First rule of business: there's no such things as friends in business. Really, friends is a strong term. In a supply chain, one person is always trying to be the dominate player, be it the retailers, suppliers, or the warehouses and logistics players.
You can't contract around the law in the USA either. For instance, you can't contract your way around murder, around theft, nor around any statute or case law created at any level. Unfortunatly, the only real laws to protect consumers come in the form of anti-trust and collusion. Protecting the consumers' interest isn't something the US holds value to anymore, so instead of convoluted contracts to try to sidestep the laws, we simply allow the largest companies to create the law to their liking, and the contracts cover everything else that's not protecting the corp's interest.
It's not pretty and may not be fair, but capitalism never is fair.
I'll bite. This is a trademark infringemnet case that leverages a "famous" mark that has been attained by teaching the consumer about Apple phone and tablet products look and feel against a junior mark that may not be famous. Even though the trademark isn't registered, that doesn't make it invalid (although it should technically limit it to the state in which Apple primarily engages in commerce, but there are ways of getting around that, legally) and may be enough to take a trademark dilution by blurring claim (where two different marks are so similar as to likely cause customer confusion but not similar enough to be infringement or a counterfeit).
The questions a jury will have to answer are:
1.) What is the degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark? 2.) What is the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark? 3.) To what extent is the owner of the famous mark engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark? 4.) What is the degree of recognition of the famous mark? 5.) Is the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark? 6.) Is there any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?
The first question is a given. The Galaxy lines of phones were targeted directly at iPhone users. Samsung went as far as to give the phone to frustrated iPhone users. I own the Vibrant version, which looks identical to the UK version, and the OS was designed to be like a mixture of iOS and Android. You can even uninstall apps using a "minus" button very similarly to iOS's "X" to delete apps.
Number two is harder to prove since the design Apple is employing has been around for a while. Not that's it's not impossible to prove, just harder. This has already been mentioned by other/. post above and below this reply.
Number three is easy as Apple has been consistent with this design since its inception.
Number four is a tough one too. I'll give an example. Today, while registering my child for kindergarten school for the fall, I took my iPad to let the child play with to keep quite while filling out paperwork. About half of the 4th grade school population went passed us on their way to lunch, almost all talking about this device. Some children knew what the device was, some thought they knew what the device was, and some had no idea what it was (a few said it was a TV). While not directly calling 4th graders the equivalent of the adult American public that will sit in a jurors seat, their will likely be similarities in terms of identifying Apple's products. We tech enthusiast know the difference, but does your grandmother? What about your automobile mechanic? This is where jury selection becomes important. Samsung would want tech enthusiast who can clearly see the difference between the products, while Apple is going to want everyday people who will simply call the mark that came to market first as the "famous" mark and anything else is a knockoff.
Number five is a tough call too. At one angle, Samsung is engaging iOS users that their Android smartphone has a similar experience to iOS to warrant a switch, while the other end you could just as easily argue that Blackberry and Android users are Samsung's ultimate target, especially since Android options are so vast. Samsung could easily argue that in order to differentiate themselves from other Android devices, they used a design unique to the Android smartphone market.
Number six is where we will see Apple claim that Samsung used the association of being the manufacture of the iPhone 4's chips to their Galaxy lines having equivalent chips. This claim is a long shot, but still possible if Apple can get a layman's head around what the hell a chip is in the first place.
Since Apple is the one bringing suit, Samsung could easily attack the rounded corn
Well, would you prefer a more intrusive form of DRM? Removing the shading from a game isn't as bad as some of the DRM schemes that we've seen before by the bigger publishers. The authors aren't looking out to catch the pirates, they're not looking to sue anyone, they're just comically (inside joke, of course) telling the people that they've received an inferior product instead of the normal way of big titles where the pirated versions are superior to the retail version.
I for one welcome this. It's so small that it doesn't cause too much harm to the pirates in terms of game play, yet big enough that the pirates know they can receive the feature for just $10-$15 depending on prior Steam purchases. It reminds me of when I downloaded the X-Men Wolverine production rip. The CGI was incomplete and it was a nice reminder that I should just wait and rent the DVD (a very effective piracy deterrent, if you ask me). Unfortunately for Fox, I was bored well before the missing CGI came into play (it really was a terrible movie), and fortunately for them, I'm interested in seeing the new X-Men First Class when it comes to theaters in June (let's hope it's not terrible).
