Statistics is indeed quite important, and whether AP CS or AP Statistics is a more useful use of a high-school student's time is a useful question (assuming they have to choose, which maybe they don't?). But AP Statistics is not teaching computational thinking; it's teaching statistical thinking, which is not the same!
While I agree statistical think is different than computational thinking, to answer your question I think it is a better use of a students time to teach statistics. Properly taught, it teaches you to think about how to formulate a question, what data you need and how to analyze it. In short, it is as much about the problem as the answer.
Computational thinking, or to use an older term, procedural literacy, is the idea that people should understand how to think in terms of processes, procedures, etc..
SNIP
Many people can't do that: even leaving aside that they don't know C or Java or Lisp, they also don't really understand what an algorithm or a computer program is conceptually, and have absolute no idea what kinds of things can be computed and what kinds can't, or which are easy or harder to compute. They lack the ability to interact meaningfully with non-code representations of computation and algorithms as well, like flow charts or (natural-language) instruction sequences.
Again, I concur with you comments. That's why code monkeys are cheap and those who can actually develop a solution valuable; and the skills you mention don't become obsolete when a new language comes along. Unfortunately, far to many people equate the ability to code with being a computer scientist or engineer. That's not to say we don't need good coders but focusing on coding and forgetting the how and why behind it is doing them a disservice. I've also found the ones who can really write elegant code generally also think conceptually as well. Maybe I was lucky but when I took CS in high school the teacher made us explain and diagram what we are trying to do before coding, and rewarded accomplishing tasks in as few lines of code as possible. A she put it, "anybody can write a program with 100 lines to accomplish what can be done in 2."
Statistical thinking is quite a bit different, more about proper use of data, quantification of evidence and uncertainty, etc. It can be complementary to computational thinking, but it isn't the same skill.
True, but faced with learning statical thinking or how to write code I think the former is more valuable.
The point of "punitive damages" is to punish the company...duh. But, how do you do that?
Just taking their money isn't enough, especially in the case of these companies. You can take astronomical amounts and it would be a drop in the bucket to them. What is $400 million to a company with billions in cash?
What you need to do is hurt them bad enough to affect their stock price. Then everyone takes notice. Board members have their positions threatened, when that happens, executives are fired, etc. THAT'S punishment.
First of all, this a settlement proposal, not damages.
Second, while punitive damages take into account the financial capability of the defendant they also have to have some reasonable relationships to the actual damages the defendants suffered as well. If we assume that the $325K represents actual damages, punitive damages of $1.3 billion might be considered legally acceptable. While that is a large number, divided by 4 defendants with very deep pockets it's still less than they pay for a few acquisitions.
Personally, I think punitive damage awards should go to paying legal fees (if that isn't already done) and into a fund to pay awards to plaintiffs that win but can't collect, such as when a company subsequently declares bankruptcy rather than simply enrich palliatives beyond actual damage they suffered.
The Supreme Court has held that "abstract ideas" can't be patented, but then has deliberately refrained from defining what an "abstract idea" is!
In the latest Alice decision, they write: "In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precisecontours of the “abstract ideas” category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of “abstract ideas” as we have used that term."
So you can't have "X", where "X" is undefined.
It would seem to me that that is the right thing to do when it is hard to clear define the line between OK and Not OK. This allows lower courts to use the ruling as guidance and as cases work their way up to SCOTUS that can provide more definitive guidelines. If they try to be more specific for such a broad area as patentable ideas they risk going to far one way or the other and later having to correct themselves if and when a good case comes up that allows them that option.
I saw a demo, around 2003, of a sintering machine the military used to build prepare parts in the field. Rather than shipping a part they could produce and machine it as needed remotely; all they needed was the appropriate instruction set and they were good to go. When I asked abut the strength and durability of the parts they said it was as good or better than normal spares.
By "head exploding" I don't mean I would confuse them. I mean that it would go against what they tend to use law for. Using the law to create something open and shareable is the opposite of what they usually do. I won't go into detail here, but I've had experiences with layers that have made me realize they are not trained to think like normal conscionable people.
You are correct that lawyers are trained to think in very specific ways relative to the law. That doesn't mean that cannot think like normal conscionable people; however when they are asked to provide a legal opinion or draft a legal document they will ensure it is written to accomplish specific legal goals, which often requires very precise and specific language. Th eons I worked with certainly could step out of that mode but when we asked for legal opinions that went back to their legal training and experience. If you want some thing to be open and shareable they would write a document that accomplishes that and ensures it stays open and shareable; which requires ensuring the item couldn't be incorporated in something without sharing the results if that is what you want when you say "open and shareable."
A lawyer explained to me that that is not true. They have another option.
They can send a letter to the site offering them a $0/yr license to use the mark.
In my non-lawyer opinion, I think they could also send them a letter stating that Ikea decided not to sue them because are not infringing,
IANAL, but at that point IKEA would be saying the site is OK to continue as is because are not infringing on IKEA's trademark. Any request s after that would be superfluous since they are not infringing. At that point, the site might want to trademark their name to protect it from being grabbed by IKEA.
and advise them how to use the mark appropriately to prevent future infringement. I remember talking to a lawyer about this and he didn't like that approach, but I believe lawyers are biased on this subject. Probably because it prevents their ability to sue in the future. But that's how lawyers think
No, they actually like things to be laid out in a manner that clearly defines their position and what they want done. Unclear statements and random advice comes back to haunt the person who said them and the lil ego avoid that.
