You've got it exactly backwards, and unfortunately many folks have a hard time understanding Constitutional logic.
First, you have *ALL* rights. ALL means ALL. Whether they are enumerated/defined or not, you have them. The Constitution was written specifically in this manner, so not to suggest that the People got their rights from the Government or laws, but rather the other way around.
The impact of such logical construction of the Constitution means that rights that were undefinable or even unfathomable back then were *automatically* protected from infringement by the Government.
Amendment 10 further extended this logic, by actually explicitly stating all rights are reserved by the People and the States, rather than just implying it.
If Comcast were simply prioritizing packets, that would be one thing. However, the contention is they are spoofing packets back to the clients. Think of it this way, you type in a web address and get back an error message saying the host wasn't available and that error was being generated *by the carrier*, and not the actual website. In that case, the carrier is impersonating the destination and returning false information.
Comcast claims they are not doing this, although some critics have claimed they have irrefutable proof that they are in fact doing that.
Read the article. The judge made the decision not based off bundling laws, but contractual.
As far as the EULA clearly referring to the entire computer, I'd disagree. The EULA in question is Microsoft's EULA, not the manufacturers. If you go and buy XP off the shelf, you get the same EULA. You wouldn't go and return your computer just because you tried to install XP on it, now would you?
"If you do not accept the conditions of this contract, you may not use or copy the software and should promptly contact the manufacturer for information on returning the product or products and the conditions for reimbursement in accordance with the provisions established by the producer himself."
The judge basically ruled the Microsoft EULA was a separate contract apart from the purchase of the computer. As Microsoft is the manufacturer of that product and HP merely a reseller, HP was obligated to refund that portion of the purchase according the instructions within the EULA itself.
Funny, every car manufacturer I know has their own "standards". With the exception of the locations of the steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and the fact that it has four wheels, just about every other thing is different from one vehicle manufacturer to another. Yet, somehow people still manage to choose the vehicle that is best for them.
Is driving a car intuitive? No, you must first be taught and learn how to do so. After you acquire the basic knowledge, you then have the cognitive tools to be able to adapt.
Is that to say things have to be needlessly complex? No, but then let the *market* decide that for themselves. It's one thing to give people choice, it's totally another to *remove* choice. And that's what Microsoft has done, using any tactic possible to hinder or outright prevent any choice other than Microsoft.
Yes, choice is only useful for those who understand. Now ask yourself the question, how useful is understanding when you have no choice?
The flaw in your argument is that Habeas Corpus is an inherent right of *persons*, not just citizens. There is a clear distinction. The Constitution recognizes rights that are inherent to *all men* and also outlays rights that are inherent to *citizens*.
Notice that the 14th amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It's an inherent right of a *person*, not just a citizen.
If the MCA applies to someone, then by extension you are asserting that person is under your jurisdiction. Yet the 14th amendment specifically states you cannot deny equal protection of the laws. MCA most certainly does that, seeking to deny *people* rights. Their "designation" is immaterial. Lawful combatant or no, the 14th amendment says they have equal protection.
Quoting the first section for reference:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You do realize that all the 9/11 hijackers had valid passports, right? So what makes you or anyone else think a "REAL" ID is going to make any difference?
The problem with that logic is holding one person responsible for the crimes committed by another. That's not likely to go over well in the courts.
If an employee misuses their computer and network connection, is the employer responsible for the crimes of the employee? If someone breaks into one of your computers at work and uses them to commit a crime, are you responsible because the equipment is yours?
As much as the RIAA may wish it so, holding someone responsible for the crimes of another just isn't going to stick.
Using public or private IP address space makes no difference. The problem is with the contention itself.
An IP/MAC address doesn't tell you who was operating a computer at the time. Bottom line. All it means is that at a particular time, a computer was in use. You can't even be for certain what computer, since MAC spoofing is fairly easy to anyone knowledgeable enough. Network accounts are meaningless, when a simple glance over a shoulder or 5 minutes of uninterrupted rummaging around a desk can allow me to appear to be you.
Any "expert" should know this, and omission of those simple facts is at best a half-truth and at worst establishes intent to deceive.
I disagree. It is both a practical problem, and a moral one.