Screw your credit up so bad that you can't afford a deposit on service? Well, who's fault is that? I'm only sympathetic to those just getting started who don't have credit histories.
Obviously, you've never been a victim of identify fraud, and you also ignore the fact that the poor exploit their children's clean credit slate, creating a cycle that's hard to break. I've seen a numerous times a family rack up an electric bill or gas bill during the winter, couldn't afford to pay it, have the service disconnected and the bill applied to the parent's credit, only to re-open the account under the minor's credit. To make matters worse, getting fraudulent things off your credit takes a lot of time, energy, money, and effort that the poor simply can't afford to waste, so they keep the cycle going. Now data access, I'll admit, is a luxury; however, more and more transactions are occurring online because it's cheaper to do business via the internet than via a brick-and-mortar store, so if one is to progress in society, they're going to be at a disadvantage than those who don't have such high costs, when a lack of internet exists. It's not that it's impossible to NOT be poor, it's just VERY DIFFICULT to pull yourself out poverty, especially if it's where you started.
Contract law doesn't require a signed written contract with a notary present as proof that an agreement exists. Verbal contracts are just as good, just harder to prove since it becomes your word against mine. The actions that follow are what add bite to verbal contracts, If Zuckerberg asked for money and Ceglia paid him, then it may very well prove that an agreement of some kind exists.
I could definitely see this as a new attack on the Redmond giant for anti-trust laws about abusing monopoly power, regardless if there is any evidence to the claim. The flip side of that coin is that there are already application stores for Windows, and have been for a while; Steam, GameTap, RealArcade, Direct2Drive, just to name a few. As long as Microsoft doesn't bundle/tie the app store with the next incarnation of Windows, they should be fine with regulators. Otherwise, we can expect to see the "Choose your browser" like stuff that comes with the EU version of Windows.
The problem seems to stem from the parent comment action. For instance, when you single click a comment, the page jumps to the parent of that comment. Click again, and it goes to the parent's parent. After you've made your way to the top, right clicking and middle clicking works as normal. This also explains why you can right click just fine anywhere else but the comment section.
So open to our partners we'll even give them access to the servers themselves to poke around in your personal info directly.
On a serious note, the data center is pretty cool. Here's another source of pretty blue images that show better images regarding the evaporation cooling system.
All well, thought out, responses and my participation has disallowed me to add a +1 for Insightful (no option for touché ). But we're going to have to agree to disagree in regards to a corporation having the right to shape our laws.
Collective bargaining only works when there is an equal playing field. In terms of the Fortune 100, there isn't an equal playing field for Corporation vs Consumer, as corporations have all rights of the consumer PLUS more rights for operating as a business. The ONLY right a corporation lacks is the right to vote, so they BUY their votes through campaign contributions and damn near bribes (and sometimes bribes too!) to have laws changed that provide them the most benefit. Furthermore, they don't act in the best interest of their shareholders. If they did, we wouldn't have the thousands of lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duties.
While we want society to act in a civilized and perfect manner that we've written down and declared as the be all of how the world should work, the reality is that it's every man, woman, and child for themselves, acting upon our own interests and impulses, be damned of anyone else. So why allow corporations to be a voice of political power if the only person they are representing is the managers and board members that control majority of the corporation? Why let unions force their corporate overlords in the opposite direction (wow, I'm really starting to sound like the text book definition of anti-social)? The answer is that everyone is looking out for themselves and no one else, and if they have to temporarily join a group to get their interests met, they'll do it and get out while they can. So when I say that corporations should not have the right to influence the laws that regulate consumers, then I'm just doing what everyone else is doing: looking out for my best interests, be damned the Fortune 100 interests.
The second that bit crossed a State line interstate commerce has been defined. If I'm providing a backbone that spans across a state line that is sold to an ISP that connects consumers directly to my backbone, interstate commerce is still being carried out.
No, I meant Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce as stated by the Constitution; but, you are correct that I could have been a little more clear.
