Most is not the same as all. For example Cablevision allows some types of servers including web if you are in a tier above their base service. They even offer help dealing with a dynamic dns service.
I saw mention today that there are 10 financial industry lobbyists per Congressman. Clearly that kind of money wouldn't be spent if it didn't get results.
As far as I can tell Monsanto has never actually brought a patent infringement suit in a case where solely windblown pollen was involved.
(And DON'T give me any hooey about the Schmeiser case - that was not solely windblown pollen - Schmeiser treated and saved seed from plants to get nearly 100% RoundUp Ready seeds which he both sold and replanted).
There have been relevant comments by some leading judges on the topic. For example:
"As Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit asserted in Smithkline Beechum Corp v. Apotex Corp.: âoeI believe that as a matter of fundamental principle it must be an equitable defense to a charge of patent infringement that the patentee caused the infringement.â
This principal clearly points to a defense if such a case were actually brought by Monsanto against a farmer.
GM plants that don't produce a viable seed for the sole purpose of increasing Monsanto's profits at the expense of poor farmers in Brazil, India, and a lot of other places:
REFERENCE NEEDED
And using GM patents to force all farmers in the world to buy your product
I can't believe this misinformation about the Schmeiser case is so wide spread.
The reason Schmeiser lost his case was not due to a small accidental contamination of his crops. Schmeiser noticed a an area of his land that had volunteer canola plants on it, sprayed it to select for Round-Up Ready plants, saved the seed from the surviving plants, and then replanted 1000 acres with the seed, and as well resold some of the selected seed.
The result was a crop that was some 95% RoundUp ready canola due to intentional planting of selected seed.
This was a bald-faced case of intentional patent infringement, not some accidental case of a few wind pollinated plants.
From Wikipedia:
The Canadian Court's ruling concluded:... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffsâ(TM) Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffsâ(TM) patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffsâ(TM) patent."
I don't know what it's like in Oz, but here in the US if you have any sort of income via salary, investments, pensions and yes even selling goods on EBay it gets reported to the IRS on various types of forms generally 1099 or W2 something or another.
One thing to keep in mind is even if the Ebay income is reported on a 1099 to the IRS, that income isn't necessarily profit that you have to pay taxes on. Ebay fees, shipping costs, the costs associated with the acquisition of the items etc all count against the income. And the fact is few people really make any profit on Ebay.
I really don't consider this an unusual invasion of privacy. It part and parcel of the normal invasion of privacy needed to run the system of anal rape known as income tax. Since the US Constitution was amended to enable that many years ago, Congress has the power to write laws to enable it. There isn't much you can do about it except move to someplace that doesn't do that.
> First world nations don't forcibly remove people and place them in another country's custody for shits and giggles.
No, they do it in an open manner according to due process, as was done in this case.
If it really were a witch hunt the UK clearly has the right, in fact duty to deny extradition. They've been up and down on appeals several times, and in a very open manner. The laws are quite clear as to what the situation is.
However your first point was "1. Assanage hasn't even been charged with a crime" as if this was a bar to extradition. We guess what it isn't people do get extradited for that on a regular basis, as a Google search will reveal.
And yes I am ignoring the latter two items because I cannot see how they are germane. Just a couple of straw men.
We've already established that by EU law going to Sweden won't make it possible for the US to extradite him indirectly.
He's being extradited for questioning, something perfectly routine.
Also the sex without condom is not the only charge:
"The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AAâ(TM)s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assangeâ(TM)s alleged initial use of force against her lawful."
I hate to be picky about word use, FSM knows I play fast and loose myself, but isn't it time to drop the use of tax as a word that is synonymous with fee and go back to the traditional meaning?
Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
This treatment slows or prevents the progress of the auto-immune attack of beta cells by pathogenic t-lymphocytes in mice with a specific genetic disorder of a certain type of nerve cell.
Normal mice don't suffer from diabetes via this route, so it's pretty questionable as to whether diabetes is typically neurological or not.
>I'm advocating scrapping it because it's wrong in principle and in practice).
Remember what a patent is - a contract between the inventor and the government where in exchange for a full disclosure of the invention the government grants a limited time license allowing the inventor to prevent others from practicing the invention.
Prior to patents inventors did everything possible to keep their inventions and the principles behind them secret through contracts, trade secrets and obfuscation. Imagine the modern equivalent - a license on everything you buy, even a loaf of bread. This situation was so obnoxious that the concept of the patent arose. And this is what you advocating we return to.