I think you perhaps have not heard the term "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
What you propose is not likely to save money, but rather cost more money over the long run. Almost always, money spent upfront to correct an issue is ultimately more cost effective than dealing with symptoms later on. Often the initial cost is high, but the ultimate cost in the long run can often be astronomical in comparison.
In this case, it won't just be a monetary cost. The potential for loss of life is also at risk. When the problem involves possible loss of human life, it ceases to be just a matter of practicality and now takes on moral connotations.
Lastly, energy conservation has impacts that extend beyond global warming. Less reliance on foreign nations for energy production has positive long term benefits for any nation that undertakes it. No matter what your position on global warming, energy conservation and cleaner energy make sense. As I tell many people, I don't need global warming to convince me it's better overall to get 40MPG than 20.
Given the current world population, it's rate of growth, and where that growth is occurring, it's a safe bet that both prevention and correction of symptoms will have to be enacted.
It doesn't matter if she was covert or not. He was tried and convicted on obstruction of justice and lying under oath, not for treason, which would be the charge for revealing a covert agent.
CSS does not prevent copying. I've seen this misconception bandied around by quite a few people, some deliberately (as the DVD CCA does) and some mistakenly.
You can copy the files off your DVD to your hard drive, and view the movie just fine. You can burn those files to another DVD, plop it into DVD drive, and that copy will play.
The only thing CSS does is prevent you from using an *UNLICENSED* player. In other words, CSS forces the manufacturers of DVD players to get a license and play by their rules under that license.
CSS doesn't prevent copying, and never has. It's encryption is for the purpose of preventing *playback*, not copying.
"AAC-format supporters include some notable names, including Microsoft's Zune. So come May, the 16 people who own one will be able to buy EMI tracks from iTunes and presumably play them on that device."
Only 16 people own a Zune? I would have guessed at least 25 or so.;-)
First, your "facts" don't jive with what is actually in the documents, and what the government has already admitted.
"1) The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking."
He is, however, required to obey those laws. Wiretaps must be authorized by warrant when an American citizen is involved. FISA was created to deal with issues of warrants involving National Security.
"2) FISA is a secret court. If they oversaw the program (or not), you and I are not going to know beyond what they choose to release."
Well then here you go..
"California Northern District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled, however, that since the government had admitted it was wiretapping Americans without a warrant and that AT&T had to be involved, the case could go forward tentatively."
In other words, it never went through FISA. Owned up to by the government themselves. The legislative branch decided, based on their interpretations of constitutional law, that they didn't have to. In short, the legislative branch basically took the position that if they felt Congress or the Courts were impinging on their constitutional powers, they simply would ignore them. We've seen this before; Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and the Supreme Court ruled that suspension illegal. This administration is attempting to do the same, but from a different angle by invoking that because someone is declared to be an "enemy combatant", they have no rights and any communication involving such persons doesn't require overview, even if some of the parties involved are American citizens.
"3) What we do know is that the EFF doesn't have a clue when the program began (read the brief) and doesn't have a clue what was disclosed."
But what they do have is the governments own admission that the program was warrantless, and thus had no oversight by FISA. That's the whole point of FISA, and the President just decided to do an end-run around it.
"4) Page 9 of the brief shows that FISA OK'd the program."
No, that's not what it says.
It says "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Flat out, it's saying the program is now subject to FISA approval. As should have been done in the first place. It doesn't say that the previously unwarranted tapping was "OK".
Here's some logic maybe even Gonzales can understand.
"Mr Gonzales, how many fingers do you have on your right hand?"
Gonzales:"5"
"Now, the constition says the Government may not chop off your fingers, correct?"
Gonzales:"Correct"
"But the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, did it?"
Gonzales:"No"
"So Mr. Gonzales, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, and the Constitution says the Government can't take them away, that you probably had them to begin with?"
Gonzales:"..."
The depth of irony here is almost beyond pale. The AG of the United States arguing that the Constitution doesn't explicitely grant a right, which is exactly why the authors of the Constitution framed it the way they did to prevent exactly such arguments. The Constitution *grants no rights*, because you inherently have *all* rights. Same as you were born with fingers and toes, you were born with all rights.
These rights are not just if your an American, they are *inalienable* human rights as understood by the founding fathers.
Truly, this administration doesn't understand what "becoming the enemy" means.