If we pay less FICA for Medicaid we will benefit. Fatties are the ones whom would pay more. We get more take home pay, they get future health care cost paid for being unwilling to eat a salad every now and then.
"Brewer says the proposal is a way to reward good behavior and raise awareness that certain conditions, including obesity, raise costs throughout the system."
Where's the reward? If you're on Medicaid and already fit, then the reward of the $50 is not a reward at all since you never received the punishment to begin with. Negative reinforcement only works if you're taking away something negative to begin with. Want to give me a reward, how about you tax the fatties more for FICA and give me a break since I won't be using as many services as Mr. BigMac-a-day who can't keep his hands out of anything deep fried and covered in Mayo.
Doesn't change the fact that ISPs are acting like assholes. I understand that they have a fiduciary duty of care to protect their ongoing business affairs and their shareholders, but that doesn't change the fact that they're granted a NATURAL MONOPOLY just to screw over the consumer. If they want their cake and eat it to, then I think Congress needs to get back in session and force the carriers to carry CLECs again at a fixed rate, but this time over copper, fiber, COAX, and any other technology that they're granted a natural monopoly over. The abolishment of the fixed rate is what led AT&T to slither itself back together and push out ALL of their competition off their copper. Now we only have a handful of useful broadband providers that want to add a meter to electrical pulses. Yes, technically electricity isn't free, but its costs are substantially lower than the cost to let's say mine out natural gas, oil, or to find, transport, and clean water.
The issue isn't that you're free to pick your provider, because that's not entirely true. The most consistent internet service will come from fixed lines and those lines are given to specific corporations that don't have their customers best interest in mind. If cable internet didn't exist, DSL would still be a slow and you'd only get it if you live within 1 mile of the CO. If DSL didn't exist, cable internet would be limited, bogged down, and never upgraded to avoid the bottleneck from the technology just being a large LAN. But what competition do these two technologies really halve? 3G? Not even close. 4G? Not even close to being implemented fully. Satellite? Not consistent. So you're stuck with two options, and those two options want to keep competing providers off their granted duopoly and add a toll booth for the consumer that doesn't have any other options. If we take away the monopolies on the poles, then prices will fall and we won't see net neutrality as an issue, the same way we saw the cost of a land line drop and long distance cost dropped. If we force net neutrality, then at least we can have internet that can be used freely without restrictions to competing products and services that the line provider is offering that may be provided somewhere else in the world.
Just because Congress keeps the interest of monopolies closer to heart doesn't mean that we should continue to create laws that are designed to limit competition, raise prices, and choke what little money the consumer has left after trying to survive. Even if the FCC was out of line, the problem is that we don't have a Congress that gives a rats ass about the consumer, and they never will as long as we continue to give corporations unlimited and unchecked power and influence over our government. Furthermore, Congress doesn't have to give an agency specific powers at every turn. Constitutionally, they have the power to regulate interstate commerce. A bit flying all over the globe is definitely in that scope, and if a law doesn't exist as a statute, the Federal regulatory agencies do have the power to create Federal regulations to be followed, and all persons, natural or not, have the right to challenge those regulations in the court of law. But non-natural persons should NOT have the right to influence the law when they don't have the right to VOTE on those laws to begin with.
Amazing how Congress will avoid paying for laws that protect consumers and are more than willing to pay for ANY other law that protects the interests of the top 5%. Even more crazy, most of the voters don't care and will vote the same jagoffs back into Congress every time until they're unemployed and can't find work due to lack of education and/or skills, and want someone to blame for their incompetence for voting the very person who gave more precedent to the Fortune 100 than to our public education system.
I'm glad to see Verizon get the cold shoulder, but we know this isn't going to last long. Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it, nor do they want to.
Maybe not piracy since without downloading the giant ISO files to play PS1 games, the emulator is just a nice file explorer shell for OI File Manger. Trademark infringement is more likely.
Sony has a registered trademark for PSX that pretty much includes anything dealing with electronics.