Economic studies show that the patent system is clearly a positive for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. For other industries the current US system is not working well because of exploding litigation costs outweighing the direct economic value to patent holders through licensing. So fixes are needed.
But throwing patents out altogether will be a real problem for R&D in cases where large investments are needed, which is typical in industries like the chemical and pharmaceutical.
Since litigation costs are the primary problem one clear fix would be to raise the bar for granting of patents, and make examination a more meaningful process. This would clearly dramatically reduce litigation and benefit many industries.
The historical fact is that the industrial revolution in England immediately followed the institution of patent laws. While correlation does not imply causation it's important to note that the greatest technological gains in human history have occurred in concert with a working patent system.
Because of this fact I think it is extremely foolish to discard the idea of patents altogether without extreme care.
No, I don't have it backwards. The original statement was that without the current IP system these companies would suddenly be awash with investment financing.
That's clearly not true. There is no reason to invest in something that you can get for free.
And of course this also neglects the issue of exit strategy - for many small companies the end game is selling out to a large company. Without IP I think that's much less likely to occur. Which of course will reduce the attractiveness of the whole process to investors.
Yes there is a huge problem with the current system and trolls, frivolous patents etc. but just throwing up your hands and saying scrap the whole thing neglects the positive side of what is happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Cue the dirty is better theorists.
"If we let the kids play on dirt floors in a filthy home without any disinfectants or vaccinations the would be healthier".
Ignore the fact that historically half of all children died before age 5.
I don't think the valves weighed 7000kg EACH.
Soon Windows Update will distribute these attacks.
Not if they are good at it.
Most is not the same as all. For example Cablevision allows some types of servers including web if you are in a tier above their base service. They even offer help dealing with a dynamic dns service.
That would be -1 redundant.
Granted, that describes a lot of Congress
FTFY.
I saw mention today that there are 10 financial industry lobbyists per Congressman. Clearly that kind of money wouldn't be spent if it didn't get results.
As far as I can tell Monsanto has never actually brought a patent infringement suit in a case where solely windblown pollen was involved.
(And DON'T give me any hooey about the Schmeiser case - that was not solely windblown pollen - Schmeiser treated and saved seed from plants to get nearly 100% RoundUp Ready seeds which he both sold and replanted).
There have been relevant comments by some leading judges on the topic. For example:
"As Judge Richard A. Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit asserted in Smithkline Beechum Corp v. Apotex Corp.: âoeI believe that as a matter of fundamental principle it must be an equitable defense to a charge of patent infringement that the patentee caused the infringement.â
This principal clearly points to a defense if such a case were actually brought by Monsanto against a farmer.
GM plants that don't produce a viable seed for the sole purpose of increasing Monsanto's profits at the expense of poor farmers in Brazil, India, and a lot of other places:
REFERENCE NEEDED
And using GM patents to force all farmers in the world to buy your product
REFERENCE NEEDED
I can't believe this misinformation about the Schmeiser case is so wide spread.
The reason Schmeiser lost his case was not due to a small accidental contamination of his crops. Schmeiser noticed a an area of his land that had volunteer canola plants on it, sprayed it to select for Round-Up Ready plants, saved the seed from the surviving plants, and then replanted 1000 acres with the seed, and as well resold some of the selected seed.
The result was a crop that was some 95% RoundUp ready canola due to intentional planting of selected seed.
This was a bald-faced case of intentional patent infringement, not some accidental case of a few wind pollinated plants.
From Wikipedia:
The Canadian Court's ruling concluded: ... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffsâ(TM) Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffsâ(TM) patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffsâ(TM) patent."
I don't know what it's like in Oz, but here in the US if you have any sort of income via salary, investments, pensions and yes even selling goods on EBay it gets reported to the IRS on various types of forms generally 1099 or W2 something or another.
One thing to keep in mind is even if the Ebay income is reported on a 1099 to the IRS, that income isn't necessarily profit that you have to pay taxes on. Ebay fees, shipping costs, the costs associated with the acquisition of the items etc all count against the income. And the fact is few people really make any profit on Ebay.
I really don't consider this an unusual invasion of privacy. It part and parcel of the normal invasion of privacy needed to run the system of anal rape known as income tax. Since the US Constitution was amended to enable that many years ago, Congress has the power to write laws to enable it. There isn't much you can do about it except move to someplace that doesn't do that.
The accepted way of expressing this is
1. Acquire
2. Pump
3, IPO
4. ???
5. Profit!!
There is one good thing about it - you don't need to set up another bleeding service.
I'd say Yammer was a win then.
> First world nations don't forcibly remove people and place them in another country's custody for shits and giggles.
No, they do it in an open manner according to due process, as was done in this case.
If it really were a witch hunt the UK clearly has the right, in fact duty to deny extradition. They've been up and down on appeals several times, and in a very open manner. The laws are quite clear as to what the situation is.
However your first point was "1. Assanage hasn't even been charged with a crime" as if this was a bar to extradition. We guess what it isn't people do get extradited for that on a regular basis, as a Google search will reveal.
And yes I am ignoring the latter two items because I cannot see how they are germane. Just a couple of straw men.
We've already established that by EU law going to Sweden won't make it possible for the US to extradite him indirectly.
So now exactly what are you complaining about?
Ultimately this sort of thing will drive development of all sorts of encryption and identity concealment technologies.
Probably it'll change internet culture where everything used to be open now everything will be concealed.
The internet is growing up.
These days you don't need physical goods. Data will do just fine.
Extraditions for questioning are not unusual, as a quick Google search will quickly determine.
As far as the crime, I take it you are an expert in Swedish law? There are multiple charges in the extradition request.
He's being extradited for questioning, something perfectly routine.
Also the sex without condom is not the only charge:
"The first complaint described a situation in which Assange held down the arms of the woman known as AA, preventing her from reaching a condom as he attempted to pry her legs open with his own legs in order to penetrate her vaginally. AAâ(TM)s subsequent consent to intercourse after he had agreed to put on a condom, they found, did not render Assangeâ(TM)s alleged initial use of force against her lawful."
Plus a few others, many presumably for National Guard training prior to deployment overseas.
I hate to be picky about word use, FSM knows I play fast and loose myself, but isn't it time to drop the use of tax as a word that is synonymous with fee and go back to the traditional meaning?
Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
Mt. Washington seems to me to be a good place for testing/training under difficult conditions.
One thing the article didn't consider is some of these sites may be for development.
This treatment slows or prevents the progress of the auto-immune attack of beta cells by pathogenic t-lymphocytes in mice with a specific genetic disorder of a certain type of nerve cell.
Normal mice don't suffer from diabetes via this route, so it's pretty questionable as to whether diabetes is typically neurological or not.
>I'm advocating scrapping it because it's wrong in principle and in practice).
Remember what a patent is - a contract between the inventor and the government where in exchange for a full disclosure of the invention the government grants a limited time license allowing the inventor to prevent others from practicing the invention.
Prior to patents inventors did everything possible to keep their inventions and the principles behind them secret through contracts, trade secrets and obfuscation. Imagine the modern equivalent - a license on everything you buy, even a loaf of bread. This situation was so obnoxious that the concept of the patent arose. And this is what you advocating we return to.
Economic studies show that the patent system is clearly a positive for the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. For other industries the current US system is not working well because of exploding litigation costs outweighing the direct economic value to patent holders through licensing. So fixes are needed.
But throwing patents out altogether will be a real problem for R&D in cases where large investments are needed, which is typical in industries like the chemical and pharmaceutical.
Since litigation costs are the primary problem one clear fix would be to raise the bar for granting of patents, and make examination a more meaningful process. This would clearly dramatically reduce litigation and benefit many industries.
The historical fact is that the industrial revolution in England immediately followed the institution of patent laws. While correlation does not imply causation it's important to note that the greatest technological gains in human history have occurred in concert with a working patent system.
Because of this fact I think it is extremely foolish to discard the idea of patents altogether without extreme care.
No, I don't have it backwards. The original statement was that without the current IP system these companies would suddenly be awash with investment financing.
That's clearly not true. There is no reason to invest in something that you can get for free.
And of course this also neglects the issue of exit strategy - for many small companies the end game is selling out to a large company. Without IP I think that's much less likely to occur. Which of course will reduce the attractiveness of the whole process to investors.
Yes there is a huge problem with the current system and trolls, frivolous patents etc. but just throwing up your hands and saying scrap the whole thing neglects the positive side of what is happening.