I think the $50,000 is more to weed out who's really serious about making a business commitment and to see who's just messing around.
There are other, better ways to measure seriousness than money, like how effectively an applicant makes its case and whether or not the applicant's proposal is supported or opposed by others. $50,000 seems outrageous to me.
>>Isn't BT in danger of losing it's patent? I mean if enough substantial information can be shown that "hyperlinks" existed before BT pateted them, then can't BT lose the patent? Not being familliar with English law, can Prodigy sue BT for bringing a "frivilous" lawsuit?<<
It's not about English law. BT "discovered that it owns the U.S. patent for the invention of the hyperlink technology" (emphasis added) and is bringing the suit in a
U.S. federal court.
(See the article already referred to.)
Still doesn't really answer the question about whether they might lose their patent, but it seemed fair to clarify.
Common sense would seem to suggest that their getting the patent in the first place was inappropriate, though. Hopefully this case will be thrown out and/or BT sufficiently humiliated as to cut it out with this sort of thing.
> > It's interesting to note in the article that only 50% of the royalties will go to the artists. < <
It'd also be interesting to see who "the artists" are in RIAA-speak.
Under the RIAA-pushed laws that require payment of royalties on the purchase of DAT machines and DAT audio media, consumers have to pay the RIAA-approved "artists" even if the DAT machine and media are being used only for the creation of new works. If I'm an artist, using a DAT machine in my home studio to create new works to which I hold copyright, I still have to give money to the RIAA.
Based on past performances, I've concluded that one of the RIAA's main goals is to keep new artists from taking advantage of new technologies to compete against the established recording industry. Or more accurately, the RIAA wants to ensure that, as new artists increasingly take advantage of technologies that allow them more easily to work outside the established recording industry, the RIAA is somehow still able to get a cut of this activity, from which they would otherwise be excluded.
> This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. <
Right, this is an important distinction. Barring people from actually making purchases of certain items might (or might not) be one thing, but barring them from simply viewing certain classes of items is dangerous. Moreover, I think this particular stand by France, may put France -- a member country of the OSCE -- at odds with the Helsinki Final Act (see also, for good measure, the French-language text), the document that lays out some of that organization's fundamental principles.
The participating states -- including France -- made it
"
their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds, to encourage co-operation in the field of information and the exchange of information with other countries"...
Of course the particular intentions don't specifically mention the internet, but then this dates back to 1975; certainly seems to go against the spirit of the document, and probably against a number of later commitments under international law.
The Mercury News has some additional numbers (mostly California, but also talks about national norms and compares them to Palm Beach County, Florida) in this article.
I found this paragraph particularly interesting,
Nationally, about 2 percent of ballots cast in presidential elections aren't recorded as a vote for that office, said Kim Brace, president of Election Data Services, a Washington, D.C., consulting agency.
Replying to my own post to add some updated information in reference to my earlier mention of "spoiled ballots" in Chicago.
Today's Chicago Tribune has a story ("Chicago certifies vote") that gives the number of "ballots cast... in which a vote for president was not counted." Due to both undervotes and overvotes (the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners doesn't differentiate), the number was 72,093 or seven percent.
If we had a system where the president would be elected by a plurality of the national popular vote, surely the Bush people would be challenging this, trying to gain additional votes through a recount. Just two more cities with situations like this and -- under an election by national popular vote -- that's enough to change the outcome.
The Electoral College -- or, more precisely, an electoral system where each State has a given number of votes for president -- does have at least one major advantage in a close election. It serves to contain disputes and demands for recounts and actually makes it easier to determine the winner; it serves as a buffer that protects against a Florida fiasco on the national level.
Nationally, out of the 98,303,931 votes cast (and unofficially counted so far) for the two major-party candidates, Gore leads Bush by only 216,291 votes, a fraction of one percent. (You can get these numbers from any number of places; I've taken them from http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/poli tic s/.)
