While you may be correct in certain circumstances, your wording gives a false impression that this always works. You must disclose the best mode when filing a patent application.
The specification . . . shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
"The best mode requirement creates a statutory bargained-for-exchange by which a patentee obtains the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention for a certain time period, and the public receives knowledge of the preferred embodiments for practicing the claimed invention." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 963, 58 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The best mode requirement is a safeguard against the desire on the part of some people to obtain patent protection without making a full disclosure as required by the statute. The requirement does not permit inventors to disclose only what they know to be their second-best embodiment, while retaining the best for themselves. In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 126 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1960).
As you hint at, there's nothing wrong with combining one invention with another, one protected by patent law and the other by trade secret.
Two sections of Title 17 (Copyrights) are relevant. 17 USC 512 (safe harbor) and 17 USC 1201 (anti-circumvention). The notice is styled as one under 17 USC 512:
It has come to our attention that the web site www.brandonw.net, contains material and/or links to material that violate the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). This letter is to notify you, in accordance with the provisions of the DMCA, of these unlawful activities. Pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, we request that you remove any whole or partial reproductions of and/or disable links to the following:
...
I hereby confirm that I have a good faith belief that use of the Illegal Material in the manner complained of in this letter is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law, that the information in this letter is accurate, and that, under penalty of perjury, I am authorized to act on behalf of TI, the owner of the exclusive rights in the TI-83 Plus operating system software that are allegedly misappropriated using unlawful methods.
TI appears to be claiming that the copyright in the TI-83 Plus operating system software is infringing. This therefore appears to be a notice under 512(c)(3). Anti-circumvention is a totally different section of the copyright code, 1201. There is no takedown procedure for access control circumvention materials.
But with regards to anti-circumvention claims: It appears that TI is claiming that the signing keys circumvent a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This is a term of art.
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Are signing keys necessary to gain access to the TI 83 Plus operating system binary? As far as I know, no. My understanding is that they are only used to prepare operating system images for installation onto the calculator.
It's highly unlikely that the factors of an RSA private key are subject to copyright protection. Therefore the groups may have a viable claim for DMCA misrepresentation under subsection (f):
(f) MISREPRESENTATIONS- Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section--
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
You have to have a historical perspective to understand how the first sale doctrine plays into everything. The concept of first sale was created to prevent copyright owners from prohibiting resale of books in certain circumstances. Another case summarized it as follows:
In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy's department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill's consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
Sounds like an EULA right? The court has a role to play in ensuring fairness and upholding the expectations of consumers, and I think the court in MDY dropped the ball on this one. But as to your question about lawmakers and whether they wanted "licensees" of a copy to have 117 rights -- I think they clearly did not, and for good reason. Parties are allowed to modify the legal rights between themselves by contract, but, and this is important, at the bare minimum it has to be fairly acknowledged at the time of acceptance. You don't get that when you attach conditions to the sale of physical goods by a slip of paper.
Compare section 109's language "the owner of a particular copy" to 117's "the owner of a copy". It's virtually identical, and courts (not this one) have treated it as such. I don't know how you can own a physical disc but not own a copy of its contents. That seems almost nonsensical.
Where do you go to law school? You missed the critical holding of the copyright portion of the case that I found in a few seconds of search.
MDY tried the 17 USC 117 defense and failed, because 117 requires the user to be an "owner" of a copy and not a licensee. Following bad precedent, owners of the game (i.e., those who go to the store and pick up a copy) are merely licensees. Yes, Blizzard retains title to the physical discs.
[a]ll title, ownership rights, and intellectual property rights in and to the Game and all copies thereof . . . are owned or licensed by Blizzard."
Thus 117 does not apply. The court explains that it has its hands tied by binding precedent directly on point.
The Court concludes, therefore, that users of WoW, including those who use Glider, are licensees of the copies of the game client software and are not entitled to the section 117 defense.
I think the court incorrectly declined to apply the first sale doctrine, which would have found that the purchase was a sale rather than a license. More specifically, consumers normally expect that when they buy something at a store, they take ownership. Admittedly, the court stresses it was bound by 9th Circuit precedent.