Interestingly though, Nintendo owns the patent for emulation of games on mobile devices: Patent #6,672,963
Based on Nintendo's patent, it will be 2024 before we can emulate on mobile devices freely, so ALL emulators could be removed from the market for patent infringement. But then again, there is no criminal charges for violating a patent, just civil penalties if the patent holder decides to file suit. I believe most of the emulator developers don't reside in the US, so I can see why their out of Nintendo's reach.
Mod parent up; someone read the article. This is exactly on point to why this will be settled out of court with a couple million exchanging hands, and A LOT of the ISP staff will be terminated for not doing their jobs. Plus, there's the PR stuff to reassure customers, dealing with those that lost non-essential data, and of course, the loss of customers who will simply exit and go somewhere else. The worse thing this could have done was make it to a lawsuit.
Well, I found/. because Google News kept listing it as a news source. They've longed stopped this (or at least I haven't seen it in a while) but it wouldn't surprise me if more people found their way here because of a lazy news aggregator that aggregated news from another news aggregator, but as an original source.
I received my router from SamKnows back in January. I connected the thing through a spare Linux box, and set it up as a free and open wifi access point for the apartment next to me. I then sniffed all the packets going into and out of this connection to see if they were truly using the router to collect information on the volunteers. No dice. This router accesses the SAME urls, protocols, and IP addresses every day, most of the data being openly available to view; RTP streams are garbage from what I can tell. Not once did I see information being uploaded that was content from the apartment complexes browsing habits. The only strange behavior the router exhibited was when five or more clients were connected, the router would perform some speed test; even that's not too strange as it's testing the internet performance when the connection is stressed.
Furthermore, the information the router provides is exceptional. It really does a thorough test of the connection and the website to view the data is designed very well, utilizing a slew of my favorite FLOSS JavaScript and flash tools (jQuery, jQueryUI, Open Flash Charts,etc).
Slashdot Mirror
First rule of business: there's no such things as friends in business. Really, friends is a strong term. In a supply chain, one person is always trying to be the dominate player, be it the retailers, suppliers, or the warehouses and logistics players.
You can't contract around the law in the USA either. For instance, you can't contract your way around murder, around theft, nor around any statute or case law created at any level. Unfortunatly, the only real laws to protect consumers come in the form of anti-trust and collusion. Protecting the consumers' interest isn't something the US holds value to anymore, so instead of convoluted contracts to try to sidestep the laws, we simply allow the largest companies to create the law to their liking, and the contracts cover everything else that's not protecting the corp's interest.
It's not pretty and may not be fair, but capitalism never is fair.
I'll bite. This is a trademark infringemnet case that leverages a "famous" mark that has been attained by teaching the consumer about Apple phone and tablet products look and feel against a junior mark that may not be famous. Even though the trademark isn't registered, that doesn't make it invalid (although it should technically limit it to the state in which Apple primarily engages in commerce, but there are ways of getting around that, legally) and may be enough to take a trademark dilution by blurring claim (where two different marks are so similar as to likely cause customer confusion but not similar enough to be infringement or a counterfeit).
The questions a jury will have to answer are:
1.) What is the degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?
2.) What is the degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark?
3.) To what extent is the owner of the famous mark engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark?
4.) What is the degree of recognition of the famous mark?
5.) Is the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the famous mark?
6.) Is there any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark?
The first question is a given. The Galaxy lines of phones were targeted directly at iPhone users. Samsung went as far as to give the phone to frustrated iPhone users. I own the Vibrant version, which looks identical to the UK version, and the OS was designed to be like a mixture of iOS and Android. You can even uninstall apps using a "minus" button very similarly to iOS's "X" to delete apps.
Number two is harder to prove since the design Apple is employing has been around for a while. Not that's it's not impossible to prove, just harder. This has already been mentioned by other /. post above and below this reply.
Number three is easy as Apple has been consistent with this design since its inception.
Number four is a tough one too. I'll give an example. Today, while registering my child for kindergarten school for the fall, I took my iPad to let the child play with to keep quite while filling out paperwork. About half of the 4th grade school population went passed us on their way to lunch, almost all talking about this device. Some children knew what the device was, some thought they knew what the device was, and some had no idea what it was (a few said it was a TV). While not directly calling 4th graders the equivalent of the adult American public that will sit in a jurors seat, their will likely be similarities in terms of identifying Apple's products. We tech enthusiast know the difference, but does your grandmother? What about your automobile mechanic? This is where jury selection becomes important. Samsung would want tech enthusiast who can clearly see the difference between the products, while Apple is going to want everyday people who will simply call the mark that came to market first as the "famous" mark and anything else is a knockoff.
