Salary information is dependent upon factors such as location and experience level (as you've already noted). I would start here for a baseline point of reference.
I also wouldn't be afraid to tell an employer that the offer it made was below market value for the position. You will never have more bargaining power with an employer regarding your salary than you do before you accept the position. Don't forget - it costs employers $$ to recruit and interview. If you got an offer, the employer wants you and is most likely willing to pay a fair price for your services. The trick is making sure you know what a fair price is.
Collection and Vouchers
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
Good luck trying to collect your payment if the company decides not to send a check. I wouldn't be surprised if the "payment" ends up being vouchers good for use in purchasing the products advertised in the spam you send. $48.00 off that $250.00 penis enlargement kit? Who can complain about that? The kit is probably a bargain at ANY price!
As I understand things, the YD Linux (64) version is based on the Linux 2.6 kernel. Darwin (the name of Apple's OS OS) is based on the FreeBSD kernel (version 5.x I think). So any similarity should be essentially the same as the similarity between FreeBSD and Linux.
I do not believe that this will affect Mac OS X at all as it relates to OS X having a true 64-bit implementation. Unless, of course, it spurs Apple to devote more resources to the project. That however seems unlikely because Apple surely has a significant investment in that effort already.
Isn't this essentially an alpha version of the devices worn around the waist by the crew in Star Trek: The Motion Picture from way back in 1979? You can get a view of the device here.
Add another Trek device to the list of real-world inventions.
Given the number of hits Google gets in a day (or even hour) how much bandwidth is being saved by using the stripped UI. I haven't compared the code for the old and new pages, but it seems like the new pages is lighter by at least a couple of tags.
Highway access leads to serious accidents, therefore something must be done NOW!
I'll leave it to the reader to determine which (if any) consequences logically follow:
Safe Usage habits should be encouraged and appropriately enforced (e.g., don't double-click on strange file attachments, disconnect obviously infected machines from the network);
Tools used to access the infrastructure should be safe (your car - in the US at least - is mandated to adhere to certain minimum safety standards);
All access should be shut down so nothing bad will happen.
Before you start flaming me for the second item, I am NOT saying that I think the computing industry (hard- and soft- ware) should be regulated. HOWEVER, I am a BIG fan of personal responsibility. Think about these points and how the computing world would be if adopted by everyone:
If you are a professional coder/MFG, put out professional quality products and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for those products. Too many companies have hidden behind licensing terms that absolve them of resposibility for too long.
If you are an amateur coder/mfg, label your products clearly as such and let people know this from the moment they begin to use your product. That way the users can decide whether the amount of risk inherent in using your product is an amount they are willing to accept.
Use common sense and think about the consequences of your actions.
How many virus/worm infections could be stopped if ISPs simply shut off access to infected machines when they see drastic changes in network usage patterns that indicate infection? This is my opinion, but I would rather have to make a phone call to my ISP than to have my box remain rooted by someone. This is just an example, but I think it makes the point about common sense.
Remember the computing community is a COMMUNITY, and there is one baseline principle that lets all within a community coexist: Swing your arms around you all that you want, but your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
But there ARE good ways to evaluate suitability - specifications are one. Recommendations by a salesperson are others. In fact, if a salesperson recommends a specific product based upon his knowledge of a customer's needs, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises as a matter of law when the sale is made. If the recommended product does not do what the customer said he needed the product to do, the implied warranty is breached and the seller is liable to the customer for the customer's damages. This usually means accepting the return of the product and/or having to pay the difference in price between what the seller sold and a comparable product that actually does what the buyer needs.
You leave out a number of basic facts that make it impossible to comment intelligently on your posting. I'd like to know:
What country/state are you in?
WHY were you trying to return the computer? Was it defective or did you just not want it after you got it?
How long did you have the computer before you asked Apple to accept a return? For that matter, DID you ask Apple to accept a return or did you just file suit?
If you did ask Apple to accept a return, how far did you escalate the matter? Did you stop at the first person who told you "no" or did you ask for that person's supervisor?
If I was representing you in this matter, these are just the first of the questions I would be asking you, for two reasons: First, it is information that establishes whether you have a case. Second, they are the first questions the OTHER SIDE will ask you.
Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...
Actually, it is the opposite. This is EXACTLY the sort of difference that makes it patentable over the prior art. The scope of coverage would be narrow, but still patentable.
