Without patents, companies have less incentive to spend money on research, when they can simply take the research that someone else did. It's a powerful incentive to know that if you develop a new technology that you'll be able to recoup those costs without getting undercut.
Companies, however, will try to take patented ideas/products and get around that protection, because it's cheaper to get to market, undercut the developer and then handle the lawsuits. They might be in discussions with the technology developer for years, stalling them and stalling them while they're outselling the original because their price is lower since they don't have to recoup the development costs.
In the abstract, that's why patents are useful, and why they do help to "advance the state of art" and "make more options available for consumers".
Do you REALLY think this just started with Bush? Or just this century?
All that's happened recently is it's now harder to hide things, and easier to leak anonymously. Politician hiding information they don't like is far, far older.
Bush didn't teach them shit about corruption - see J. Edgar Hoover.
There's a mix of problems - and part of the problem is Congress passing unconstitutional laws. That seems more common recently than the Supreme Court making bad calls. And then pass the same law declared unconstitutional again, moving a few letters around. You know - if the folks in robes say you can't do this for reasons XYZ, then don't freaking do it!
The most disheartening thing I've heard in a while is that if immigration reform doesn't happen in the next few months, it won't happen for several years. That's an issue that no politician in office has the balls to actually bring up and discuss in an election year. There is something that is guaranteed to piss somebody off.
Politics in general are just borked up. The US is copying other countries in bringing in the extremists. Add in the massive media campaigns that we've got now (thanks, Slick Willie, 'perciate you showing everyone the way), and it's taken to a new level. Oddly, though, the Presidential election cycle represents a major economic boost to all forms of media. I can't remember the estimate I heard, but it was in the billions, and most of that was for the Presidential race (primaries included).
I'd love to see a massive campaign financing reform, but in today's age, I don't think it would matter. Massive internet campaigns hosted outside the US. Privately funded attack adds (Swift Boat is going to look weak compared to the next batch). I just don't think it can be done.
If I did, it would only be after a CYA e-mail to the controller. Something along the lines of "I'm ready to begin installing Office on our PC's. From what I can tell, we only have XX licenses, so we can only install it on XX machines. Can you confirm for me that we have enough licenses for the YY machines I'm supposed to install it on?"
Put the controller on the spot, and make darn sure that you print out his response, and forward that message to a few outside addresses.
You're putting the RIAA into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situations.
You can't get detailed information to name a specific person if you don't file a lawsuit. BUT, you can't get that detailed information unless you file a lawsuit.
I feel that if the RIAA can present to a judge the IP address and the evidence the RIAA has that this IP address is probably downloading copyrighted information they probably don't have the rights to, an order should be given.
The alternatives are equally ugly - file a suit that this IP address is being bad. That's pretty universally derided both here and elsewhere (even courts!).
So what do you expect them to do, given they are (and will be) aggressive in defending their copyrights?
Okay - I'm trying to find a problem here, and can't.
RIAA has an IP they believe is downloading copyrighted material. This allows them to request that the ISP give them the personal information of the person that was using the IP addresses, according to the logs of the ISP. This request must include the court's order, which specifically mentions that the ISP can move to squash the request.
So the RIAA can take the information they have (the IP), and get the detailed information they need to file a full lawsuit. I think they've been getting burned on their "John Doe" lawsuits, so they're actually trying to get the right info early on.
I think that both sides are playing some games on this, however. From the defendant's motion, the notice of deposition was sent to the lawyer for the mother. The lawyers for the mother replied that they aren't the attorney's for the kids.
HUH?
What's missing from this is the timing of these events. When did the mother's lawyers get the notice? When did they respond to the RIAA?
I'm guessing that the RIAA is trying to find out if the kids were using the computer. I don't that's too much of a fishing expedition if the IP address for the house is shared by multiple computers.
I'm surprised that the motion didn't cover those dates. If the defendant's lawyers responded quickly to the initial notice, saying they aren't the right attorney's, why didn't they mention that in the motion? That surely would have strengthed their case. If they responded late (say, 2 days before the scheduled deposition), they might want to avoid mentioning that.
If you read the court order, the judge noted that the plaintiff's case was largely dependant on the evidence on that hard drive. Without that evidence, the case was significantly harder (if not impossible) to prove. The judge also held that the actions by the defendant were deliberate and that the defendant knew she had an obligation to preserve the evidence.
With all that, it's hard to see how the judge could have done anything other than what he did.
Is it soley private use if the new use results in significant and new tax reveneues for the city? Is this justified if the city is quite well off? If the city is deteriorating?
Is it soley private use if the new use is public park? Mixed private development and public park?
