While I'm interested in Vergil's story, I am more interested to learn what, specifically, does an "e-commerce policy analyst" do and how does one become an e-commerce policy analyst? While stuck with code-block for too long, not interested in cold-calling (aka 'business development'), not at all interested in 100% travel (aka 'consulting'... yes, I like to live somewhere), this position really sounds interesting to me.
I would welcome the opportunity to be stuck in some cube, making good $ and writing "e-commerce white papers" with technological and competitive analysis. Any info on e-commerce policy analyst positions?
Reading the responses here, I feel alone in my perception that technology is moving too slow. Where is the combined TV/stereo/computer/vcr/telephone/monitor device? Fiber running to each home and room? VR TV shows and movies? High-quality and real-time streaming video phones? Teleporter?
It seemed that things were moving at a good pace with wireless devices and advances on the Net, and we would fulfill the expectations of "Back to the Future." But, many things seem to have not changed, and out of the above items, "fiber running to each home" seems to be the most significant slow moving tech. Maybe its because my phone lines go only to 26800 and, although I use a cable modem, this would prohibit advances in TV and communications.
Are my expectations are too high? Anyone else share my belief that tech is moving way too damn slow?
This is the kind of crap an attorney has to deal with. For the general populous, this phrase would mean the state of affairs, what is current. The definition of 'status quo' could vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction but should be similar to the following: "[t]he status quo is the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status that preceded the controversy." State v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975). So, looking at Nap v. RIAA, what was the last event that would be noncontested in this suit? Probably the non-operation of Napster. The contested issue in this case is the operation of Napster itself. Disclaimer: I don't know shit about the law. I'm a moron.
Ummm... this is not legal advice in any way and should not be construed as such. I am a complete idiot. Don't rely on anything in this message. I am stew- ped. Ok. An injunction is a remedial writ. Meaning that its purpose is to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. It is no way an advance ruling on the merits or issues. There are many types of injunctions, but in all cases the RIAA would have had to show specific elements like a probable right to relief and probable injury. These elements are much easier to meet compared to the elements necessary for a successful judgment. It is a way of saying: "Stop everything, don't touch anything. We want to see what is going on here." (probably not too difficult to argue in front of a tech incompetent judge ("the Internet moves soooo fast")). I don't know krap. So, if an injuction requires Napster to pull the plug on the server, then it must do so. This is an order by a court, not a result of an action by the plaintiff (RIAA). There is no remedy for damages resulting from an injuction. In other words, Napster would have no reason to sue. Besides, if they did, who would they sue? The court? I know nothing about the law.
I'm amazed at how slowly laptops have adopted CDRW as a standardized device. Seems to make sense to me... no need for a zip and can drastically increase the desktop's current storage workspace. BTW, DVD/CDRW would be nice.
What interests me about these shows is that they demonstrate how Linux is no longer truly 'free.' Of course, most of us here just downloaded are dist. and not paying the extra 'media costs.' But, obviously someone is paying for the Linux dists considering that these companies are making $$$. Interesting how things that are 'free' no longer are. Is this the future of free/open source? Pay-for open source? Get the software, pay for all the support? (damn, like MS provides any support with Win)
By applying precedent to any other case, this would not have happened. Trademark infringement requires confusion by the public as a result of an infringing mark. Generally, this requires the use of the supposed infringing mark in the same market as a plaintiff mark. Here, a court should compare Corinthians.com, the use of a mark on a product displaying scripture from the book of Corinthians, with Corinthian, the use of a mark for a soccer team to determine market confusion. Confusion? No freaking way (this is not a legal opinion in any way. I don't know shit). Consistently, the U.S. and world legal systems view the Internet as such a "new thing" that it requires special treatment and the formation of new legal precendent. This is a dangerous course, in my opinion, because as these ill decisions are formalized, precedent is then created so that future cases will rely upon them to form decisions. It is unfortunate that 99.99% of the legal system is ignorant of technology. 2quam4
Where the hell does Apple get their counsel? Sounds like MSFT: a tech company hiring non-tech competent attorneys who are only motivated by greed rather than the promises of technology. JMO, trade dress would be a better argument. Again, probably for this to be a trade secret, Apple would have to show reasonable precautions. If it was pretty easy to learn of these rumors, Apple shouldn't have a chance, again JMO. But, this is the way the system works; Even if Apple is wrong -- are you now going to pay a lawyer to fight Apple in court? These companies need to hire attorneys who really know 1) the law and 2) tech.
