"If they don't have a signature or a recorded conversation where you agreed to this then you don't have a contract with them."
I wish this were true. Alas, EULA's have been ruled to be contracts of adhesion... which is to say, insofar the EULA has "reasonable" terms that are essentially boilerplate for the circumstance, it's a contract, and it's binding. Note my scare quotes on "reasonable". Yes, I would agree that the terms mentioned are in fact entirely unreasonable and hardly boilerplate. However, it's not true to say that there is not a contract.
Please understand, I find EULA's to be satanic. Fact is, however, the law isn't what you think it is. This has gone through a fairly extensive appelate process at this point... not sure if it went all the way to SCOTUS.
Agreed. They still command the IO advantage in the midrange server community. And they still have some of the best EE talent in industry, made possible from a whole slew of defections from intel and generally community elan over the last four-five years or so. Meanwhile, Intel's been spilling their strategy beans for months now.
AMD's biggest problem is not being 65nm yet. However, the process alliance on that front is quite strong, with lots of collateral interests. AMD, IBM, and (more recently), SUN. They're obviously late on the 65nm front, but they have things held close to hand they're not showing yet, and when they get to 65nm, it will be a *better* 65nm than what Intel has.
Yes. And don't underestimate the "blowing away" thing. We're not just talking unwelcome spyware here, but rather fully malicious, total compromises of your systems. VMWare, configured properly, is suitable for cyber containment. We used to use it as part of our bench analysis technique of malicious software. I.e., we'd deliberately run this shit and then just "roll back" the install. Voila. Malicious code: gone.
I view this a bit more broadly. Those who are elected to offices of the public trust carry a special duty to the literal trust of the public. The violate that trust is the undermine the very fundament of our government. Such violations undermine us. I have therefore personally concluded that, amongst other things, all crimes committed in the conduct of an office of the public trust should be punished trebly. This principle of "treble damages" is one at use elsewhere in our legal fabric, often in cases of malice or intent, and so forth, but could be applied in no better place than in crimes involving the trust of the people in our government.
"DO NOT FUCKING LIE" is the least of the things I would demand out of those people who operate our republic, in offices of the public trust. I demand a whole lot more, and believe that more people should think like me. That we've grown somewhat complacent and accepting about it in some ways... more the shame.
Personally, I'm a fan of rehabilitation, proportionate punishment, [i]and[/i] deterrence. In fact, the only reason I can conjur for any leniency at all is the possibility of innocent conviction. I just wanted to point out that the discrepancy in sentencing is not necessarily hyprocristy--it could simply constitute a different view on what the purpose of incarceration is. ------
I'm more like this: rehabilitation vs deterrance. And my view of "rehabilitation" is very narrow. It's aligned with actual facts: some set of first time offenders will be so terrified of their first prison stay, they won't do it again. However, if they do it again, that will never be true. Statistically, they'll be criminals most of their life. Ergo, I favor a simple two strikes rule, with the second strike removing them from society PERMANENTLY. I.e., life in prison.
California (where I live) has a three strikes rule. They screw it up, though: they elevate later misdemeanors, no matter how small, to "felonies" and call them second strikes. This seems a bit extreme to me. Repeat misdemeanor offenders might be committing lots of felonies and not being caught, or might not. Hard to say.
That is, if you invent something (say, a novel engine in a car), and you use the invention in public, you can lose the right to patent it a year later even if you haven't revealed the details.
YOU can. However, I have misgivings about whether or not a third party trade secret, used in the public manufacture of a product, having kept methods and techniques essentially unknown to the public, can be used in this way.
Well, sort of. It seems to tell me that this case cannot be dismissed with prejudice. But in any general case, what will often result in that "with prejudice" finding? I've poked around on google. Plenty of definitions what it means ("can't bring that case again"), but none obvious on how one gets there.
That's interesting and informative. I'm still asking though, under what circumstances CAN a case be dismissed with "prejudice". I'm curious, and thought perhaps you might have some insight. Generally.
What I tried to say is that just because your have your own work that interacts with another work, does not make it a derivative work.
Some would say that "interacting" with another work is "incorporating" the content of the work. Some might say that incorporating a work, even if one doesn't distribute the incorporated work, but rather if one distributes fused information regarding one's own work and the incorporated work, counts as disseminating derivative work.
The GPL license does not define derivative. However, in their FAQs, reviewed quite heavily by their attorneys, they spell out certain things that are covered by the license. Linking is covered. To link is to be derivative. Subclassing is covered. To subclass is to be derivative. Since the license doesn't spell these out, the FAQ answers are the studied opinions of the Foundation's attorneys-at-law.
If merely linking or subclassing is derivative, how is it that inferring behavior from significant copyrighted data is not itself derivative?