"Toyota may have beaten Detroit to the consumer hybrid table, but their days of dominance in this field is numbered. GM alone will, as of 2008, have a hybrid sedan (Aura Green Line), hybrid crossover SUV (Vue Green Line), and full size truck SUV (hybrid Tahoe/Yukon/Silverado/Sierra). That means you can drive a hybrid that actually looks like a regular car (imagine that!) instead of a poorly executed fashion statement."
What a load of nonsense.
I hate to break this to you, but Toyota has commited to making a hybrid version of *every one* of their lines. So your statement of buying a "regular car" is completely moot. In fact, demand has been so strong for the hybrid versions of their cars they've actually accelerated their timetables to meet try to meet this demand.
I can buy a hybrid Camry *today*. Not in 2008.
And for those folks who would like a fuel efficient car and not worried about the look, Toyota will sell you a car, built from the ground up with hybrid technology in mind. How many built from scratch hybrids have US auto-makers made and you can actually buy like a Prius? Well, if you can find one, since demand is so high it outstrips supply. Detroit's percentage of this market? Zilch.
While I wish the US auto-makers all the best and encourage them in pushing forth hybrid technology, I don't hold any illusions they will dominate that market. It would be refreshing to see them be a market leader in something other then gas guzzling monstrosities.
For those who are talking about auto-revoke clauses in lawsuits (of which I've seen a number post), read the article:
During arguments in October, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested there may be some way to structure a licensing agreement to diminish the threat of a lawsuit.
Best predicts companies will likely try including contractual provisions prohibiting filing suit, potentially charging lower fees for those who agree to waive that legal right. But it's unclear whether such measures are legal.
Courts generally hold that the right to sue should be retained - a sentiment that came out in this case.
Simply because a clause is within a contract/agreement, doesn't make it legally valid. As the courts have established through decisions, the right to sue should be retained and it's likely that clauses stipulating the prohibition of filing suit would be deemed legally unenforceable. A contract/agreement could be structured to make it undesirable to file suit or more desirable to persuade a licensee not to, but clauses that seek to waiver that right most likely will fail.
This decision has a more profound effect then simply the right to sue. It also raises the bar in the establishment of knowingly violating a patent. If a person/company sues to invalidate a patent, then only if the lawsuit is unsuccessful and the person/company continues to violate the patent can it be established they "knowingly" violated the patent. So this will also have an effect of making it more difficult to seek treble damages. Any person/company with the foresight and resources would file an invalidation lawsuit for that very reason, I suspect.
I agree with the Supreme Courts interpretation that just because you license, doesn't mean "Actual Controversy" requirements for filing an invalidation suit are voided. Previous court decisions established that you had to violate a patent first in order to file suit to fulfill "Actual Controversy" requirements. The Catch-22 of this is that by the very act of violating the patent, you are doing so "knowingly" in order to pursue an invalidation suit. Which means that should the suit fail, you'll automatically be nailed for treble damages since you've already established you knowingly violated the patent in order to pursue the invalidation suit in the first place.
The previous logic was flawed. It was like saying that if someone portends you owe them money, you would have to acknowledge you do owe them money before you could file a suit to establish you don't.
The refusal to acknowledge a patent as valid should be grounds enough to fulfill the actual controversy requirements.
Yes, you could refuse to license to a company beforehand if you believe they will sue to invalidate. However, if they are successful in invalidating your patent, then your patent has no value and you've gained nothing. If you revoke a license after a lawsuit is initiated and your patent is invalidated, then you've gained nothing.
If your license is not invalidated, then the invalidation suit raises questions as to whether a company knowingly violated a patent. If you come to me demanding a license, I don't agree because I believe your patent is invalid and sue to invalidate, then the "knowingly" part of treble damages comes into suspect. The simply act of notifying a person/company they are in patent violation wouldn't be enough. Only after the failure of an invalidation suit and you *still* violate the patent could you be reasonably held to be "knowingly" violating the patent.
I suspect that we'll see companies filing lawsuits to invalidate patents just to avoid paying the treble damages in the event they are unsuccessful in overturning a patent.
An auto-revoke clause would most probably be ruled as invalid, since this court decision has just affirmed that you have the right to sue even if you are licensing.
Just because something is written and you sign it, doesn't make it enforceable.