Number five is a tough call too. At one angle, Samsung is engaging iOS users that their Android smartphone has a similar experience to iOS to warrant a switch, while the other end you could just as easily argue that Blackberry and Android users are Samsung's ultimate target, especially since Android options are so vast. Samsung could easily argue that in order to differentiate themselves from other Android devices, they used a design unique to the Android smartphone market.
Number six is where we will see Apple claim that Samsung used the association of being the manufacture of the iPhone 4's chips to their Galaxy lines having equivalent chips. This claim is a long shot, but still possible if Apple can get a layman's head around what the hell a chip is in the first place.
Since Apple is the one bringing suit, Samsung could easily attack the rounded corn
Well, I stand corrected. +1 informative
Well, would you prefer a more intrusive form of DRM? Removing the shading from a game isn't as bad as some of the DRM schemes that we've seen before by the bigger publishers. The authors aren't looking out to catch the pirates, they're not looking to sue anyone, they're just comically (inside joke, of course) telling the people that they've received an inferior product instead of the normal way of big titles where the pirated versions are superior to the retail version.
I for one welcome this. It's so small that it doesn't cause too much harm to the pirates in terms of game play, yet big enough that the pirates know they can receive the feature for just $10-$15 depending on prior Steam purchases. It reminds me of when I downloaded the X-Men Wolverine production rip. The CGI was incomplete and it was a nice reminder that I should just wait and rent the DVD (a very effective piracy deterrent, if you ask me). Unfortunately for Fox, I was bored well before the missing CGI came into play (it really was a terrible movie), and fortunately for them, I'm interested in seeing the new X-Men First Class when it comes to theaters in June (let's hope it's not terrible).
Screw your credit up so bad that you can't afford a deposit on service? Well, who's fault is that? I'm only sympathetic to those just getting started who don't have credit histories.
Obviously, you've never been a victim of identify fraud, and you also ignore the fact that the poor exploit their children's clean credit slate, creating a cycle that's hard to break. I've seen a numerous times a family rack up an electric bill or gas bill during the winter, couldn't afford to pay it, have the service disconnected and the bill applied to the parent's credit, only to re-open the account under the minor's credit. To make matters worse, getting fraudulent things off your credit takes a lot of time, energy, money, and effort that the poor simply can't afford to waste, so they keep the cycle going. Now data access, I'll admit, is a luxury; however, more and more transactions are occurring online because it's cheaper to do business via the internet than via a brick-and-mortar store, so if one is to progress in society, they're going to be at a disadvantage than those who don't have such high costs, when a lack of internet exists. It's not that it's impossible to NOT be poor, it's just VERY DIFFICULT to pull yourself out poverty, especially if it's where you started.
Contract law doesn't require a signed written contract with a notary present as proof that an agreement exists. Verbal contracts are just as good, just harder to prove since it becomes your word against mine. The actions that follow are what add bite to verbal contracts, If Zuckerberg asked for money and Ceglia paid him, then it may very well prove that an agreement of some kind exists.
I could definitely see this as a new attack on the Redmond giant for anti-trust laws about abusing monopoly power, regardless if there is any evidence to the claim. The flip side of that coin is that there are already application stores for Windows, and have been for a while; Steam, GameTap, RealArcade, Direct2Drive, just to name a few. As long as Microsoft doesn't bundle/tie the app store with the next incarnation of Windows, they should be fine with regulators. Otherwise, we can expect to see the "Choose your browser" like stuff that comes with the EU version of Windows.
The problem seems to stem from the parent comment action. For instance, when you single click a comment, the page jumps to the parent of that comment. Click again, and it goes to the parent's parent. After you've made your way to the top, right clicking and middle clicking works as normal. This also explains why you can right click just fine anywhere else but the comment section.
