That is true, but I don't think it would cover this case. It just doesn't seem like there's an implied contract to provide service forever. Most likely it's quite the opposite -- if you read the headings of the TOS before you sign up, I'm sure it discloses that they may discontinue the service or your account at any time.
If they violated the terms under which you paid for the account, take them to small claims court and demand it back. If that's within the terms of the account, then you signed up under poor terms to begin with.
That's definitely an interesting question. I suspect it's probably not enough, but like I said, I don't know what (if anything) the courts have said on this matter.
Here's a related question: Suppose it's decided they are receiving consideration from you by being entrusted with your journal content. If they never offered you a guarantee of continued service, where would the responsibility to continue come from? A business is generally free to refuse customers (for reasons that aren't discrimination for specific reasons, such as race, gender, etc). Why can't they just unilaterally decide that the consideration you're giving them is not paying for the cost of providing you the service?
That's what's at issue here -- I gather that they're hoping first, that people will be drawn to the site and enticed to pay them for subscriptions. That will give them a direct revenue stream, but it's evidently not enough. So they're hoping to increase the value they realize from content posted by free account users. If those users are thwarting these attempts, then it may be more profitable to drop the user rather than continue losing money on the transaction. I don't see how there's any moral question here -- they're just deciding that they'd rather not to business with this person, to whom they made no promise of continued service.
Ok, I agree that it's very common to express ratios with a colon. If you'd written 2.5B : 1g, I think it'd have been clearer. I've never seen it used for numberless units. Thanks for hanging around and answering politely.:-)
As for the confusion of division versus multiplication, it's really just algebra. You can treat a unit like a non-zero variable. If you think of "3 hours" as 3*h, and 2 kilometers per hour as 2*km/h, then it's obvious what you do. Multiply these numbers: (3*h) * (2*km/h) = 6 * km * h / h = 6*km We were able to divide "hours" by "hours" and come up with a length. If you tried dividing, you'd end up with units of kilometers per hours squared, which is invalid for a length.
This works for almost any unit you'll come across. The only exception I know of is temperature, but there are probably others. The problem with temperature is that both the Celsius and the Farenheit scales have negative temperatures -- thus, you have both the size of the interval between two degrees and an extra degree of freedom for defining the arbitrary zero. Thus, a simple multiplicative scaling isn't enough.
Yeah -- that is pretty common, especially in article text and other places where there's not enough vertical space for fractions, or when there is a long string of units.
Do most people pay for these services? I assume not. In that case, IMO, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. The TOS make it very clear that they may change in the future. If you aren't willing to accept the risk that you may have to move your content, then pay someone to host it with better terms.
These "contracts" are closer to being one-sided the other way -- the provider is letting you use their servers for free and only asking that you abide by their rules. What consideration are you providing them that would create a binding contract?
If you're paying for the service, it's a different game, but as I understand it, these are TOS for a free service.
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
Ordinarily, contracts must be two-sided -- it's assumed that no one would enter into a contract if they don't receive some sort of consideration. If you're not paying, the service provider is hoping that your content will attract business through some other channel. I doubt that this very indirect "payment" would be seen as consideration unless there were an explicit agreement in place. I can't imagine any rational free service provider writing their contract to make that the case, either. In the eyes of the law, you're probably receiving a gift -- and the courts won't require a gift giver to keep giving a gift (barring some extremely bizarre circumstances, I imagine).
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
Actually, an antimatter reactor wouldn't be that different from a fusion reactor. Both take fuel and convert it into energy. In one case, it's the energy released when an anti-particle recombines with an electron. In the other, it's the energy equivalent of the difference in mass between (say), two hydrogen atoms and a single helium atom. The reason antimatter is so compelling is that you start with two particles of equal mass and end up with no massive particles at all, whereas with fusion you're only "losing" a tiny fraction of the mass in the reaction.
You may be correct that we are closer to a fusion reactor, but there are a lot of compelling reasons to prefer antimatter if you can do it. Also note that we're yet to see a sustained fusion reaction that actually produces more energy than it takes to sustain it, so I don't know that we're actually that close to a fusion power source, either).
You multiply and then the hours in the numerator is "divided" out by the hours in the denominator. Units work just like numbers in this regard.
I'm curious who else uses a colon -- I can echo others in saying that I've "been around" in science and engineering and don't recall ever seeing that convention. Have you seen others doing this, and where? (I'm really curious -- not flaming)
No one is bound to provide help, but someone went to the trouble to put up a support forum for people to seek support. If someone emailed you personally and demanded answers, that'd warrant an annoyed response. But in response to a support forum message, if you're not going to be helpful, then don't respond.
