Yeah, you know, if you had bothered to read the article you might have posted something that makes sense, instead you post that pile.
This is not about employer-employee non-compete agreements. This is about two companies making a legally binding agreement not to poach each other's employees. Now, one of the companies, RIM, wants to renege on the agreement and has been sending job offers to Motorola's employees. Rim is choosing the employees using information gained through the agreement which specifically forbade it from poaching employees.
Apparently, you didn't read or understand the write or the articles.
First, RIM and Motorola have/had an agreement not to poach each other's employees.
Second, the agreement in question is not about preventing employees from accepting jobs, but rather keeps RIM from making offers to Motorola employees.
Third, RIM is the company trying to higher people from Motorola. If the court side's with RIM, RIM gets to hire the employees, which is the exact opposite of what you have described.
RIM , in a complaint filed in state court in Chicago, asked for an order invalidating an agreement the companies reached this year not to solicit each other's employees, the agency said.
The fact that RIM had already agreed NOT to solicit Motorola's employees makes this the lawsuit very unreasonable.
The agreement expired in August and is no longer enforceable, the agency said, citing the complaint.
The agreement has expired, then why the lawsuit?
From one article:
Motorola is improperly trying to expand the agreement 'to prevent the RIM entities from hiring any Motorola employees, including the thousands of employees Motorola has already fired or will fire,' RIM was quoted as saying in the complaint by the agency.
But from the other:
RIM (nasdaq: RIMM - news - people ), in a complaint filed in state court in Chicago, asked for an order invalidating an agreement the companies reached this year not to solicit each other's employees, the agency said.
So, both companies agreed not to solicit each other's employees and now RIM wants out of the deal. Why should the be let out of the deal?
The lawsuit comes three months after Motorola sued RIM in Chicago in violation of the agreement, according to the agency.
Either the writer is incompetent or the above is false because "three months" ago was after the agreement supposedly expired, therefore the suit could not be in violation of the agreement.
From the linked letter to Congress:
Recapturing Congressionally authorized EB green cards from prior fiscal years that went unused due to bureaucratic delays would help reduce visa backlogs. EB green card recapture has been endorsed by over 70 employer, family and community-based organizations. In 2005, 85 U.S. Senators voted in support of green card recapture.
How does that apply to anything in this case, in any way shape or form?
To me, this looks like a lot of biased reporting and RIM trying to weasel it's way out of an agreement.
The only problem is that "news on the net" comes from the people who write the newsprint articles. Once newspapers go away, the few real journalists that are still working will dwindle to zero and reliable news will be a thing of the past.
One's opinion is irrelevant since one has not payed for something?
The OPs opinion doesn't matter because he doesn't respect the laws in question. He would deprive the copyright owner's of their legally guaranteed rights, just like your worthless ass would.
Or is the idea that one's opinion is irrelevant unless you pay the author of the work? Well fuck... guess we should just stop talking about Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Byron, Da Vinci, Van Gogh and every single dead artist and their work cause as much as we try it ain't likely that they will ever see a dime from us.
No, because you are to fucking stupid to understand that one's opinion about copyright issues is only as valid as one's respect and understanding of said copyrights. And, as the works of every one of those "authors" you listed is in the public domain because their copyrights expired, maybe you should shut the fuck up until you learn what you are talking about.
And since I too have read Watchmen first in scanned form, only later getting my own printed copy, I guess that makes our opinions about on the same level.
Fox acquired rights to the "Watchmen" graphic novel in the late 1980s for the producer Lawrence Gordon ... Mr. Gordon later pursued the project with Universal Pictures, and then with Paramount Pictures, before shooting it with Warner and Legendary under an arrangement that allows Paramount to distribute the film abroad.
Looks to me like Mr. Gordon has some explaining to do.
The idea that the internet is transforming our buying habits was first popularised in an article written by Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of the technology magazine Wired, in October 2004. The article, titled "The long tail", became a blog, a best-selling book and a marketing mantra.
Anderson's premise was simple. Before the internet, even the largest retailer had physical constraints on the variety of stuff like books, CDs and DVDs it could profitably sell. Savvy store owners had to tailor their stock to maximise returns from limited shelf space, and consumers had to make do with what was on offer.
In cyberspace, by contrast, shelf space is practically unlimited and other overheads at rock bottom. Online retailers can take advantage of that to sell vast catalogues of obscure products at little or no extra cost.
Anderson postulated that this new breadth of choice was leading to a metamorphosis of the classic demand curve. Instead of a steep peak representing comparatively few big-selling items, a gentler curve spread over far more products was emerging - creating the eponymous long tail (see graph).
To Anderson, this migration to the long tail is a journey of self-discovery for all of us. "As a teenager in the 1970s, I listened to one of the 10 radio stations on offer, but I'm not sure I really knew what my taste was." Now, he says, we are all finding out - and discovering that we like quite different things. His conclusion is summarised in the subtitle of his book: "The future of business is selling less of more".
Because the GNOME guys didn't come up with, and may not want, it. Because this is not "linux UI development", it is Ubuntu specific UI development.
Remember boys (and girls, if the three of you are reading this) Linux doesn't have a GUI, it has various flavors of X Windows. X Windows doesn't have a window manager, it has 15. X Windows doesn't have a desk top environment, it has at least two that I know of and possibly more.
That game is designed to demean a particular politician.
How about the other games that are out there, such as the anti-insurgent/terrorist suppression game. It is not based on any facts, but claims to model how terrorists are created. Of course, it does not show how terrorists killing others results in counter attacks. No, that would be to real and would not support their contention, which appears to be "Ignore them killing others and they will go away."
And, the same goes for most political cartoons which use ad homonym attacks, misrepresentations, denigration, and derision, to the exclusion of fact or fairness, to bolster the cartoonists hate and bias.