And the owner of those 600 acres, what does he do after being bought out by the 500-acre ex-farmer?
He retires on beach front property.
Also, if there are 600 acres available for the same price, why is the developer going after the 500-acre farm?
Probably because the 500 acres is located closer to a populated area.
Further, the farmer's 500 acres might be unique in the county as to their growing potential. What if the only 600 acre lots available at the farmer's price are inferior, or different enough to require the farmer to learn entirely new techniques and crops to have a chance at exploiting them?
If the properties of her acreage is so unique, she would be willing to value it higher and pay more in taxes (rent) to retain possession of it, thus making the 500 acres worth more than the 600 acres elsewhere.
There is even more legal complexity than meets the eye. Virgin Mobile Australia is an Australian corporation, with its principal place of business in Sydney, doing business only in Australia, using the photo publicly only in Australia. The girl files suit in... a state court in Texas. Does that sound like the right place to file a lawsuit? Civil Procedure geeks will ask whether Virgin Mobile Australia had the requisite "minimum contacts" with the state of Texas to satisfy the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe.
Also, has anyone asked why they also sued the counselor who took the photo, a friend of the girl? Wtf? My wild guess -- he's also a resident of Texas, preventing the case from being removed to Federal court. Ah, the subtleties and gamesmanship of civil procedure.
If you ever want to 'resist' then I highly suggest you just go limp, don't fight back. A limp body is still damned hard to move and makes it much easier for your lawyer to defend you in court than if you run, swing, bite, yell.
UCLA Police Policy Section 301.24 (Pain Compliance Techniques) gives officers the right to use a Taser in drive-stun capacity to attain compliance from passively or aggressively resisting individuals "when the officer reasonably believes that the use of such a technique appears necessary to further a legitimate law enforcement purpose."
HAhahahha...unless a woman wants an abortion, or you want vouchers for a non-religious school, or you want network neutrality.
Wow, thanks for spreading misinformation.
unless a woman wants an abortion
The regulation of abortion by the federal government is not authorized by the constitution, and Congressman Paul believes it should be left to the states.
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
Vote to pass a bill to allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide scholarships, or vouchers, to low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools.
or you want network neutrality
Whether you like it or not, net neutrality is government regulation of the internet. Congressman Paul believes strongly in internet freedom, but really the problem is a monopoly of physical access. Instead of the net neutrality bandage, it would be better to pursue avenues to open them up completely to encourage competition.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied real estate law. What you're talking about is called an "easement". If there's never been a fence around your front yard, people are free to cut across it. What's more, you can be prevented from even erecting a fence, once the precedent is set that people can do this. Future owners can be prevented from erecting a fence if past owners allowed such usage, as well.
That's a public prescriptive easement, and you also have to satisfy the other adverse possession criteria (continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period, without permission, and reasonably visible). And not all courts have the same opinion of public prescriptive easements, so YMMV.
Re:US Airspace full enough already
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
However, the original poster's point is still (mostly) valid: the airspace directly over the busiest airports is not in the landing and approach path, regardless of how busy the airport might be. An aircraft -- unidentified or not -- that remains in that area would not cause a conflict.
Absolutely. The point that I was trying to make is that even though planes are not landing simultaneously on all the runways, O'Hare may have aircraft inbound from many directions simultaneously. The fact that there are three sets of parallels means that it is difficult to get overhead the airport without having encroached on one of the active approach courses on the way there. SFO is a lot nicer in this regard. Although they typically won't vector you over the airport, the approach and departure corridors make it very easy to go around (but within 1nm) the airport, and such a transition is regularly approved. Transitions directly over the numbers at Oakland are also regularly approved. It all depends on the airport layout and usage.
Also, you point out that LAHSO is prohibited in IMC. But obviously VFR aircraft will only be permitted transits in VMC. Don't forget that O'Hare is labelled "No SVFR":)
What do you fly nowadays?
