This is why we glorify the mental prowess of "rocket scientists". They consider a 131 page proposal with this level of detail to be the equivalent of a napkin drawing.
Frankly, Ares management is probably right, but that's not the reason this idea won't fly, as it were. The real reason, depending on your level of cynicism, is that either (a) it has arrived too late or (b) it doesn't justify enough spending.
The measure will also require reviews by the inspectors general from several agencies to determine how the program was operated. Democrats said that the reviews should provide accountability that had been missing from the debate over the wiretaps.
That's an optimistic assessment. A similar review of politicization of hiring in the Justice department recently found significant violation of department procedure, but there was no accountability to be had because the perpetrators had already left the department and there are no criminal penalties to be applied.
I am confident that any such review of the wiretapping programs will find inappropriate actions confined to long-gone political appointees giving inappropriate but unquestionable directives.
[Yada yada yada]. That is why we claim that these numbers are not copyrightable.
Doesn't matter to me. When I open up my hard drive with a hammer, I don't see any numbers anyway, so I don't see how that helps me.
Seriously, though, if you think stopping at a particular layer of abstraction and then adding another layer of abstraction isn't what IP lawyers call a "derived work", then I don't think you understand IP well enough to make any claims at all.
It's a simple political tactic that's probably not as blind as it seems. Pocket veto works the same way, but that's between branches of government and so is quite limited. Within the executive, ignoring their advice is just one of the many ways to put pressure on your subordinates. Best case scenario, they get the message and revise their report without you having to put anything in writing.
Sounds like worst case for the administration was that it gets a contempt of court citation which it could easily appeal out until January. Then it's someone else's problem and then they have to explain to the carbon industrial complex why they couldn't stop the new rules.
Personally, the evolution of my reaction to this administration has been from "Really?" to "How dare they!" to "<sigh>".
Sleazy? Maybe. That depends on the he-said she-said details of the "I promise I won't" allegations. The only thing that matters is in the third to last paragraph of the press release:
"Google Email Uploader" steals gMove's look, feel and functionality
Microsoft proved you can't steal look and feel (from Apple, anyway). Stealing functionality sounds like reverse engineering to me.
I think it comes down to a quote from Richard Marx:
It don't mean nothing, the words that they say... It don't mean nothing till you sign it on the dotted line.
I saw no pledge of less work for the Patent Office in that open letter. I saw instead a prediction of less work, should his recommendations for patent reform be realized.
The One Click patent is certainly a lightning rod for patent reform, but we should be more sure of what we're accusing our enemies of.
All the drop tests in the video showed the units being dropped onto a soft mat. Where's the drop onto the tile floor? Where's the drop onto parking lot asphalt? From a moving rental car? Landing under the wheels?
The "left over" silver was clearly stolen (unless it's a normal part of contracts like these that such material becomes the property of the silversmith). The harder question is the design that was used, but again it comes down to the contract: if he was handed a design and then used it later without proper license, he's stealing the IP (if you'll allow such an argument here; if you won't, then you might not even accept the notion of a counterfeit board in the first place). If he composed his own design, the contract would state whether it was his to use after. Seems unlikely they'd pay for a new design and then let him keep it so as to dilute the market later.
This analogy is weak, though. It is unlikely that DFI paid for the parts used to build the counterfeit boards. The contract for the factory, though probably mirrors the silversmith's contract for the ownership and use of the design: no unauthorized use allowed.
If you really believed that, you wouldn't have bothered posting it, since it can't be of any help to anyone: the people you're criticizing are the very ones you claim cannot be fixed.
Yes, but public buildings and private gyms have clear demarcations as to what is public and what is not. If the gym has a dozen rooms and the first one I happen upon has no lock, no ID check, and no sign stating the requirement that you be a member, I cannot know to stay out; it could be demo equipment put there to entice me to become a member.
Similarly, if a URL doesn't have an authentication lock and doesn't say you must be a paying member to access, how can I distinguish pay content from a free giveaway?
Are you sure this is real? The list of naughty joke start points is too long: Joystick, Gives Good Feedback, topped with a block that can be grasped, virtual human organ, bump along nipples (OK one that was misspelled).
It's a revealing statement about the age group that drove the industry in that era that only two of the people profiled are now known to be dead this many years later.
Since the legal hurdle to invoke this penalty is merely "suspicion," encryption is no protection. Using an encrypted link to a suspect site or using an anonymizing service can be enough evidence in and of itself.
Slashdot Mirror
Read literally, I suppose this means a $222K verdict is roaming the countryside, looking for someone to ... adopt it?
Love the cartoony explanation. Don't forget the "After I get through I'll play my pirated movies while waiting for my plane" scenario.