This questions is rhetorical, mind you. I'm of the belief that distinct and separate distribution separates derivation. However, from sitting over here on this perch, I can definitely see a possible legal argument here. One company, Blizzard, has been quite successful in shutting down the emulator community. Another one, EA, hasn't tried. Wouldn't want to pretend that the issues are all cut and dried. I'd say they are not.
If it's true that simply using another workd does not turn your own work into a derivative work, do you believe that the GPL's position on dynamic linking to a GPL'd shared library (which involves using the functionality there) makes the software doing the linking also GPL'ed?
You're right about "many countries" having lax definitions, but I believe that all of the Berne Convention countries are fairly strict.
I would assert that if a work is distributed separately from the thing it "uses", it is distinct. If not, not.
However, there's all sorts of precedents. For example, one cannot write a novel containing the characters Gandalf, Frodo, and so forth, without the law regarding such a work as a clearly derivative work belonging to the Tolkein estate. This is a thin line here, and as I say: murky.
Once a creative work is made by the author, congress assigns the original author sole rights to create and distribute "derivative" works. The deal is, what constitutes a derivative work is and always has been a bit murky. Consider the popular UO emulators. Each of these servers depends necessarily on the installation of the client base maps, in order to make service decisions regarding player positions, and so forth. Does the server emulator's dependency on the base maps make it a derivative work of the UO client?
It's actually more potent than you describe. Usually when such a lawsuit hits, the local labor board gets involved. The resolution of the lawsuit often involves back pay for all workers so impacted by overtime abuses. Such lawsuits can be real stingers for the abusing company. Too bad they are rare.
The only consistent predictor of genuinely positive economic outcomes on a nation state level, world wide, and without exception, is the stable basis of land and real property rights, and the ability to engage free trade of same. A socialist country that actually has this fabric will outperform any otherwise "free" economy that does not, regardless of economic system, or even regardless of the political system. Generally speaking.
But to answer your question more deeply, one must understand that money is not something that evaporates as it goes from point A to point B. The retiree who spends the money, gives it to the builder, who in turn spends trades it with another, each stage along the way negotiated by merit in exchange for some sort of productivity of each party. Said money then tends to spin in circles, moving from party to party, further encouraging mutual productivity.
It would, to put it bluntly, help Mexico more than any single thing that Mexico can possibly do. There is no better economic possibility for them, no gift from god directly that is likely to help Mexico more than this one simple thing.
You do know that this is the reality in the U.S., where foreigners routinely buy and trade property without barrier, enjoying one of the most reliable and liberal free markets for land and real property, anywhere here on this Planet Earth?
It really makes you wonder just how much damage corruption does to a floundering Third World nation.
No doubt this is a factor. But where you really want to look is the legal fabric supporting the stable ownership and free trade of land and real property. If Mexico opened up Baja to foreign ownership, in fashion that convinced the community that such rights were real and unrepudiable, Baja would turn into one long affluent retirement community, all the way from Cabo San Lucas all the way to San Diego...
Often times one wants a "server" because it means that they can configure and bounce the box at whim, without regards to other users. Not because it's particularly loaded or heavily used.
As for your cluster reverse-virtualization, it's close to possible with infiniband today, but really, there are instructional latency issues yet.
So a multi-core single socket AMD processor won't display impressive memory performance relevant to the comparable intel configuration...
It can, it does, and it will. The current "comparable" intel confuration goes all the way out to the main bus for cache coherence on the local cores, causing a critical choke point. AMD's design does not.
You're overstating your case. Intel currently has no answer to HT, and that's necesary for both multi-cpu and multi-core chips. AMD will continue to firmly trounce Intel midrange server segment, which is hurting them where it counts indeed, and the cause for things like Dell's recent uptake of AMD. As well as Googles.
You have a very active imagination there. Maybe they took a couple of whacks at your kids with a nightstick while they're at it?
Unfortunately, these sorts of things actually happen. In my very neighborhood, several years back, cops used a no knock warrant. Went thru the front door with a battering ram, with guns drawn. Owner was so terrified he got his gun from a drawer. Cops filled him full of holes.
Oops. Wrong house.
Sure, he got $10 million for it. I suppose that makes up for having to shit out of a valve on your abdomen.
A good half the population understands intuitively that if you don't want someone else's thing inside of you, then it's just not allowed. While this remark may appear to be tongue-in-cheek to you, I'm not at all kidding.
Slashdot Mirror
"If they don't have a signature or a recorded conversation where you agreed to this then you don't have a contract with them."
I wish this were true. Alas, EULA's have been ruled to be contracts of adhesion... which is to say, insofar the EULA has "reasonable" terms that are essentially boilerplate for the circumstance, it's a contract, and it's binding. Note my scare quotes on "reasonable". Yes, I would agree that the terms mentioned are in fact entirely unreasonable and hardly boilerplate. However, it's not true to say that there is not a contract.
