My roommate is interested in buying a car, and a car dealership just ran a credit check on him. According to the credit reporting agency, he owes a fair ammount of money to the local electric company for unpaid bills and such. What's amusing about this is that he's never had an account with the electric company - at our current apartment electricity is included with the rent (thus paid for by the apartment complex), at our previous apartment the electricity was in my name (and I don't owe them anything), at his previous apartment it was in his previous roommate's name, and prior to that he lived in another state.
This should be a simple matter to clear up, but the problem is, the burden to do so is on him, and very often it's not as easy to take care of as this particular issue will probably be.
I think that the music industry should work exactly like book publishing. As Ms. Love said, as an author, you own your own copyright, however, you may have a deal with a publisher that grants them exclusive rights to use your work. This means that even though you are the author and you own the copyright, there are certain things that you can't do with your own work without the publisher's permission. I have absolutely no problem with this! It usually works out well.
As an example, Piers Anthony wrote a series called Apprentice Adept. It's a mix of science fiction and fantasy, and it constantly jumps back and forth between both (if that doesn't make sense, go get the first book from your local public library). At the time Anthony had a deal with one publisher granting them exclusive rights to publish all of his sci-fi stuff, and a similar deal with another publisher for all of his fantasy novels. The three parties had to get together and negotiate which publishing company would publish the Apprentice Adept series. Everybody was understanding, everything went smoothly, and there were no problems. An unusual situation, but an example of the kind of stuff that happens with exclusive licenses. The point is, it's not a problem.
And the larger point is, Anthony owns every book he's written - not the publishing companies.
Umm, are you talking about the Internet or about Napster? I got the distinct impression that the RIAA has been talking about Napster, which surely is not what you are attempting to describe?
Hello? Wake up. Napster, on paper, is NOT illegal. That's why this is such a mess. Napster isn't trading illegal MP3s. Napster does not condone trading illegal MP3s. Napster wants to promote the free exchange of legal, licensed MP3s, and they encourage artists to license their material for distribution on Napster's service. Napster is aware that unlicensed MP3s are traded on their service, but they have no technical means to censor content.
Just as AltaVista isn't breaking the law if they happen to inadvertently index a Web site that contains kiddie porn, Napster isn't breaking the law if they happen to inadvertently index an MP3 file that isn't licensed for distribution. The courts have upheld this in the past, but now the RIAA is pissed off, so the courts are unsure of how to proceed.
In both cases, it's the person who is hosting the kiddie porn/unlicensed MP3 file that is breaking the law, not AltaVista/Napster. However, they both have a policy for reporting such things: tell them about it, and they'll take it out of the index! This is what Metallica did, and Napster responded exactly according to their stated policy: they banned the users that were reported.
Yes, it's open to interpretation - and Microsoft gets to interpret it. The trial focused on Netscape, which was both an application and a middleware product (it includes a Java Virtual Machine), competing against MSIE, which did the same thing but was bundled with Windows. Consequently, the DoJ wants to take MSIE and associated middleware out of Windows. With a two-way split, that puts it with the rest of Microsoft, which is really just as bad, but they can't really arbitrarily say that Windows Inc. gets to keep the middleware now - it would defeat the main purpose of the split as a remedy for the problem that was discussed in the trial. Microsoft already contends that a split is inappropriate; doing the split any other way would be even less appropriate. Also, this is more than just my opinion. From section 7c of the Final Judgement:
Applications Business includes but is not limited to the development, licensing, promotion, and support of client and server applications and Middleware (
e.g., Office, BackOffice, Internet Information Server, SQL Server, etc.), Internet Explorer, Mobile Explorer and other web browsers, Streaming Audio and Video client and server software, transaction server software, SNA server software, indexing server software, XML servers and parsers, Microsoft Management Server, Java virtual machines, Frontpage Express (and other web authoring tools), Outlook Express (and other e-mail clients), Media Player, voice recognition software, Net Meeting (and other collaboration software), developer tools, hardware, MSN, MSNBC, Slate, Expedia....
Notice the specific mention of Media Player. I'm betting they'll take DirectX and NGWS also, because although Windows Inc. is prohibited from doing evil things with that kind of this, MS-Apps is not.
>Seven appeals judges for the District of Columbia announced they would hear the case, while three other judges recused themselves.
Doesn't that mean that only seven of the ten judges will hear the case? That would seem to disagree with the Wired article. Or will all ten judges hear it, but only seven said the appeals court would accept the case?