Because this decision has just established that you can sue even if you are licensing. Putting a clause in the agreement to void the licensing in case of lawsuit would itself be unenforceable by this decision.
Simply because something is written in a contract or agreement, doesn't mean it's legal or enforceable.
Some things just can't be signed away. Since the Supreme Court has already upheld that the right to sue for patent validity cannot be subsumed through licensing, putting such a clause in the licensing agreement would have no legal effect.
"Want to drive a car w/o ID? you're more than welcome to make the attempt. However driving a motor vehicle is not a right and there's rather clear legislation that states that your license must be shown on the request of a peace officer."
Flying isn't a right, it's a commercial service. As such, airlines can deny you that service. But that's not a law/regulation, that's company policy.
Which was the whole point of the lawsuit. The airlines are saying that it is government regulation, not company policy, which is demanding ID. However, the law/regulation enforcing this is *NOT* public. You made mention of the fact that there is "clear" legislation that details why you must present an ID for driving. Now, go find that "clear" legislation that enforces the ID check for boarding planes, and when you find it let Gilmore's lawyers know, because apparently neither they, the airlines, nor the government know where it's at.
How this parent got modded to insightful I have no idea, since he doesn't even know what the basis for the lawsuit was. It wasn't a lawsuit to force airlines to allow travel without ID, it was to force the government to make public the laws/regulations which are enforcing it.
You might want to take a bit of caution when applying for this kind of work. I speak of this from first-hand experience.
Dealing with classified information is very high risk from a personal standpoint. The penalties of a security breach due to personal negligence is *very* harsh. And by the job description, you'll be up to your ears in it.
Also, an Information Management position isn't strictly IT work. It's a hybrid position consisting of both IT work and your rather mundane office-assistant paperwork shuffler.
Government employment has very nice benefits, and provides a very stable work environment. However, keep in mind that whenever you work with classified information there is a lot of risk/stress involved.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it exactly backwards, and unfortunately many folks have a hard time understanding Constitutional logic.
First, you have *ALL* rights. ALL means ALL. Whether they are enumerated/defined or not, you have them. The Constitution was written specifically in this manner, so not to suggest that the People got their rights from the Government or laws, but rather the other way around.
The impact of such logical construction of the Constitution means that rights that were undefinable or even unfathomable back then were *automatically* protected from infringement by the Government.
Amendment 10 further extended this logic, by actually explicitly stating all rights are reserved by the People and the States, rather than just implying it.
Actually no, it's not that simple.
If Comcast were simply prioritizing packets, that would be one thing. However, the contention is they are spoofing packets back to the clients. Think of it this way, you type in a web address and get back an error message saying the host wasn't available and that error was being generated *by the carrier*, and not the actual website. In that case, the carrier is impersonating the destination and returning false information.
Comcast claims they are not doing this, although some critics have claimed they have irrefutable proof that they are in fact doing that.
As always, the devil is in the details.
Read the article. The judge made the decision not based off bundling laws, but contractual.
As far as the EULA clearly referring to the entire computer, I'd disagree. The EULA in question is Microsoft's EULA, not the manufacturers. If you go and buy XP off the shelf, you get the same EULA. You wouldn't go and return your computer just because you tried to install XP on it, now would you?
"If you do not accept the conditions of this contract, you may not use or copy the software and should promptly contact the manufacturer for information on returning the product or products and the conditions for reimbursement in accordance with the provisions established by the producer himself."
The judge basically ruled the Microsoft EULA was a separate contract apart from the purchase of the computer. As Microsoft is the manufacturer of that product and HP merely a reseller, HP was obligated to refund that portion of the purchase according the instructions within the EULA itself.
Funny, every car manufacturer I know has their own "standards". With the exception of the locations of the steering wheel, gas pedal, brake pedal, and the fact that it has four wheels, just about every other thing is different from one vehicle manufacturer to another. Yet, somehow people still manage to choose the vehicle that is best for them.
Is driving a car intuitive? No, you must first be taught and learn how to do so. After you acquire the basic knowledge, you then have the cognitive tools to be able to adapt.
Is that to say things have to be needlessly complex? No, but then let the *market* decide that for themselves. It's one thing to give people choice, it's totally another to *remove* choice. And that's what Microsoft has done, using any tactic possible to hinder or outright prevent any choice other than Microsoft.
