Was is the correct term to use. See here, or I'll save you the trouble:
We sincerely apologize, but Internet Explorer technologies for UNIX are no longer available for download. Visit the Internet Explorer Web site for more information on Internet Explorer.
Good catch (note that Metism doesn't actually exist as a Slashdot user).
I disagree about the "lame" part, though. Any PR stunt that costs nothing but has thousands of people reading it is pretty good (from a PR perspective, anyway). I say, "Slashdot, though hast been hacked". It will happen again.
If EBay violates one claim and it is decided that said claim is valid, then EBay is at fault.
OK, but the problem for Woolston is that not even one claim matches what eBay is doing.
Claims 1-7 do not fit because of eBay doesn't use bar code scanners to scan the product (eBay doesn't even touch the product). I doubt "posting terminal" would be taken to mean every computer owned by anyone who connected to eBay.
Claims 8-14 are close "... said posting terminal apparatus having means for creating a digital image of a good for sale, means for creating a data record of said good for sale, a tracking number printer means, a tracking number scanner means" but not close enough.
Claims 15-22 are also not likely to fit: "posting terminal apparatus, said posting terminal apparatus having a digital camera for creating a digital image of a good for sale, a record maker module for creating a data record of said good for sale, a tracking code printer, a tracking code scanner".
Claims 23-25 mention some of the thing eBay uses, but not all of them are owned by eBay: "said system comprising:
a digital camera for creating a digital image of a good for sale;"
...and...
"a printer for printing said digital image of said good for sale and said textual information from said user; ", so I doubt these claims would be valid.
The main problem for Woolston is that eBay doesn't own all of the items listed in the claim. eBay doesn't own "posting terminals", because its customers do. A similar argument holds for claims 26-29. Woolston apparently had first in his mind a proprietary auction system (the internet is mentioned though), not a system where everyone owns a digital camera and can put stuff up on eBay.
He doesn't HAVE a PO box. According to Verisign's policies, he has to list an address. He can either list his home address (which he doesn't want to do) or get a PO box. He doesn't want to do either.
Locked down systems would need to be revalidated after any and all autoupdates.
As part of the lockdown procedure, you should disable automatic updates. Isn't this obvious? Perhaps "locked down" has a different meaning w.r.t FDA part 11 - I'm not familiar with this regualation. But If I want an unchanging system, the first thing I'll do is disable autoupdate.
Look, I'm all in favor of crucifying Microsoft when they are wrong, but it's pretty obvious that people are reading too much into this. They have to put the clause in their EULA, or else people will crucify them for updating their machines without their consent.
I think MS should have their lawyers rewrite this section of the EULA to make it more clear that the computer will go out and look for updates and install them automatically, unless the end user disables this function.
I cannot believe a reasonable, unbiased person would believe that MS would feel entitled to snoop around anyone's machine at their whim as a result of this clause in the EULA. The gov't might feel such an entitlement, but not MS.
Call me guilty of feeding the trolls, but to make generalizations like "giant hipocracy [sic] on the part of corporate America" is completely asinine. Individuals can be guilty of hypocrisy, as can groups with a defined mission, but "Corporate America" is neither of these. You might as well say that homo sapiens are hypocritical because some are opposed to murder and some are murderers. Grow up, learn the meaning of hypocrisy, or both.
If "they" don't arrest him, can future arresties argue selective prosecution?
No, because "somebody else got away with it" is not a valid legal defense. The district attorney has the sole right to prosecute, or not prosecute criminal cases. I'm not sure how it works in federal cases like DMCA violations, though. I guess the US Attorney for that area has the right. "Selective prosecution" is applicable to trademark violation defense, but it has little value elsewhere.
"We live in a world where we communicate worldwide and we travel worldwide," Farber said. "If I violate some Australian law and then land in Sydney, do they throw me in jail?"
Abstract:
The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for processing signals to remove redundant information thereby making the signals more suitable for transfer through a limited-bandwidth medium. The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems. Typically, the system determines differences between the current input signals and the previous input signals using mean-square difference signals. These mean-square signals are processed and compared with one or more thresholds for determining one of several modes of operation. After processing in some mode, the processed signals are in the form of digital numbers and these digital numbers are coded, using ordered redundancy coding, and transmitted to a receiver.
