Why funny you should mention that... why just last week I was posting on/. when I noticed that the button underneath that said 'Submit' and I thought to myself, you know what, they should be giving me money... You see, back when computers with GUI's were just being thought of I patented the "Ok" & "Cancel" buttons, then when the internet began going graphical I saw the potential and I patented the 'Send' button (already having a patent on Cancel I didn't need a new one).
Now, as you can see Submit is quite similar to Send both in the meaning of the word and what the button does, so as such/. owes me money. So you know what, I think I'm gonna sue em... I'll be rich! I'll be financially secure! I'll be... awww hell, it didn't work for Apple, it (hopefully) won't work for Adobe, and it sure as hell wouldn't work for me...
-GreenHell (who doesn't really own the patent on Ok and Cancel but wishes he did)
I got that too, that the patent is just on tabbed palettes, however, IMHO Adobe isn't on very strong legal ground, after all, tabs are quite common and as such it would be hard to prove infringement. Personally I can't even see WHY they were allowed to take out a patent on the damned things in the first place, maybe its just cuz the patent office loves to hand the things out...
Anyways, for more information see the adobefacts website which unfortunately seems to be./'d (or something) at this time... anyone manage to grab the pics before it went down?
Industry executives say CD prices have risen since the May settlement.
Perhaps that could say: CD Prices have risen as sales have decreased.
or how 'bout: CD Prices haves risen as sales have increased
or maybe: CD prices have risen due to the fact that we have to pay for the massive promotion costs of that last boy/girl group we signed 'cuz that music won't sell itself, even though if your buying this CD you wouldn't be caught dead listening, let alone buying, the CD of that boy/girl group but we're gonna make you pay for it anyway...
or maybe: CD prices have risen as we felt we needed a raise, after all you can never be making too much
"When a star appeared it was a sign to raise CD prices, when the rains came it was a sign to raise CD prices, when at midnight was born a two headed cow it was a sign to raise CD prices, when at noon was born a perfectly normal cow with no complications what-so-ever it was a sign to raise CD prices" (apologies to Mr. Adams)
It uses a TV instead of a monitor
Well, this may just be me, or it may be because of the 'nostalgia' stories that./ seems to have been running lately (the one about dejavu.org and the recent one on old video games come to mind) but for some reason this reminded me of something...
So then, who all remembers the days when computers with TV's instead of monitors were the standard instead of something special (Of course you do...)
Now... who still has their old computer like that somewhere? Come on, come on, admit it...
There, that's better, I knew I wasn't the only one...
On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......
hmmmm.... seen this link lately? seems the RIAA agrees with you somewhat in that respect, they believe they should be allowed to charge, using the average retail price of $12.75 in 1996 as a basis (what the hell? I never paid that little for a new CD ever... damn, where they getting their numbers from... anyways... to get back on point...)
THe RIAA believes that they should be allowed to charge $33.86 for a CD (and this is in funds from 4 years ago, so allow for inflation, and just generally wanting to f*ck over the customer when coming up with a new price)
Hmmmm.... can anyone say "Out of touch"? How about "Clueless", "Greedy", or "Getting what they deserve"? Good.... I knew that you could
(From the ZDNet story): "Saying there's a strong likelihood that the recording industry will prevail..."
Something tells me the verdict on this one was already decided before it got to trial. Of course, the RIAA doesn't care about the new study that came out that shows that Napster users tend to download more music, or that this is going to hurt independent bands. In fact, it says it in the same article:
"Patel's decision marked a major victory for the U.S. recording industry, which had targeted Napster as a dangerous Internet rival that could short-circuit traditional music sales."
There we have it folks, they consider Napster a rival, which means that its in competition and all they want to do is regain control of their near monopoly (cuz let's face it, there are other labels, but its not like they're easy to find)
As for "traditional music sales", well you can tell that that means the watered down pop-drival, radio friendly bubblegum and gargantuan rock/metal bands (no offense intended to any one who listens to any of those). The RIAA doesn't care that this may help end the careers of the current indie and unsigned bands who may one day become the next Matchbox 20 or Metallica, those are merely possible profits, and not actual profits (which they've yet to definately prove their losing anyways), instead they are suing for possible and future losses. (If the logic here seems confusing, it is... Really this case doesn't make much sense to me either)
Of course, we couldn't expect them to be anything near consistent, after all this is a group that said (from the MSNBC article):
     The recording industry says the Napster case isn't about alienating music lovers, but rather about protecting artists.      "Clearly, people who are using Napster love music. They're probably our best customers," said Hilary Rosen, president of the RIAA.