If I explained copyleft to him his head probably would have exploded.
Why? You confuse someone who is trained to use specific language with someone who is incapable of understanding broad concepts.
Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.
A C&D is a pretty typical first step when defending a trademark; and not unreasonable. That protects the brand owner while still allowing them to negotiate in an amicable manner;which is what it appears happened in this case.
I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).
Product placement is different from trademark dilution. I can put a Coke product in an add, where it is clear my product is not Coke, but can't call my product HackedCocaCola and use their bottle design and color scheme to contain my mix of Coke and flavoring and show it in the add.
You really think the federal government has the programming skill to pull off something like that? An organization run on software from the 80s?
Yes, primarily because if the decide they want to do it they have the money to do it. In addition, while there is a lot of old legacy systems running mundane tasks there are some very sophisticated computing technology and skills that can be tasked to work on the problem. This wouldn't be a run of the mill operation but rather something run out of an intelligence agency where a team could be dedicated to such a task. I am not saying they would do it; but they certainly have the capability and capacity to pull it off. The hardest part would not be the technology but figuring out how to get all the IT organizations spread across the country to agree to allow some mining software to be installed; along with the over and under on how long it would take for someone to figure out what was happening and spill the beans.
Amazon and Azure are far too expensive, unless a state-actor is willing to invest a few billions.
A state actor of sufficient size wouldn't need to rent space; they could just harness their existing resources in a pool. How much power could the US, for example, tap if every PC they control began harvesting Bitcoins? They have the network, admin rights to add programs, programming skill to develop the required programming, and would not care if the added electrical cost outweigh the value created since making money is not the goal. As an added bonus, some of the supercomputers could be added to the mix as well.
No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.
There is. It's called a car service; who has the requisite insurance and permits. You can even book in advance and if your plane is late they will adjust their schedule to meet you when you get in. Cabbies hate them as well but they play by the city rules and thus can operate. Uber appears to be trying to meet the city ordinances, which IMHO is as much about permit revenue as safety, so the may yet be able to take airport fares.
I'm not an American so just out of curiosity: What is a write-in candidate?....
In many US elections you can write a name on the ballot and it is counted as a vote of that person. A candidate that does not qualify otherwise can ask voters to write in their name, hence the term "write in candidate." They are rarely successful although there have been notable instances where a party's nominee was so bad that the write in one.
and: Why is somebody who looses a primary election held by a political party banned by law from running as an independent?
It's designed to allow a party to elect the nominee and then not have all the other members of the party appear on the ballot. If you want to run as the party's choice you generally forgo the right to run on another party's ticket as part of the deal. Although, in some states you can run on multiple party tickets and all the votes for you, regardless of party line on the ballot are counted together. This results in the odd specter of candidates getting their name on the ballot multiple times; the idea being the more you are on the ballot the more likely you are to win.
What ever ones opinion of sore losers may be, passing laws against them running as independents seems a bit anti-democratic to me. In my country we occasionally get a splinter candidate running as an independent. Usually this is after a disagreement in one of the mainstream parties where somebody is dissatisfied about being bumped down to the bottom of the elction list in local elections or because they were sidelined for a parliamentary seat (i.e. because of party internal backstabbing). Recently, for example, this has been common in right wing parties whose leaders are EU skeptic and have been keen to prevent any EU friendly party members from gaining parliementary seats.
People can still run as independents, they just can't run (usually since each state sets its own ballot laws) for one party's nomination and when they lose turn around and run as an independent.
Some of these independents have even been known to get elected because they were simply put more competent than the nimrod that the party bosses helped to win the primary. So far nobody has even considered passing laws against such independents.
That happens in the US as well. Sometimes, the party is embarrassed by the person who won the election and provide minimal support.
Thing is, just about all of those things you listed are so-called "wedge" issues that have very little bearing on most people, even if they deeply affect some consequential number of people. Remember that we are mostly talking about federal government here, which is supposed to be tackling things that make sense on a federal level
The thing about wedge issue is they often appeal to single issue voters who feel strongly about them and turn out in primaries; which typically have low turnouts compared to the actual election. As a result, candidates pander to those voters who will turn out and generally ignore the others who probably don't care about those issues enough to used to decide how they will vote. Of course, once they win the primary now they have to keep the base energized while managing to appeal to the more moderate group they need to get elected. The base, however, is very sensitive to appearances that the candidate "really isn't a true believer" which make sit tough to move towards the middle.
1. So how does that figure into bandwidth caps that Comcast seems to like to impose? If it's a public hotspot it could significantly increase usage.
2. When the inevitable request for an IP address is made who is on the hook to be the named John / Jane Doe? Sure, the router assigns IP addresses but how do you cough up the name? Just give the router owner's name?
3. Does logging into a hotspot imply consent to capture data streams? Probably not, but the person with access to the router could do some snooping if they were so inclined.
Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?
Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.
While corporations have more money in total they still need to decide what to spend where. Pumping $2mill in one race; rather than spreading over many, can have a significant influence on voters. I wonder if there is a spending threshold where more money has greatly diminished returns in terms of voter impact. If that is the case; you don't need to outspend other interests just spend enough to have an impact.
The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.
The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!
