When you pay for cable you are not paying for the content on the TV (with the exception of premium channels) you are paying for the delivery of the channels.
I don't buy that argument.
Look at radio: do I have to pay for it? No. The stations pay for the delivery. The more they increase their range of delivery, then the more they can easily sell airtime to advertisers ("see, we have 20% more range/listners that [other station]"). I don't see why this shouldn't be the same with cable tv. Cable TV is definitively not free.
I think it was a comment here on slashdot, probably with a link to an article, that talked about patent infringments, and how you could more or less protect yourself from it.
One thing I do remember is that the article said that if you don't knowingly infrige on a patent (ie don't go looking to see if you are), you should be fairly ok. I say 'fairly' because 1: I dont remember exactly what they said about it, and 2: obviously, it's still a problem. But basically it said not to go look for trouble...
I'll try to find it again and post it in a follow up...p.
Returned to the distributer, with a request of a refund, or else I'm either doing CC chargeback as per their satisfaction policy, or small claims court for fees of product that limits my usage of it (not allowed in Canada - I'm not gonna listen to the kids asking for 10 mins when the actual show's gonna start)
Worked everytime so far. Of course I no longer buy any products from those distributers now, Disney being the worst offender...
" skipping any commercials or promotional announcements would be prohibited."
So, it would make it perfectly acceptable for producers to put 30 mins of promotional crap at the beginning of a DVD that *I* bought and I couldn't skip it?
I already return the ones that won't let me skip 5 mins of it, because I feel it treats me like an idiot! And now they expect better sales because of the 'extra' protection this bill allows?
And they wonder why people rip DVDs and such. Geez.
Your post outlines another broken system: that decisions that will affect society are dictated by lobbyist and coporations for they own growth instead of the greater good of society.
Ask the EU folks how they feel about the potential of being sued if patents they grant would result in the cripplement of certain small companies by bigger companies that (ab)use questionable patents they've received (along the lines of this post and I'm sure there are dozens more in the comments), which is the same effect as an abusive monopoly dictating the market place.
Additionally, are they prepared of being dictated how/what software they'll use, and be ready to budget 50%+ of their entire budget for software/licences to companies that would hold such patents? (It will happen - software is here to stay, and will be an integral part of business and governemt, and abusive companies (think MS) will try to grab their share for everything under the sun)
Why shouldn't we? She's the one that said "We're leading the way" in reference to online music industry on her ZDNet soapbox a few years back. She clearly has no credibility.
Using a now-expired patent is a very, very poor example to use! Everyone knows that new software patents now are ALL purposely broad in their descriptions.
Gee, making it so 'easy' to purchase something with only 1-click kinda tells me it's gonna be that much easier for fraud to occur - Yes, thank you Amazon and the PTO!
So how does any of this show that software patents in particular are pathetic?
The other non-sw patents you mention are simply ridiculous. Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe. That's pathetic.
"However, I'd be tempted to say that he's even made himself a target of Microsoft lawyers, as he has made allegations which could be, if false, be taken as libelous (or otherwise defamatory). (Not that I believe they are false.) "
But you have to remember the context of the article; they way I read it, everything mentioned is in the 35 brief from Burst and the unsealed documents. He's just summarizing what's in those documents.
Answer: NO. First of all, the idea of building a solar-hydrogen internal combustion vehicle is neither new or original. As far as we know, nobody has built one before this since the production rate of hydrogen is so low. Secondly, one of our main goals is to promote this technology, and contribute to this field without putting any restrictions on others.
Given the fact that the brakes didn't do anything (they should normally automaticlly kill the cruise), perhaps the same happened with the transmission control; assuming it wasn't manual of course.
When the 'political agenda' is full of propaganda and the truth is twisted (as it seems it might be here), then it should be questioned; but if it's presented as fact (ie. movie format, not an actual debate or something), then it's misleading.
If you don't see what's wrong with that then your whole electoral and law system is sloppy; a credit to your nick.
Slashdot Mirror
When you pay for cable you are not paying for the content on the TV (with the exception of premium channels) you are paying for the delivery of the channels.
I don't buy that argument.
Look at radio: do I have to pay for it? No. The stations pay for the delivery. The more they increase their range of delivery, then the more they can easily sell airtime to advertisers ("see, we have 20% more range/listners that [other station]"). I don't see why this shouldn't be the same with cable tv. Cable TV is definitively not free.
I think it was a comment here on slashdot, probably with a link to an article, that talked about patent infringments, and how you could more or less protect yourself from it.
One thing I do remember is that the article said that if you don't knowingly infrige on a patent (ie don't go looking to see if you are), you should be fairly ok. I say 'fairly' because 1: I dont remember exactly what they said about it, and 2: obviously, it's still a problem. But basically it said not to go look for trouble...
I'll try to find it again and post it in a follow up...p.
That is what I did; afterall, they have fun 'interpreting and rewording' the meaning of laws for their benefit, why shouldn't I have the same fun?
Worked everytime so far. Of course I no longer buy any products from those distributers now, Disney being the worst offender...
So, it would make it perfectly acceptable for producers to put 30 mins of promotional crap at the beginning of a DVD that *I* bought and I couldn't skip it?
I already return the ones that won't let me skip 5 mins of it, because I feel it treats me like an idiot! And now they expect better sales because of the 'extra' protection this bill allows?
And they wonder why people rip DVDs and such. Geez.
In that case, a homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.
to
In that case, a now homeless Vancouver man was ordered to pay $125,000 for libelling Barrick Gold Corp. in Internet postings.
Additionally, are they prepared of being dictated how/what software they'll use, and be ready to budget 50%+ of their entire budget for software/licences to companies that would hold such patents? (It will happen - software is here to stay, and will be an integral part of business and governemt, and abusive companies (think MS) will try to grab their share for everything under the sun)
The other non-sw patents you mention are simply ridiculous. Software patents are pathetic since they are purposly broadly written so that pretty much anything done with a computer (even if it already exists in the non-software world) will infringe. That's pathetic.
Doesn't that mean that the parachutes should have deployed on take off?
;)
The whole mechanism was probably programmed to activate only prior to reentry...
But that would've been interesting to see!
"
But you have to remember the context of the article; they way I read it, everything mentioned is in the 35 brief from Burst and the unsealed documents. He's just summarizing what's in those documents.
Puh-lease! Everyone knows MS's "innovations" are just rip-offs or stolen from their competitors/partners!
He won't need to... Windows is already a virus by itself.
And exactly how do you figure that it's not useful?
Answer: NO. First of all, the idea of building a solar-hydrogen internal combustion vehicle is neither new or original. As far as we know, nobody has built one before this since the production rate of hydrogen is so low. Secondly, one of our main goals is to promote this technology, and contribute to this field without putting any restrictions on others.
If you don't see what's wrong with that then your whole electoral and law system is sloppy; a credit to your nick.