Yes, choice is only useful for those who understand. Now ask yourself the question, how useful is understanding when you have no choice?
The flaw in your argument is that Habeas Corpus is an inherent right of *persons*, not just citizens. There is a clear distinction. The Constitution recognizes rights that are inherent to *all men* and also outlays rights that are inherent to *citizens*.
Notice that the 14th amendment says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It's an inherent right of a *person*, not just a citizen.
If the MCA applies to someone, then by extension you are asserting that person is under your jurisdiction. Yet the 14th amendment specifically states you cannot deny equal protection of the laws. MCA most certainly does that, seeking to deny *people* rights. Their "designation" is immaterial. Lawful combatant or no, the 14th amendment says they have equal protection.
Quoting the first section for reference:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You do realize that all the 9/11 hijackers had valid passports, right? So what makes you or anyone else think a "REAL" ID is going to make any difference?
The problem with that logic is holding one person responsible for the crimes committed by another. That's not likely to go over well in the courts.
If an employee misuses their computer and network connection, is the employer responsible for the crimes of the employee? If someone breaks into one of your computers at work and uses them to commit a crime, are you responsible because the equipment is yours?
As much as the RIAA may wish it so, holding someone responsible for the crimes of another just isn't going to stick.
Using public or private IP address space makes no difference. The problem is with the contention itself.
An IP/MAC address doesn't tell you who was operating a computer at the time. Bottom line. All it means is that at a particular time, a computer was in use. You can't even be for certain what computer, since MAC spoofing is fairly easy to anyone knowledgeable enough. Network accounts are meaningless, when a simple glance over a shoulder or 5 minutes of uninterrupted rummaging around a desk can allow me to appear to be you.
Any "expert" should know this, and omission of those simple facts is at best a half-truth and at worst establishes intent to deceive.
Yeah, because the things that cause Global Warming also have no impact on health.
Erm, wait...
I disagree. It is both a practical problem, and a moral one.
I think you perhaps have not heard the term "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure".
What you propose is not likely to save money, but rather cost more money over the long run. Almost always, money spent upfront to correct an issue is ultimately more cost effective than dealing with symptoms later on. Often the initial cost is high, but the ultimate cost in the long run can often be astronomical in comparison.
In this case, it won't just be a monetary cost. The potential for loss of life is also at risk. When the problem involves possible loss of human life, it ceases to be just a matter of practicality and now takes on moral connotations.
Lastly, energy conservation has impacts that extend beyond global warming. Less reliance on foreign nations for energy production has positive long term benefits for any nation that undertakes it. No matter what your position on global warming, energy conservation and cleaner energy make sense. As I tell many people, I don't need global warming to convince me it's better overall to get 40MPG than 20.
Given the current world population, it's rate of growth, and where that growth is occurring, it's a safe bet that both prevention and correction of symptoms will have to be enacted.
Could also be read:
"Large companies fail to correct issues they cause, infuriating customers"
It doesn't matter if she was covert or not. He was tried and convicted on obstruction of justice and lying under oath, not for treason, which would be the charge for revealing a covert agent.
CSS does not prevent copying. I've seen this misconception bandied around by quite a few people, some deliberately (as the DVD CCA does) and some mistakenly.
You can copy the files off your DVD to your hard drive, and view the movie just fine. You can burn those files to another DVD, plop it into DVD drive, and that copy will play.
The only thing CSS does is prevent you from using an *UNLICENSED* player. In other words, CSS forces the manufacturers of DVD players to get a license and play by their rules under that license.
CSS doesn't prevent copying, and never has. It's encryption is for the purpose of preventing *playback*, not copying.
Oh there's life, it's just not intelligent.
From TFA:
;-)
"AAC-format supporters include some notable names, including Microsoft's Zune. So come May, the 16 people who own one will be able to buy EMI tracks from iTunes and presumably play them on that device."
Only 16 people own a Zune? I would have guessed at least 25 or so.
First, your "facts" don't jive with what is actually in the documents, and what the government has already admitted.
"1) The President of the US is not obligated to seek the permission of Congress for anything other than lawmaking."
He is, however, required to obey those laws. Wiretaps must be authorized by warrant when an American citizen is involved. FISA was created to deal with issues of warrants involving National Security.