Heck, if you're going to say "RTFM, N00B," why not either be polite about it or, better, provide a helpful link to where they should be looking.
If you're day trading, then yeah. Otherwise it's very different given that the market has a history of growth. It's like a lottery ticket that's nearly guaranteed to pay out a few percent per year more than you paid for it (assuming you diversify and don't buy just one, and that you're able to hold on through temporary downturns).
While I like the spirit of what you're saying, when it comes to actions that are criminal, things become more complex. This is especially true for crimes which, like drug use, don't have an obvious victim. For example, I don't think there is anything wrong with (or oxymoronic about) responsible recreational drug use. If I did choose to illegally use drugs, I would not want anyone to know about it and I would be very unlikely to be frank and open about it with anyone I did not trust a great deal. Not because I would feel there is anything wrong about such use, but simply because the penalty for being "outed" to the wrong people is too high.
Things are more complicated than simply being proud enough to stand up for the things you do. Hiding drug use is not a matter of being ashamed, it's a matter of not wanting to spend time in jail. In my case, I opt not to use illegal drugs at all -- not because I see any shame in their use, but simply as a pragmatic decision given the risks involved. That doesn't change the argument, though.
Or perhaps it's just an author engaging in a bit of hyperbole to spice up his article?
Oh right, because he probably really did mean that marshmallow birds are actually ruling the United States, but he was so narrow-minded he thought that was the whole world.
Re:Putting a Law Around "Trade Secrets"
on
Apple vs Bloggers
·
· Score: 1
Wow, moderators are on crack tonight! Offtopic? Poor guy... he's practically talking about the core debate brought up by the article!
Getting the information published in the open is a benefit of patents, but I don't think it is the main goal. From the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, the right of Congress to issue patents rests on the following text:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
It's a little vague as to the definition (and I've not read enough history to be authoritative), but I believe that the text indicates the goal is essentially to encourage innovation. Losing unpublished inventions known only to the inventor is a pretty rare case, whereas there is a lot of economic pressure to "steal" inventions to avoid development costs. See, for example, the thriving generic drug market.:-)
No, I don't really consider that to be theft in the usual sense, hence the quotes. Regardless of how you feel about the ethics of recouping development costs at the expense of those who will die without the inventions (and ignoring the question of how honestly the pharmas account for their dev costs), that particular market is one where the manufacturing cost is negligible compared to development cost. It's all about knowing what particular chemical out of billions should go in the pills. Actually producing the chemical usually costs next to nothing.
You seem to be agreeing with what Paul Graham said, despite your belief to the contrary. The problem is not with software patents, it's with obvious patents. Mr. Graham suggests that the office is particularly bad at recognizing obvious software patents and is perhaps better at recognizing obviousness in more traditional patent filings. I haven't done the research one way or the other, but this certainly sounds plausible.
In a phyiscal invention the gears and levels are easy to take apart to see how they work. This is one reason patents (which are basically copyrights for physical things) are nessesary, as reverse engineering is easy in the physical world.
I disagree. It's actually straightforward (but tedious) to reverse engineer software by looking at the binary. Compared to a complex machine or a device consisting of integrated circuits, it may even be easier. Copyright on the software may provide some protection, but there are well-established ways to get around that (e.g., clean-room implementations).
That argument works for copyright but not for patents. It doesn't cost an inventor anything in terms of materials if a competitor produces its own copies of his invention. Except in very rare cases where production is limited by the amount of resources available, both A and B can produce as many widgets as time permits.
The problem that patents purport to solve is when A invests his resources inventing a new widget, then B reverse-engineers it and sells it. A needs to charge a preimium to recoup his inventing costs, so B can undercut him. [*] This is the injustice that hampers innovation since there is now an incentive to let someone else do all the development.
The cost of producing the eventual product is irrelevant to this argument. The amount that B can unfairly undercut A is set only by the cost of invention. Beyond that, they're both limited by the same manufacturing cost of the widget.
[*] I'm not assuming anyone's male here, but English doesn't have a convenient gender-neutral animate singular pronoun. Sorry, ladies.
I disagree. Teachers are important, but a teacher needs to be paid for continuously. Consider the choice between a book and a teacher. The book is paid for once and can then teach anyone who can read. The book is a tool; the teacher is a service. Once a kernel of the population can read, they can then produce their own teachers and re-use the tools (books) that they have to teach more of their own people.
The laptop is another tool that, once some of the population has learned to use, can be used to teach within the community with minimal additional cost. Furthermore, it has its own value as a communications tool once people know how to use it.