Re:US Airspace full enough already
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
Read my post again, and then the one immediately below yours from someone that has done exactly what I described over O'Hare. I was directed to use a perpendicular runway as a point of reference, but even if it is not there, the concept is the same: the area directly above an airport is a transit corridor, but the transiting aircraft must approach and depart the area in a way that remains clear of the traffic that is landing and taking off.
Read the other fellow's post you reference, and then read my post again. Here's his subject:
I would transit MDW at 500 AGL quite frequently
MDW is not ORD. At most airports you can transition directly over the airfield, but ORD is not like most airports because of the sheer amount of traffic and the number of active runways. They have four tower frequencies listed. I have flown around Chicago and the only time I was cleared through was during the middle of a clear night for a touch-and-go.
I'm not intimately familiar with O'Hare's operating rules under IFR, but low overcast can significantly reduce airport capacity.
Do you know why it reduces capacity? Increased separation requirements due to lack of visibility. Remember that in Bravo airspace ATC must maintain sepration between both VFR and IFR traffic and requires a clearance to enter. I've flown near other Bravo airports that are less restrictive due to less traffic / single or parallel active runways, but again, they are not O'Hare.
Have you flown much around crowded Bravo airports?
Re:US Airspace full enough already
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
Aircraft transiting over an airport like O'Hare are vectored directly OVER the airport. When I've done it (albeit at other airports), I was directed to follow the cross-wind runway that is more or less perpendicular to the active runway(s).
O'Hare is not a small airport with one active runway. It has 3 sets of parallel runways, and on an overcast day you can bet that all of them are in use at the same time. It is generally not even possible to transit VFR over O'Hare on a clear night. They treat their class bravo airspace particularly restrictively, and for good reason. It is one of the busiest airports in the world.
The mint is apparently upset that the older pennies have not been devalued like the rest of US currency due to inflation. They would prefer that holders of pennies be forced to accept devalued currency. If you can't melt the coins, then they will happily take them from you at below market value to melt at a profit.
Gur nafjre vf sbhegl-guerr. Hfr vaqhpgvba. Vs gurer ner rknpgyl gjb zbaxf jvgu fcbgf, naq lbh frr bayl bar, lbh ernyvmr lbh zhfg unir bar naq ner qrnq gur arkg qnl. Vs gurer ner rknpgyl guerr, gura rnpu fcbggrq zbax frrf gjb fcbgf. Vs gubfr gjb ner abg qrnq nsgre gur svefg qnl, gura rnpu bs gur guerr ernyvmrf gurl zhfg unir gur znex. Rgp., rgp.
I've always thought it was presumptuous for biologists to declare that "95% of our DNA is junk that serves no purpose."
It's actually 70% of the human genome which is junk DNA. And that 70% is actually really just junk. It's from retrotransposons (LINE (long-interspersed genetic element), if you want to look it up) that jump in and out of the genome at will throughout the genome. There are some bits of retrovirus in there as well, but it's predominantly retrotransposons.
auto prices have risen much faster than inflation during their 50+ years of offshoring
Cars have also become much safer and contain more features than they used to. Airbags aren't free, and neither are other safety features and testing. Cars are more powerful, and they have more fuel efficient engines. CD players are standard, etc., etc.
It also shows that people are wealthier in general if they are purchasing more expensive cars. People are wealthier.
It's always easier to put the blame where you think it is, without using common sense.
Re:Problem: Newspapers need to discover the hyperl
on
Meet Joe Blog
·
· Score: 1
There was always something that bugged me about foxnews.com cnn.com bbc.co.uk, etc, but I could never put my finger on it. They don't link to any documents or sources
You may be right about the BBC, but you are wrong about foxnews.com. I'm no apologist, but I give credit where credit is due.
would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?
That's not the question that's before the court. There's no law against naming something that brings to mind what the competitor offers. There is related protection under trademark law. But for this to apply, the trademark must be valid, and this is the question the court is now trying to answer.
