Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using). You're unlikely to get caught by the patent holder, but it's still not legal. Here's the relevant section of US code.
Which would be as 'easy' as divvying up User_X's 15/mo between the licensors of the stuff User_X watched (proportionally by time watched. Watching the first 15 minutes of a 3 hour movie and quitting in disgust only counts as 15 minutes:)
I think he was concerned less with the density and more with the ability to respond to cyclical changes in demand. Nuclear plants like to run at a steady output and aren't the best at changing that level quickly. A good storage system can mitigate this by saving excess power produced at low demand times and giving it back at high demand times, but currently the preferred method is to use constant stuff at the low demand level and pull in something like natural gas that can spin up quickly to fill in the peaks.
I do (though I will admit that PF has many more songs that I like than BB), and while my intelligence may be questionable, my existence is pretty solid. At least to me. Your philosophy may vary:)
Using the phone as a GPS is not illegal if you do it right: hands free mount in one of the lower corners of the windshield, out of the way of airbag deployment. The link posted by hawguy has details, and mentions that the case was about hands-free use versus holding the phone in hand.
As I read it, Impy was saying the legal team didn't think they could win (except perhaps by the 'smother-with-lawyers' method). My take was more that even if the legal team does think they could win, with only a hundred hours of lawyer time, that's probably on the order of $50k. Google Maps isn't something they make money on directly; they give it away and make money off the data they can gather. "Search Nearby" isn't likely to gain or lose enough users to make $50k difference in the money they make off the data, so now the accountants would say it's not worth the effort.
TL;DR: Impy thinks the lawyers gave up, I think the accountants did
And if the car caused the accident because of a manufacturer defect (including software) the insurance company has enough heft to go after the manufacturer (which the driver probably doesn't).
so should ISPs, frankly. They have a better chance of convincing regulators to let them charge more for special stuff if they can show how it's really different, and 'multicast makes us buy new hardware!' would be an awesome tool in that attempt.
Patent laws won't need to change much; if your V12 is a copy of Ferrarri's V12 and they have a patent, it's applicable already. Copyright could be tricky, but given the precedent that fashion and (iirc) architecture don't have copyright protection (on the finished product; architectural drawings are copyrighted) a case could be made that the engine itself isn't copyrightable and reverse engineering it back to plans is legitimate. Then you just have to get an engine controller chip, whose firmware will definitely be copyrighted...
Slashdot Mirror
(probably) true, but that's because they're trademarked and/or copyrighted, not patented.
Sadly no. Making patented gadgets for your own use is an infringement (both for making and for using). You're unlikely to get caught by the patent holder, but it's still not legal. Here's the relevant section of US code.
To clarify: the list of ingredients is not copyrightable. The instructions on what to do with the ingredients may be.
and a reduction in average physical activity
Which would be as 'easy' as divvying up User_X's 15/mo between the licensors of the stuff User_X watched (proportionally by time watched. Watching the first 15 minutes of a 3 hour movie and quitting in disgust only counts as 15 minutes :)
You would be in excellent company :)
I think he was concerned less with the density and more with the ability to respond to cyclical changes in demand. Nuclear plants like to run at a steady output and aren't the best at changing that level quickly. A good storage system can mitigate this by saving excess power produced at low demand times and giving it back at high demand times, but currently the preferred method is to use constant stuff at the low demand level and pull in something like natural gas that can spin up quickly to fill in the peaks.
I do (though I will admit that PF has many more songs that I like than BB), and while my intelligence may be questionable, my existence is pretty solid. At least to me. Your philosophy may vary :)
what, storing intercepted wifi traffic instead of just the ssid? I doubt they'd forget that one.
Target price, $6 million each :)
The earlier link you posted, I should say. Didn't realize it was you again til after I hit submit :)
Using the phone as a GPS is not illegal if you do it right: hands free mount in one of the lower corners of the windshield, out of the way of airbag deployment. The link posted by hawguy has details, and mentions that the case was about hands-free use versus holding the phone in hand.
In the fire swamp, no less.
As I read it, Impy was saying the legal team didn't think they could win (except perhaps by the 'smother-with-lawyers' method). My take was more that even if the legal team does think they could win, with only a hundred hours of lawyer time, that's probably on the order of $50k. Google Maps isn't something they make money on directly; they give it away and make money off the data they can gather. "Search Nearby" isn't likely to gain or lose enough users to make $50k difference in the money they make off the data, so now the accountants would say it's not worth the effort.
TL;DR: Impy thinks the lawyers gave up, I think the accountants did
Nah, Google's beancounters decided the feature wouldn't pay for the lawyer time.
AOL didn't have Comcast's market penetration; they depended on other people's wire.
Or a number of years ago, when Iraq was considering selling oil for Euros instead of dollars...
It's prejudicial against 5th century Germanic tribes. If anyone finds a Vandal to complain, I'll back them 100%.
And if the car caused the accident because of a manufacturer defect (including software) the insurance company has enough heft to go after the manufacturer (which the driver probably doesn't).
Is that supposed to be disagreement?
depends whether the general populace will see "making sure these revewers were actually customers" as an attack. (or even know it happened...)
Nah, it makes sense. It comes out, roughly, to "I do not regret ignoring high yelp ratings when deciding where to go"
the original intent of copyright (which is roughly to encourage creators to keep creating)
Except it wasn't. The original intent of copyright was protectionism for the king's favorite printing press owner.
so should ISPs, frankly. They have a better chance of convincing regulators to let them charge more for special stuff if they can show how it's really different, and 'multicast makes us buy new hardware!' would be an awesome tool in that attempt.
Patent laws won't need to change much; if your V12 is a copy of Ferrarri's V12 and they have a patent, it's applicable already. Copyright could be tricky, but given the precedent that fashion and (iirc) architecture don't have copyright protection (on the finished product; architectural drawings are copyrighted) a case could be made that the engine itself isn't copyrightable and reverse engineering it back to plans is legitimate. Then you just have to get an engine controller chip, whose firmware will definitely be copyrighted...