The eminent domain power is used to *permanently* acquire property; a compulsory license, as the name would suggest, is not a permanent taking. The compulsory licensing scheme set out in article 31 of the TRIPS agreement sets out a number of conditions that a country seeking such a license must meet, and the terms of the license are also limited in a number of ways (for example, the license "shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use").
Importantly, if the conditions upon which the compulsory license is based (in this case, the inability for Merck and Brazil to see eye-to-eye on price) change, the license will *expire*. Thus, it's not accurate to imply that Brazil is acquiring the patent by what is basically its power of eminent domain. Brazil isn't acquiring anything really, since a change in circumstances could terminate its rights to continue using the patent.
And lastly, don't forget that (since this is a license, after all) TRIPS requires Brazil to pay Merck at some rate which will have to be determined later. Brazil wouldn't have to do that if it simply acquired the patent via its eminent domain power.
I agree with you completely. If a child has a history of harmful online behavior and the parents knew about it, that changes the analysis completely. All I meant is that, as a general rule (i.e., not referring to a specific case), I don't think it's really feasible to require parents to monitor internet usage at a detailed level.
I agree with you completely. It is a parent's job to generally monitor internet usage, but it's problematic in a number of ways to require a parent to monitor individual postings, etc. But I want to add that yes, if a child has a history of harmful online behavior and the parents knew about it, that changes the analysis completely. All I meant is that, as a general rule (i.e., not referring to a specific case), I don't think it's really feasible to require parents to monitor internet usage at a detailed level.
IIAL, and I would just love to work on the parents' defense in this case. Suggesting that there is some sort of duty to micromanage your child's online activity is ludicrous. I strongly doubt that there is a court out there willing to impose upon all parents the duty to closely monitor a child's use of the internet or to prohibit the child from accessing the internet in the absence of supervision. It's just an unworkable proposition, in my oh-so-humble opinion.
Nothing revolutionary here
on
Living In Oblivion
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I purchased Oblivion a few days ago, and while I have enjoyed it, I find it disappointingly similar to its predecessor, Morrowind. I enjoyed Morrowind a great deal, and love the open-ended nature of the series, but other than the improvements in graphics (and the introduction of a few changes, like the "fast travel" option), Oblivion seems to be a carbon copy of Morrowind. All in all, Oblivion is still a fine game, but I expected a step forward in more than the cosmetic sense.
I think that one of the things lost in this conversation is that there is no such thing as a "protected" type of use. Just because a work gets pigeonholed as parody does not make its use presumptively fair. Likewise, satire is not presumptively unfair.
The key case relied upon in the parody argument is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164 (1994). But even this case is illustrative of the fact that fair use cases are, at best, coin-tosses. The fair use analysis is too complex to boil down to simple statements like "Parody is fair use," or "Commercial use is not fair use." There is no quick way to get to these conclusions.
You pompous ass. One software group chooses to capitalize on a controversy, and you think it is news. The motive here is cash, and not the 'souls of geeks' or whatnot. The only thing righteous in this context is your sense of self.
I agree with you to some extent that this is patronizing. There are many of us who, though possessing enough technical knowledge to be considered a 'geek,' have enough social skill to get along in any setting.
However, there are many, many/.'ers that need all the help they can get. I think that the author did a good job of just being friendly and helpful to these folks.
I know the historical context here, but don't you think this sentence is a bit obtuse? It is amazing how you can just sabotage your own article by using style such as this.
Sigh...
"Viewing Qt with all the enthusiasm of an Indian sepoy regiment facing a fresh shipment of.303 cartridges slathered in pork grease and beef tallow, the most extreme free software adherents decided the only way to prevent such a calamity was to eliminate the taint of proprietary software altogether."
Slashdot Mirror
The eminent domain power is used to *permanently* acquire property; a compulsory license, as the name would suggest, is not a permanent taking. The compulsory licensing scheme set out in article 31 of the TRIPS agreement sets out a number of conditions that a country seeking such a license must meet, and the terms of the license are also limited in a number of ways (for example, the license "shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use").
Importantly, if the conditions upon which the compulsory license is based (in this case, the inability for Merck and Brazil to see eye-to-eye on price) change, the license will *expire*. Thus, it's not accurate to imply that Brazil is acquiring the patent by what is basically its power of eminent domain. Brazil isn't acquiring anything really, since a change in circumstances could terminate its rights to continue using the patent.
And lastly, don't forget that (since this is a license, after all) TRIPS requires Brazil to pay Merck at some rate which will have to be determined later. Brazil wouldn't have to do that if it simply acquired the patent via its eminent domain power.
I agree with you completely. If a child has a history of harmful online behavior and the parents knew about it, that changes the analysis completely. All I meant is that, as a general rule (i.e., not referring to a specific case), I don't think it's really feasible to require parents to monitor internet usage at a detailed level.
I agree with you completely. It is a parent's job to generally monitor internet usage, but it's problematic in a number of ways to require a parent to monitor individual postings, etc. But I want to add that yes, if a child has a history of harmful online behavior and the parents knew about it, that changes the analysis completely. All I meant is that, as a general rule (i.e., not referring to a specific case), I don't think it's really feasible to require parents to monitor internet usage at a detailed level.
IIAL, and I would just love to work on the parents' defense in this case. Suggesting that there is some sort of duty to micromanage your child's online activity is ludicrous. I strongly doubt that there is a court out there willing to impose upon all parents the duty to closely monitor a child's use of the internet or to prohibit the child from accessing the internet in the absence of supervision. It's just an unworkable proposition, in my oh-so-humble opinion.
I purchased Oblivion a few days ago, and while I have enjoyed it, I find it disappointingly similar to its predecessor, Morrowind. I enjoyed Morrowind a great deal, and love the open-ended nature of the series, but other than the improvements in graphics (and the introduction of a few changes, like the "fast travel" option), Oblivion seems to be a carbon copy of Morrowind. All in all, Oblivion is still a fine game, but I expected a step forward in more than the cosmetic sense.
The key case relied upon in the parody argument is Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164 (1994). But even this case is illustrative of the fact that fair use cases are, at best, coin-tosses. The fair use analysis is too complex to boil down to simple statements like "Parody is fair use," or "Commercial use is not fair use." There is no quick way to get to these conclusions.
You pompous ass. One software group chooses to capitalize on a controversy, and you think it is news. The motive here is cash, and not the 'souls of geeks' or whatnot. The only thing righteous in this context is your sense of self.
I agree with you to some extent that this is patronizing. There are many of us who, though possessing enough technical knowledge to be considered a 'geek,' have enough social skill to get along in any setting.
However, there are many, many /.'ers that need all the help they can get. I think that the author did a good job of just being friendly and helpful to these folks.
I know the historical context here, but don't you think this sentence is a bit obtuse? It is amazing how you can just sabotage your own article by using style such as this.
.303 cartridges slathered in pork grease and beef tallow, the most extreme free software adherents decided the only way to prevent such a calamity was to eliminate the taint of proprietary software altogether."
Sigh...
"Viewing Qt with all the enthusiasm of an Indian sepoy regiment facing a fresh shipment of
Bad. Bad. BAD.