Any time any web site claims to save you money using the word "free" in all caps, run!
This is why we glorify the mental prowess of "rocket scientists". They consider a 131 page proposal with this level of detail to be the equivalent of a napkin drawing.
Frankly, Ares management is probably right, but that's not the reason this idea won't fly, as it were. The real reason, depending on your level of cynicism, is that either (a) it has arrived too late or (b) it doesn't justify enough spending.
Sorry, no +1, Depressing moderation available that I know of.
That's an optimistic assessment. A similar review of politicization of hiring in the Justice department recently found significant violation of department procedure, but there was no accountability to be had because the perpetrators had already left the department and there are no criminal penalties to be applied.
I am confident that any such review of the wiretapping programs will find inappropriate actions confined to long-gone political appointees giving inappropriate but unquestionable directives.
Doesn't matter to me. When I open up my hard drive with a hammer, I don't see any numbers anyway, so I don't see how that helps me.
Seriously, though, if you think stopping at a particular layer of abstraction and then adding another layer of abstraction isn't what IP lawyers call a "derived work", then I don't think you understand IP well enough to make any claims at all.
It's a simple political tactic that's probably not as blind as it seems. Pocket veto works the same way, but that's between branches of government and so is quite limited. Within the executive, ignoring their advice is just one of the many ways to put pressure on your subordinates. Best case scenario, they get the message and revise their report without you having to put anything in writing.
Sounds like worst case for the administration was that it gets a contempt of court citation which it could easily appeal out until January. Then it's someone else's problem and then they have to explain to the carbon industrial complex why they couldn't stop the new rules.
Personally, the evolution of my reaction to this administration has been from "Really?" to "How dare they!" to "<sigh>".
Sleazy? Maybe. That depends on the he-said she-said details of the "I promise I won't" allegations. The only thing that matters is in the third to last paragraph of the press release:
Microsoft proved you can't steal look and feel (from Apple, anyway). Stealing functionality sounds like reverse engineering to me.I think it comes down to a quote from Richard Marx:
I saw no pledge of less work for the Patent Office in that open letter. I saw instead a prediction of less work, should his recommendations for patent reform be realized.
The One Click patent is certainly a lightning rod for patent reform, but we should be more sure of what we're accusing our enemies of.
How about publication in Scientific American?
It's a reference to the intended audience of the original article (based on the first paragraph): business travelers.
All the drop tests in the video showed the units being dropped onto a soft mat. Where's the drop onto the tile floor? Where's the drop onto parking lot asphalt? From a moving rental car? Landing under the wheels?
$0.0002 is 1/50th of a cent, 1/5000th of a dollar. Guess they don't keep math literate fact checkers on staff :-(
Commies as in common carriers.
The "left over" silver was clearly stolen (unless it's a normal part of contracts like these that such material becomes the property of the silversmith). The harder question is the design that was used, but again it comes down to the contract: if he was handed a design and then used it later without proper license, he's stealing the IP (if you'll allow such an argument here; if you won't, then you might not even accept the notion of a counterfeit board in the first place). If he composed his own design, the contract would state whether it was his to use after. Seems unlikely they'd pay for a new design and then let him keep it so as to dilute the market later.
This analogy is weak, though. It is unlikely that DFI paid for the parts used to build the counterfeit boards. The contract for the factory, though probably mirrors the silversmith's contract for the ownership and use of the design: no unauthorized use allowed.
BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor:
No, the heart of this issue is who gets to decide when a creator has been wronged and what the penalty for that wrongdoing should be.If you really believed that, you wouldn't have bothered posting it, since it can't be of any help to anyone: the people you're criticizing are the very ones you claim cannot be fixed.
Yes, but public buildings and private gyms have clear demarcations as to what is public and what is not. If the gym has a dozen rooms and the first one I happen upon has no lock, no ID check, and no sign stating the requirement that you be a member, I cannot know to stay out; it could be demo equipment put there to entice me to become a member.
Similarly, if a URL doesn't have an authentication lock and doesn't say you must be a paying member to access, how can I distinguish pay content from a free giveaway?
Are you sure this is real? The list of naughty joke start points is too long: Joystick, Gives Good Feedback, topped with a block that can be grasped, virtual human organ, bump along nipples (OK one that was misspelled).
It's a revealing statement about the age group that drove the industry in that era that only two of the people profiled are now known to be dead this many years later.
Since the legal hurdle to invoke this penalty is merely "suspicion," encryption is no protection. Using an encrypted link to a suspect site or using an anonymizing service can be enough evidence in and of itself.
Around here, they're more like whipping boys. Now, if he'd started in on Linux security...
Taking a page from the business of assassination: censor the censoring documents.
I think Mr. Williams needs a better thesaurus. From page 2: