It seems to me that this is describing a subset of push technology, such as PointCast back in the day, and even those "channels" you used to be able to subscribe to in Windows 95. PointCast predates this patent app by a number of years.
So, in other words, you have no response to my criticism, which was not about China's legality, or even their hypocrisy, but about the term you actually used in your post, their credibility. Instead of discussing that matter directly, you retreat to supposed safer ground, their alleged failure to uphold certain treaty obligations (from which I suppose you believe it naturally follows that they have no credibility).
You start by deeming with zero evidence that China's "selective prosecution" is done in a manner which is in violation of treaty. We must accept this as a given. Next, you hold forth a pretend legal theory that somehow Microsoft gets to evade a trial court ruling by presenting to...someone...your imaginary fact that China is in flagrant violation. And you're so proud of this little theory you pulled out of your ass that you present it twice, and then quote yourself twice.
Just so we're clear, in your universe, Microsoft, instead of merely filing an appeal, will try to deny compensation to a small font foundry by first getting someone, presumably WIPO, to declare China a treaty scofflaw, and secondly getting WIPO to force China to vacate, overrule or decline to enforce this specific court ruling, and thirdly to have the expectation that they can still do business as usual in China after shitting all over its local laws.
Nitpicking aside, font IP law can be a little tricky. In the US, anyway, you can't copyright typefaces, that is, the actual representation of the font on the page. You can't even copyright bitmapped fonts, which are nothing but representations of typefaces. You can however, copyright scalable fonts such as TrueType fonts which are basically instructions (programs) on how to draw a font. In other countries the law tends to be more in favor of the creator, but even so, it's not unreasonable that MS could've reverse engineered a font clone without violating IP laws. So Zhongyi might've needed time to gather compelling evidence before pressing its case. There's also the fact that this lawsuit was commenced back in April 2007, and possibly there was an attempt to negotiate before the case started. And possibly Zhongyi was deterred by the knowledge that heretofore, as ifwm says, China didn't "give a shit about IP" rights. So I think the delay in prosecution was likely reasonable.
Their credibility in terms of their zeal in protecting IP is not really relevant. The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic, I'll make a car analogy: Let's say there is a inconveniently placed traffic light in your neighborhood and cars fragrantly disregard it. One day you get busted running the red light, and it turns out there is a thousand dollar fine for doing so. At that point, it doesn't much matter how lax the neighborhood police have been in enforcing that traffic signal on the whole. The only thing that matters to you is how forgiving the courts will be in imposing the penalty upon you. The two aspects are not closely related at all, even though they fall under the same lazy rubric of "law enforcement."
It's not as if Microsoft can go, "Well, we know China doesn't give a shit about IP. If a judge fines us, we don't really have to pay." It doesn't work that way at all. As shaitand tried to point out.
So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."
Defend yourself against what? A credit report is not a civil complaint or any type of official government record. And it's not "your" credit report in the sense that it belongs to you. It's a file that a private company keeps on you based on its own research and sells to other private companies. So, in no way, shape or form is it like fascism or serial killing.
On the other hand, you do have a legal remedy against an incorrect credit report. In some jurisdictions, you can sue either the reporting party or the credit agency for libel. The agency has the possibility of asserting "qualified privilege" as a defense, which basically means that it was only acting in good faith on information received. You also have to show how you were injured by their failure to correct your report. And before doing anything involving the legal system, you'd be wise to consult with an attorney about the details of your situation, and the feasibility of even obtaining a judgment in your state. Your chances of prevailing might be slim but credit agencies certainly don't have the kind of sovereign immunity that you would expect under fascism.
Ordinarily they would never have a situation where all their customers would simultaneously need access to all their data, so it's going to take time to propagate it out to everyone, and until that happens, people will still be affected.
Since you're making this argument, I'm curious as to how precisely I would be violating their license agreement by letting Palm sync with them? Or are you just somehow assuming that buried -- somewhere -- in the license is -- something -- saying I'm not allowed to sync with hardware that doesn't use their published APIs? And that such a clause would stand up to legal scrutiny?
Let's not even go into the fact that we have come to calmly accept that click-wraps for certain have all kinds of Bad Stuff lurking in them, and that's just OK.
Anyway, the point is that as discussed elsewhere on this thread, the remedy for breach of contract is to sue someone, i.e. take them to court. Apple doesn't get automatically get the right to mess with my relationship with other vendors.
I agree. I accept that Apple is under no obligation to support my Pre usage. But it's a dick move for them to sabotage it.