\
More importantly, we have votes. If people took the time to actually vote in elections, including primaries, outside spending would have less of an impact since you wouldn't be able to rely on just getting your base out to vote but actually appeal to a broader range of voters.
Non-DRM games would make it much easier for the casual user to copy.
That's true to some extent, but to be quite honest, you don't need DRM for that. The most simple copy protection would stop 95% of the casual users.
True, I just considered any copy protection to be considered DRM To that extent, I think the current state of DRM is overkill. I like to play games offline where I have no internet access so this nonsense of "phone home" or "Validate key online" simply mean I do not buy the game.
Not sure what your point is.
My point is that for practical purposes in this context, copyright is not very limited, because the limits don't apply to computer games.
Agreed. Time limited seems to have become "extend for another XX years every time the copyright on a Disney movie is about to expire..."
since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate
After 30 years of software cracking you still think this? Really?
0-days where a cracker term long before they referred to exploits. There are very few big-name games, DRM or not, that are not available as illegal copies on the day of their release.
I completely agree that illegal copying does impact sales, with the amount of lost sales being a very difficult subject. But that DRM impacts copying in any measurable way? You need proof for that.
Here is where I am coming from. Non-DRM games would make it much easier for the casual user to copy. Yes, TBP may have it at day 0 but that doesn't mean a lot of potential buyers get it from there, or even are aware of it. If however, X could easily make a copy and give it to friend Y without going to the TPB then you would see a lot more copying. I based this on anecdotal evidence form Apple ][ days when the easy availability of bit copiers allowed virtually anyone to make a copy and thus there was a lot of piracy, as was copying of non-DRM'd software. I doubt human nature has changed much in the intervening years. Thus, my contention that non-DRM copies would impact copying in a measurable way. YMMV
The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.
True. The limit, however, is mostly time-based and as such meaningless to this discussion, and especially about computer games which will basically never leave copyright, because when the copyright term is up you will have a very hard time just finding a computer that can still play it.
And for practical purposes, not one single computer game is out of copyright at this time, not even Pong (its copyright will expire in 2062, if I'm not mistaken).
Not sure what your point is. I agree that copyright has been extended to unreasonable periods of time. Emulators, however, have kept a lot of older games still playable, although most copies are probably pirated since originals are no longer available to purchase.
Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly.
Not to existing laws. I propose that if we really want to figure out if DRM impacts sales, we need to make identical products available with and without. Since publishers are unwilling to do that, compulsory licensing would accomplish it.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on solution to measuring the impact of DRM on copying. I think there is data to show it does; you obviously disagree. That's the beauty of economics, not only can people disagree on data and theories but two can win the Nobel in the same year for saying exactly opposite things.
the lack of non-DRM'd major releases are a pretty good indication that non-DRM'd products would not sell as well as those with DRM.
Uh no, it doesn't. It's a pretty good indication that those responsible for distribution think that this is so, but not that it actually is so. Their thoughts may be correct, or false, but it is still believe and not fact.
Pirated copies provide a good proxy for non-DRM releases of a DRM title, and pirated copies have an impact on sales; the impact is debatable but their still is a real economic impact. Therefore, it's not just "think that this is so" but borne out by evidence since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate thus increasing the lost sales.
Except you are twisting copyrights
You're seriously arguing against pretty much every economist?
If you'd bothered to quote my entire statement you'd notice I agree copyrights can be considered a limited monopoly. The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.
GIYF, search for appropriate terms and you'll find that copyrights are regarded as a form of monopoly
Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly. You are incorrectly applying the concept of monopoly and its remedies to copyright. In short, you are stating that because two concepts use the same term they are identical, which is clearly not the case here.
by everyone who has actually studied the subject. I didn't,
That is obvious so you don't need to restate it.
and I won't waste my time on an argument that has been settled decades ago.
Even better, stop wasting your time by making an argument that is incorrect.
The point is that we have a product, let's call it X.
And then we have distribution of the product. This includes changes to the product itself, like DRM. Let's call this product Xa.
In a free market, it would be possible for a different distributor to source product X and make other (or no) changes, resulting in product Xb. The two products Xa and Xb would then compete in the market. If one of the various Xb, Xc, Xd etc. was without DRM, you could actually compare identical products with DRM vs. without DRM and you could measure if DRM has a meaningful impact on sales, customer satisfaction, etc. etc.
My car analogy was very appropriate - car manufacturers limit distribution just like game manufacturers. While a DRM and non-DRM version would allow direct comparison of the impact of DRM on sales and piracy; the lack of non-DRM'd major releases are a pretty good indication that non-DRM'd products would not sell as well as those with DRM.
Which, of course, are not applicable because there is no monopoly;
Copyright grants the "exclusive right" to a work, which is considered a (limited) monopoly by pretty much every economical text on the subject. You can argue with my ideas and conclusions, but let's not waste time on doubting established facts.
Except you are twisting copyrights (which are a limited monopoly, as you correctly point out but that is granted for the very opposite reason anti-trust laws are used to limit monopolies) into a broader definition of monopoly as the ability to exert market power; which a game does not have the ability to do. There are competing sports titles, FPS, etc. Even though they may not be identical the consumer still has the ability to purchase competing games; thus there is not a monopoly as the term is used in an economic context. You may prefer title x to y but that doesn't mean x has a monopoly in the market and thus requires intervention to limit their ability to exert market power.