Hmmmm.... so Hilary, let me get this straight, you're saying that Napster is causing you to lose money, but the users are your best customers, and you don't want to alienate these customers, but at the same time you are alienating them by cutting off their access to out of print songs & unsigned artists. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as some of your previous logic.
don't know whether the copy i'm looking at is out of date... but according to this version , under section 53: Offences, it states:
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if-
(a) sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
(b) the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
so even if you can say you forgot it, you must still prove that beyond a reasonable doubt... of course the version I was reading says nothing of that, you must either prove you did not have the key at the time notice was given or that it was not reasonably practicle to disclose the key at the time but you did disclose it as soon as it was (Section 53, subsection 4). (Of course, no definition of reasonably practicle is given, much like no definition of reasonable doubt is...)
This, from what comments I have read seems to be the main problem with the bill... if you are asked to hand over a key you are guilty of failure to disclose it unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you never had it... now it canbe hard enough to prove you had something if you no longer possess it, imagine proving that you didn't have the key (Defendent: Well Your Honour, if you look at my hardrive you can see it's not there... Judge: Ah but you could have deleted it. Guilty)
hmmm.... all this gives me an idea... let's all send the MP's an email that's encrypted and let them prove they never had the key... I'm sure we'll see just how flexible "reasonable doubt" can be then...
Well, this may be only me... but it doesn't surprise me with the results, and I know for a fact that I actually bought fewer CD's before I discovered MP3's, of course most of them were second hand so the record companies weren't getting my money before anyways...
Now, I have quite a few MP3's, a lot of them however I now own on CD, others I just haven't been able to find the CD (out of print, small label, etc.)
Now, to get back on track...since I discovered MP3's I've been buying more CD's than before, and whats more, most of them are now purchased new... reason being I have to order them as they can be rather obscure. I also know for a fact that most of these CD's I wouldn't have bought if I hadn't heard them first (with prices ranging from 25 to 30 dollars for a single CD I better be sure I'm gonna enjoy it before I buy it)
I know some people are going to be laughing at me for paying that much for a CD, and that others are going to be saying that I should just save that money and buy a portable MP3 player... well, I may not be able to tell the quality difference between MP3's and CD's on my crappy speakers, but most of my CD listening takes place on headphones, which is where a lot of the inadequacies (sp?) of MP3's can IMHO be heard... and that's my (slightly more probably) than $0.02
ok, off topic, but this is kinda funny... mofo.com is owned by Morrison & Foerster, Attorneys at Law (that and MoFo is a registered trademark of theirs, go figure...)
somehow, I don't feel sorry for them if they do get your spam though...
Slashdot Mirror
Why funny you should mention that... why just last week I was posting on /. when I noticed that the button underneath that said 'Submit' and I thought to myself, you know what, they should be giving me money... You see, back when computers with GUI's were just being thought of I patented the "Ok" & "Cancel" buttons, then when the internet began going graphical I saw the potential and I patented the 'Send' button (already having a patent on Cancel I didn't need a new one).
/. owes me money. So you know what, I think I'm gonna sue em... I'll be rich! I'll be financially secure! I'll be... awww hell, it didn't work for Apple, it (hopefully) won't work for Adobe, and it sure as hell wouldn't work for me...
Now, as you can see Submit is quite similar to Send both in the meaning of the word and what the button does, so as such
-GreenHell (who doesn't really own the patent on Ok and Cancel but wishes he did)
I got that too, that the patent is just on tabbed palettes, however, IMHO Adobe isn't on very strong legal ground, after all, tabs are quite common and as such it would be hard to prove infringement. Personally I can't even see WHY they were allowed to take out a patent on the damned things in the first place, maybe its just cuz the patent office loves to hand the things out...
./'d (or something) at this time... anyone manage to grab the pics before it went down?
Anyways, for more information see the adobefacts website which unfortunately seems to be
-GreenHell
Industry executives say CD prices have risen since the May settlement.
Perhaps that could say: CD Prices have risen as sales have decreased.
or how 'bout: CD Prices haves risen as sales have increased
or maybe: CD prices have risen due to the fact that we have to pay for the massive promotion costs of that last boy/girl group we signed 'cuz that music won't sell itself, even though if your buying this CD you wouldn't be caught dead listening, let alone buying, the CD of that boy/girl group but we're gonna make you pay for it anyway...
or maybe: CD prices have risen as we felt we needed a raise, after all you can never be making too much
"When a star appeared it was a sign to raise CD prices, when the rains came it was a sign to raise CD prices, when at midnight was born a two headed cow it was a sign to raise CD prices, when at noon was born a perfectly normal cow with no complications what-so-ever it was a sign to raise CD prices" (apologies to Mr. Adams)
-GreenHell (I'm not bitter, really)
It uses a TV instead of a monitor ./ seems to have been running lately (the one about dejavu.org and the recent one on old video games come to mind) but for some reason this reminded me of something...
Well, this may just be me, or it may be because of the 'nostalgia' stories that
So then, who all remembers the days when computers with TV's instead of monitors were the standard instead of something special (Of course you do...)