Re:Yes (was Re:Does anyone here HAVE a Gmail accou
on
Google's Next Steps
·
· Score: 1
There are two helpful links, one for GPG and the other for some old mac version of PGP.
Yes (was Re:Does anyone here HAVE a Gmail account)
on
Google's Next Steps
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It's pretty awesome. Keyboard shortcuts, clean, simple user interface, labels, a distinction between the inbox and the archive... the list goes on. I also tested encrypted emails with GPG, and this does not violate the policies.
It's all that you'd imagine and more. I am thoroughly impressed, though I don't yet want to make it a primary account over the 100mb IMAP service I have.
There is one thing that spreads information faster than the internet, and that is word of mouth.
Uh, come again? Word of mouth is what civilization used to use, and it sucked. That's why the printing press, radio, television, and the internet revolutionized the world. They are all means to communicate more rapidly with a larger number of people.
Slashdot Mirror
While you may be correct in certain circumstances, your wording gives a false impression that this always works. You must disclose the best mode when filing a patent application.
As you hint at, there's nothing wrong with combining one invention with another, one protected by patent law and the other by trade secret.
Two sections of Title 17 (Copyrights) are relevant. 17 USC 512 (safe harbor) and 17 USC 1201 (anti-circumvention). The notice is styled as one under 17 USC 512:
TI appears to be claiming that the copyright in the TI-83 Plus operating system software is infringing. This therefore appears to be a notice under 512(c)(3). Anti-circumvention is a totally different section of the copyright code, 1201. There is no takedown procedure for access control circumvention materials.
But with regards to anti-circumvention claims: It appears that TI is claiming that the signing keys circumvent a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." This is a term of art.
Are signing keys necessary to gain access to the TI 83 Plus operating system binary? As far as I know, no. My understanding is that they are only used to prepare operating system images for installation onto the calculator.
It's highly unlikely that the factors of an RSA private key are subject to copyright protection. Therefore the groups may have a viable claim for DMCA misrepresentation under subsection (f):
Texas Instruments may just have Diebolded itself.
Yeah, that's about right. I have 60,000 mile tires on my car, and I paid about $48,000 for them.
Verizon math alert!
You have to have a historical perspective to understand how the first sale doctrine plays into everything. The concept of first sale was created to prevent copyright owners from prohibiting resale of books in certain circumstances. Another case summarized it as follows:
Sounds like an EULA right? The court has a role to play in ensuring fairness and upholding the expectations of consumers, and I think the court in MDY dropped the ball on this one. But as to your question about lawmakers and whether they wanted "licensees" of a copy to have 117 rights -- I think they clearly did not, and for good reason. Parties are allowed to modify the legal rights between themselves by contract, but, and this is important, at the bare minimum it has to be fairly acknowledged at the time of acceptance. You don't get that when you attach conditions to the sale of physical goods by a slip of paper.
Compare section 109's language "the owner of a particular copy" to 117's "the owner of a copy". It's virtually identical, and courts (not this one) have treated it as such. I don't know how you can own a physical disc but not own a copy of its contents. That seems almost nonsensical.
Where do you go to law school? You missed the critical holding of the copyright portion of the case that I found in a few seconds of search.
MDY tried the 17 USC 117 defense and failed, because 117 requires the user to be an "owner" of a copy and not a licensee. Following bad precedent, owners of the game (i.e., those who go to the store and pick up a copy) are merely licensees. Yes, Blizzard retains title to the physical discs.
Thus 117 does not apply. The court explains that it has its hands tied by binding precedent directly on point.
I think the court incorrectly declined to apply the first sale doctrine, which would have found that the purchase was a sale rather than a license. More specifically, consumers normally expect that when they buy something at a store, they take ownership. Admittedly, the court stresses it was bound by 9th Circuit precedent.
And the owner of those 600 acres, what does he do after being bought out by the 500-acre ex-farmer?
He retires on beach front property.
Also, if there are 600 acres available for the same price, why is the developer going after the 500-acre farm?
Probably because the 500 acres is located closer to a populated area.