For economic and regulatory purposes, it's not a monopoly. For the purpose of somebody who just wants to play KOTOR, it is. One game is an imperfect substitution for any other game. Just a matter of the real world not fitting well into neat categories.
If you look at it that way then everything is a monopoly because Coke is an imperfect substitute for Pepsi, Windows for OSX, etc.
What you want is lower prices, but that is not the result of monopoly prices but rather a number of individual actors deciding what price point ensures sufficient demand to make the desired profit.
No, what he wants is to be able to get DRM-free copies, or perhaps just copies he can use (I couldn't play my legitimately purchased copy of KOTOR until I downloaded the cracked version from TPB, for example). He said nothing about the price.
Actually, he did in his discussion of monopolies in his post. I agree that DRM sucks but arguing that DRM product somehow constitute monopoly is flat out wrong.
That's like saying Ford is a monopoly because only they sell the Mustang despite Chevy, Chrysler, etc. all selling cars in the same category. In short, your definition of a monopoly is so narrow to be useless.
Again, you miss the point. I am not talking about producers, I am talking about distributors.
So? That's just arguing it's the dealerships who are a monopoly ins tea dog the manufacturers. Still not true.
Sure I can. People claim they'd buy games if only they didn't have DRM; yet indie titles don't enjoy great success despite being DRM free.
Has it occured to you that DRM might not be the only factor that people consider when they buy a game, even if they are strongly interested in their rights?
Sure. Most indie games suck; in part because they don't generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile to develop better games; even so it shows people really don't care enough about DRM because they still buy the games.
While in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, in practice there is. It's an interesting idea in theory but unworkable in practice. All it would o is drive the price to the license price if licensing is compulsory.
Which is kind of the whole point of anti-trust laws.
Which, of course, are not applicable because there is no monopoly; and in your scenario of compulsory licensing there couldn't be monopoly but then again the prices would drop to the point that game development would be severely impacted.
Every individual game, movie, etc. is a small monopoly, because nobody else can sell a comparable product.
That's like saying Ford is a monopoly because only they sell the Mustang despite Chevy, Chrysler, etc. all selling cars in the same category. In short, your definition of a monopoly is so narrow to be useless.
You cannot compare a small indie title without DRM and an AAA game with DRM and then make claims based on that comparison. If you could buy the same title with or without DRM, then and only then could you draw a conclusion about DRM acceptance.
Sure I can. People claim they'd buy games if only they didn't have DRM; yet indie titles don't enjoy great success despite being DRM free. Despite being DRM free they don't generate enough revenue to warrant large investments in development that goes into a blockbuster. People may noyt like DRM but given the choice of a desirable game with DRM or another without DRM they go for the DRM title. If DRM was such a turn off to buyers they wouldn't buy the DRM games but they consistently do so DRM is not a big issue for most users.
Your model assumes there is no, or insignificant, piracy of DRM free games and that everyone would gladly pay the retail price rather than just buy a license. I think both assumptions are wrong.
My models assumes no such thing. It's just a thought following the logical conclusion from the understanding that copyright grants small monopolies. Of course with the real world and illegal copying, it is not that simple. But as a thought experiment - see above.
While in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, in practice there is. It's an interesting idea in theory but unworkable in practice. All it would o is drive the price to the license price if licensing is compulsory.
well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society.
From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.
Hardly. Having a standard recharging platform would help spur adoption of electric vehicles since the buyer of a vehicle would no longer be tied to a specific manufacturer's design and recharging stations would become more viable since they can supply variety of manufacturers; much like gasoline stations today. In short, a standard would spur adoption of electric vehicles which would help Tesla.
I know at least one person who would love to buy a lot of UBIsoft games if they only offered them in a way I can agree with.
This.
It's know that the problem with monopolies is that they can offer products to the market at conditions (price or otherwise) that only a fraction of the market is willing to accept. In a non-monopoly situation, a competitor would offer the product at more acceptable conditions, and make a sale.
It's high time these monopolies get smashed.
The studios are hardly monopolies - they have plenty of competition no one exerts enough market pressure to eliminate the others. What you want is lower prices, but that is not the result of monopoly prices but rather a number of individual actors deciding what price point ensures sufficient demand to make the desired profit. In addition, since ether cannot price discriminate on initial release they price high and drop the price over time to try to extract as much revenue as possible form each buyer; which is not monopolistic behavior.
In addition, there are plenty of DRM free games out there. Where is the big dollar hit? How many big hits are there that generate the same revenue as the major DRM'd releases?
I'm for copyright, but against licensing. Why not have compulsory licensing for copyrighted works, so that you and I could start up a distributor who offers these works without DRM, or with green boxes or whatever else the market wants, and as long as we pay the same price as UBI, we can do it?
First off, how do you structure compulsory licensing? If they are compulsory, I'd gladly buy 1 license, pay Ubisoft their cut and get the game for the license fee. Or start a buyers club if there was a minimum quantity and rebate the difference.
Your model assumes there is no, or insignificant, piracy of DRM free games and that everyone would gladly pay the retail price rather than just buy a license. I think both assumptions are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Statistics is indeed quite important, and whether AP CS or AP Statistics is a more useful use of a high-school student's time is a useful question (assuming they have to choose, which maybe they don't?). But AP Statistics is not teaching computational thinking; it's teaching statistical thinking, which is not the same!