Music and Radio are businesses, not god-given rights
Actually, radio is a government-given right (or license, to be more precise). In the USA, airwaves are public property, licensed to broadcasters for the public good. That's the theory, anyway, though the practice is somewhat different.
Payola distorts the system. It makes it harder for the public to hear what it wants to hear. Payola is also illegal; that's helps explain why people "jump to the conclusion" that it's a bad thing. Incentives for distribution of music (sales incentives, advertising deals with music stores, etc.) are not illegal, because music sales aren't regulated in the same way.
I think you're misinterpreting his answer. When he writes:
The binaries that are certified by the major ISVs and OEMs will not be made freely available for distribution by anyone.
what he means is that the United Linux vendors will not be making the binaries available for free. This is perfectly legal under the GPL. People who get the source and compile it can distribute the binaries. But United Linux isn't going to help them.
Does anybody know of a VBA macro that uses Word to convert DOC files to OpenOffice-readable files (perhaps RTF) in batch mode? It could watch a directory, or be used from a command line, or something like that. Of course, an Excel equivalent would be nice.
It seems like this would be a big help in moving to OpenOffice, and not that hard to do.
... are they not compelled to have a free download available?
No, that's not what the GPL says. The GPL imposes no requirement, in general, that you make the source code available for public download. If you distribute binary-only copies, then you have to provide a written offer to make the source code available to purchasers.
If Lindows ships with the source included (or if they provide some other means to get it for the cost of distribution), then they have no obligation to make it available for free download. They can charge $1M for downloads if they like. Of course, people who bought Lindows can make it available for download, at whatever cost they like.
That being said, I have no idea whether Lindows includes the source or not.
WTF? If this happens (and I think it will), would anyone notice after several similar stories of how Microsoft has "facilitated domestic terrorism"? Have you seen any stories with such inflammatory headlines (/. excepted)?
I'm worried that Microsoft would steal Wal-Mart's thunder by claiming that remote root exploits and worms were Microsoft's innovations. I don't believe Microsoft has patented them, though.
Re:Public Domain is too free for most creative wor
on
What Is Public Domain?
·
· Score: 2
Not only that, but Sting would be free to copyright them, so I would have to get his permission before releasing an album of my own songs!
Either your concept of public domain is screwed up, or mine is. IANAL, but AFAIK, a song's music arrangement and lyrics may be put into the public domain. Copyrighted recordings may be made of the music and lyrics. That doesn't give the performer the copyright to the music and lyrics; it only gives the performer the copyright to that recording. For example, I can't get a copyright to all performances of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony by recording my performance of it. Nor would Sting be able to claim copyright of your works. But if I go around selling CDs with burned copies of the Philadelphia Orchestra performing Beethoven's Fifth, I will be infringing the Philadelphia Orchestra's copyright.
An excellent point. If there were a small number of programmers for the LGPLed module, that would be a great idea. But for a module that's been developed by many other programmers or corporations, getting permission from all of them would be quite a chore. They have the upper hand once the closed-source vendor has shipped the infringing product, so they have little reason to bargain. Their copyrights were violated, and they have the right to reparations. This, of course, is a major hassle for the closed-source vendor. If one of the copyright holders has especially strong feelings (say, RMS or the FSF), the closed-source vendor would be in an even worse spot.
The real problem with the GPL, from a commercial software provider's point of view, comes when GPLed code is introduced into a commercial product by a programmer without the permission of management. Commercial software projects are composed of people (let's say 50). If one of those 50 people takes a shortcut and includes GPL'd code into the final product, under the GPL, the whole product must be opened up.
I've worked on products where LGPLed code was used in a linked module. This code reuse was unbeknownst to management until the product was days from release. The programmer had made no effort to have the LGPLed source code distributed with the product, a clear violation of the LGPL. This problem was easy to fix, once brought to the attention of management. Since the code was LGPLed, only the source to those modules had to be distributed. If the code were GPLed, and the violation wasn't discovered until after release, the whole project team might have been in deep doo-doo.