No one is discounting the value of teachers, either. It's just that they are funded to some degree, and the job isn't getting done well enough. One option is to pour more money into more teachers, but Negroponte's theory is that it's better to spend some money on tools instead. Maybe he's wrong and these will be a waste. I, personally, think there's an enormous potential value.
Finally, don't discount the value of "learning" to play computer games. That's how I got into computers and that's how a lot of people do. Learning a game helps a person become comfortable using a computer, and that's the first step to using it for more productive things.
Well, that's the cool thing about this project. When it gets rolling, there'll be cheap laptops available for anyone who needs them. It won't just help the people it's initially targetting (which is *not* the worst of the starving populations, just for the reasons you point out; it's those who actually have some significant agriculture and can improve it quickly with better communications). It will open up a solution that will quite likely solve problems that no one has yet realized can be solved. Giving the gift of a powerful communication tool is one of the biggest gifts you can give to a community.
Part of the goal of this project is to help more of the world become self-sufficient and able to help with the more severe problems elsewhere. One of the major problems encountered trying to send food to places that need it comes in distribution. It's hard for a US-based organization to build the infrastructure in, say, Africa to efficiently distribute food to the poorest areas. If the not-quite-so-poor areas around there are able to develop further, they'll then be able to assist with distribution. Furthermore, they'll be able to more efficiently produce food and use resources, which they can then share with their poorer neighbors.
You'll probably need additional corroboration of the dates in those notebooks. A single dated piece of paper won't be worth anything. If, however, you've got years and years of notebooks that are kept in a consistent fashion, in pen, etc, then you have some credibility. It helps if it's widely known that you keep a notebook of your work. But, generally, your notebook may help support other evidence, but you're not going to overturn a patent on a notebook entry alone.
He followed standard protocol for NTP servers, which is to list the restrictions on the use of your server with its entry on the NTP server list. System administrators are supposed to check this to make sure they're not making an unauthorized connection. They're also supposed to contact the NTP server administrator to let him know they're using the server, unless the server admin states otherwise.
You can learn all this and check the list to be sure you comply within 10 minutes thanks to the power of Google. Any responsible company would know this and do so. D-Link made a big mistake (not in terms of the impact on them, sadly) and is evidently refusing to own up.
As others have pointed out, it's not easy to implement the restrictions that would enforce the access policy. It's also sad, though not surprising, that one would have to. It'd be one thing if the server was the target of script kiddie DOS attacks, but a legitimate company selling network products really ought to know better (and care).
Slashdot Mirror
That is true, but I don't think it would cover this case. It just doesn't seem like there's an implied contract to provide service forever. Most likely it's quite the opposite -- if you read the headings of the TOS before you sign up, I'm sure it discloses that they may discontinue the service or your account at any time.
If they violated the terms under which you paid for the account, take them to small claims court and demand it back. If that's within the terms of the account, then you signed up under poor terms to begin with.
That's definitely an interesting question. I suspect it's probably not enough, but like I said, I don't know what (if anything) the courts have said on this matter.
Here's a related question: Suppose it's decided they are receiving consideration from you by being entrusted with your journal content. If they never offered you a guarantee of continued service, where would the responsibility to continue come from? A business is generally free to refuse customers (for reasons that aren't discrimination for specific reasons, such as race, gender, etc). Why can't they just unilaterally decide that the consideration you're giving them is not paying for the cost of providing you the service?
That's what's at issue here -- I gather that they're hoping first, that people will be drawn to the site and enticed to pay them for subscriptions. That will give them a direct revenue stream, but it's evidently not enough. So they're hoping to increase the value they realize from content posted by free account users. If those users are thwarting these attempts, then it may be more profitable to drop the user rather than continue losing money on the transaction. I don't see how there's any moral question here -- they're just deciding that they'd rather not to business with this person, to whom they made no promise of continued service.
Ok, I agree that it's very common to express ratios with a colon. If you'd written 2.5B : 1g, I think it'd have been clearer. I've never seen it used for numberless units. Thanks for hanging around and answering politely. :-)
As for the confusion of division versus multiplication, it's really just algebra. You can treat a unit like a non-zero variable. If you think of "3 hours" as 3*h, and 2 kilometers per hour as 2*km/h, then it's obvious what you do. Multiply these numbers:
(3*h) * (2*km/h) = 6 * km * h / h = 6*km
We were able to divide "hours" by "hours" and come up with a length. If you tried dividing, you'd end up with units of kilometers per hours squared, which is invalid for a length.
This works for almost any unit you'll come across. The only exception I know of is temperature, but there are probably others. The problem with temperature is that both the Celsius and the Farenheit scales have negative temperatures -- thus, you have both the size of the interval between two degrees and an extra degree of freedom for defining the arbitrary zero. Thus, a simple multiplicative scaling isn't enough.