While I agree statistical think is different than computational thinking, to answer your question I think it is a better use of a students time to teach statistics. Properly taught, it teaches you to think about how to formulate a question, what data you need and how to analyze it. In short, it is as much about the problem as the answer.
Computational thinking, or to use an older term, procedural literacy, is the idea that people should understand how to think in terms of processes, procedures, etc..
SNIP
Many people can't do that: even leaving aside that they don't know C or Java or Lisp, they also don't really understand what an algorithm or a computer program is conceptually, and have absolute no idea what kinds of things can be computed and what kinds can't, or which are easy or harder to compute. They lack the ability to interact meaningfully with non-code representations of computation and algorithms as well, like flow charts or (natural-language) instruction sequences.
Again, I concur with you comments. That's why code monkeys are cheap and those who can actually develop a solution valuable; and the skills you mention don't become obsolete when a new language comes along. Unfortunately, far to many people equate the ability to code with being a computer scientist or engineer. That's not to say we don't need good coders but focusing on coding and forgetting the how and why behind it is doing them a disservice. I've also found the ones who can really write elegant code generally also think conceptually as well. Maybe I was lucky but when I took CS in high school the teacher made us explain and diagram what we are trying to do before coding, and rewarded accomplishing tasks in as few lines of code as possible. A she put it, "anybody can write a program with 100 lines to accomplish what can be done in 2."
Statistical thinking is quite a bit different, more about proper use of data, quantification of evidence and uncertainty, etc. It can be complementary to computational thinking, but it isn't the same skill.
True, but faced with learning statical thinking or how to write code I think the former is more valuable.
The point of "punitive damages" is to punish the company...duh. But, how do you do that?
Just taking their money isn't enough, especially in the case of these companies. You can take astronomical amounts and it would be a drop in the bucket to them. What is $400 million to a company with billions in cash?
What you need to do is hurt them bad enough to affect their stock price. Then everyone takes notice. Board members have their positions threatened, when that happens, executives are fired, etc. THAT'S punishment.
First of all, this a settlement proposal, not damages.
Second, while punitive damages take into account the financial capability of the defendant they also have to have some reasonable relationships to the actual damages the defendants suffered as well. If we assume that the $325K represents actual damages, punitive damages of $1.3 billion might be considered legally acceptable. While that is a large number, divided by 4 defendants with very deep pockets it's still less than they pay for a few acquisitions.
Personally, I think punitive damage awards should go to paying legal fees (if that isn't already done) and into a fund to pay awards to plaintiffs that win but can't collect, such as when a company subsequently declares bankruptcy rather than simply enrich palliatives beyond actual damage they suffered.
The Supreme Court has held that "abstract ideas" can't be patented, but then has deliberately refrained from defining what an "abstract idea" is!
In the latest Alice decision, they write: "In any event, we need not labor to delimit the precisecontours of the “abstract ideas” category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of “abstract ideas” as we have used that term."
So you can't have "X", where "X" is undefined.
It would seem to me that that is the right thing to do when it is hard to clear define the line between OK and Not OK. This allows lower courts to use the ruling as guidance and as cases work their way up to SCOTUS that can provide more definitive guidelines. If they try to be more specific for such a broad area as patentable ideas they risk going to far one way or the other and later having to correct themselves if and when a good case comes up that allows them that option.
I saw a demo, around 2003, of a sintering machine the military used to build prepare parts in the field. Rather than shipping a part they could produce and machine it as needed remotely; all they needed was the appropriate instruction set and they were good to go. When I asked abut the strength and durability of the parts they said it was as good or better than normal spares.
Meanwhile, AT&T says that strong net neutrality regulations will ruin their ability to squeeze more profit from the internet.
There, fixed it.
By "head exploding" I don't mean I would confuse them. I mean that it would go against what they tend to use law for. Using the law to create something open and shareable is the opposite of what they usually do. I won't go into detail here, but I've had experiences with layers that have made me realize they are not trained to think like normal conscionable people.
You are correct that lawyers are trained to think in very specific ways relative to the law. That doesn't mean that cannot think like normal conscionable people; however when they are asked to provide a legal opinion or draft a legal document they will ensure it is written to accomplish specific legal goals, which often requires very precise and specific language. Th eons I worked with certainly could step out of that mode but when we asked for legal opinions that went back to their legal training and experience. If you want some thing to be open and shareable they would write a document that accomplishes that and ensures it stays open and shareable; which requires ensuring the item couldn't be incorporated in something without sharing the results if that is what you want when you say "open and shareable."
A lawyer explained to me that that is not true. They have another option.
They can send a letter to the site offering them a $0/yr license to use the mark.
In my non-lawyer opinion, I think they could also send them a letter stating that Ikea decided not to sue them because are not infringing,
IANAL, but at that point IKEA would be saying the site is OK to continue as is because are not infringing on IKEA's trademark. Any request s after that would be superfluous since they are not infringing. At that point, the site might want to trademark their name to protect it from being grabbed by IKEA.
and advise them how to use the mark appropriately to prevent future infringement. I remember talking to a lawyer about this and he didn't like that approach, but I believe lawyers are biased on this subject. Probably because it prevents their ability to sue in the future. But that's how lawyers think
No, they actually like things to be laid out in a manner that clearly defines their position and what they want done. Unclear statements and random advice comes back to haunt the person who said them and the lil ego avoid that.
If I explained copyleft to him his head probably would have exploded.