It sounds like Apple is utilizing trademark law and maybe trade secret law to have the rumors removed. You're right, there probably isn't an argument here for a copyright infringement. But, there could be a trademark infringement because you can essentially trademark a dress (trade dress), the look/appearance/feel of a product/place. For instance, McDonalds probably has a trademark on the appearance of its restaurants. A company could have a trademark on the appearance of its computer -- as long as it is unique/novel. I think I remember Apple bringing suit against e-Machines for 'copying' its iMac design/dress. As long as Apple could show a distinctive actistic style, they'd probably get protection. For trade secret law, Apple would have to show that this information is substantially secret -- how much did the public know about this information? Also, Apple needs to demonstrate that it has exercised reasonable precautions to keep the information a secret. I don't know much about the specifics of these rumors, but I'd bet by the mere fact that the rumors are abound, Apple hasn't taken reasonable precautions. If I was Apple, I'd go for the trade dress argument. Its product might be inherently distinctive here. None of this information should be construed to be legal advice, its just my worthless personal opinion.
This sounds very similar to AOL's (cough, cough) Spinner.com -- Internet radio with hundreds of genre-based channels, which is free. What VC is backing this deal? Maybe I should send them a plan... BTW, now P2P is the 'in thing' with VCs (I would think profitability would be, but who am I?), do you think virtually any P2P plan could get funding? Its odd how VCs flock in the same direction.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, consult." And those who can't consult, join the military. I'm under the impression that this gentleman will make a fine enlistee if he ventures past the ivy.
Slashdot Mirror
While I'm interested in Vergil's story, I am more interested to learn what, specifically, does an "e-commerce policy analyst" do and how does one become an e-commerce policy analyst? While stuck with code-block for too long, not interested in cold-calling (aka 'business development'), not at all interested in 100% travel (aka 'consulting'... yes, I like to live somewhere), this position really sounds interesting to me. I would welcome the opportunity to be stuck in some cube, making good $ and writing "e-commerce white papers" with technological and competitive analysis. Any info on e-commerce policy analyst positions?
Reading the responses here, I feel alone in my perception that technology is moving too slow. Where is the combined TV/stereo/computer/vcr/telephone/monitor device? Fiber running to each home and room? VR TV shows and movies? High-quality and real-time streaming video phones? Teleporter? It seemed that things were moving at a good pace with wireless devices and advances on the Net, and we would fulfill the expectations of "Back to the Future." But, many things seem to have not changed, and out of the above items, "fiber running to each home" seems to be the most significant slow moving tech. Maybe its because my phone lines go only to 26800 and, although I use a cable modem, this would prohibit advances in TV and communications. Are my expectations are too high? Anyone else share my belief that tech is moving way too damn slow?
This is the kind of crap an attorney has to deal with. For the general populous, this phrase would mean the state of affairs, what is current. The definition of 'status quo' could vary jurisdiction by jurisdiction but should be similar to the following: "[t]he status quo is the last, actual, peaceable, noncontested status that preceded the controversy." State v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 526 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. 1975). So, looking at Nap v. RIAA, what was the last event that would be noncontested in this suit? Probably the non-operation of Napster. The contested issue in this case is the operation of Napster itself. Disclaimer: I don't know shit about the law. I'm a moron.
Thanx. Appreciate it. It doesn't take a moron to understand legal malpractice and disciplinary actions.