I am not expressing any opinion on whether this is patentable over the prior art, I am only stating that it is differences such as the one you pointed out that make things patentable. What everyone seems to forget (or never knew to begin with) is that the term "obvious" does not mean the same thing in patent law as it does in common language. Obviousness is a legal term of art with a significant body of case law behind it defining the tests that must be performed and how to perform those tests before declaring an invention "obvious" and thus not patentable.
I see nothing in IBM's claims that says anything but what I've said.
Because you refuse to challenge your preconceptions by admitting there is a possiblity you are wrong. The term "breach" connotes a CONTRACT based claim. This is where my participation in this thread ends.
In my opinion, enforcement of the GPL (and other licenses like it) should have specific performance as the norm - not as a fantastic (as in anomoly) result (when I wrote fantastic I meant it in the "great and teriffic" sense). Why that is so is based upon very old principles in contact law.
For most things, the law presumes that money solves anything. That is, for any harm done, there is some amount of money that an economically rational person would say, "I am indifferent as to whether I have this pile of money on the left, of the fruits of my contract on the right." However, for items considered to be "unique," the law will not make that presumption and recognizes that contracting parties are harmed by breached contracts to an extent that no amount of money can cure.
Contracts for the sale of land are one such class of contracts. The law recognizes that no two pieces of real estate are alike - each is unique. Because of this, the law will force thhe seller of a piece of land to complete the sale to the buyer - no backing out allowed.
Because intellectual property is similarly unique, I beleive that contracts dealing with IP can be (and should be) specifically enforceable.
any court case about it would be a civil or criminal copyright violation case, not a civil contract case..
WRONG! If you read my bio, you'll see that I am a lawyer - and one who specializes in Intellectual Proprty issues relating to computer software. I have yet to see or even hear of a licensing case that didn't also include copyright claims. The license breach is always designated as a breach of contract action because that is exactly what it is.
Go to Cem Kaner's siteand you'll see that the newest proposals for additions to the Uniform Commercial Code are contained within UCITA. The Code deals with contractual provisions for software - what you can and cannot put in the license.
Those articles are just that - all ARTICLES - just people's legal opinions. They are not law. Law is made by statute or court decision. Groklaw has this posted as well: If the GPL is found invalid, then you revert to copyright law.
This means that copyright law and the GPL are SEPARATE REMEDIES. Like I have said all along - the claim for the violation of licensing terms is a BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
Here's some copyright litigation 101:
In the US, a copyright is created as soon as a work is fixed in a tangible medium (since the act was revised in 1976 anyway).
In order to sue for copyright infringement, the copyright holder must have REGISTERED his copyright at the US Copyright Office.
No copyright registration, no lawsuit. Simple as that.
If a license is involved, the breach of the license is what would make CONTINUED (NOT PAST !) use of the work a copyright violation as of the date of the violation of the license. The nice thing is that you DO NOT NEED TO HAVE REGISTERED YOUR COPYRIGHT to bring an action based upon a license violation. Why? BECAUSE THE LEGAL ELEMENTS DO NOT REQUIRE IT.
Oversimplification, but here is a comparison of the elements for copyright infringement and breach of license claims:
Copyright - Existing copyright in a work, registration of the copyright, unauthorized use (e.g., wholly without permission or exceeding the limits put on permission granted).
Breach of License - Offer, acceptance, consideration (something of value passing between the parties), breach, damages.
Why people try to describe the GPL as "not a contract" is beyond me - you WANT the GPL to be a contract so you can ENFORCE IT IN COURT.
One last note - if you don't believe me, will you believe IBM's lawyers in the suit against SCO? HERE is IBM's Answer and Counterclaims. You'll see that IBM's Sixth Counterclaim is Breach of License and its Seventh Counterclaim is Promissory Estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a quasi-contract action.
See? I'm not making this stuff up off the top of my head.
I absolutely agree that people who modify GPLed code are obligated to release their modifications. I believe the GPL is enforceable and would LOVE to have a client hire me to enforce it for them. I'll do my best to get you a copy when my article is completed.
there is zero need to enforce the GPL because you can rely on the far more popular, enforced, and easy-to-understand laws and regulations of copyright to completely cover it.
My apologies, but what tree did you fall out of? I don't know ANYONE who would begin to argue that Copyright law is easier to understand than contract law.
Assuming for this analysis that you are correct that it is impossible to violate the GPL without also violating someone's copyright, that simply means that TWO civil offenses have been committed: breach of contract and a copyright violation. Both have different legal elements. Copyright law is entangled with contract law all the time - whenever a license is granted.