I'm not saying the GPL is bad. I'm just saying that it can cause a lot of trouble for the management of software companies due to the bad actions of only 1 employee. That's why they're afraid of it. I know, an employee's other bad actions, like racial discrimination, can cause legal problems for the company, too. But usually management can correct that sort of thing once it's brought to its attention. This isn't always the case with code that's been released.
Well, for married men, this system is a great idea. A married man could simply watermark his wife, so other men would be unable to see her. No more worries about a straying spouse! It's like a modern-day chastity belt. Thanks, DMCA!
The "fogging-up" business might a problem if she's walking in traffic, though. Perhaps the helmet could be revised to block out the watermarked image (turn it jet black) instead of fogging the whole helmet.
Another problem is that the country music industry would begin to demand payments for hurting their business model (that's still a crime, right?). Nobody would buy songs such as, "My Best Friend Left With My Wife, and I Sure Miss Him". They just wouldn't be believable.
Why monitor these channels? Simple. Because criminals still use them. Criminals still use ordinary telephones, though it's been common knowledge for roughly 100 years that phones can be tapped. Without a doubt, the bad guys use code or encryption for many things. But there's still a need to send info in the clear every once in a while. Other info can be useful (who messages are being sent to, when they're sent, how often, etc.)
Criminals always aren't always as smart as you think. They often do things which get them caught. Not always, but often.
First of all, it's presumed innocent, not innocent. Second, the concept of innocence has no place in a civil trial. The decision is based upon the preponderance (50.1%) of the evidence. IANAL, but I took a business law class.
They would only have to release the source of any modified GPL'd software. I can put vi up for purchase without providing the source code as long as I haven't changed it.
IANAL, but I hope that if I have to sue somebody, that you're his lawyer. From the GPL
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Slashdot Mirror
OK, I see it on SourceForge, but there haven't been any releases. What's there to check out?
I disagree about the "lame" part, though. Any PR stunt that costs nothing but has thousands of people reading it is pretty good (from a PR perspective, anyway). I say, "Slashdot, though hast been hacked". It will happen again.
OK, but the problem for Woolston is that not even one claim matches what eBay is doing.
Claims 1-7 do not fit because of eBay doesn't use bar code scanners to scan the product (eBay doesn't even touch the product). I doubt "posting terminal" would be taken to mean every computer owned by anyone who connected to eBay.
Claims 8-14 are close "... said posting terminal apparatus having means for creating a digital image of a good for sale, means for creating a data record of said good for sale, a tracking number printer means, a tracking number scanner means" but not close enough.
Claims 15-22 are also not likely to fit: "posting terminal apparatus, said posting terminal apparatus having a digital camera for creating a digital image of a good for sale, a record maker module for creating a data record of said good for sale, a tracking code printer, a tracking code scanner".
Claims 23-25 mention some of the thing eBay uses, but not all of them are owned by eBay: "said system comprising:
a digital camera for creating a digital image of a good for sale;"
...and...
"a printer for printing said digital image of said good for sale and said textual information from said user; ", so I doubt these claims would be valid.
The main problem for Woolston is that eBay doesn't own all of the items listed in the claim. eBay doesn't own "posting terminals", because its customers do. A similar argument holds for claims 26-29. Woolston apparently had first in his mind a proprietary auction system (the internet is mentioned though), not a system where everyone owns a digital camera and can put stuff up on eBay.
He doesn't HAVE a PO box. According to Verisign's policies, he has to list an address. He can either list his home address (which he doesn't want to do) or get a PO box. He doesn't want to do either.
As part of the lockdown procedure, you should disable automatic updates. Isn't this obvious? Perhaps "locked down" has a different meaning w.r.t FDA part 11 - I'm not familiar with this regualation. But If I want an unchanging system, the first thing I'll do is disable autoupdate.
Look, I'm all in favor of crucifying Microsoft when they are wrong, but it's pretty obvious that people are reading too much into this. They have to put the clause in their EULA, or else people will crucify them for updating their machines without their consent.
I think MS should have their lawyers rewrite this section of the EULA to make it more clear that the computer will go out and look for updates and install them automatically, unless the end user disables this function.