ED should be used for the benefit of the public - I think nearly everyone can accept that concept. The problem is defining "the benefit of the public", and when that benefit outweighs the rights of the current land owner.
I've always thought that an land acquired through ED should have 2 costs associated with it. First, a fair market value paid up front to the owner. Second, the greater 10% of the increased property value or 10% of the original valuee to be paid on the latter of 10 years after purchase or 7 years after development, but no more than 15 years after purchase. This way, if the land is turned into a private development, and the value goes up, the original owner gets an additional payment.
There are times, I believe, that the rights of the commons must outweigh the rights of the individual. When that happens, the individual should be compensated for both their property and their trouble, and share in any potential benefits.
Take a municipality that's starting to struggle, a large employer or two has left, the median income has dropped, and there's not much hope for a turn-around.
The community is probably fine, and can provide basic services, but that's about it. No community center. Minimal parks. Fees for trash pickup, leaf pickup, etc.
A developer comes and presents a plan that would dramatically change the prospects of that city. A strong core of residential and commercial locations; new growth - a chance for the city to be reborn, to be vibrate again.
Is that worth it? Does the potential justify the taking of private property? (local example - new shopping center has led to a massive improvement in a local community. Did the benefit of 10k+ residents and 100k+ consumers outweigh the costs so 10-20 owners? In this case, yes)
The Court essentially said that such decisions should be locally made by ruling that there isn't anything federal to restrict those actions. What caught everyone by surprise is that there were minimal local rules about this, and that was a shame. It's been going on for quite some time, but didn't get significant media time. The ruling brought the issue up to mainstream attention where it needed to be.
You gave the example of non-blighted areas being taken - that goes against my personal views of when ED should be used. The fact that loopholes exist should be blamed entirely on the elected officials that created them.
There are times when the public benefit from a project should require that private owners sell their property at a fair price. That process needs to be clear, open and fair to all sides. It should only be used when the benefit is significant for that local community, the benefit is needed by that community and the chance of harm or stagnation by the community is likely if the action is not taken.
To be really anal, the Court more accurately said that the US Constitution allows this, but that the States and local communities can (and should) further restrict such actions.
Applying big, broad standards isn't always a good thing. The solution to this, and what has happened in many places, is that the states and local governments need to discuss and determine the limitations of eminent domain in their area. The needs of one community may not match another, so the rules can, and should, change.
Let me give you an example that happened in my state. A politically connected person was arrested for drunk driving, and essentially, the case was easily made. A blood test was done, at a hospital, by a nurse, some time after the accident, and still showed the man was above the legal limit. Between the accident and the test, there was no opportunity for the man to drink anything.
The man, however, was not found guilty of drunk driving. During preperation, the nurse used an alcohol swab on the skin prior to taking the blood. Now, numerous studies have found that does not, and cannot, contaminate the test. A local newspaper tested that, even using Everclear as a prep, and found the same result. The law, however, clearly required that the skin be prepared with a non-alcohol swab prior to the blood being drawn. This law has been on the books for quite some time (at least 10 years).
So who's correct here? The man was pretty clearly drunk, but the law on blood tests was not followed.
And what's wrong with a lawyer advertising his function? If you are a lawyer that specializes in litigation, how else should you get clients? Advertising works, especially for newer practices that don't benefit from word-of-mouth referrals.
What next, should we ban ads for cereal that advocate eating that cereal?
If it's so shitty, then why are you even bothering to steal it? Why don't you just boycott it.
Oh, that's right. You're too freakin' cheap. You don't want to actually give up some of the things you want (but don't need, like movies), so you simply steal them.
So, in the return letter, you actually explain why the download was legitimate.
I don't see a problem with this - if there is a valid reason, MGM drops the issue and nothing happens. If you try a bs excuse, they have the option of persuing it in a court of law where you can explain the reason to the judge/jury. It might work, it might not.
Personally, it's the way things like this should be dealt with. You've got a chance to talk with them before the legal stuff starts and explain why you've got the right to have the file. Surely you wouldn't have downloaded a file you shouldn't have, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Without patents, companies have less incentive to spend money on research, when they can simply take the research that someone else did. It's a powerful incentive to know that if you develop a new technology that you'll be able to recoup those costs without getting undercut.
Companies, however, will try to take patented ideas/products and get around that protection, because it's cheaper to get to market, undercut the developer and then handle the lawsuits. They might be in discussions with the technology developer for years, stalling them and stalling them while they're outselling the original because their price is lower since they don't have to recoup the development costs.
In the abstract, that's why patents are useful, and why they do help to "advance the state of art" and "make more options available for consumers".
-- Ravensfire
Bush?