Here's the thing. I have a computer. I also have iTunes, and Pre. I am giving my Pre express permission to use, on my computer, the Vendor ID code generally used by Apple. And I certainly think that Palm should have the right to help me use their hardware with Apple's software, and I should have the untrammeled right to modify (or to cause to be modified) any existing software on my machine to work properly (or even improperly) with external hardware, as I see fit. Without interference from third parties. Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.
I'm not sure why this is even a debate, it's as if suddenly this topic is inundated with corporate shills for Apple.
[Full disclosure: Although I do have iTunes and a Pre, I would never actually use the Pre as a music player in the first place since the battery is constantly on the verge of dying. And regarding iTunes, the less said the better. I even prefer using WMP.]
You're talking about something entirely different. In the past, private employees were sometimes jailed or fined for interfering with their employers' businesses by striking. But over the years, the right to strike became explicitly codified by means of various labor laws. However, those laws generally apply only to private employees, public employees generally do not have this right as a matter of public policy. You don't want your police and sewer service shutting down over routine labor disputes. A "no strike clause" is usually put into public labor contracts so that the employee cannot claim ignorance of the law. But such a clause put into a private employment contract generally would be void.
you just have to pay restitution if you breach a contract.
Not even. Breach of contract is actionable, meaning, you can be sued. It doesn't mean that the plaintiff will necessarily prevail in any way shape or form. So, although a judgment may be entered against you, on the other hand there could very well be no penalty at all for the breach. That's what the courts are for. So until Palm actually gets sued AND a judge or jury enters judgment against Palm AND all appeals are exhausted, all this talk of what's "illegal" is premature.
he did agree to change the version number. He just wrote that he thought it was a dumb requirement,
Yes you're absolutely correct about that AC. My bad.
Although it was my impression that Palm initially demanded the apps on the Beta app catalog be listed at less than 1.0 because there was some possibility that the official app catalog might require some changes. So they didn't want any of the apps to be designated as "completed" apps yet. And now that the app catalog is officially open there are indeed apps listed at >1.0 version.
I could understand not agreeing with the requirement (because it disrupts cross-platform versioning) but dismissing it as ridiculous and not even stating their rationale seems petty and underhanded.
It should be noted that the developer had his own particular requirements:
* Would not sign NDA * Would not even TALK with Palm about signing an NDA * Would not change version numbers * Would not get PayPal verified account
In other words, Palm had certain policies in place. Maybe they were good policies, maybe they were foolish ones. But that was not really the issue. The real sticking point was that the developer felt that, since he was distributing his apps for free, he had an entitlement to be at his own discretion exempt from any policies Palm put in place. And Palm didn't see it that way. Seems to me that there was simply not a meeting of minds and he's better off following his own device and developing for a more open platform. But by his own admission clearly there are plenty of developers who aren't bent out of shape by Palm's policies, which I would certainly not describe as "nightmarish" given the issues stated in his article. To be honest, I was more put off by his whining, histrionic melodramatic tone than by yet another example of Palm's notoriously poor business sense. On a scale of Palm's Pre snafus I'd rate poor battery life as a 10, annoying cursor is annoying as a 2, and the issues outlined in his story as a less than a one.
(Speaking of "annoying cursor," OT but does anyone else have a problem with trying to drop a cursor on the right hand side of Slashdot's comment box?)
Formal written language is different from casual spoken language in terms of grammar, syntax, vocabulary. That's true in any literate language. So, for the purpose of writing an English paper (or some of the things it prepares you for: a newspaper article, a grant proposal, a cover letter, etc.) some of the things that you are saying "aren't actually mistakes" are actually mistakes.
What's the point of licensing a character if the licensee could wait for you to die and say "ha ha" and continue using that character?
That's like saying what's the point of Toshiba licensing Bluray IP when they can just wait for the patents to expire and say "ha ha." They can just wait, but some other company that's not being self-defeatingly cheap can license it now and make a crapton of money while the first company is still waiting around.
Lots of people use their laptop as their only machine. In that case it's helpful to have a device that can sip power when away from the mains but whilst plugged in can run with the big dogs.
Your #2's don't correspond neatly with each other. Masturbation is not illegal. Copyright violation is. It's entirely reasonable and not at all questionable for public schools to advise children not to commit illegal behavior on their computers, particularly in the context of teaching the children how to use and explore the internet. Otherwise, someone who gets sued by the RIAA could turn around and sue their child's school, saying that their child learned how to fileshare on the school's computers and the school was negligent in not informing the child of the risks involved.