"2) FISA is a secret court. If they oversaw the program (or not), you and I are not going to know beyond what they choose to release."
Well then here you go..
"California Northern District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled, however, that since the government had admitted it was wiretapping Americans without a warrant and that AT&T had to be involved, the case could go forward tentatively."
In other words, it never went through FISA. Owned up to by the government themselves. The legislative branch decided, based on their interpretations of constitutional law, that they didn't have to. In short, the legislative branch basically took the position that if they felt Congress or the Courts were impinging on their constitutional powers, they simply would ignore them. We've seen this before; Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and the Supreme Court ruled that suspension illegal. This administration is attempting to do the same, but from a different angle by invoking that because someone is declared to be an "enemy combatant", they have no rights and any communication involving such persons doesn't require overview, even if some of the parties involved are American citizens.
"3) What we do know is that the EFF doesn't have a clue when the program began (read the brief) and doesn't have a clue what was disclosed."
But what they do have is the governments own admission that the program was warrantless, and thus had no oversight by FISA. That's the whole point of FISA, and the President just decided to do an end-run around it.
"4) Page 9 of the brief shows that FISA OK'd the program."
No, that's not what it says.
It says "any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program will now be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Flat out, it's saying the program is now subject to FISA approval. As should have been done in the first place. It doesn't say that the previously unwarranted tapping was "OK".
Here's some logic maybe even Gonzales can understand.
"Mr Gonzales, how many fingers do you have on your right hand?"
Gonzales:"5"
"Now, the constition says the Government may not chop off your fingers, correct?"
Gonzales:"Correct"
"But the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, did it?"
Gonzales:"No"
"So Mr. Gonzales, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that since the Constitution didn't give you those five fingers, and the Constitution says the Government can't take them away, that you probably had them to begin with?"
Gonzales:"..."
The depth of irony here is almost beyond pale. The AG of the United States arguing that the Constitution doesn't explicitely grant a right, which is exactly why the authors of the Constitution framed it the way they did to prevent exactly such arguments. The Constitution *grants no rights*, because you inherently have *all* rights. Same as you were born with fingers and toes, you were born with all rights.
These rights are not just if your an American, they are *inalienable* human rights as understood by the founding fathers.
Truly, this administration doesn't understand what "becoming the enemy" means.
"Toyota may have beaten Detroit to the consumer hybrid table, but their days of dominance in this field is numbered. GM alone will, as of 2008, have a hybrid sedan (Aura Green Line), hybrid crossover SUV (Vue Green Line), and full size truck SUV (hybrid Tahoe/Yukon/Silverado/Sierra). That means you can drive a hybrid that actually looks like a regular car (imagine that!) instead of a poorly executed fashion statement."
What a load of nonsense.
I hate to break this to you, but Toyota has commited to making a hybrid version of *every one* of their lines. So your statement of buying a "regular car" is completely moot. In fact, demand has been so strong for the hybrid versions of their cars they've actually accelerated their timetables to meet try to meet this demand.
I can buy a hybrid Camry *today*. Not in 2008.
And for those folks who would like a fuel efficient car and not worried about the look, Toyota will sell you a car, built from the ground up with hybrid technology in mind. How many built from scratch hybrids have US auto-makers made and you can actually buy like a Prius? Well, if you can find one, since demand is so high it outstrips supply. Detroit's percentage of this market? Zilch.
While I wish the US auto-makers all the best and encourage them in pushing forth hybrid technology, I don't hold any illusions they will dominate that market. It would be refreshing to see them be a market leader in something other then gas guzzling monstrosities.
For those who are talking about auto-revoke clauses in lawsuits (of which I've seen a number post), read the article:
During arguments in October, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested there may be some way to structure a licensing agreement to diminish the threat of a lawsuit. Best predicts companies will likely try including contractual provisions prohibiting filing suit, potentially charging lower fees for those who agree to waive that legal right. But it's unclear whether such measures are legal. Courts generally hold that the right to sue should be retained - a sentiment that came out in this case.
Simply because a clause is within a contract/agreement, doesn't make it legally valid. As the courts have established through decisions, the right to sue should be retained and it's likely that clauses stipulating the prohibition of filing suit would be deemed legally unenforceable. A contract/agreement could be structured to make it undesirable to file suit or more desirable to persuade a licensee not to, but clauses that seek to waiver that right most likely will fail.