Why? You confuse someone who is trained to use specific language with someone who is incapable of understanding broad concepts.
Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.
A C&D is a pretty typical first step when defending a trademark; and not unreasonable. That protects the brand owner while still allowing them to negotiate in an amicable manner;which is what it appears happened in this case.
I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).
Product placement is different from trademark dilution. I can put a Coke product in an add, where it is clear my product is not Coke, but can't call my product HackedCocaCola and use their bottle design and color scheme to contain my mix of Coke and flavoring and show it in the add.
You really think the federal government has the programming skill to pull off something like that? An organization run on software from the 80s?
Yes, primarily because if the decide they want to do it they have the money to do it. In addition, while there is a lot of old legacy systems running mundane tasks there are some very sophisticated computing technology and skills that can be tasked to work on the problem. This wouldn't be a run of the mill operation but rather something run out of an intelligence agency where a team could be dedicated to such a task. I am not saying they would do it; but they certainly have the capability and capacity to pull it off. The hardest part would not be the technology but figuring out how to get all the IT organizations spread across the country to agree to allow some mining software to be installed; along with the over and under on how long it would take for someone to figure out what was happening and spill the beans.
Amazon and Azure are far too expensive, unless a state-actor is willing to invest a few billions.
A state actor of sufficient size wouldn't need to rent space; they could just harness their existing resources in a pool. How much power could the US, for example, tap if every PC they control began harvesting Bitcoins? They have the network, admin rights to add programs, programming skill to develop the required programming, and would not care if the added electrical cost outweigh the value created since making money is not the goal. As an added bonus, some of the supercomputers could be added to the mix as well.
No, fuck em. If I can have a service that is waiting to pick me up, go where I want to go, more often than not in a clean and comfortable car, with a driver who (and I apologise for the next comment but you know this happens too often) understand what you are saying and is interested more in customer service.... I'll take it.
There is. It's called a car service; who has the requisite insurance and permits. You can even book in advance and if your plane is late they will adjust their schedule to meet you when you get in. Cabbies hate them as well but they play by the city rules and thus can operate. Uber appears to be trying to meet the city ordinances, which IMHO is as much about permit revenue as safety, so the may yet be able to take airport fares.
I'm not an American so just out of curiosity: What is a write-in candidate? ....
In many US elections you can write a name on the ballot and it is counted as a vote of that person. A candidate that does not qualify otherwise can ask voters to write in their name, hence the term "write in candidate." They are rarely successful although there have been notable instances where a party's nominee was so bad that the write in one.
and: Why is somebody who looses a primary election held by a political party banned by law from running as an independent?
It's designed to allow a party to elect the nominee and then not have all the other members of the party appear on the ballot. If you want to run as the party's choice you generally forgo the right to run on another party's ticket as part of the deal. Although, in some states you can run on multiple party tickets and all the votes for you, regardless of party line on the ballot are counted together. This results in the odd specter of candidates getting their name on the ballot multiple times; the idea being the more you are on the ballot the more likely you are to win.
What ever ones opinion of sore losers may be, passing laws against them running as independents seems a bit anti-democratic to me. In my country we occasionally get a splinter candidate running as an independent. Usually this is after a disagreement in one of the mainstream parties where somebody is dissatisfied about being bumped down to the bottom of the elction list in local elections or because they were sidelined for a parliamentary seat (i.e. because of party internal backstabbing). Recently, for example, this has been common in right wing parties whose leaders are EU skeptic and have been keen to prevent any EU friendly party members from gaining parliementary seats.
People can still run as independents, they just can't run (usually since each state sets its own ballot laws) for one party's nomination and when they lose turn around and run as an independent.
Some of these independents have even been known to get elected because they were simply put more competent than the nimrod that the party bosses helped to win the primary. So far nobody has even considered passing laws against such independents.
That happens in the US as well. Sometimes, the party is embarrassed by the person who won the election and provide minimal support.
Thing is, just about all of those things you listed are so-called "wedge" issues that have very little bearing on most people, even if they deeply affect some consequential number of people. Remember that we are mostly talking about federal government here, which is supposed to be tackling things that make sense on a federal level
The thing about wedge issue is they often appeal to single issue voters who feel strongly about them and turn out in primaries; which typically have low turnouts compared to the actual election. As a result, candidates pander to those voters who will turn out and generally ignore the others who probably don't care about those issues enough to used to decide how they will vote. Of course, once they win the primary now they have to keep the base energized while managing to appeal to the more moderate group they need to get elected. The base, however, is very sensitive to appearances that the candidate "really isn't a true believer" which make sit tough to move towards the middle.
1. So how does that figure into bandwidth caps that Comcast seems to like to impose? If it's a public hotspot it could significantly increase usage.
2. When the inevitable request for an IP address is made who is on the hook to be the named John / Jane Doe? Sure, the router assigns IP addresses but how do you cough up the name? Just give the router owner's name?
3. Does logging into a hotspot imply consent to capture data streams? Probably not, but the person with access to the router could do some snooping if they were so inclined.
Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?
Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.
While corporations have more money in total they still need to decide what to spend where. Pumping $2mill in one race; rather than spreading over many, can have a significant influence on voters. I wonder if there is a spending threshold where more money has greatly diminished returns in terms of voter impact. If that is the case; you don't need to outspend other interests just spend enough to have an impact.
The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.
The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!
