Trademarks have to be in use to be valid. In other words, if you trademark a word you find offensive, you have to have products or services for sale using that mark or you lose it.
Good question. I've never seen any form of biometric identification that can consistently exceed 80% accuracy in real world conditions. And that's generally 20% false positives and 20% false negatives.
What provision do they have for when their system says you're not you?
You think wrong. Currently, neither NASA nor any private launch company in the US has the ability to launch people into space. SpaceX is closing in on it, but they need a number of successful launches before their rockets are man rated, and probably even more to get the capsule man rated. That's why we rely on Russian rockets to put our astronauts into space right now.
And their competitors would do the same to them. The, all the big companies would go bankrupt, and smaller, independently owned companies would flourish.
Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house?
Hotels have to do exactly that. It's part of being in the hospitality business.
But here's the real kicker: If Uber is any indication, if you rent out your house through AirBnB, and someone is injured, your homeowner's insurance won't cover it. And AirBnB's might not either, if it is determined that you rented it to someone who is disabled without making proper accommodations for their particular disability.
But if they consider not renting an upstairs bedroom to someone in a wheelchair when you have no wheelchair lift to be discrimination, then the entire study is nothing but propaganda. And that's an accomplishment: making an enterprise based on an illegal business model look like the victims.
Sounds great until the only place in town that can provide a service you would literally die without decides not to do business with white people.
And you are white, and everybody knows it. Probably not man enough (and you are a man, too) to admit it, even anonymously, but everyone knows the truth. Including you.
It is common to the point of being nearly universal in retail that hourly employees who work on the sales floor are called "associates." This is normal for any day that ends in "y."
A license is distinctly different from a sale of goods. And there's plenty of case law defining that difference. Specifically, if you pay once for indefinite use, it's a sale of goods (and the first sale doctrine applies). Even if the "license" say otherwise. The case law on this goes back a century, to when book publishers tried to "license" their books to prevent libraries from loaning out books. There really aren't any new issues there.
The point being, there are conflicting rulings in different districts that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. Which suggested, pretty strongly, today how it will be inclined to rule.
So sit down, take a deep breath, have some ice cream and put the outrage on hold. The good guys are winning.
Actually, this started when Lexmark put DRM on their cartridges, and somebody reverse engineered it. This isn't the first ridiculous lawsuit Lexmark as lost.
That depends on which part of Title 17 you read. One section says you can't break the encryption. Another says you can, for purposes of cross-compatibility. This conflict has never been resolved.
If you want to learn about a really interesting aspect of the "first sale doctrine" and how it applies to software, you should have a look at "Vernor vs Autodesk" in the USA and compare it to "Oracle vs UsedSoft" in the EU. Basically, in the USA the courts determined that if a company sells you software, but in their terms & conditions claim that they are merely granting you a license, then you can't resell the software b/c you aren't considered to own it.
This varies by federal district. The Central District of California ruled in SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc that (among other flaws in Adobe's argument, but this is the important one) a one time fee for indefinite use constitute a sale of goods, not a license, regardless of what the printed license says.
So far as I know, this is the first time this issue as gotten to SCOTUS. It's limited in scope, but combined with long established case law surrounding the first sale doctrine, it's promising.
Slashdot Mirror
If a plane crashes, you'll be asking for forgiveness at your sentencing. And won't like get it.
Trademarks have to be in use to be valid. In other words, if you trademark a word you find offensive, you have to have products or services for sale using that mark or you lose it.
Good question. I've never seen any form of biometric identification that can consistently exceed 80% accuracy in real world conditions. And that's generally 20% false positives and 20% false negatives.
What provision do they have for when their system says you're not you?
You think wrong. Currently, neither NASA nor any private launch company in the US has the ability to launch people into space. SpaceX is closing in on it, but they need a number of successful launches before their rockets are man rated, and probably even more to get the capsule man rated. That's why we rely on Russian rockets to put our astronauts into space right now.
And their competitors would do the same to them. The, all the big companies would go bankrupt, and smaller, independently owned companies would flourish.
So it's win/win/win/win/win, all the way around.
Around here, a penny is all most thoughts are worth.
"Apple IPhones, the official phone of the KKK."
You're white, aren't you? (Note: That is a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious.)
A lot of people know a lot of things that aren't true.
Do the study's authors expect every Airbnb host to put in handicap ramps and lifts on their stairs before they rent their house?
Hotels have to do exactly that. It's part of being in the hospitality business.
But here's the real kicker: If Uber is any indication, if you rent out your house through AirBnB, and someone is injured, your homeowner's insurance won't cover it. And AirBnB's might not either, if it is determined that you rented it to someone who is disabled without making proper accommodations for their particular disability.
But if they consider not renting an upstairs bedroom to someone in a wheelchair when you have no wheelchair lift to be discrimination, then the entire study is nothing but propaganda. And that's an accomplishment: making an enterprise based on an illegal business model look like the victims.
Sounds great until the only place in town that can provide a service you would literally die without decides not to do business with white people.
And you are white, and everybody knows it. Probably not man enough (and you are a man, too) to admit it, even anonymously, but everyone knows the truth. Including you.
Sick days exist because of people like you.
Colleague implies a degree of equality in status. The hourly grunts on the sales floor are not equal to anyone who calls them associates.
It is common to the point of being nearly universal in retail that hourly employees who work on the sales floor are called "associates." This is normal for any day that ends in "y."
A license is distinctly different from a sale of goods. And there's plenty of case law defining that difference. Specifically, if you pay once for indefinite use, it's a sale of goods (and the first sale doctrine applies). Even if the "license" say otherwise. The case law on this goes back a century, to when book publishers tried to "license" their books to prevent libraries from loaning out books. There really aren't any new issues there.
The point being, there are conflicting rulings in different districts that can only be resolved by the Supreme Court. Which suggested, pretty strongly, today how it will be inclined to rule.
So sit down, take a deep breath, have some ice cream and put the outrage on hold. The good guys are winning.
Nobody would have even looked twice at them if they hadn't been so abusive of the system.
Actually, this started when Lexmark put DRM on their cartridges, and somebody reverse engineered it. This isn't the first ridiculous lawsuit Lexmark as lost.
That depends on whether they bought the seed, or actually agreed to a binding contract to not save seed knowing what they were signing.
Yeah, filing thousands of penny-ante lawsuits worked out so well for Prenda Law.
That depends on which part of Title 17 you read. One section says you can't break the encryption. Another says you can, for purposes of cross-compatibility. This conflict has never been resolved.
If you want to learn about a really interesting aspect of the "first sale doctrine" and how it applies to software, you should have a look at "Vernor vs Autodesk" in the USA and compare it to "Oracle vs UsedSoft" in the EU. Basically, in the USA the courts determined that if a company sells you software, but in their terms & conditions claim that they are merely granting you a license, then you can't resell the software b/c you aren't considered to own it.
This varies by federal district. The Central District of California ruled in SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc that (among other flaws in Adobe's argument, but this is the important one) a one time fee for indefinite use constitute a sale of goods, not a license, regardless of what the printed license says.
So far as I know, this is the first time this issue as gotten to SCOTUS. It's limited in scope, but combined with long established case law surrounding the first sale doctrine, it's promising.
To shift revenue from foreign companies to US companies? Sounds like Trump is doing exactly what he promised to do.
is he willing to contribute to the cause? Because I'm betting that number is zero.
No, in fact I don't. A chicken with its legs cut off goes nowhere, fast.