Further, the farmer's 500 acres might be unique in the county as to their growing potential. What if the only 600 acre lots available at the farmer's price are inferior, or different enough to require the farmer to learn entirely new techniques and crops to have a chance at exploiting them?
If the properties of her acreage is so unique, she would be willing to value it higher and pay more in taxes (rent) to retain possession of it, thus making the 500 acres worth more than the 600 acres elsewhere.
Policy Paper on Tax Reform (Summary)
Geo-Rent: A Plea to public economists
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
There is even more legal complexity than meets the eye. Virgin Mobile Australia is an Australian corporation, with its principal place of business in Sydney, doing business only in Australia, using the photo publicly only in Australia. The girl files suit in... a state court in Texas. Does that sound like the right place to file a lawsuit? Civil Procedure geeks will ask whether Virgin Mobile Australia had the requisite "minimum contacts" with the state of Texas to satisfy the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe.
Also, has anyone asked why they also sued the counselor who took the photo, a friend of the girl? Wtf? My wild guess -- he's also a resident of Texas, preventing the case from being removed to Federal court. Ah, the subtleties and gamesmanship of civil procedure.
A past slashdot article would disagree with that advise. Also see, for example, information about the UCLA taser policy.
Wow, thanks for spreading misinformation.
unless a woman wants an abortion
The regulation of abortion by the federal government is not authorized by the constitution, and Congressman Paul believes it should be left to the states.
or you want vouchers for a non-religious school
He believes in vouchers for both. From http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Educatio
or you want network neutrality
Whether you like it or not, net neutrality is government regulation of the internet. Congressman Paul believes strongly in internet freedom, but really the problem is a monopoly of physical access. Instead of the net neutrality bandage, it would be better to pursue avenues to open them up completely to encourage competition.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've studied real estate law. What you're talking about is called an "easement". If there's never been a fence around your front yard, people are free to cut across it. What's more, you can be prevented from even erecting a fence, once the precedent is set that people can do this. Future owners can be prevented from erecting a fence if past owners allowed such usage, as well.
That's a public prescriptive easement, and you also have to satisfy the other adverse possession criteria (continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period, without permission, and reasonably visible). And not all courts have the same opinion of public prescriptive easements, so YMMV.
However, the original poster's point is still (mostly) valid: the airspace directly over the busiest airports is not in the landing and approach path, regardless of how busy the airport might be. An aircraft -- unidentified or not -- that remains in that area would not cause a conflict.
:)
Absolutely. The point that I was trying to make is that even though planes are not landing simultaneously on all the runways, O'Hare may have aircraft inbound from many directions simultaneously. The fact that there are three sets of parallels means that it is difficult to get overhead the airport without having encroached on one of the active approach courses on the way there. SFO is a lot nicer in this regard. Although they typically won't vector you over the airport, the approach and departure corridors make it very easy to go around (but within 1nm) the airport, and such a transition is regularly approved. Transitions directly over the numbers at Oakland are also regularly approved. It all depends on the airport layout and usage.
Also, you point out that LAHSO is prohibited in IMC. But obviously VFR aircraft will only be permitted transits in VMC. Don't forget that O'Hare is labelled "No SVFR"
What do you fly nowadays?
Read my post again, and then the one immediately below yours from someone that has done exactly what I described over O'Hare. I was directed to use a perpendicular runway as a point of reference, but even if it is not there, the concept is the same: the area directly above an airport is a transit corridor, but the transiting aircraft must approach and depart the area in a way that remains clear of the traffic that is landing and taking off.
Read the other fellow's post you reference, and then read my post again. Here's his subject:
I would transit MDW at 500 AGL quite frequently
MDW is not ORD. At most airports you can transition directly over the airfield, but ORD is not like most airports because of the sheer amount of traffic and the number of active runways. They have four tower frequencies listed. I have flown around Chicago and the only time I was cleared through was during the middle of a clear night for a touch-and-go.
I'm not intimately familiar with O'Hare's operating rules under IFR, but low overcast can significantly reduce airport capacity.