\
More importantly, we have votes. If people took the time to actually vote in elections, including primaries, outside spending would have less of an impact since you wouldn't be able to rely on just getting your base out to vote but actually appeal to a broader range of voters.
Non-DRM games would make it much easier for the casual user to copy.
That's true to some extent, but to be quite honest, you don't need DRM for that. The most simple copy protection would stop 95% of the casual users.
True, I just considered any copy protection to be considered DRM To that extent, I think the current state of DRM is overkill. I like to play games offline where I have no internet access so this nonsense of "phone home" or "Validate key online" simply mean I do not buy the game.
Not sure what your point is.
My point is that for practical purposes in this context, copyright is not very limited, because the limits don't apply to computer games.
Agreed. Time limited seems to have become "extend for another XX years every time the copyright on a Disney movie is about to expire..."
Nicely said. :-)
Thanks...
since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate
After 30 years of software cracking you still think this? Really?
0-days where a cracker term long before they referred to exploits. There are very few big-name games, DRM or not, that are not available as illegal copies on the day of their release.
I completely agree that illegal copying does impact sales, with the amount of lost sales being a very difficult subject. But that DRM impacts copying in any measurable way? You need proof for that.
Here is where I am coming from. Non-DRM games would make it much easier for the casual user to copy. Yes, TBP may have it at day 0 but that doesn't mean a lot of potential buyers get it from there, or even are aware of it. If however, X could easily make a copy and give it to friend Y without going to the TPB then you would see a lot more copying. I based this on anecdotal evidence form Apple ][ days when the easy availability of bit copiers allowed virtually anyone to make a copy and thus there was a lot of piracy, as was copying of non-DRM'd software. I doubt human nature has changed much in the intervening years. Thus, my contention that non-DRM copies would impact copying in a measurable way. YMMV
The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.
True. The limit, however, is mostly time-based and as such meaningless to this discussion, and especially about computer games which will basically never leave copyright, because when the copyright term is up you will have a very hard time just finding a computer that can still play it.
And for practical purposes, not one single computer game is out of copyright at this time, not even Pong (its copyright will expire in 2062, if I'm not mistaken).
Not sure what your point is. I agree that copyright has been extended to unreasonable periods of time. Emulators, however, have kept a lot of older games still playable, although most copies are probably pirated since originals are no longer available to purchase.
Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly.
Not to existing laws. I propose that if we really want to figure out if DRM impacts sales, we need to make identical products available with and without. Since publishers are unwilling to do that, compulsory licensing would accomplish it.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on solution to measuring the impact of DRM on copying. I think there is data to show it does; you obviously disagree. That's the beauty of economics, not only can people disagree on data and theories but two can win the Nobel in the same year for saying exactly opposite things.
the lack of non-DRM'd major releases are a pretty good indication that non-DRM'd products would not sell as well as those with DRM.
Uh no, it doesn't. It's a pretty good indication that those responsible for distribution think that this is so, but not that it actually is so. Their thoughts may be correct, or false, but it is still believe and not fact.
Pirated copies provide a good proxy for non-DRM releases of a DRM title, and pirated copies have an impact on sales; the impact is debatable but their still is a real economic impact. Therefore, it's not just "think that this is so" but borne out by evidence since non-DRM products would be much easier to pirate thus increasing the lost sales.
Except you are twisting copyrights
You're seriously arguing against pretty much every economist?
If you'd bothered to quote my entire statement you'd notice I agree copyrights can be considered a limited monopoly. The key is limited, because they are designed to encourage production of goods that might not be produced absent such protection.
GIYF, search for appropriate terms and you'll find that copyrights are regarded as a form of monopoly
Except you then use the limited monopoly concept to argue that since they are a monopoly they should be subject to laws that remove that monopoly. You are incorrectly applying the concept of monopoly and its remedies to copyright. In short, you are stating that because two concepts use the same term they are identical, which is clearly not the case here.
by everyone who has actually studied the subject. I didn't,
That is obvious so you don't need to restate it.
and I won't waste my time on an argument that has been settled decades ago.
Even better, stop wasting your time by making an argument that is incorrect.
There's no fitting car analogy.
The point is that we have a product, let's call it X. And then we have distribution of the product. This includes changes to the product itself, like DRM. Let's call this product Xa.
In a free market, it would be possible for a different distributor to source product X and make other (or no) changes, resulting in product Xb. The two products Xa and Xb would then compete in the market. If one of the various Xb, Xc, Xd etc. was without DRM, you could actually compare identical products with DRM vs. without DRM and you could measure if DRM has a meaningful impact on sales, customer satisfaction, etc. etc.
My car analogy was very appropriate - car manufacturers limit distribution just like game manufacturers. While a DRM and non-DRM version would allow direct comparison of the impact of DRM on sales and piracy; the lack of non-DRM'd major releases are a pretty good indication that non-DRM'd products would not sell as well as those with DRM.
Which, of course, are not applicable because there is no monopoly;
Copyright grants the "exclusive right" to a work, which is considered a (limited) monopoly by pretty much every economical text on the subject. You can argue with my ideas and conclusions, but let's not waste time on doubting established facts.
Except you are twisting copyrights (which are a limited monopoly, as you correctly point out but that is granted for the very opposite reason anti-trust laws are used to limit monopolies) into a broader definition of monopoly as the ability to exert market power; which a game does not have the ability to do. There are competing sports titles, FPS, etc. Even though they may not be identical the consumer still has the ability to purchase competing games; thus there is not a monopoly as the term is used in an economic context. You may prefer title x to y but that doesn't mean x has a monopoly in the market and thus requires intervention to limit their ability to exert market power.