That's not to say a good school won't also present the controversy over whether filesharing should be illegal or not.
All these hypothetical examples are beside the point. If the music industry wants this implemented, it will likely happen.
But even so, it won't work. Japan's music industry is even more moribund than the US industry. It got fat and comfortable charging for singles the equivalent of what US consumers charge for albums, and for albums, the equivalent of US$30 or more. Meanwhile it pushes the same arthritic set of superstars that have dominated their pop scene for 10, 15, 20 years or more. The end result is that the cost of entry for unknown acts is too high, new music suffers. Japanese consumers have grown accustomed to buying albums used and ripping them. Locking mobiles will just increase the sales of walkmans and ipods and will make it more of a no-brainer to circumvent DRM'ed music.
I agree 100% with Fished. It's dead easy for these companies to track down your device, so they should just do it. I mean, I bought my girlfriend a bunch of gadgets last year for her birthday, and this year, after we kind of had a minor scuffle, which she started btw, not my fault she lost a couple of teeth, she had the nerve to move out of the state. Ingrate. If I can get Amazon et al to disable those gifts, at least she'll learn who's in charge. After all, I paid for them. Even better, they need to give me the location so I can track her down and convince her to get back with me. Or maybe make sure she won't get with anyone else.
Assimilating all of that Web 3.0 content led me to strategically develop a fully horizontal organizational orientation. I immediately shifted paradigms and commenced "cloud computing" for about 15 minutes, dynamically visualizing an innovative brave new world.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I feel a rapid fluctuation in my supply chain.
And furthermore, corporations do get representation through their right to hire lobbyists and establish political action committees. Let's not kid ourselves. In any reasonable interpretation of the notion, any major corporation gets far more "representation" than the average natural person, despite being barred from voting.
The previous poster's linked article specifically addresses that concern and dismisses it. "systray" was an app that ran in the notification area and displayed a few specific system-related icons, (hence "system" tray) but it wasn't the notification area, which as we know displays both system (MS Windows) and non-system (3rd party) icons.
Slashdot Mirror
I seem to be the only person for whom the word "ginormous" calls to mind a huge vagina.
Perhaps I was traumatized at birth?
Rachael Ray?
It seems to me that this is describing a subset of push technology, such as PointCast back in the day, and even those "channels" you used to be able to subscribe to in Windows 95. PointCast predates this patent app by a number of years.
So, in other words, you have no response to my criticism, which was not about China's legality, or even their hypocrisy, but about the term you actually used in your post, their credibility. Instead of discussing that matter directly, you retreat to supposed safer ground, their alleged failure to uphold certain treaty obligations (from which I suppose you believe it naturally follows that they have no credibility).
You start by deeming with zero evidence that China's "selective prosecution" is done in a manner which is in violation of treaty. We must accept this as a given. Next, you hold forth a pretend legal theory that somehow Microsoft gets to evade a trial court ruling by presenting to...someone...your imaginary fact that China is in flagrant violation. And you're so proud of this little theory you pulled out of your ass that you present it twice, and then quote yourself twice.
Just so we're clear, in your universe, Microsoft, instead of merely filing an appeal, will try to deny compensation to a small font foundry by first getting someone, presumably WIPO, to declare China a treaty scofflaw, and secondly getting WIPO to force China to vacate, overrule or decline to enforce this specific court ruling, and thirdly to have the expectation that they can still do business as usual in China after shitting all over its local laws.
"Irrefutably proven." I'll admit, I am in awe.
Nitpicking aside, font IP law can be a little tricky. In the US, anyway, you can't copyright typefaces, that is, the actual representation of the font on the page. You can't even copyright bitmapped fonts, which are nothing but representations of typefaces. You can however, copyright scalable fonts such as TrueType fonts which are basically instructions (programs) on how to draw a font. In other countries the law tends to be more in favor of the creator, but even so, it's not unreasonable that MS could've reverse engineered a font clone without violating IP laws. So Zhongyi might've needed time to gather compelling evidence before pressing its case. There's also the fact that this lawsuit was commenced back in April 2007, and possibly there was an attempt to negotiate before the case started. And possibly Zhongyi was deterred by the knowledge that heretofore, as ifwm says, China didn't "give a shit about IP" rights. So I think the delay in prosecution was likely reasonable.