Please understand, I find EULA's to be satanic. Fact is, however, the law isn't what you think it is. This has gone through a fairly extensive appelate process at this point... not sure if it went all the way to SCOTUS.
C//
Agreed. They still command the IO advantage in the midrange server community. And they still have some of the best EE talent in industry, made possible from a whole slew of defections from intel and generally community elan over the last four-five years or so. Meanwhile, Intel's been spilling their strategy beans for months now.
AMD's biggest problem is not being 65nm yet. However, the process alliance on that front is quite strong, with lots of collateral interests. AMD, IBM, and (more recently), SUN. They're obviously late on the 65nm front, but they have things held close to hand they're not showing yet, and when they get to 65nm, it will be a *better* 65nm than what Intel has.
C//
Yes. And don't underestimate the "blowing away" thing. We're not just talking unwelcome spyware here, but rather fully malicious, total compromises of your systems. VMWare, configured properly, is suitable for cyber containment. We used to use it as part of our bench analysis technique of malicious software. I.e., we'd deliberately run this shit and then just "roll back" the install. Voila. Malicious code: gone.
C//
That's just what I was thinking!
Oh, look, it's a great heron!
*SQUACK*
I view this a bit more broadly. Those who are elected to offices of the public trust carry a special duty to the literal trust of the public. The violate that trust is the undermine the very fundament of our government. Such violations undermine us. I have therefore personally concluded that, amongst other things, all crimes committed in the conduct of an office of the public trust should be punished trebly. This principle of "treble damages" is one at use elsewhere in our legal fabric, often in cases of malice or intent, and so forth, but could be applied in no better place than in crimes involving the trust of the people in our government.
"DO NOT FUCKING LIE" is the least of the things I would demand out of those people who operate our republic, in offices of the public trust. I demand a whole lot more, and believe that more people should think like me. That we've grown somewhat complacent and accepting about it in some ways... more the shame.
C//
Personally, I'm a fan of rehabilitation, proportionate punishment, [i]and[/i] deterrence. In fact, the only reason I can conjur for any leniency at all is the possibility of innocent conviction. I just wanted to point out that the discrepancy in sentencing is not necessarily hyprocristy--it could simply constitute a different view on what the purpose of incarceration is.
------
I'm more like this: rehabilitation vs deterrance. And my view of "rehabilitation" is very narrow. It's aligned with actual facts: some set of first time offenders will be so terrified of their first prison stay, they won't do it again. However, if they do it again, that will never be true. Statistically, they'll be criminals most of their life. Ergo, I favor a simple two strikes rule, with the second strike removing them from society PERMANENTLY. I.e., life in prison.
California (where I live) has a three strikes rule. They screw it up, though: they elevate later misdemeanors, no matter how small, to "felonies" and call them second strikes. This seems a bit extreme to me. Repeat misdemeanor offenders might be committing lots of felonies and not being caught, or might not. Hard to say.
C//
That is, if you invent something (say, a novel engine in a car), and you use the invention in public, you can lose the right to patent it a year later even if you haven't revealed the details.
YOU can. However, I have misgivings about whether or not a third party trade secret, used in the public manufacture of a product, having kept methods and techniques essentially unknown to the public, can be used in this way.
C//
Fair enough.
Further, I am less clear on whether or not one's private finding (private prior art) excuses party from a patent claim. I think not, which is a shame.
Why'd you post AC?
No biggie.
C//
Prior art is only prior art if it is published (i.e., specifically, the techniques made public), the way I understand it.
So even having had the code, unless the techniques were actually made public, this one wouldn't count.
One of the things about the patent system, is that encourages you to not sit on your findings.
Not that I'd call any of this process/method patent shit a "finding," mind you, but be that as it may....
C//
Well, sort of. It seems to tell me that this case cannot be dismissed with prejudice. But in any general case, what will often result in that "with prejudice" finding? I've poked around on google. Plenty of definitions what it means ("can't bring that case again"), but none obvious on how one gets there.
Anyway, thanks for your keyboard time.
C//
That's interesting and informative. I'm still asking though, under what circumstances CAN a case be dismissed with "prejudice". I'm curious, and thought perhaps you might have some insight. Generally.
C//
At what point can a case like this be dismissed "with prejudice"?
C//
What I tried to say is that just because your have your own work that interacts with another work, does not make it a derivative work.
Some would say that "interacting" with another work is "incorporating" the content of the work. Some might say that incorporating a work, even if one doesn't distribute the incorporated work, but rather if one distributes fused information regarding one's own work and the incorporated work, counts as disseminating derivative work.
The GPL license does not define derivative. However, in their FAQs, reviewed quite heavily by their attorneys, they spell out certain things that are covered by the license. Linking is covered. To link is to be derivative. Subclassing is covered. To subclass is to be derivative. Since the license doesn't spell these out, the FAQ answers are the studied opinions of the Foundation's attorneys-at-law.