Yeah -- that is pretty common, especially in article text and other places where there's not enough vertical space for fractions, or when there is a long string of units.
Do most people pay for these services? I assume not. In that case, IMO, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. The TOS make it very clear that they may change in the future. If you aren't willing to accept the risk that you may have to move your content, then pay someone to host it with better terms.
These "contracts" are closer to being one-sided the other way -- the provider is letting you use their servers for free and only asking that you abide by their rules. What consideration are you providing them that would create a binding contract?
If you're paying for the service, it's a different game, but as I understand it, these are TOS for a free service.
If they want to start charging you for the service, I imagine they would at minimum have to provide you with a reasonable amount of time to become aware of the change and accept/consent. More likely, they'd have to get a positive indication of your acceptance in order to begin billing you.
However, unless they'd made an explicit commitment to allow you access to get your files off their servers, I don't see any reason why they couldn't just cut off your access entirely until you agree to pay for the service. Unless you're paying for the service already, it's unlikely they have any contractual obligations toward you.
Ordinarily, contracts must be two-sided -- it's assumed that no one would enter into a contract if they don't receive some sort of consideration. If you're not paying, the service provider is hoping that your content will attract business through some other channel. I doubt that this very indirect "payment" would be seen as consideration unless there were an explicit agreement in place. I can't imagine any rational free service provider writing their contract to make that the case, either. In the eyes of the law, you're probably receiving a gift -- and the courts won't require a gift giver to keep giving a gift (barring some extremely bizarre circumstances, I imagine).
Of course, IANAL... but I always assume any free service I use on the web (or anywhere else) is a fleeting thing that may vanish without notice. It generally seems fair to me, given that I'm getting something for nothing.
Actually, an antimatter reactor wouldn't be that different from a fusion reactor. Both take fuel and convert it into energy. In one case, it's the energy released when an anti-particle recombines with an electron. In the other, it's the energy equivalent of the difference in mass between (say), two hydrogen atoms and a single helium atom. The reason antimatter is so compelling is that you start with two particles of equal mass and end up with no massive particles at all, whereas with fusion you're only "losing" a tiny fraction of the mass in the reaction.
You may be correct that we are closer to a fusion reactor, but there are a lot of compelling reasons to prefer antimatter if you can do it. Also note that we're yet to see a sustained fusion reaction that actually produces more energy than it takes to sustain it, so I don't know that we're actually that close to a fusion power source, either).
As a numerical ratio, sure, but I've never seen it in the context of units in either engineering or physics. Is it a common convention elsewhere?
You multiply and then the hours in the numerator is "divided" out by the hours in the denominator. Units work just like numbers in this regard.
I'm curious who else uses a colon -- I can echo others in saying that I've "been around" in science and engineering and don't recall ever seeing that convention. Have you seen others doing this, and where? (I'm really curious -- not flaming)
No one is bound to provide help, but someone went to the trouble to put up a support forum for people to seek support. If someone emailed you personally and demanded answers, that'd warrant an annoyed response. But in response to a support forum message, if you're not going to be helpful, then don't respond.
Heck, if you're going to say "RTFM, N00B," why not either be polite about it or, better, provide a helpful link to where they should be looking.
If you're day trading, then yeah. Otherwise it's very different given that the market has a history of growth. It's like a lottery ticket that's nearly guaranteed to pay out a few percent per year more than you paid for it (assuming you diversify and don't buy just one, and that you're able to hold on through temporary downturns).
While I like the spirit of what you're saying, when it comes to actions that are criminal, things become more complex. This is especially true for crimes which, like drug use, don't have an obvious victim. For example, I don't think there is anything wrong with (or oxymoronic about) responsible recreational drug use. If I did choose to illegally use drugs, I would not want anyone to know about it and I would be very unlikely to be frank and open about it with anyone I did not trust a great deal. Not because I would feel there is anything wrong about such use, but simply because the penalty for being "outed" to the wrong people is too high.
Things are more complicated than simply being proud enough to stand up for the things you do. Hiding drug use is not a matter of being ashamed, it's a matter of not wanting to spend time in jail. In my case, I opt not to use illegal drugs at all -- not because I see any shame in their use, but simply as a pragmatic decision given the risks involved. That doesn't change the argument, though.
Or perhaps it's just an author engaging in a bit of hyperbole to spice up his article?
Oh right, because he probably really did mean that marshmallow birds are actually ruling the United States, but he was so narrow-minded he thought that was the whole world.