Two points: Ms. Jones actually proves that the GPL IS a contract with one of her cites defining a contract as:
a transaction involving two or more individuals whereby each becomes obligated to the other, with reciprocal rights to demand performance of what is promised by each respectively.' 282 P. 2d 1084, 1088.
This definition fits the GPL. The licensor is obligated to refrain from enforcing its copyright because it has granted permission to use the copyrighted material under the terms of the GPL. The licensee, once it has accepted the GPLed code, is obligated to release its own source.
Ms. Jones also does not analyze the GPL as a unilateral contract. I personally am of the opinion that the GPL is is closer to a unilateral contract than a bilateral contract. The classic example of a unilateral contract is a reward - "If you find and return my dog, I'll pay you $100." The offer is the reward offer - acceptance is the performance of someone finding and retruning the dog. At that point, the offeror has to pay the $100.
The GPL can be summed up thusly: I hold the exclusive copyright to this source code. I give you permission to copy my code and create modifications IF you promise to release your modifications on the same terms under which you got the code. This creates enforceable promises. A contract is simply a promise that can be enforced by a court.
When Ms. Jones posted her analysis on Groklaw, I was one of the dubious ones and actually discussed her post at length with a number of other IP attorneys. It actually spurred me to begin to write a law review article on the topic. If you are interested, I'll send you a copy when it is finished.
Sorry, but you are flat wrong. Show me a single court case in which the GPL was held NOT to be a license and I'll reconsider my position. By the way, do you have any formal legal training that you can draw upon to support this position or is your opinion merely formed by reading news articles on the GPL?
Sorry, but my licenses to practice law, everything I learned in law school, and years of practice in the are of intellectual property allow me to say that you are flat wrong and do not know what you are talking about.
Sorry, but I am not confused. However, you may be. Licenses such as the GPL are indeed contracts. They are unilateral contracts in the sense that the party accepting the license performs its contractual obligations by following the tterms of the license. The granting party performs by allowing a permissive use of the licensed property.
Licenses are IN ADDITION TO any protection granted by copyright law. Copyright law prohibits the copying of content WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. The license grants that permission. It is entirely possible to breach the contractual provisions of a license (such as not paying royalties which are standard provsiions in most licenses) without violating copyright law.
In many instances, a breach of the license allows the grantor of the license ("licensor") to terminate the license. At the point of termination, any use of the licensed property is then WITHOUT PERMISSION and a copyright violation may occur from that point forward. Any other disputes, such as royalties owed, are governed by general principles of contract law. No copyright involved. The same is true for patent licenses.
For the record, I didn't say the result was "strange." I said that the result of forcing someone to comply with the license terms in the future was difficult to obtain and "great." A court had the power to simply tell the licensee to pay money damages and stop using the code. A court CANNOT force someone to keep using the code.
Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and inform its
customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL. It will
further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products
without adhering to the GPL.
In contract law (of which licensing law is just a part), at least in the US, breaches of contract are generally presumed to be completely solved by the payment of damages (money). Forcing someone to behave in accordance with the contract terms is called specific performance. The remedy of specific performance is usually limited to a very narrow class of cases (the classic example is a contract for the sale of land), Anytime you can get specific performance of a contract, it is a FANTASTIC result.
Slashdot Mirror
I also wouldn't be afraid to tell an employer that the offer it made was below market value for the position. You will never have more bargaining power with an employer regarding your salary than you do before you accept the position. Don't forget - it costs employers $$ to recruit and interview. If you got an offer, the employer wants you and is most likely willing to pay a fair price for your services. The trick is making sure you know what a fair price is.
Good luck trying to collect your payment if the company decides not to send a check. I wouldn't be surprised if the "payment" ends up being vouchers good for use in purchasing the products advertised in the spam you send. $48.00 off that $250.00 penis enlargement kit? Who can complain about that? The kit is probably a bargain at ANY price!
I do not believe that this will affect Mac OS X at all as it relates to OS X having a true 64-bit implementation. Unless, of course, it spurs Apple to devote more resources to the project. That however seems unlikely because Apple surely has a significant investment in that effort already.
Add another Trek device to the list of real-world inventions.
Given the number of hits Google gets in a day (or even hour) how much bandwidth is being saved by using the stripped UI. I haven't compared the code for the old and new pages, but it seems like the new pages is lighter by at least a couple of tags.