So open to our partners we'll even give them access to the servers themselves to poke around in your personal info directly.
On a serious note, the data center is pretty cool. Here's another source of pretty blue images that show better images regarding the evaporation cooling system.
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/37295/?a=f
You might have to 'skip' a couple HP ads but after about 2 or 3 they get the message that you're not interested.
Sir. Branson, is there anything in science fiction you won't waste your billions trying to make into a commercial reality?
All well, thought out, responses and my participation has disallowed me to add a +1 for Insightful (no option for touché ). But we're going to have to agree to disagree in regards to a corporation having the right to shape our laws.
Collective bargaining only works when there is an equal playing field. In terms of the Fortune 100, there isn't an equal playing field for Corporation vs Consumer, as corporations have all rights of the consumer PLUS more rights for operating as a business. The ONLY right a corporation lacks is the right to vote, so they BUY their votes through campaign contributions and damn near bribes (and sometimes bribes too!) to have laws changed that provide them the most benefit. Furthermore, they don't act in the best interest of their shareholders. If they did, we wouldn't have the thousands of lawsuits for breach of fiduciary duties.
While we want society to act in a civilized and perfect manner that we've written down and declared as the be all of how the world should work, the reality is that it's every man, woman, and child for themselves, acting upon our own interests and impulses, be damned of anyone else. So why allow corporations to be a voice of political power if the only person they are representing is the managers and board members that control majority of the corporation? Why let unions force their corporate overlords in the opposite direction (wow, I'm really starting to sound like the text book definition of anti-social)? The answer is that everyone is looking out for themselves and no one else, and if they have to temporarily join a group to get their interests met, they'll do it and get out while they can. So when I say that corporations should not have the right to influence the laws that regulate consumers, then I'm just doing what everyone else is doing: looking out for my best interests, be damned the Fortune 100 interests.
The second that bit crossed a State line interstate commerce has been defined. If I'm providing a backbone that spans across a state line that is sold to an ISP that connects consumers directly to my backbone, interstate commerce is still being carried out.
No, I meant Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce as stated by the Constitution; but, you are correct that I could have been a little more clear.
If we pay less FICA for Medicaid we will benefit. Fatties are the ones whom would pay more. We get more take home pay, they get future health care cost paid for being unwilling to eat a salad every now and then.
"Brewer says the proposal is a way to reward good behavior and raise awareness that certain conditions, including obesity, raise costs throughout the system."
Where's the reward? If you're on Medicaid and already fit, then the reward of the $50 is not a reward at all since you never received the punishment to begin with. Negative reinforcement only works if you're taking away something negative to begin with. Want to give me a reward, how about you tax the fatties more for FICA and give me a break since I won't be using as many services as Mr. BigMac-a-day who can't keep his hands out of anything deep fried and covered in Mayo.
Doesn't change the fact that ISPs are acting like assholes. I understand that they have a fiduciary duty of care to protect their ongoing business affairs and their shareholders, but that doesn't change the fact that they're granted a NATURAL MONOPOLY just to screw over the consumer. If they want their cake and eat it to, then I think Congress needs to get back in session and force the carriers to carry CLECs again at a fixed rate, but this time over copper, fiber, COAX, and any other technology that they're granted a natural monopoly over. The abolishment of the fixed rate is what led AT&T to slither itself back together and push out ALL of their competition off their copper. Now we only have a handful of useful broadband providers that want to add a meter to electrical pulses. Yes, technically electricity isn't free, but its costs are substantially lower than the cost to let's say mine out natural gas, oil, or to find, transport, and clean water.
The issue isn't that you're free to pick your provider, because that's not entirely true. The most consistent internet service will come from fixed lines and those lines are given to specific corporations that don't have their customers best interest in mind. If cable internet didn't exist, DSL would still be a slow and you'd only get it if you live within 1 mile of the CO. If DSL didn't exist, cable internet would be limited, bogged down, and never upgraded to avoid the bottleneck from the technology just being a large LAN. But what competition do these two technologies really halve? 3G? Not even close. 4G? Not even close to being implemented fully. Satellite? Not consistent. So you're stuck with two options, and those two options want to keep competing providers off their granted duopoly and add a toll booth for the consumer that doesn't have any other options. If we take away the monopolies on the poles, then prices will fall and we won't see net neutrality as an issue, the same way we saw the cost of a land line drop and long distance cost dropped. If we force net neutrality, then at least we can have internet that can be used freely without restrictions to competing products and services that the line provider is offering that may be provided somewhere else in the world.