If it weren't for the Electoral College, I think you'd be seeing challenges to the results and demands for recounts or revotes even in those areas where everyone agrees that one candidate or the other won comfortably. In Chicago, for example, Gore got 769317 votes to Bush's 164919 (http://www.chicagoelecti ons.com/CHI1100ReportPage5.html), but I wouldn't be surprised if there somewhere around a third as many spoiled ballots (50,000 in Cook County, IL in the 1996 election rings a bell) as there were votes for Bush, but there's no need for a recount because everybody agrees that Gore won Illinois, and it isn't the nation-wide popular vote that matters. The two sides would be trying to squeeze every last vote out of every last precinct in the whole country if it weren't for the Electoral College limiting that nightmare to Florida and a few counties elsewhere.
Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the Electoral College should be retained in its present form, but it certainly does suggest that we shouldn't be so quick to discard the balance it provides between national and federal elements in the American system of electing presidents.
Webster and "E-mail" (was Re:It's email.)
on
"e-mail" vs "email"
·
· Score: 1
I work at a publication that bases its style on Webster's CollegiateDictionary, which -- funny enough -- does have it as "E-mail." Take a look at the entry at Merriam-Webster OnLine.
While editors may regard Webster as the final authority, I don't necessarily, especially on words like this (surely it was used before 1982?), but for the sake of consistency, an authority like this can be helpful.
Yeah, the biggest problem in his quote is really
the use of the word "create." The intention is something more along the lines of "foster," "further," or "develop" than "creation from nothing." To the extent that the internet is a work in progress -- its creation is ongoing -- the direct quote really isn't much more than your usual run-of-the-mill D.C. hyperbole. Unfortunately for Gore, it's also a great boner of an out-of-context soundbite.
Of course, one of the big reasons such a low percentage of eligible voters actually turn out on election day is quite probably prececisely the issue here: the two major parties put up idiots as candidates. Well, they aren't exactly *idiots*, but their main purpose is clearly to maximize votes for their respective parties, NOT to have good ideas, or big ideas, or even ideas at all.
Bush had his "dark heart" comment in the second debate, but let's not forget that Gore started off the first debate with a pledge to fight "cultural pollution," which I'm sure -- in his thinking -- includes such things as video-game violence and much of the less mainstream content of the world wide web (the sorts of things censorware would tend to have problems with -- not just porn).
And not only things like Babelfish, but what about your simple, run-of-the-mill proxy server? For that matter what about cache files on a local machine? Everytime you look at a web page, you're downloading a copy for personal use; companies trying to block that fundamental fact of the world wide web are essentially saying, "We've got this great web site, but we think it's illegal for anyone to look at it." What the #^%@??
Slashdot Mirror
There are other, better ways to measure seriousness than money, like how effectively an applicant makes its case and whether or not the applicant's proposal is supported or opposed by others. $50,000 seems outrageous to me.
Still doesn't really answer the question about whether they might lose their patent, but it seemed fair to clarify.
Common sense would seem to suggest that their getting the patent in the first place was inappropriate, though. Hopefully this case will be thrown out and/or BT sufficiently humiliated as to cut it out with this sort of thing.
It'd also be interesting to see who "the artists" are in RIAA-speak.
Under the RIAA-pushed laws that require payment of royalties on the purchase of DAT machines and DAT audio media, consumers have to pay the RIAA-approved "artists" even if the DAT machine and media are being used only for the creation of new works. If I'm an artist, using a DAT machine in my home studio to create new works to which I hold copyright, I still have to give money to the RIAA.
Based on past performances, I've concluded that one of the RIAA's main goals is to keep new artists from taking advantage of new technologies to compete against the established recording industry. Or more accurately, the RIAA wants to ensure that, as new artists increasingly take advantage of technologies that allow them more easily to work outside the established recording industry, the RIAA is somehow still able to get a cut of this activity, from which they would otherwise be excluded.
> This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. <
Right, this is an important distinction. Barring people from actually making purchases of certain items might (or might not) be one thing, but barring them from simply viewing certain classes of items is dangerous. Moreover, I think this particular stand by France, may put France -- a member country of the OSCE -- at odds with the Helsinki Final Act (see also, for good measure, the French-language text), the document that lays out some of that organization's fundamental principles.
The participating states -- including France -- made it
Of course the particular intentions don't specifically mention the internet, but then this dates back to 1975; certainly seems to go against the spirit of the document, and probably against a number of later commitments under international law.