- The sun would shine every day;
- The birds would sing sweetly every morning;
- The world would be at peace;
- No one would go hungry;
- We would all smile at each other when we passed on the street;
- There would be no more pollution; and
- No one would have to use Windows at work.
Of course, it could also be:- Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
What do you want from me? I'm trying my best here...I'll leave it to the reader to determine which (if any) consequences logically follow:
Before you start flaming me for the second item, I am NOT saying that I think the computing industry (hard- and soft- ware) should be regulated. HOWEVER, I am a BIG fan of personal responsibility. Think about these points and how the computing world would be if adopted by everyone:
- If you are a professional coder/MFG, put out professional quality products and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for those products. Too many companies have hidden behind licensing terms that absolve them of resposibility for too long.
- If you are an amateur coder/mfg, label your products clearly as such and let people know this from the moment they begin to use your product. That way the users can decide whether the amount of risk inherent in using your product is an amount they are willing to accept.
- Use common sense and think about the consequences of your actions.
How many virus/worm infections could be stopped if ISPs simply shut off access to infected machines when they see drastic changes in network usage patterns that indicate infection? This is my opinion, but I would rather have to make a phone call to my ISP than to have my box remain rooted by someone. This is just an example, but I think it makes the point about common sense.Remember the computing community is a COMMUNITY, and there is one baseline principle that lets all within a community coexist: Swing your arms around you all that you want, but your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.
Then again, if you think mobile, electronically communicating Tupperware is scary ...
But there ARE good ways to evaluate suitability - specifications are one. Recommendations by a salesperson are others. In fact, if a salesperson recommends a specific product based upon his knowledge of a customer's needs, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose arises as a matter of law when the sale is made. If the recommended product does not do what the customer said he needed the product to do, the implied warranty is breached and the seller is liable to the customer for the customer's damages. This usually means accepting the return of the product and/or having to pay the difference in price between what the seller sold and a comparable product that actually does what the buyer needs.
- What country/state are you in?
- WHY were you trying to return the computer? Was it defective or did you just not want it after you got it?
- How long did you have the computer before you asked Apple to accept a return? For that matter, DID you ask Apple to accept a return or did you just file suit?
- If you did ask Apple to accept a return, how far did you escalate the matter? Did you stop at the first person who told you "no" or did you ask for that person's supervisor?
If I was representing you in this matter, these are just the first of the questions I would be asking you, for two reasons: First, it is information that establishes whether you have a case. Second, they are the first questions the OTHER SIDE will ask you.Actually, it is the opposite. This is EXACTLY the sort of difference that makes it patentable over the prior art. The scope of coverage would be narrow, but still patentable.
I am not expressing any opinion on whether this is patentable over the prior art, I am only stating that it is differences such as the one you pointed out that make things patentable. What everyone seems to forget (or never knew to begin with) is that the term "obvious" does not mean the same thing in patent law as it does in common language. Obviousness is a legal term of art with a significant body of case law behind it defining the tests that must be performed and how to perform those tests before declaring an invention "obvious" and thus not patentable.
Because you refuse to challenge your preconceptions by admitting there is a possiblity you are wrong. The term "breach" connotes a CONTRACT based claim. This is where my participation in this thread ends.
Tell that to IBM.
For most things, the law presumes that money solves anything. That is, for any harm done, there is some amount of money that an economically rational person would say, "I am indifferent as to whether I have this pile of money on the left, of the fruits of my contract on the right." However, for items considered to be "unique," the law will not make that presumption and recognizes that contracting parties are harmed by breached contracts to an extent that no amount of money can cure.
Contracts for the sale of land are one such class of contracts. The law recognizes that no two pieces of real estate are alike - each is unique. Because of this, the law will force thhe seller of a piece of land to complete the sale to the buyer - no backing out allowed.
Because intellectual property is similarly unique, I beleive that contracts dealing with IP can be (and should be) specifically enforceable.
You are correct - that was a stupid ad-hominem attack, which I retract.
Read my post above and articles I linked and see if that opinion remains.
WRONG! If you read my bio, you'll see that I am a lawyer - and one who specializes in Intellectual Proprty issues relating to computer software. I have yet to see or even hear of a licensing case that didn't also include copyright claims. The license breach is always designated as a breach of contract action because that is exactly what it is.
Go to Cem Kaner's siteand you'll see that the newest proposals for additions to the Uniform Commercial Code are contained within UCITA. The Code deals with contractual provisions for software - what you can and cannot put in the license.
Those articles are just that - all ARTICLES - just people's legal opinions. They are not law. Law is made by statute or court decision. Groklaw has this posted as well: If the GPL is found invalid, then you revert to copyright law.
This means that copyright law and the GPL are SEPARATE REMEDIES. Like I have said all along - the claim for the violation of licensing terms is a BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION.
Here's some copyright litigation 101:
Oversimplification, but here is a comparison of the elements for copyright infringement and breach of license claims:
Why people try to describe the GPL as "not a contract" is beyond me - you WANT the GPL to be a contract so you can ENFORCE IT IN COURT.
One last note - if you don't believe me, will you believe IBM's lawyers in the suit against SCO? HERE is IBM's Answer and Counterclaims. You'll see that IBM's Sixth Counterclaim is Breach of License and its Seventh Counterclaim is Promissory Estoppel. Promissory estoppel is a quasi-contract action.
See? I'm not making this stuff up off the top of my head.
I absolutely agree that people who modify GPLed code are obligated to release their modifications. I believe the GPL is enforceable and would LOVE to have a client hire me to enforce it for them. I'll do my best to get you a copy when my article is completed.
My apologies, but what tree did you fall out of? I don't know ANYONE who would begin to argue that Copyright law is easier to understand than contract law.
Assuming for this analysis that you are correct that it is impossible to violate the GPL without also violating someone's copyright, that simply means that TWO civil offenses have been committed: breach of contract and a copyright violation. Both have different legal elements. Copyright law is entangled with contract law all the time - whenever a license is granted.
This definition fits the GPL. The licensor is obligated to refrain from enforcing its copyright because it has granted permission to use the copyrighted material under the terms of the GPL. The licensee, once it has accepted the GPLed code, is obligated to release its own source.
Ms. Jones also does not analyze the GPL as a unilateral contract. I personally am of the opinion that the GPL is is closer to a unilateral contract than a bilateral contract. The classic example of a unilateral contract is a reward - "If you find and return my dog, I'll pay you $100." The offer is the reward offer - acceptance is the performance of someone finding and retruning the dog. At that point, the offeror has to pay the $100.
The GPL can be summed up thusly: I hold the exclusive copyright to this source code. I give you permission to copy my code and create modifications IF you promise to release your modifications on the same terms under which you got the code. This creates enforceable promises. A contract is simply a promise that can be enforced by a court.
When Ms. Jones posted her analysis on Groklaw, I was one of the dubious ones and actually discussed her post at length with a number of other IP attorneys. It actually spurred me to begin to write a law review article on the topic. If you are interested, I'll send you a copy when it is finished.
Correction - held not to be a CONTRACT. I mistyped.
Sorry, but you are flat wrong. Show me a single court case in which the GPL was held NOT to be a license and I'll reconsider my position. By the way, do you have any formal legal training that you can draw upon to support this position or is your opinion merely formed by reading news articles on the GPL?
Sorry, but my licenses to practice law, everything I learned in law school, and years of practice in the are of intellectual property allow me to say that you are flat wrong and do not know what you are talking about.
Licenses are IN ADDITION TO any protection granted by copyright law. Copyright law prohibits the copying of content WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE OWNER. The license grants that permission. It is entirely possible to breach the contractual provisions of a license (such as not paying royalties which are standard provsiions in most licenses) without violating copyright law.
In many instances, a breach of the license allows the grantor of the license ("licensor") to terminate the license. At the point of termination, any use of the licensed property is then WITHOUT PERMISSION and a copyright violation may occur from that point forward. Any other disputes, such as royalties owed, are governed by general principles of contract law. No copyright involved. The same is true for patent licenses.
For the record, I didn't say the result was "strange." I said that the result of forcing someone to comply with the license terms in the future was difficult to obtain and "great." A court had the power to simply tell the licensee to pay money damages and stop using the code. A court CANNOT force someone to keep using the code.
In contract law (of which licensing law is just a part), at least in the US, breaches of contract are generally presumed to be completely solved by the payment of damages (money). Forcing someone to behave in accordance with the contract terms is called specific performance. The remedy of specific performance is usually limited to a very narrow class of cases (the classic example is a contract for the sale of land), Anytime you can get specific performance of a contract, it is a FANTASTIC result.