Not exactly. If their request for a stay is granted, then Microsoft can continue to be evil until the appeal is settled. If not, then they have to clean up their act somewhat within three months.
If they lose all appeals and the Supreme Court upholds Jackson's ruling, then then MS-OS (a.k.a. Windows, Inc.) is pretty much stuck with just selling, supporting and developing Windows on a vaguely even level with Linux and other operating systems (Apple may be persuaded to release an Intel port of Mac OS X; who knows). However, MS-AP (a.k.a. Microsoft, Inc.) will take everything else, including Office, Internet Explorer, Media Player, Direct X, Next Generation Windows Services (NGWS), the X-Box, whole shebang - and will have nothing to stop them from being completely and totally evil.
IANAL, but the idea is that it will take longer this way. Once the appeals court makes their decision, it'll be sent to the Supreme Court anyway - if the appeals court overturns Jackson's ruling then the DoJ will take it to the Supreme Court, and if the appeals court upholds Jackson's ruling then Microsoft will take it to the Supreme Court. If it has to go through the appeals court first, the process will just take that much longer.
Microsoft had 60 days to submit their appeal. That's another two months of stalling that they decided to forego. That means either they're genuinely confident that they'll win an appeal, or they're doubtful that their request fo a stay will be approved.
Bottom line. If I share something with you under the EXPRESS AGREEMNET that you will KEEP IT TO YOURSELF and you don't you are a DISHONEST, LYING, PIECE OF CRAP. Even if emmett thinks you are cool.
Correct. Except that AppleInsider didn't break any such express agreement. Somebody else did.
I'm not familiar with trade secret law, but with trademark law, if someone infringes on your copyright, you have to notify them, and then if they don't stop using your trademark, you can sue them. If they stop immediately, you can't sue them.
Does the same apply to trade secrets? AppleInsider removed the offending content last week, as soon as they were contacted by Adobe.
On the other hand, the singer Billy Joel® gets around this by putting a registered trademark symbol next to his name every single time it appears anywhere (look for it the next time you see his name). This serves as notification of trademark, so if someone uses his name to print bootleg t-shirts or something he can immediately take them to court.
Adobe isn't trying to imply that the fact that they're working on Photoshop 6 is a secret. The specific features that Photoshop 6 will have, including descriptions of how they work and screen shots to demonstrate, are what they're saying is a trade secret.
I think that they should get tossed out because the people have the right to know how a preview release operated.
Excuse me? People (including Adobe's competitors) have the right to know the details of commercial software that hasn't been publicly released yet? What gives you that idea? They developed it; it's their product. Surely they have the right to keep it to themselves if they want? If they do in fact have some innovative new feature, they don't want their competitors implementing it before they're ready to ship!
Bach also wrote a piece that was based on his own name - the melody began with a sequence of four notes, B, A, C and H in German, which are written as Bb, A, C and B in English (I might have the first and last ones reversed).
Actually the Apple easter eggs you're referring to existed in System 7.5-7.5.2 and 7.5.3-7.6.1, and had nothing to do with the Stickies application. The code was in the Text Clipping extension, the extension that it possible to drag text to the desktop to create a clipping file. The trigger was creating a clipping file of the words "secret about box", which could be done by typing the phrase into Stickies or any other application that supports drag editing, selecting the text, and dropping it onto the desktop or any folder.
System 7.5 came with a Brick-Out game, which was replaced in System 7.5.3 by a photo of Apple's campus in Cupertino with a 3-D animated flag blowing in the breeze. You could change the speed and direction of the wind by moving the mouse around, and it was occasionally possible to rip the flag off the pole (at which point it would blow away). The graphics and possibly parts of the flag code were in the QuickTime Power Plug extension, which contained the PowerPC code for QuickTime. I never say the Brick-Out game so I don't know much about it.
--
Re:Why Napster must win
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
The sole purpose of Napster is NOT to distribute illegal MP3s. As Napster says in their copyright notification every time you log on, there are thousands of MP3 files that are licensed by the copyright holders for free distribution on the Internet. This includes music by The Offspring, bootlegged recordings of live Metallica shows (that are not available commercially), and tons of stuff by gazillions of unsigned artists. The Brunching Shuttlecocks are having a contest to promote the distribution of their music through Napster. There's more, but as Lars Ulrich said, "Napster has the right to exist."