I cannot believe a reasonable, unbiased person would believe that MS would feel entitled to snoop around anyone's machine at their whim as a result of this clause in the EULA. The gov't might feel such an entitlement, but not MS.
Call me guilty of feeding the trolls, but to make generalizations like "giant hipocracy [sic] on the part of corporate America" is completely asinine. Individuals can be guilty of hypocrisy, as can groups with a defined mission, but "Corporate America" is neither of these. You might as well say that homo sapiens are hypocritical because some are opposed to murder and some are murderers. Grow up, learn the meaning of hypocrisy, or both.
#include (but I've read Scott Turow novels)
Abstract: The present invention relates to methods and apparatus for processing signals to remove redundant information thereby making the signals more suitable for transfer through a limited-bandwidth medium. The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems. Typically, the system determines differences between the current input signals and the previous input signals using mean-square difference signals. These mean-square signals are processed and compared with one or more thresholds for determining one of several modes of operation. After processing in some mode, the processed signals are in the form of digital numbers and these digital numbers are coded, using ordered redundancy coding, and transmitted to a receiver.
Payola distorts the system. It makes it harder for the public to hear what it wants to hear. Payola is also illegal; that's helps explain why people "jump to the conclusion" that it's a bad thing. Incentives for distribution of music (sales incentives, advertising deals with music stores, etc.) are not illegal, because music sales aren't regulated in the same way.
#include IANAL.h
It seems like this would be a big help in moving to OpenOffice, and not that hard to do.
If Lindows ships with the source included (or if they provide some other means to get it for the cost of distribution), then they have no obligation to make it available for free download. They can charge $1M for downloads if they like. Of course, people who bought Lindows can make it available for download, at whatever cost they like.
That being said, I have no idea whether Lindows includes the source or not.
I'm worried that Microsoft would steal Wal-Mart's thunder by claiming that remote root exploits and worms were Microsoft's innovations. I don't believe Microsoft has patented them, though.
An excellent point. If there were a small number of programmers for the LGPLed module, that would be a great idea. But for a module that's been developed by many other programmers or corporations, getting permission from all of them would be quite a chore. They have the upper hand once the closed-source vendor has shipped the infringing product, so they have little reason to bargain. Their copyrights were violated, and they have the right to reparations. This, of course, is a major hassle for the closed-source vendor. If one of the copyright holders has especially strong feelings (say, RMS or the FSF), the closed-source vendor would be in an even worse spot.
I've worked on products where LGPLed code was used in a linked module. This code reuse was unbeknownst to management until the product was days from release. The programmer had made no effort to have the LGPLed source code distributed with the product, a clear violation of the LGPL. This problem was easy to fix, once brought to the attention of management. Since the code was LGPLed, only the source to those modules had to be distributed. If the code were GPLed, and the violation wasn't discovered until after release, the whole project team might have been in deep doo-doo.
I'm not saying the GPL is bad. I'm just saying that it can cause a lot of trouble for the management of software companies due to the bad actions of only 1 employee. That's why they're afraid of it. I know, an employee's other bad actions, like racial discrimination, can cause legal problems for the company, too. But usually management can correct that sort of thing once it's brought to its attention. This isn't always the case with code that's been released.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. I agree with your substantive points.
The "fogging-up" business might a problem if she's walking in traffic, though. Perhaps the helmet could be revised to block out the watermarked image (turn it jet black) instead of fogging the whole helmet.
Another problem is that the country music industry would begin to demand payments for hurting their business model (that's still a crime, right?). Nobody would buy songs such as, "My Best Friend Left With My Wife, and I Sure Miss Him". They just wouldn't be believable.
Because this release is the gopher hole patch for IE. That is, Mozilla replaces IE. It took me a second to get it, too.
Criminals always aren't always as smart as you think. They often do things which get them caught. Not always, but often.
First of all, it's presumed innocent, not innocent. Second, the concept of innocence has no place in a civil trial. The decision is based upon the preponderance (50.1%) of the evidence. IANAL, but I took a business law class.
It's classified as a "burglar tool", IIRC