This decision has a more profound effect then simply the right to sue. It also raises the bar in the establishment of knowingly violating a patent. If a person/company sues to invalidate a patent, then only if the lawsuit is unsuccessful and the person/company continues to violate the patent can it be established they "knowingly" violated the patent. So this will also have an effect of making it more difficult to seek treble damages. Any person/company with the foresight and resources would file an invalidation lawsuit for that very reason, I suspect.
I agree with the Supreme Courts interpretation that just because you license, doesn't mean "Actual Controversy" requirements for filing an invalidation suit are voided. Previous court decisions established that you had to violate a patent first in order to file suit to fulfill "Actual Controversy" requirements. The Catch-22 of this is that by the very act of violating the patent, you are doing so "knowingly" in order to pursue an invalidation suit. Which means that should the suit fail, you'll automatically be nailed for treble damages since you've already established you knowingly violated the patent in order to pursue the invalidation suit in the first place.
The previous logic was flawed. It was like saying that if someone portends you owe them money, you would have to acknowledge you do owe them money before you could file a suit to establish you don't. The refusal to acknowledge a patent as valid should be grounds enough to fulfill the actual controversy requirements.Yes, you could refuse to license to a company beforehand if you believe they will sue to invalidate. However, if they are successful in invalidating your patent, then your patent has no value and you've gained nothing. If you revoke a license after a lawsuit is initiated and your patent is invalidated, then you've gained nothing.
If your license is not invalidated, then the invalidation suit raises questions as to whether a company knowingly violated a patent. If you come to me demanding a license, I don't agree because I believe your patent is invalid and sue to invalidate, then the "knowingly" part of treble damages comes into suspect. The simply act of notifying a person/company they are in patent violation wouldn't be enough. Only after the failure of an invalidation suit and you *still* violate the patent could you be reasonably held to be "knowingly" violating the patent.
I suspect that we'll see companies filing lawsuits to invalidate patents just to avoid paying the treble damages in the event they are unsuccessful in overturning a patent.
An auto-revoke clause would most probably be ruled as invalid, since this court decision has just affirmed that you have the right to sue even if you are licensing.
Just because something is written and you sign it, doesn't make it enforceable.
Because this decision has just established that you can sue even if you are licensing. Putting a clause in the agreement to void the licensing in case of lawsuit would itself be unenforceable by this decision.
Simply because something is written in a contract or agreement, doesn't mean it's legal or enforceable.
Some things just can't be signed away. Since the Supreme Court has already upheld that the right to sue for patent validity cannot be subsumed through licensing, putting such a clause in the licensing agreement would have no legal effect.
"Want to drive a car w/o ID? you're more than welcome to make the attempt. However driving a motor vehicle is not a right and there's rather clear legislation that states that your license must be shown on the request of a peace officer."
Flying isn't a right, it's a commercial service. As such, airlines can deny you that service. But that's not a law/regulation, that's company policy.
Which was the whole point of the lawsuit. The airlines are saying that it is government regulation, not company policy, which is demanding ID. However, the law/regulation enforcing this is *NOT* public. You made mention of the fact that there is "clear" legislation that details why you must present an ID for driving. Now, go find that "clear" legislation that enforces the ID check for boarding planes, and when you find it let Gilmore's lawyers know, because apparently neither they, the airlines, nor the government know where it's at.
How this parent got modded to insightful I have no idea, since he doesn't even know what the basis for the lawsuit was. It wasn't a lawsuit to force airlines to allow travel without ID, it was to force the government to make public the laws/regulations which are enforcing it.
You might want to take a bit of caution when applying for this kind of work. I speak of this from first-hand experience.
Dealing with classified information is very high risk from a personal standpoint. The penalties of a security breach due to personal negligence is *very* harsh. And by the job description, you'll be up to your ears in it.
Also, an Information Management position isn't strictly IT work. It's a hybrid position consisting of both IT work and your rather mundane office-assistant paperwork shuffler.
Government employment has very nice benefits, and provides a very stable work environment. However, keep in mind that whenever you work with classified information there is a lot of risk/stress involved.