I found this paragraph particularly interesting,
Today's Chicago Tribune has a story ("Chicago certifies vote") that gives the number of "ballots cast ... in which a vote for president was not counted." Due to both undervotes and overvotes (the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners doesn't differentiate), the number was 72,093 or seven percent.
If we had a system where the president would be elected by a plurality of the national popular vote, surely the Bush people would be challenging this, trying to gain additional votes through a recount. Just two more cities with situations like this and -- under an election by national popular vote -- that's enough to change the outcome.
The Electoral College -- or, more precisely, an electoral system where each State has a given number of votes for president -- does have at least one major advantage in a close election. It serves to contain disputes and demands for recounts and actually makes it easier to determine the winner; it serves as a buffer that protects against a Florida fiasco on the national level.
Nationally, out of the 98,303,931 votes cast (and unofficially counted so far) for the two major-party candidates, Gore leads Bush by only 216,291 votes, a fraction of one percent. (You can get these numbers from any number of places; I've taken them from http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/poli tic s/.)
If it weren't for the Electoral College, I think you'd be seeing challenges to the results and demands for recounts or revotes even in those areas where everyone agrees that one candidate or the other won comfortably. In Chicago, for example, Gore got 769317 votes to Bush's 164919 (http://www.chicagoelecti ons .com/CHI1100ReportPage5.html), but I wouldn't be surprised if there somewhere around a third as many spoiled ballots (50,000 in Cook County, IL in the 1996 election rings a bell) as there were votes for Bush, but there's no need for a recount because everybody agrees that Gore won Illinois, and it isn't the nation-wide popular vote that matters. The two sides would be trying to squeeze every last vote out of every last precinct in the whole country if it weren't for the Electoral College limiting that nightmare to Florida and a few counties elsewhere.
Of course this doesn't necessarily mean that the Electoral College should be retained in its present form, but it certainly does suggest that we shouldn't be so quick to discard the balance it provides between national and federal elements in the American system of electing presidents.
There's no federal law requiring them to go with the popular vote, but does anyone know whether Florida has laws requiring this? See answers to the questions Are electors required to vote for the candidate who won his or her State's popular vote? and What would happen if two candidates tied in a State's popular vote, or there was a dispute as to the winner? in the FAQ on the Electoral College section of the National Archives web site.
I work at a publication that bases its style on Webster's CollegiateDictionary, which -- funny enough -- does have it as "E-mail." Take a look at the entry at Merriam-Webster OnLine.
While editors may regard Webster as the final authority, I don't necessarily, especially on words like this (surely it was used before 1982?), but for the sake of consistency, an authority like this can be helpful.
If you want to vote for one of these candidates and s/he's not on the ballot in your state, you should be able to write your candidate in.
Yeah, the biggest problem in his quote is really
the use of the word "create." The intention is something more along the lines of "foster," "further," or "develop" than "creation from nothing." To the extent that the internet is a work in progress -- its creation is ongoing -- the direct quote really isn't much more than your usual run-of-the-mill D.C. hyperbole. Unfortunately for Gore, it's also a great boner of an out-of-context soundbite.
Of course, one of the big reasons such a low percentage of eligible voters actually turn out on election day is quite probably prececisely the issue here: the two major parties put up idiots as candidates. Well, they aren't exactly *idiots*, but their main purpose is clearly to maximize votes for their respective parties, NOT to have good ideas, or big ideas, or even ideas at all. Bush had his "dark heart" comment in the second debate, but let's not forget that Gore started off the first debate with a pledge to fight "cultural pollution," which I'm sure -- in his thinking -- includes such things as video-game violence and much of the less mainstream content of the world wide web (the sorts of things censorware would tend to have problems with -- not just porn).
And not only things like Babelfish, but what about your simple, run-of-the-mill proxy server? For that matter what about cache files on a local machine? Everytime you look at a web page, you're downloading a copy for personal use; companies trying to block that fundamental fact of the world wide web are essentially saying, "We've got this great web site, but we think it's illegal for anyone to look at it." What the #^%@??