Do you know why it reduces capacity? Increased separation requirements due to lack of visibility. Remember that in Bravo airspace ATC must maintain sepration between both VFR and IFR traffic and requires a clearance to enter. I've flown near other Bravo airports that are less restrictive due to less traffic / single or parallel active runways, but again, they are not O'Hare.
Have you flown much around crowded Bravo airports?
Aircraft transiting over an airport like O'Hare are vectored directly OVER the airport. When I've done it (albeit at other airports), I was directed to follow the cross-wind runway that is more or less perpendicular to the active runway(s).
O'Hare is not a small airport with one active runway. It has 3 sets of parallel runways, and on an overcast day you can bet that all of them are in use at the same time. It is generally not even possible to transit VFR over O'Hare on a clear night. They treat their class bravo airspace particularly restrictively, and for good reason. It is one of the busiest airports in the world.
The mint is apparently upset that the older pennies have not been devalued like the rest of US currency due to inflation. They would prefer that holders of pennies be forced to accept devalued currency. If you can't melt the coins, then they will happily take them from you at below market value to melt at a profit.
Gur nafjre vf sbhegl-guerr. Hfr vaqhpgvba. Vs gurer ner rknpgyl gjb zbaxf jvgu fcbgf, naq lbh frr bayl bar, lbh ernyvmr lbh zhfg unir bar naq ner qrnq gur arkg qnl. Vs gurer ner rknpgyl guerr, gura rnpu fcbggrq zbax frrf gjb fcbgf. Vs gubfr gjb ner abg qrnq nsgre gur svefg qnl, gura rnpu bs gur guerr ernyvmrf gurl zhfg unir gur znex. Rgp., rgp.
Weights and measures?
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Necessary and proper, and all that.
I've always thought it was presumptuous for biologists to declare that "95% of our DNA is junk that serves no purpose."
It's actually 70% of the human genome which is junk DNA. And that 70% is actually really just junk. It's from retrotransposons (LINE (long-interspersed genetic element), if you want to look it up) that jump in and out of the genome at will throughout the genome. There are some bits of retrovirus in there as well, but it's predominantly retrotransposons.
It's just junk. It's that simple.
auto prices have risen much faster than inflation during their 50+ years of offshoring
Cars have also become much safer and contain more features than they used to. Airbags aren't free, and neither are other safety features and testing. Cars are more powerful, and they have more fuel efficient engines. CD players are standard, etc., etc.
It also shows that people are wealthier in general if they are purchasing more expensive cars. People are wealthier.
It's always easier to put the blame where you think it is, without using common sense.
There was always something that bugged me about foxnews.com cnn.com bbc.co.uk, etc, but I could never put my finger on it. They don't link to any documents or sources
You may be right about the BBC, but you are wrong about foxnews.com. I'm no apologist, but I give credit where credit is due.
The current front-page story on foxnews.com is about the Supreme Court's ruling 'Under God' Case Dismissed on Technicality
In the short blub on the front page, one immediately finds, under "raw data," Supreme Court's Dismissal of Case. Right there on the front page.
would the OS have been named Lindows if it wasn't for Windows?
That's not the question that's before the court. There's no law against naming something that brings to mind what the competitor offers. There is related protection under trademark law. But for this to apply, the trademark must be valid, and this is the question the court is now trying to answer.
There are two helpful links, one for GPG and the other for some old mac version of PGP.
It's pretty awesome. Keyboard shortcuts, clean, simple user interface, labels, a distinction between the inbox and the archive... the list goes on. I also tested encrypted emails with GPG, and this does not violate the policies.
It's all that you'd imagine and more. I am thoroughly impressed, though I don't yet want to make it a primary account over the 100mb IMAP service I have.
There is one thing that spreads information faster than the internet, and that is word of mouth.
Uh, come again? Word of mouth is what civilization used to use, and it sucked. That's why the printing press, radio, television, and the internet revolutionized the world. They are all means to communicate more rapidly with a larger number of people.