If mean spreading hate, lies, and disinformation biased to the creators belief, being one-sided and often one dimensional and completely ignoring the facts, then I would say yes.
The whole article is (partially) rooted in a faulty premise
Show the premise of faulty. Oh, wait, you can't because it isn't. Your convoluted explanation shows how little you know and understand of IP and IP law.
And, what is really funny to me is that your ilk have no problem violating other people's copyright thus violating the "a safe haven for innovation and rights to control and benefit from the fruits of one's own innovation".
Your ignorance and selfish attitude does not justify what you do, asshole. Now go STFU and die.
He said IP law, not copyright, dumbass. IP law exists to give copyright, which you so (un)helpfully defined, "a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property".
Here is an idea: You and your ilk should try NOT twisting words and phrases. Your ilk loves to misquote, interchange words, and diliberately misrepresent the statements of others and you do it because your arguments can not stand otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, you know, if you had bothered to read the article you might have posted something that makes sense, instead you post that pile.
This is not about employer-employee non-compete agreements. This is about two companies making a legally binding agreement not to poach each other's employees. Now, one of the companies, RIM, wants to renege on the agreement and has been sending job offers to Motorola's employees. Rim is choosing the employees using information gained through the agreement which specifically forbade it from poaching employees.
Apparently, you didn't read or understand the write or the articles.
First, RIM and Motorola have/had an agreement not to poach each other's employees.
Second, the agreement in question is not about preventing employees from accepting jobs, but rather keeps RIM from making offers to Motorola employees.
Third, RIM is the company trying to higher people from Motorola. If the court side's with RIM, RIM gets to hire the employees, which is the exact opposite of what you have described.
You missed this part:
The fact that RIM had already agreed NOT to solicit Motorola's employees makes this the lawsuit very unreasonable.
The agreement has expired, then why the lawsuit?
From one article:
But from the other:
So, both companies agreed not to solicit each other's employees and now RIM wants out of the deal. Why should the be let out of the deal?
Either the writer is incompetent or the above is false because "three months" ago was after the agreement supposedly expired, therefore the suit could not be in violation of the agreement.
From the linked letter to Congress:
How does that apply to anything in this case, in any way shape or form?
To me, this looks like a lot of biased reporting and RIM trying to weasel it's way out of an agreement.
Your ignorance and bias does not make you the voice of "the masses".
If one is not unbiased, then one is not a journalist, one is merely a writer.
The only problem is that "news on the net" comes from the people who write the newsprint articles. Once newspapers go away, the few real journalists that are still working will dwindle to zero and reliable news will be a thing of the past.
You are fucking idiot.
The OPs opinion doesn't matter because he doesn't respect the laws in question. He would deprive the copyright owner's of their legally guaranteed rights, just like your worthless ass would.
Looks to me like Mr. Gordon has some explaining to do.
As forpeople who think "Fox waited till Warner Brother's practically had the film released before they bothered to excercise their copyright on the film", you and your ilk don't know the whole story. Fox could have sent them a nice little note saying they already had the rights, maybe even offered to sell the rights, and Warner just ignored them. Remember, sometimes the best way to punish someone is to let them hang themselves.
Oh, sure, NOW you suggest it.
While there is a need for Sarbenes-Oxeley like laws, Sarbenes-Oxeley is a horrible, short-sighted, reactionary implementation.
It is overly cumbersome, poorly targeted, and is of questionable value in preventing further fraud.
If you don't believe me, ask some professionals in the field.
Hmm. I think that if there were no distro-specific apps, there would really be no need for different distros. But, I could be wrong.
For a visual, check out the graph in the article.
Because the GNOME guys didn't come up with, and may not want, it.
Because this is not "linux UI development", it is Ubuntu specific UI development.
Remember boys (and girls, if the three of you are reading this) Linux doesn't have a GUI, it has various flavors of X Windows. X Windows doesn't have a window manager, it has 15. X Windows doesn't have a desk top environment, it has at least two that I know of and possibly more.
That is what I get for not getting any sleep
That game is designed to demean a particular politician.
How about the other games that are out there, such as the anti-insurgent/terrorist suppression game. It is not based on any facts, but claims to model how terrorists are created. Of course, it does not show how terrorists killing others results in counter attacks. No, that would be to real and would not support their contention, which appears to be "Ignore them killing others and they will go away."
And, the same goes for most political cartoons which use ad homonym attacks, misrepresentations, denigration, and derision, to the exclusion of fact or fairness, to bolster the cartoonists hate and bias.
More people, especially children, living in poverty stricken countries. And, more reasons for those fake charities to beg for money.
If mean spreading hate, lies, and disinformation biased to the creators belief, being one-sided and often one dimensional and completely ignoring the facts, then I would say yes.
Show the premise of faulty. Oh, wait, you can't because it isn't. Your convoluted explanation shows how little you know and understand of IP and IP law.
And, what is really funny to me is that your ilk have no problem violating other people's copyright thus violating the "a safe haven for innovation and rights to control and benefit from the fruits of one's own innovation".
Your ignorance and selfish attitude does not justify what you do, asshole. Now go STFU and die.
So, the real question becomes, "If you had used Word, as your publisher was using, would the problem have occured at all?"
Then you will have no problem listing several, with examples.
[ Insert EMACS vs VI flame war here ]
Did you write your part of the book using Word, or did you use some FLOSS?
He said IP law, not copyright, dumbass. IP law exists to give copyright, which you so (un)helpfully defined, "a similar type of protection as that afforded to physical property".
Here is an idea: You and your ilk should try NOT twisting words and phrases. Your ilk loves to misquote, interchange words, and diliberately misrepresent the statements of others and you do it because your arguments can not stand otherwise.
Which P?