For economic and regulatory purposes, it's not a monopoly. For the purpose of somebody who just wants to play KOTOR, it is. One game is an imperfect substitution for any other game. Just a matter of the real world not fitting well into neat categories.
If you look at it that way then everything is a monopoly because Coke is an imperfect substitute for Pepsi, Windows for OSX, etc.
No, what he wants is to be able to get DRM-free copies, or perhaps just copies he can use (I couldn't play my legitimately purchased copy of KOTOR until I downloaded the cracked version from TPB, for example). He said nothing about the price.
Actually, he did in his discussion of monopolies in his post. I agree that DRM sucks but arguing that DRM product somehow constitute monopoly is flat out wrong.
That's like saying Ford is a monopoly because only they sell the Mustang despite Chevy, Chrysler, etc. all selling cars in the same category. In short, your definition of a monopoly is so narrow to be useless.
Again, you miss the point. I am not talking about producers, I am talking about distributors.
So? That's just arguing it's the dealerships who are a monopoly ins tea dog the manufacturers. Still not true.
Sure I can. People claim they'd buy games if only they didn't have DRM; yet indie titles don't enjoy great success despite being DRM free.
Has it occured to you that DRM might not be the only factor that people consider when they buy a game, even if they are strongly interested in their rights?
Sure. Most indie games suck; in part because they don't generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile to develop better games; even so it shows people really don't care enough about DRM because they still buy the games.
While in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, in practice there is. It's an interesting idea in theory but unworkable in practice. All it would o is drive the price to the license price if licensing is compulsory.
Which is kind of the whole point of anti-trust laws.
Which, of course, are not applicable because there is no monopoly; and in your scenario of compulsory licensing there couldn't be monopoly but then again the prices would drop to the point that game development would be severely impacted.
The studios are hardly monopolies
You misunderstood the point.
Every individual game, movie, etc. is a small monopoly, because nobody else can sell a comparable product.
That's like saying Ford is a monopoly because only they sell the Mustang despite Chevy, Chrysler, etc. all selling cars in the same category. In short, your definition of a monopoly is so narrow to be useless.
You cannot compare a small indie title without DRM and an AAA game with DRM and then make claims based on that comparison. If you could buy the same title with or without DRM, then and only then could you draw a conclusion about DRM acceptance.
Sure I can. People claim they'd buy games if only they didn't have DRM; yet indie titles don't enjoy great success despite being DRM free. Despite being DRM free they don't generate enough revenue to warrant large investments in development that goes into a blockbuster. People may noyt like DRM but given the choice of a desirable game with DRM or another without DRM they go for the DRM title. If DRM was such a turn off to buyers they wouldn't buy the DRM games but they consistently do so DRM is not a big issue for most users.
Your model assumes there is no, or insignificant, piracy of DRM free games and that everyone would gladly pay the retail price rather than just buy a license. I think both assumptions are wrong.
My models assumes no such thing. It's just a thought following the logical conclusion from the understanding that copyright grants small monopolies. Of course with the real world and illegal copying, it is not that simple. But as a thought experiment - see above.
While in theory there is no difference in theory and practice, in practice there is. It's an interesting idea in theory but unworkable in practice. All it would o is drive the price to the license price if licensing is compulsory.
well, smart is relative. This shows him to be pro society. From a stock holder perspective. it's a very dumb move.
Hardly. Having a standard recharging platform would help spur adoption of electric vehicles since the buyer of a vehicle would no longer be tied to a specific manufacturer's design and recharging stations would become more viable since they can supply variety of manufacturers; much like gasoline stations today. In short, a standard would spur adoption of electric vehicles which would help Tesla.
I know at least one person who would love to buy a lot of UBIsoft games if they only offered them in a way I can agree with.
This.
It's know that the problem with monopolies is that they can offer products to the market at conditions (price or otherwise) that only a fraction of the market is willing to accept. In a non-monopoly situation, a competitor would offer the product at more acceptable conditions, and make a sale.
It's high time these monopolies get smashed.
The studios are hardly monopolies - they have plenty of competition no one exerts enough market pressure to eliminate the others. What you want is lower prices, but that is not the result of monopoly prices but rather a number of individual actors deciding what price point ensures sufficient demand to make the desired profit. In addition, since ether cannot price discriminate on initial release they price high and drop the price over time to try to extract as much revenue as possible form each buyer; which is not monopolistic behavior.
In addition, there are plenty of DRM free games out there. Where is the big dollar hit? How many big hits are there that generate the same revenue as the major DRM'd releases?
I'm for copyright, but against licensing. Why not have compulsory licensing for copyrighted works, so that you and I could start up a distributor who offers these works without DRM, or with green boxes or whatever else the market wants, and as long as we pay the same price as UBI, we can do it?
First off, how do you structure compulsory licensing? If they are compulsory, I'd gladly buy 1 license, pay Ubisoft their cut and get the game for the license fee. Or start a buyers club if there was a minimum quantity and rebate the difference.
Your model assumes there is no, or insignificant, piracy of DRM free games and that everyone would gladly pay the retail price rather than just buy a license. I think both assumptions are wrong.