Wow, moderators are on crack tonight! Offtopic? Poor guy... he's practically talking about the core debate brought up by the article!
No, I don't really consider that to be theft in the usual sense, hence the quotes. Regardless of how you feel about the ethics of recouping development costs at the expense of those who will die without the inventions (and ignoring the question of how honestly the pharmas account for their dev costs), that particular market is one where the manufacturing cost is negligible compared to development cost. It's all about knowing what particular chemical out of billions should go in the pills. Actually producing the chemical usually costs next to nothing.
You seem to be agreeing with what Paul Graham said, despite your belief to the contrary. The problem is not with software patents, it's with obvious patents. Mr. Graham suggests that the office is particularly bad at recognizing obvious software patents and is perhaps better at recognizing obviousness in more traditional patent filings. I haven't done the research one way or the other, but this certainly sounds plausible.
That argument works for copyright but not for patents. It doesn't cost an inventor anything in terms of materials if a competitor produces its own copies of his invention. Except in very rare cases where production is limited by the amount of resources available, both A and B can produce as many widgets as time permits.
The problem that patents purport to solve is when A invests his resources inventing a new widget, then B reverse-engineers it and sells it. A needs to charge a preimium to recoup his inventing costs, so B can undercut him. [*] This is the injustice that hampers innovation since there is now an incentive to let someone else do all the development.
The cost of producing the eventual product is irrelevant to this argument. The amount that B can unfairly undercut A is set only by the cost of invention. Beyond that, they're both limited by the same manufacturing cost of the widget.
[*] I'm not assuming anyone's male here, but English doesn't have a convenient gender-neutral animate singular pronoun. Sorry, ladies.
Great reply. By your logic, why should we help anyone?
I disagree. Teachers are important, but a teacher needs to be paid for continuously. Consider the choice between a book and a teacher. The book is paid for once and can then teach anyone who can read. The book is a tool; the teacher is a service. Once a kernel of the population can read, they can then produce their own teachers and re-use the tools (books) that they have to teach more of their own people.
The laptop is another tool that, once some of the population has learned to use, can be used to teach within the community with minimal additional cost. Furthermore, it has its own value as a communications tool once people know how to use it.
No one is discounting the value of teachers, either. It's just that they are funded to some degree, and the job isn't getting done well enough. One option is to pour more money into more teachers, but Negroponte's theory is that it's better to spend some money on tools instead. Maybe he's wrong and these will be a waste. I, personally, think there's an enormous potential value.
Finally, don't discount the value of "learning" to play computer games. That's how I got into computers and that's how a lot of people do. Learning a game helps a person become comfortable using a computer, and that's the first step to using it for more productive things.
Well, that's the cool thing about this project. When it gets rolling, there'll be cheap laptops available for anyone who needs them. It won't just help the people it's initially targetting (which is *not* the worst of the starving populations, just for the reasons you point out; it's those who actually have some significant agriculture and can improve it quickly with better communications). It will open up a solution that will quite likely solve problems that no one has yet realized can be solved. Giving the gift of a powerful communication tool is one of the biggest gifts you can give to a community.
Part of the goal of this project is to help more of the world become self-sufficient and able to help with the more severe problems elsewhere. One of the major problems encountered trying to send food to places that need it comes in distribution. It's hard for a US-based organization to build the infrastructure in, say, Africa to efficiently distribute food to the poorest areas. If the not-quite-so-poor areas around there are able to develop further, they'll then be able to assist with distribution. Furthermore, they'll be able to more efficiently produce food and use resources, which they can then share with their poorer neighbors.
You'll probably need additional corroboration of the dates in those notebooks. A single dated piece of paper won't be worth anything. If, however, you've got years and years of notebooks that are kept in a consistent fashion, in pen, etc, then you have some credibility. It helps if it's widely known that you keep a notebook of your work. But, generally, your notebook may help support other evidence, but you're not going to overturn a patent on a notebook entry alone.
He followed standard protocol for NTP servers, which is to list the restrictions on the use of your server with its entry on the NTP server list. System administrators are supposed to check this to make sure they're not making an unauthorized connection. They're also supposed to contact the NTP server administrator to let him know they're using the server, unless the server admin states otherwise.
You can learn all this and check the list to be sure you comply within 10 minutes thanks to the power of Google. Any responsible company would know this and do so. D-Link made a big mistake (not in terms of the impact on them, sadly) and is evidently refusing to own up.
As others have pointed out, it's not easy to implement the restrictions that would enforce the access policy. It's also sad, though not surprising, that one would have to. It'd be one thing if the server was the target of script kiddie DOS attacks, but a legitimate company selling network products really ought to know better (and care).