Ummm... this is not legal advice in any way and should not be construed as such. I am a complete idiot. Don't rely on anything in this message. I am stew- ped. Ok. An injunction is a remedial writ. Meaning that its purpose is to preserve the status quo pending a trial on the merits. It is no way an advance ruling on the merits or issues. There are many types of injunctions, but in all cases the RIAA would have had to show specific elements like a probable right to relief and probable injury. These elements are much easier to meet compared to the elements necessary for a successful judgment. It is a way of saying: "Stop everything, don't touch anything. We want to see what is going on here." (probably not too difficult to argue in front of a tech incompetent judge ("the Internet moves soooo fast")). I don't know krap. So, if an injuction requires Napster to pull the plug on the server, then it must do so. This is an order by a court, not a result of an action by the plaintiff (RIAA). There is no remedy for damages resulting from an injuction. In other words, Napster would have no reason to sue. Besides, if they did, who would they sue? The court? I know nothing about the law.
I'm amazed at how slowly laptops have adopted CDRW as a standardized device. Seems to make sense to me... no need for a zip and can drastically increase the desktop's current storage workspace. BTW, DVD/CDRW would be nice.
What interests me about these shows is that they demonstrate how Linux is no longer truly 'free.' Of course, most of us here just downloaded are dist. and not paying the extra 'media costs.' But, obviously someone is paying for the Linux dists considering that these companies are making $$$. Interesting how things that are 'free' no longer are. Is this the future of free/open source? Pay-for open source? Get the software, pay for all the support? (damn, like MS provides any support with Win)
By applying precedent to any other case, this would not have happened. Trademark infringement requires confusion by the public as a result of an infringing mark. Generally, this requires the use of the supposed infringing mark in the same market as a plaintiff mark. Here, a court should compare Corinthians.com, the use of a mark on a product displaying scripture from the book of Corinthians, with Corinthian, the use of a mark for a soccer team to determine market confusion. Confusion? No freaking way (this is not a legal opinion in any way. I don't know shit). Consistently, the U.S. and world legal systems view the Internet as such a "new thing" that it requires special treatment and the formation of new legal precendent. This is a dangerous course, in my opinion, because as these ill decisions are formalized, precedent is then created so that future cases will rely upon them to form decisions. It is unfortunate that 99.99% of the legal system is ignorant of technology. 2quam4
I'm not sure that this is what is meant by the commercialization of space.
Where the hell does Apple get their counsel? Sounds like MSFT: a tech company hiring non-tech competent attorneys who are only motivated by greed rather than the promises of technology. JMO, trade dress would be a better argument. Again, probably for this to be a trade secret, Apple would have to show reasonable precautions. If it was pretty easy to learn of these rumors, Apple shouldn't have a chance, again JMO. But, this is the way the system works; Even if Apple is wrong -- are you now going to pay a lawyer to fight Apple in court? These companies need to hire attorneys who really know 1) the law and 2) tech.
It sounds like Apple is utilizing trademark law and maybe trade secret law to have the rumors removed. You're right, there probably isn't an argument here for a copyright infringement. But, there could be a trademark infringement because you can essentially trademark a dress (trade dress), the look/appearance/feel of a product/place. For instance, McDonalds probably has a trademark on the appearance of its restaurants. A company could have a trademark on the appearance of its computer -- as long as it is unique/novel. I think I remember Apple bringing suit against e-Machines for 'copying' its iMac design/dress. As long as Apple could show a distinctive actistic style, they'd probably get protection. For trade secret law, Apple would have to show that this information is substantially secret -- how much did the public know about this information? Also, Apple needs to demonstrate that it has exercised reasonable precautions to keep the information a secret. I don't know much about the specifics of these rumors, but I'd bet by the mere fact that the rumors are abound, Apple hasn't taken reasonable precautions. If I was Apple, I'd go for the trade dress argument. Its product might be inherently distinctive here. None of this information should be construed to be legal advice, its just my worthless personal opinion.
Morrison & Foerster http://www.mofo.com Maye its just me, but I wouldn't use their address.
This sounds very similar to AOL's (cough, cough) Spinner.com -- Internet radio with hundreds of genre-based channels, which is free. What VC is backing this deal? Maybe I should send them a plan... BTW, now P2P is the 'in thing' with VCs (I would think profitability would be, but who am I?), do you think virtually any P2P plan could get funding? Its odd how VCs flock in the same direction.
"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, consult." And those who can't consult, join the military. I'm under the impression that this gentleman will make a fine enlistee if he ventures past the ivy.
"It's the porn pop-ups! I feel....saturated by them." LOL