Their credibility in terms of their zeal in protecting IP is not really relevant. The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic, I'll make a car analogy: Let's say there is a inconveniently placed traffic light in your neighborhood and cars fragrantly disregard it. One day you get busted running the red light, and it turns out there is a thousand dollar fine for doing so. At that point, it doesn't much matter how lax the neighborhood police have been in enforcing that traffic signal on the whole. The only thing that matters to you is how forgiving the courts will be in imposing the penalty upon you. The two aspects are not closely related at all, even though they fall under the same lazy rubric of "law enforcement."
It's not as if Microsoft can go, "Well, we know China doesn't give a shit about IP. If a judge fines us, we don't really have to pay." It doesn't work that way at all. As shaitand tried to point out.
So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."
Defend yourself against what? A credit report is not a civil complaint or any type of official government record. And it's not "your" credit report in the sense that it belongs to you. It's a file that a private company keeps on you based on its own research and sells to other private companies. So, in no way, shape or form is it like fascism or serial killing.
On the other hand, you do have a legal remedy against an incorrect credit report. In some jurisdictions, you can sue either the reporting party or the credit agency for libel. The agency has the possibility of asserting "qualified privilege" as a defense, which basically means that it was only acting in good faith on information received. You also have to show how you were injured by their failure to correct your report. And before doing anything involving the legal system, you'd be wise to consult with an attorney about the details of your situation, and the feasibility of even obtaining a judgment in your state. Your chances of prevailing might be slim but credit agencies certainly don't have the kind of sovereign immunity that you would expect under fascism.
Oh come on. As anyone who's following this story is aware, Mozilla has an "approved" method of installing plugins without using the add-ons panel. So pick your bone with them.
Ordinarily they would never have a situation where all their customers would simultaneously need access to all their data, so it's going to take time to propagate it out to everyone, and until that happens, people will still be affected.
Since you're making this argument, I'm curious as to how precisely I would be violating their license agreement by letting Palm sync with them? Or are you just somehow assuming that buried -- somewhere -- in the license is -- something -- saying I'm not allowed to sync with hardware that doesn't use their published APIs? And that such a clause would stand up to legal scrutiny?
Let's not even go into the fact that we have come to calmly accept that click-wraps for certain have all kinds of Bad Stuff lurking in them, and that's just OK.
Anyway, the point is that as discussed elsewhere on this thread, the remedy for breach of contract is to sue someone, i.e. take them to court. Apple doesn't get automatically get the right to mess with my relationship with other vendors.
I agree. I accept that Apple is under no obligation to support my Pre usage. But it's a dick move for them to sabotage it.
Here's the thing. I have a computer. I also have iTunes, and Pre. I am giving my Pre express permission to use, on my computer, the Vendor ID code generally used by Apple. And I certainly think that Palm should have the right to help me use their hardware with Apple's software, and I should have the untrammeled right to modify (or to cause to be modified) any existing software on my machine to work properly (or even improperly) with external hardware, as I see fit. Without interference from third parties. Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.
I'm not sure why this is even a debate, it's as if suddenly this topic is inundated with corporate shills for Apple.
[Full disclosure: Although I do have iTunes and a Pre, I would never actually use the Pre as a music player in the first place since the battery is constantly on the verge of dying. And regarding iTunes, the less said the better. I even prefer using WMP.]
You're talking about something entirely different. In the past, private employees were sometimes jailed or fined for interfering with their employers' businesses by striking. But over the years, the right to strike became explicitly codified by means of various labor laws. However, those laws generally apply only to private employees, public employees generally do not have this right as a matter of public policy. You don't want your police and sewer service shutting down over routine labor disputes. A "no strike clause" is usually put into public labor contracts so that the employee cannot claim ignorance of the law. But such a clause put into a private employment contract generally would be void.
Not even. Breach of contract is actionable, meaning, you can be sued. It doesn't mean that the plaintiff will necessarily prevail in any way shape or form. So, although a judgment may be entered against you, on the other hand there could very well be no penalty at all for the breach. That's what the courts are for. So until Palm actually gets sued AND a judge or jury enters judgment against Palm AND all appeals are exhausted, all this talk of what's "illegal" is premature.
Yes you're absolutely correct about that AC. My bad.
Although it was my impression that Palm initially demanded the apps on the Beta app catalog be listed at less than 1.0 because there was some possibility that the official app catalog might require some changes. So they didn't want any of the apps to be designated as "completed" apps yet. And now that the app catalog is officially open there are indeed apps listed at >1.0 version.