If merely linking or subclassing is derivative, how is it that inferring behavior from significant copyrighted data is not itself derivative?
This questions is rhetorical, mind you. I'm of the belief that distinct and separate distribution separates derivation. However, from sitting over here on this perch, I can definitely see a possible legal argument here. One company, Blizzard, has been quite successful in shutting down the emulator community. Another one, EA, hasn't tried. Wouldn't want to pretend that the issues are all cut and dried. I'd say they are not.
C//
If it's true that simply using another workd does not turn your own work into a derivative work, do you believe that the GPL's position on dynamic linking to a GPL'd shared library (which involves using the functionality there) makes the software doing the linking also GPL'ed?
You're right about "many countries" having lax definitions, but I believe that all of the Berne Convention countries are fairly strict.
I would assert that if a work is distributed separately from the thing it "uses", it is distinct. If not, not.
However, there's all sorts of precedents. For example, one cannot write a novel containing the characters Gandalf, Frodo, and so forth, without the law regarding such a work as a clearly derivative work belonging to the Tolkein estate. This is a thin line here, and as I say: murky.
C//
Once a creative work is made by the author, congress assigns the original author sole rights to create and distribute "derivative" works. The deal is, what constitutes a derivative work is and always has been a bit murky. Consider the popular UO emulators. Each of these servers depends necessarily on the installation of the client base maps, in order to make service decisions regarding player positions, and so forth. Does the server emulator's dependency on the base maps make it a derivative work of the UO client?
C//
...the tax credit for viagra is 100%.
False.
C//
It's actually more potent than you describe. Usually when such a lawsuit hits, the local labor board gets involved. The resolution of the lawsuit often involves back pay for all workers so impacted by overtime abuses. Such lawsuits can be real stingers for the abusing company. Too bad they are rare.
C//
The only consistent predictor of genuinely positive economic outcomes on a nation state level, world wide, and without exception, is the stable basis of land and real property rights, and the ability to engage free trade of same. A socialist country that actually has this fabric will outperform any otherwise "free" economy that does not, regardless of economic system, or even regardless of the political system. Generally speaking.
But to answer your question more deeply, one must understand that money is not something that evaporates as it goes from point A to point B. The retiree who spends the money, gives it to the builder, who in turn spends trades it with another, each stage along the way negotiated by merit in exchange for some sort of productivity of each party. Said money then tends to spin in circles, moving from party to party, further encouraging mutual productivity.
It would, to put it bluntly, help Mexico more than any single thing that Mexico can possibly do. There is no better economic possibility for them, no gift from god directly that is likely to help Mexico more than this one simple thing.
You do know that this is the reality in the U.S., where foreigners routinely buy and trade property without barrier, enjoying one of the most reliable and liberal free markets for land and real property, anywhere here on this Planet Earth?
I encourage you to look into this more deeply.
Happy thinking.
C//
It really makes you wonder just how much damage corruption does to a floundering Third World nation.
No doubt this is a factor. But where you really want to look is the legal fabric supporting the stable ownership and free trade of land and real property. If Mexico opened up Baja to foreign ownership, in fashion that convinced the community that such rights were real and unrepudiable, Baja would turn into one long affluent retirement community, all the way from Cabo San Lucas all the way to San Diego...
C//
Often times one wants a "server" because it means that they can configure and bounce the box at whim, without regards to other users. Not because it's particularly loaded or heavily used.
As for your cluster reverse-virtualization, it's close to possible with infiniband today, but really, there are instructional latency issues yet.
C//
So a multi-core single socket AMD processor won't display impressive memory performance relevant to the comparable intel configuration...
It can, it does, and it will. The current "comparable" intel confuration goes all the way out to the main bus for cache coherence on the local cores, causing a critical choke point. AMD's design does not.
C//
You're overstating your case. Intel currently has no answer to HT, and that's necesary for both multi-cpu and multi-core chips. AMD will continue to firmly trounce Intel midrange server segment, which is hurting them where it counts indeed, and the cause for things like Dell's recent uptake of AMD. As well as Googles.
C//
You have a very active imagination there. Maybe they took a couple of whacks at your kids with a nightstick while they're at it?
Unfortunately, these sorts of things actually happen. In my very neighborhood, several years back, cops used a no knock warrant. Went thru the front door with a battering ram, with guns drawn. Owner was so terrified he got his gun from a drawer. Cops filled him full of holes.
Oops. Wrong house.
Sure, he got $10 million for it. I suppose that makes up for having to shit out of a valve on your abdomen.
C//
I'm not sure, but I believe that it's his company your referring to.
C//
A good half the population understands intuitively that if you don't want someone else's thing inside of you, then it's just not allowed. While this remark may appear to be tongue-in-cheek to you, I'm not at all kidding.
C//