit for that. If HangingChad wants to provide general praise for that sort of thing, he shouldn't talk out of both sides of his/her mouth.
Can we please give the government a little credit when they at least try to start trying to do the right thing? Is that too much trouble?
Neither a fan of Bush nor Obama here - pretty ambivalent. But you'd be kidding yourself if you didn't think each administration wasn't doing what they thought was the right thing with respect to issues like this.
I'm guessing they chose Seattle to test how the network does in the rain.
Get off my lawn!!
Although it would be nice to be able to use this, I'd imagine there'd be lots of damage following from widespread release of this program without a quick turnaround on fixing vulnerable sites.
That's ridiculous. Why should people bend over to the way things are? The fact that people do anything to secure themselves and others is implicit recognition of risk. They key is not maximizing safety, but optimizing it. After all, we don't walk around with boomboxes on our shoulders to prevent people from running into us. It would help, but is not optimal.
You act as if this freedom exists to be taken away. It most surely does not.
Now this is just silly. It misses the point of a justice system, ours in particular. Put the conspiracy theories away.
Welcome to the regulatory state.
Luckily, since most people gambling in Nevada are not Nevada residents, you can sue on your tort claim in federal court.