Do you REALLY think this just started with Bush? Or just this century?
All that's happened recently is it's now harder to hide things, and easier to leak anonymously. Politician hiding information they don't like is far, far older.
Bush didn't teach them shit about corruption - see J. Edgar Hoover.
-- Ravensfire
I suspect that this IS mentioned in the agreement, but that most people are fools and skip reading it.
-- Ravensfire
The most disheartening thing I've heard in a while is that if immigration reform doesn't happen in the next few months, it won't happen for several years. That's an issue that no politician in office has the balls to actually bring up and discuss in an election year. There is something that is guaranteed to piss somebody off.
Politics in general are just borked up. The US is copying other countries in bringing in the extremists. Add in the massive media campaigns that we've got now (thanks, Slick Willie, 'perciate you showing everyone the way), and it's taken to a new level. Oddly, though, the Presidential election cycle represents a major economic boost to all forms of media. I can't remember the estimate I heard, but it was in the billions, and most of that was for the Presidential race (primaries included).
I'd love to see a massive campaign financing reform, but in today's age, I don't think it would matter. Massive internet campaigns hosted outside the US. Privately funded attack adds (Swift Boat is going to look weak compared to the next batch). I just don't think it can be done.
-- Ravensfire
If I did, it would only be after a CYA e-mail to the controller. Something along the lines of "I'm ready to begin installing Office on our PC's. From what I can tell, we only have XX licenses, so we can only install it on XX machines. Can you confirm for me that we have enough licenses for the YY machines I'm supposed to install it on?"
Put the controller on the spot, and make darn sure that you print out his response, and forward that message to a few outside addresses.
-- Ravensfire
And during the Atlanta Summer games, and the Salt Lake City Winter games, the US was berated for "excessive sponsorship" and being "too commercial".
-- Ravensfire
You're putting the RIAA into a damned if you do, damned if you don't situations.
You can't get detailed information to name a specific person if you don't file a lawsuit. BUT, you can't get that detailed information unless you file a lawsuit.
I feel that if the RIAA can present to a judge the IP address and the evidence the RIAA has that this IP address is probably downloading copyrighted information they probably don't have the rights to, an order should be given.
The alternatives are equally ugly - file a suit that this IP address is being bad. That's pretty universally derided both here and elsewhere (even courts!).
So what do you expect them to do, given they are (and will be) aggressive in defending their copyrights?
-- Ravensfire
Okay - I'm trying to find a problem here, and can't.
RIAA has an IP they believe is downloading copyrighted material. This allows them to request that the ISP give them the personal information of the person that was using the IP addresses, according to the logs of the ISP. This request must include the court's order, which specifically mentions that the ISP can move to squash the request.
So the RIAA can take the information they have (the IP), and get the detailed information they need to file a full lawsuit. I think they've been getting burned on their "John Doe" lawsuits, so they're actually trying to get the right info early on.
So where's the problem with this?
-- Ravensfire
I think that both sides are playing some games on this, however. From the defendant's motion, the notice of deposition was sent to the lawyer for the mother. The lawyers for the mother replied that they aren't the attorney's for the kids.
HUH?
What's missing from this is the timing of these events. When did the mother's lawyers get the notice? When did they respond to the RIAA?
I'm guessing that the RIAA is trying to find out if the kids were using the computer. I don't that's too much of a fishing expedition if the IP address for the house is shared by multiple computers.
I'm surprised that the motion didn't cover those dates. If the defendant's lawyers responded quickly to the initial notice, saying they aren't the right attorney's, why didn't they mention that in the motion? That surely would have strengthed their case. If they responded late (say, 2 days before the scheduled deposition), they might want to avoid mentioning that.
-- Ravensfire
I think you need to turn on your Sarcasm Detector (TM)(Patent Pending).
-- Ravensfire
And you would, of course, be wrong about that.
-- Ravensfire
Or more accurately titled "Dear Microsoft: Please don't bitchslap us"
-- Ravensfire
If you read the court order, the judge noted that the plaintiff's case was largely dependant on the evidence on that hard drive. Without that evidence, the case was significantly harder (if not impossible) to prove. The judge also held that the actions by the defendant were deliberate and that the defendant knew she had an obligation to preserve the evidence.
With all that, it's hard to see how the judge could have done anything other than what he did.
-- Ravensfire
Define "private use".
Is it soley private use if the new use results in significant and new tax reveneues for the city? Is this justified if the city is quite well off? If the city is deteriorating?
Is it soley private use if the new use is public park? Mixed private development and public park?
ED should be used for the benefit of the public - I think nearly everyone can accept that concept. The problem is defining "the benefit of the public", and when that benefit outweighs the rights of the current land owner.