It is Apple's new company policy that any easter eggs must no longer contain the names of any developers. Their official reason is that the efforts of many people go into the production of a piece of software, from marketing to testing, not just the few programmers who make the easter egg. The unofficial reason is that competing companies were tracking down the programmers whose names were listed in easter eggs and hiring them away from Apple.
The company has taken a much less favorable approach towards easter eggs in general recently, but as long as they don't contain the names of any developers, I'm sure they will continue to live on.
Umm, I thought the MAC address was determined entirely by hardware, not software? And MAC addresses are centrally registered, to be sure that each one is unique. Definition at everything2.com.
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
This should be a simple matter to clear up, but the problem is, the burden to do so is on him, and very often it's not as easy to take care of as this particular issue will probably be.
--
As an example, Piers Anthony wrote a series called Apprentice Adept. It's a mix of science fiction and fantasy, and it constantly jumps back and forth between both (if that doesn't make sense, go get the first book from your local public library). At the time Anthony had a deal with one publisher granting them exclusive rights to publish all of his sci-fi stuff, and a similar deal with another publisher for all of his fantasy novels. The three parties had to get together and negotiate which publishing company would publish the Apprentice Adept series. Everybody was understanding, everything went smoothly, and there were no problems. An unusual situation, but an example of the kind of stuff that happens with exclusive licenses. The point is, it's not a problem.
And the larger point is, Anthony owns every book he's written - not the publishing companies.
Sorry for ranting incoherently again.
--
--
--
--
Just as AltaVista isn't breaking the law if they happen to inadvertently index a Web site that contains kiddie porn, Napster isn't breaking the law if they happen to inadvertently index an MP3 file that isn't licensed for distribution. The courts have upheld this in the past, but now the RIAA is pissed off, so the courts are unsure of how to proceed.
In both cases, it's the person who is hosting the kiddie porn/unlicensed MP3 file that is breaking the law, not AltaVista/Napster. However, they both have a policy for reporting such things: tell them about it, and they'll take it out of the index! This is what Metallica did, and Napster responded exactly according to their stated policy: they banned the users that were reported.
--
--
Doesn't that mean that only seven of the ten judges will hear the case? That would seem to disagree with the Wired article. Or will all ten judges hear it, but only seven said the appeals court would accept the case?
--
I believe the announcement was made after the close of the stock market?
--
If they lose all appeals and the Supreme Court upholds Jackson's ruling, then then MS-OS (a.k.a. Windows, Inc.) is pretty much stuck with just selling, supporting and developing Windows on a vaguely even level with Linux and other operating systems (Apple may be persuaded to release an Intel port of Mac OS X; who knows). However, MS-AP (a.k.a. Microsoft, Inc.) will take everything else, including Office, Internet Explorer, Media Player, Direct X, Next Generation Windows Services (NGWS), the X-Box, whole shebang - and will have nothing to stop them from being completely and totally evil.
--
--
--
--
Correct. Except that AppleInsider didn't break any such express agreement. Somebody else did.
--
I'm not familiar with trade secret law, but with trademark law, if someone infringes on your copyright, you have to notify them, and then if they don't stop using your trademark, you can sue them. If they stop immediately, you can't sue them.
Does the same apply to trade secrets? AppleInsider removed the offending content last week, as soon as they were contacted by Adobe.
On the other hand, the singer Billy Joel® gets around this by putting a registered trademark symbol next to his name every single time it appears anywhere (look for it the next time you see his name). This serves as notification of trademark, so if someone uses his name to print bootleg t-shirts or something he can immediately take them to court.
--
--
--
Excuse me? People (including Adobe's competitors) have the right to know the details of commercial software that hasn't been publicly released yet? What gives you that idea? They developed it; it's their product. Surely they have the right to keep it to themselves if they want? If they do in fact have some innovative new feature, they don't want their competitors implementing it before they're ready to ship!
--
--
System 7.5 came with a Brick-Out game, which was replaced in System 7.5.3 by a photo of Apple's campus in Cupertino with a 3-D animated flag blowing in the breeze. You could change the speed and direction of the wind by moving the mouse around, and it was occasionally possible to rip the flag off the pole (at which point it would blow away). The graphics and possibly parts of the flag code were in the QuickTime Power Plug extension, which contained the PowerPC code for QuickTime. I never say the Brick-Out game so I don't know much about it.
--
--
The company has taken a much less favorable approach towards easter eggs in general recently, but as long as they don't contain the names of any developers, I'm sure they will continue to live on.
--
--