I could understand not agreeing with the requirement (because it disrupts cross-platform versioning) but dismissing it as ridiculous and not even stating their rationale seems petty and underhanded.
It should be noted that the developer had his own particular requirements:
* Would not sign NDA
* Would not even TALK with Palm about signing an NDA
* Would not change version numbers
* Would not get PayPal verified account
In other words, Palm had certain policies in place. Maybe they were good policies, maybe they were foolish ones. But that was not really the issue. The real sticking point was that the developer felt that, since he was distributing his apps for free, he had an entitlement to be at his own discretion exempt from any policies Palm put in place. And Palm didn't see it that way. Seems to me that there was simply not a meeting of minds and he's better off following his own device and developing for a more open platform. But by his own admission clearly there are plenty of developers who aren't bent out of shape by Palm's policies, which I would certainly not describe as "nightmarish" given the issues stated in his article. To be honest, I was more put off by his whining, histrionic melodramatic tone than by yet another example of Palm's notoriously poor business sense. On a scale of Palm's Pre snafus I'd rate poor battery life as a 10, annoying cursor is annoying as a 2, and the issues outlined in his story as a less than a one.
(Speaking of "annoying cursor," OT but does anyone else have a problem with trying to drop a cursor on the right hand side of Slashdot's comment box?)
Formal written language is different from casual spoken language in terms of grammar, syntax, vocabulary. That's true in any literate language. So, for the purpose of writing an English paper (or some of the things it prepares you for: a newspaper article, a grant proposal, a cover letter, etc.) some of the things that you are saying "aren't actually mistakes" are actually mistakes.
That's like saying what's the point of Toshiba licensing Bluray IP when they can just wait for the patents to expire and say "ha ha." They can just wait, but some other company that's not being self-defeatingly cheap can license it now and make a crapton of money while the first company is still waiting around.
also mentioned in the first sentence of the summary.
Lots of people use their laptop as their only machine. In that case it's helpful to have a device that can sip power when away from the mains but whilst plugged in can run with the big dogs.
Your #2's don't correspond neatly with each other. Masturbation is not illegal. Copyright violation is. It's entirely reasonable and not at all questionable for public schools to advise children not to commit illegal behavior on their computers, particularly in the context of teaching the children how to use and explore the internet. Otherwise, someone who gets sued by the RIAA could turn around and sue their child's school, saying that their child learned how to fileshare on the school's computers and the school was negligent in not informing the child of the risks involved.
That's not to say a good school won't also present the controversy over whether filesharing should be illegal or not.
It is false that "false or unjustified" implies falsehood.
All these hypothetical examples are beside the point. If the music industry wants this implemented, it will likely happen.
But even so, it won't work. Japan's music industry is even more moribund than the US industry. It got fat and comfortable charging for singles the equivalent of what US consumers charge for albums, and for albums, the equivalent of US$30 or more. Meanwhile it pushes the same arthritic set of superstars that have dominated their pop scene for 10, 15, 20 years or more. The end result is that the cost of entry for unknown acts is too high, new music suffers. Japanese consumers have grown accustomed to buying albums used and ripping them. Locking mobiles will just increase the sales of walkmans and ipods and will make it more of a no-brainer to circumvent DRM'ed music.
I agree 100% with Fished. It's dead easy for these companies to track down your device, so they should just do it. I mean, I bought my girlfriend a bunch of gadgets last year for her birthday, and this year, after we kind of had a minor scuffle, which she started btw, not my fault she lost a couple of teeth, she had the nerve to move out of the state. Ingrate. If I can get Amazon et al to disable those gifts, at least she'll learn who's in charge. After all, I paid for them. Even better, they need to give me the location so I can track her down and convince her to get back with me. Or maybe make sure she won't get with anyone else.
Assimilating all of that Web 3.0 content led me to strategically develop a fully horizontal organizational orientation. I immediately shifted paradigms and commenced "cloud computing" for about 15 minutes, dynamically visualizing an innovative brave new world.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I feel a rapid fluctuation in my supply chain.
And furthermore, corporations do get representation through their right to hire lobbyists and establish political action committees. Let's not kid ourselves. In any reasonable interpretation of the notion, any major corporation gets far more "representation" than the average natural person, despite being barred from voting.
The previous poster's linked article specifically addresses that concern and dismisses it. "systray" was an app that ran in the notification area and displayed a few specific system-related icons, (hence "system" tray) but it wasn't the notification area, which as we know displays both system (MS Windows) and non-system (3rd party) icons.