I've always thought that an land acquired through ED should have 2 costs associated with it. First, a fair market value paid up front to the owner. Second, the greater 10% of the increased property value or 10% of the original valuee to be paid on the latter of 10 years after purchase or 7 years after development, but no more than 15 years after purchase. This way, if the land is turned into a private development, and the value goes up, the original owner gets an additional payment.
There are times, I believe, that the rights of the commons must outweigh the rights of the individual. When that happens, the individual should be compensated for both their property and their trouble, and share in any potential benefits.
-- Ravensfire
Take a municipality that's starting to struggle, a large employer or two has left, the median income has dropped, and there's not much hope for a turn-around.
The community is probably fine, and can provide basic services, but that's about it. No community center. Minimal parks. Fees for trash pickup, leaf pickup, etc.
A developer comes and presents a plan that would dramatically change the prospects of that city. A strong core of residential and commercial locations; new growth - a chance for the city to be reborn, to be vibrate again.
Is that worth it? Does the potential justify the taking of private property? (local example - new shopping center has led to a massive improvement in a local community. Did the benefit of 10k+ residents and 100k+ consumers outweigh the costs so 10-20 owners? In this case, yes)
The Court essentially said that such decisions should be locally made by ruling that there isn't anything federal to restrict those actions. What caught everyone by surprise is that there were minimal local rules about this, and that was a shame. It's been going on for quite some time, but didn't get significant media time. The ruling brought the issue up to mainstream attention where it needed to be.
You gave the example of non-blighted areas being taken - that goes against my personal views of when ED should be used. The fact that loopholes exist should be blamed entirely on the elected officials that created them.
There are times when the public benefit from a project should require that private owners sell their property at a fair price. That process needs to be clear, open and fair to all sides. It should only be used when the benefit is significant for that local community, the benefit is needed by that community and the chance of harm or stagnation by the community is likely if the action is not taken.
-- Ravensfire
To be really anal, the Court more accurately said that the US Constitution allows this, but that the States and local communities can (and should) further restrict such actions.
Applying big, broad standards isn't always a good thing. The solution to this, and what has happened in many places, is that the states and local governments need to discuss and determine the limitations of eminent domain in their area. The needs of one community may not match another, so the rules can, and should, change.
-- Ravensfire
I think you need to revise that post, this IS Slashdot, after all.
-- Ravensfire
Key part of that is "fair trial".
Let me give you an example that happened in my state. A politically connected person was arrested for drunk driving, and essentially, the case was easily made. A blood test was done, at a hospital, by a nurse, some time after the accident, and still showed the man was above the legal limit. Between the accident and the test, there was no opportunity for the man to drink anything.
The man, however, was not found guilty of drunk driving. During preperation, the nurse used an alcohol swab on the skin prior to taking the blood. Now, numerous studies have found that does not, and cannot, contaminate the test. A local newspaper tested that, even using Everclear as a prep, and found the same result. The law, however, clearly required that the skin be prepared with a non-alcohol swab prior to the blood being drawn. This law has been on the books for quite some time (at least 10 years).
So who's correct here? The man was pretty clearly drunk, but the law on blood tests was not followed.
-- Ravensfire
No kidding - Clinton got elected twice. Tells you just how low the standard really is.
-- Ravensfire
Post CoV, City of Heroes uses the same graphics engine and updated effects.
-- Ravensfire
You missed the fact that the author and date were posted at the beginning of that, didn't you?
-- Ravensfire
And what's wrong with a lawyer advertising his function? If you are a lawyer that specializes in litigation, how else should you get clients? Advertising works, especially for newer practices that don't benefit from word-of-mouth referrals.
What next, should we ban ads for cereal that advocate eating that cereal?
Accuracy? From an article submitter?
lol - what next, you want the editors to make sure there isn't a dupe already out there?
-- Ravensfire
If it's so shitty, then why are you even bothering to steal it? Why don't you just boycott it.
Oh, that's right. You're too freakin' cheap. You don't want to actually give up some of the things you want (but don't need, like movies), so you simply steal them.
Bravo. Bravo. Bravo.
-- Ravensfire
So, in the return letter, you actually explain why the download was legitimate.
I don't see a problem with this - if there is a valid reason, MGM drops the issue and nothing happens. If you try a bs excuse, they have the option of persuing it in a court of law where you can explain the reason to the judge/jury. It might work, it might not.
Personally, it's the way things like this should be dealt with. You've got a chance to talk with them before the legal stuff starts and explain why you've got the right to have the file. Surely you wouldn't have downloaded a file you shouldn't have, right?
-- Ravensfire