Maybe the Iranian censor board will be able to cut out anything unneeded and make the movies more compact and watchable.
I love the movies, but they can induce numbness to the posterior if watched more than one at a time.
Roger's is probably paying for their connection in U.S. dollars. They charge the customers in Canadian dollars.
Their connection costs have been increasing with respect to the cash flow simply due to a falling local currency.
I realize that Roger's policy will probably hurt me. It's still fair. Those who use the service, should be willing to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, scale back (it's a shame that browsing with graphics turned off isn't as much of an option any more).
Asking for help here will get you exactly what you paid for. Your company must already have legal representation, use them. They may cost money, but don't be silly and rely upon anonymous legal advice on intellectual property issues.
Actually your statement on patents isn't entirely true. Patents by statute have a lifespan of 20a. They will expire if the maintenance fees are not paid, but it isn't really an extension.
I know that it sounds like splitting hairs, but they aren't renewed. The dates you mention are also U.S. dates. Most places in the world charge maintenance fees on the anniversary date of filing, so you are paying fees even before issuance.
In trying to decipher the article I realized that the issue at hand was the fact that libraries are carrying the interlending attitude to electronic media.
When a university library is missing in issue of a rare journal it can be borrowed from another library. With electronic publications the libaries are starting to just share subscriptions.
These journals are expensive because there is a limited subscription base (how many people would subscribe to Tetrahedron Letters if the cost was $1/issue? probably not many more than currently subscribe) which makes the per item cost high. Moving to an electronic form is meant to supplement the print copy with searchability etc. But it is starting to be passed around as a replacement.
People may have the right to give away their work, but it doesn't mean that you have the right to take their work without permision. The article was scarmongering, and the summary just perpetuated the problem.
I actually take issue with your first comment. Kasparov was denied a fair chance against Deep Blue the second time around.
The first time that IBM challenged him they provided him with the transcripts of DB's chess matches to date. Kasparov was able to study the patterns of the machine just like he would have been able to for a human opponent.
Kasparov was denied access to the transcripts of the new DB, because IBM realized that in doing so they were increasing their odds of victory. So the new DB had an advantage, it knew every match that Kasparov had played, and he was fighting blind.
IBM even refused to enter the machine in a tournament, as they knew that by the time it reached the finals against Kasparov he would have seen too much and it would have been a fair match.
The fact that someone is complaining blows me away. Think about it. The original poster is clearly more upset about this so called injustice than the domain holder was. If the domain holder really cared about any of the domains he would have fought the proceedings.
I've gone through a fair number of the decisions and the fact is that there is a bias on behalf of the examiners, and it isn't always to the corporation. Different dispute companies have differing biases. The one thing though that really binds people together is that the odds of you winning if you shut your cakehole is e->0.
It's interesting you said that they are just using the prior art in a different way than everyone else.
This constituates a new use for an old device, which is grounds for a patent. As long as it wasn't obvious to anyone at the time that someone applied for the patent then it's patentable.
At least they started with medical textbooks, a field where the content should be outdated (at least some of it) in a few years. This will prevent patients from having their doctors referring to really old texts for information.
As for not letting someone else read it, think of it this way, they can as long as it is on your computer with your code. Much like a real book, they can't properly use it if you are too. The fact is that selective knowledge texts are really expensive to produce, and the cost can be brought down through electronic distribution, but the balance of the authors' rights to compensation must be accounted for.
I like the fact that you can prevent unauthorized viewing. It protects the author.
Information doesn't yearn to be free. It doesn't yearn at all. We may yearn for free stuff, but someone has to pay.
If enough medical students dislike this, let them create an opensource medical text.
The service agreement you agree to when you subscribe typically states that the provider has the right to change the service agreement with some token amount of notice. In addition, paying your bill after the agreement changes is usually considered acceptance of the new agreement.
As usual it sucks to be the small guy.
Dilip
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the Iranian censor board will be able to cut out anything unneeded and make the movies more compact and watchable. I love the movies, but they can induce numbness to the posterior if watched more than one at a time.
Roger's is probably paying for their connection in U.S. dollars. They charge the customers in Canadian dollars.
Their connection costs have been increasing with respect to the cash flow simply due to a falling local currency.
I realize that Roger's policy will probably hurt me. It's still fair. Those who use the service, should be willing to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, scale back (it's a shame that browsing with graphics turned off isn't as much of an option any more).
Asking for help here will get you exactly what you paid for. Your company must already have legal representation, use them. They may cost money, but don't be silly and rely upon anonymous legal advice on intellectual property issues.
I know that it sounds like splitting hairs, but they aren't renewed. The dates you mention are also U.S. dates. Most places in the world charge maintenance fees on the anniversary date of filing, so you are paying fees even before issuance.
What was that line again... oh yeah: a fool and his money are soon parted.
When a university library is missing in issue of a rare journal it can be borrowed from another library. With electronic publications the libaries are starting to just share subscriptions.
These journals are expensive because there is a limited subscription base (how many people would subscribe to Tetrahedron Letters if the cost was $1 /issue? probably not many more than currently subscribe) which makes the per item cost high. Moving to an electronic form is meant to supplement the print copy with searchability etc. But it is starting to be passed around as a replacement.
People may have the right to give away their work, but it doesn't mean that you have the right to take their work without permision. The article was scarmongering, and the summary just perpetuated the problem.
The first time that IBM challenged him they provided him with the transcripts of DB's chess matches to date. Kasparov was able to study the patterns of the machine just like he would have been able to for a human opponent.
Kasparov was denied access to the transcripts of the new DB, because IBM realized that in doing so they were increasing their odds of victory. So the new DB had an advantage, it knew every match that Kasparov had played, and he was fighting blind.
IBM even refused to enter the machine in a tournament, as they knew that by the time it reached the finals against Kasparov he would have seen too much and it would have been a fair match.
The fact that someone is complaining blows me away. Think about it. The original poster is clearly more upset about this so called injustice than the domain holder was. If the domain holder really cared about any of the domains he would have fought the proceedings.
I've gone through a fair number of the decisions and the fact is that there is a bias on behalf of the examiners, and it isn't always to the corporation. Different dispute companies have differing biases. The one thing though that really binds people together is that the odds of you winning if you shut your cakehole is e->0.
It's interesting you said that they are just using the prior art in a different way than everyone else. This constituates a new use for an old device, which is grounds for a patent. As long as it wasn't obvious to anyone at the time that someone applied for the patent then it's patentable.
At least they started with medical textbooks, a field where the content should be outdated (at least some of it) in a few years. This will prevent patients from having their doctors referring to really old texts for information. As for not letting someone else read it, think of it this way, they can as long as it is on your computer with your code. Much like a real book, they can't properly use it if you are too. The fact is that selective knowledge texts are really expensive to produce, and the cost can be brought down through electronic distribution, but the balance of the authors' rights to compensation must be accounted for. I like the fact that you can prevent unauthorized viewing. It protects the author. Information doesn't yearn to be free. It doesn't yearn at all. We may yearn for free stuff, but someone has to pay. If enough medical students dislike this, let them create an opensource medical text.
The service agreement you agree to when you subscribe typically states that the provider has the right to change the service agreement with some token amount of notice. In addition, paying your bill after the agreement changes is usually considered acceptance of the new agreement. As usual it sucks to be the small guy. Dilip