Just because Congress keeps the interest of monopolies closer to heart doesn't mean that we should continue to create laws that are designed to limit competition, raise prices, and choke what little money the consumer has left after trying to survive. Even if the FCC was out of line, the problem is that we don't have a Congress that gives a rats ass about the consumer, and they never will as long as we continue to give corporations unlimited and unchecked power and influence over our government. Furthermore, Congress doesn't have to give an agency specific powers at every turn. Constitutionally, they have the power to regulate interstate commerce. A bit flying all over the globe is definitely in that scope, and if a law doesn't exist as a statute, the Federal regulatory agencies do have the power to create Federal regulations to be followed, and all persons, natural or not, have the right to challenge those regulations in the court of law. But non-natural persons should NOT have the right to influence the law when they don't have the right to VOTE on those laws to begin with.
Amazing how Congress will avoid paying for laws that protect consumers and are more than willing to pay for ANY other law that protects the interests of the top 5%. Even more crazy, most of the voters don't care and will vote the same jagoffs back into Congress every time until they're unemployed and can't find work due to lack of education and/or skills, and want someone to blame for their incompetence for voting the very person who gave more precedent to the Fortune 100 than to our public education system.
I'm glad to see Verizon get the cold shoulder, but we know this isn't going to last long. Face it, net neutrality is a pipe dream for those who are technically competent enough to understand but are far outnumbered by the voters who don't understand it, nor do they want to.
Maybe not piracy since without downloading the giant ISO files to play PS1 games, the emulator is just a nice file explorer shell for OI File Manger. Trademark infringement is more likely.
See here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4003:a7trs0.2.13
Sony has a registered trademark for PSX that pretty much includes anything dealing with electronics.
Interestingly though, Nintendo owns the patent for emulation of games on mobile devices: Patent #6,672,963
Based on Nintendo's patent, it will be 2024 before we can emulate on mobile devices freely, so ALL emulators could be removed from the market for patent infringement. But then again, there is no criminal charges for violating a patent, just civil penalties if the patent holder decides to file suit. I believe most of the emulator developers don't reside in the US, so I can see why their out of Nintendo's reach.
Mod parent up; someone read the article. This is exactly on point to why this will be settled out of court with a couple million exchanging hands, and A LOT of the ISP staff will be terminated for not doing their jobs. Plus, there's the PR stuff to reassure customers, dealing with those that lost non-essential data, and of course, the loss of customers who will simply exit and go somewhere else. The worse thing this could have done was make it to a lawsuit.
Americans are more unlikely to have a passport vs a State issued ID.
If it's on camera and you intend on uploading it to the net, then it's legal as you're not soliciting prostitution, you're soliciting the free market
Well, I found /. because Google News kept listing it as a news source. They've longed stopped this (or at least I haven't seen it in a while) but it wouldn't surprise me if more people found their way here because of a lazy news aggregator that aggregated news from another news aggregator, but as an original source.
I received my router from SamKnows back in January. I connected the thing through a spare Linux box, and set it up as a free and open wifi access point for the apartment next to me. I then sniffed all the packets going into and out of this connection to see if they were truly using the router to collect information on the volunteers. No dice. This router accesses the SAME urls, protocols, and IP addresses every day, most of the data being openly available to view; RTP streams are garbage from what I can tell. Not once did I see information being uploaded that was content from the apartment complexes browsing habits. The only strange behavior the router exhibited was when five or more clients were connected, the router would perform some speed test; even that's not too strange as it's testing the internet performance when the connection is stressed.
Furthermore, the information the router provides is exceptional. It really does a thorough test of the connection and the website to view the data is designed very well, utilizing a slew of my favorite FLOSS JavaScript and flash tools (jQuery, jQueryUI, Open Flash Charts,etc).
Relative to you, YES. Only been here for about a year, maybe two at the most.