Now... who still has their old computer like that somewhere? Come on, come on, admit it...
There, that's better, I knew I wasn't the only one...
-GreenHell
On the other hand, there should be laws against the RIAA giants charging $18 for a damn CD......
hmmmm.... seen this link lately? seems the RIAA agrees with you somewhat in that respect, they believe they should be allowed to charge, using the average retail price of $12.75 in 1996 as a basis (what the hell? I never paid that little for a new CD ever... damn, where they getting their numbers from... anyways... to get back on point...)
THe RIAA believes that they should be allowed to charge $33.86 for a CD (and this is in funds from 4 years ago, so allow for inflation, and just generally wanting to f*ck over the customer when coming up with a new price)
Hmmmm.... can anyone say "Out of touch"? How about "Clueless", "Greedy", or "Getting what they deserve"? Good.... I knew that you could
-GreenHell
(From the ZDNet story):
"Saying there's a strong likelihood that the recording industry will prevail..."
Something tells me the verdict on this one was already decided before it got to trial. Of course, the RIAA doesn't care about the new study that came out that shows that Napster users tend to download more music, or that this is going to hurt independent bands. In fact, it says it in the same article:
"Patel's decision marked a major victory for the U.S. recording industry, which had targeted Napster as a dangerous Internet rival that could short-circuit traditional music sales."
There we have it folks, they consider Napster a rival, which means that its in competition and all they want to do is regain control of their near monopoly (cuz let's face it, there are other labels, but its not like they're easy to find)
As for "traditional music sales", well you can tell that that means the watered down pop-drival, radio friendly bubblegum and gargantuan rock/metal bands (no offense intended to any one who listens to any of those). The RIAA doesn't care that this may help end the careers of the current indie and unsigned bands who may one day become the next Matchbox 20 or Metallica, those are merely possible profits, and not actual profits (which they've yet to definately prove their losing anyways), instead they are suing for possible and future losses. (If the logic here seems confusing, it is... Really this case doesn't make much sense to me either)
Of course, we couldn't expect them to be anything near consistent, after all this is a group that said (from the MSNBC article):
     The recording industry says the Napster case isn't about alienating music lovers, but rather about protecting artists.
     "Clearly, people who are using Napster love music. They're probably our best customers," said Hilary Rosen, president of the RIAA.
Hmmmm.... so Hilary, let me get this straight, you're saying that Napster is causing you to lose money, but the users are your best customers, and you don't want to alienate these customers, but at the same time you are alienating them by cutting off their access to out of print songs & unsigned artists. Well, I guess it makes as much sense as some of your previous logic.
-GreenHell
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time if-
so even if you can say you forgot it, you must still prove that beyond a reasonable doubt...
of course the version I was reading says nothing of that, you must either prove you did not have the key at the time notice was given or that it was not reasonably practicle to disclose the key at the time but you did disclose it as soon as it was (Section 53, subsection 4).
(Of course, no definition of reasonably practicle is given, much like no definition of reasonable doubt is...)
This, from what comments I have read seems to be the main problem with the bill... if you are asked to hand over a key you are guilty of failure to disclose it unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you never had it... now it canbe hard enough to prove you had something if you no longer possess it, imagine proving that you didn't have the key
(Defendent: Well Your Honour, if you look at my hardrive you can see it's not there...
Judge: Ah but you could have deleted it. Guilty)
hmmm.... all this gives me an idea... let's all send the MP's an email that's encrypted and let them prove they never had the key... I'm sure we'll see just how flexible "reasonable doubt" can be then...
Well, this may be only me... but it doesn't surprise me with the results, and I know for a fact that I actually bought fewer CD's before I discovered MP3's, of course most of them were second hand so the record companies weren't getting my money before anyways...
Now, I have quite a few MP3's, a lot of them however I now own on CD, others I just haven't been able to find the CD (out of print, small label, etc.)
Now, to get back on track...since I discovered MP3's I've been buying more CD's than before, and whats more, most of them are now purchased new... reason being I have to order them as they can be rather obscure. I also know for a fact that most of these CD's I wouldn't have bought if I hadn't heard them first (with prices ranging from 25 to 30 dollars for a single CD I better be sure I'm gonna enjoy it before I buy it)
I know some people are going to be laughing at me for paying that much for a CD, and that others are going to be saying that I should just save that money and buy a portable MP3 player... well, I may not be able to tell the quality difference between MP3's and CD's on my crappy speakers, but most of my CD listening takes place on headphones, which is where a lot of the inadequacies (sp?) of MP3's can IMHO be heard... and that's my (slightly more probably) than $0.02
ok, off topic, but this is kinda funny...
mofo.com is owned by Morrison & Foerster, Attorneys at Law (that and MoFo is a registered trademark of theirs, go figure...)
somehow, I don't feel sorry for them if they do get your spam though...