I wonder where the organisation's corporate records will be when the Democrats gain power and commence a formal investigation into its involvement in the war? Good luck exercising a search warrant in Dubai. Timing seems about right -- I'm sure there are a lot of backup tapes and filing cabinets to ship out of the jurisdiction...
At some point we will come to a place where we don't really need the extra capacity
You must be new here...
Seriously though, it's a great idea which economics will kill stone dead, because consumers will not pay twice as much for the same capacity with marginally increased reliability. (I doubt whether most consumers even consider comparative MTBFs when buying drives, and manufacturers only care that the drive will survive the system's warranty period).
Luckily, we have s202 of the Copyright Act which says that it's illegal in Australia to make groundless threats of legal proceedings. That is, you cannot say "buy a licence or I'll sue you" unless you are really in a position to sue and win. We also have a "loser pays winner's costs" rule in litigation, which means that once you've started to sue, you cannot discontinue without being ordered to pay the other side's costs.
Candidate #1: "Hi. I'm an MCSD and an MCDBA and I know.net and MSVC++ and C# and..."
Employer: "Next!"
Candidate #2: "Hi. I wrote Samba."
Employer: "Welcome aboard Mr Tridgell!"
But Profit == Useful (to someone)
on
Decentralization
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hang on a minute. The article distinguishes (and criticises) the "turning a profit" motive from the "being useful" motive. But the only reason something turns a profit is because it's useful enough to someone for them to decide to pay for it. That's the whole market economy driver, and (I'm sorry) but it's responsible for the vast majority of your present quality of life.
The important question here is what actually constitutes service by email.
Usually, for "personal service," you need someone to actually hand over the document (or, if not accepted, to advise the subject of the nature of the document, and to leave it in their presence. Old Common Law legal procedure required that the server touch the recipient with the document. Don't think this still applies in most jurisdictions).
Since there is generally no way to know when an email has been received (return receipts are under the control of the recipient) it is likely that the Court simply required the server to prove that the email was sent. It would not have required the server to prove that the email has been read or even received.
The risk, of course, is that the recipient may not receive or not recognise the nature of the document, and will lose their rights when they fail to appear and the plaintiff obtains a default judgement.
In summary, this is not necessarily a good thing, and you can't avoid being served simply by willful blindness to your email, or by turning off return receipts.
Hey hey hey, let's not get carried away here.
Copyright infringement is a breach of someone's
personal rights. It's not a crime in these
circumstances, no matter what the BSA/RIAA/
MPAA may want you to think.
When you go to sign the licence for the product, write in a warranty from Oracle that the software's unbreakable. (& when Oracle refuses to sign, phone the FTC).
Demanding vendors to step up to the mark of their own advertising is one way to deal with this kind of fraud.
If you use Microsoft / Oracle / etc, you must expressly sign away your right to sue for software defects, as a condition of using that software. How are you in a better position?
These flaws also exist with closed-source software. (They are expressly spelled out in most end-user licences; particularly the exclusion of functionality and performance warranties).
The point is, with popular closed-source applications, support expertise is available (to buy). However, this is a function of the popularity of the software, not of the development model.
The protection is a side effect of the publication of the patent. The same effect could be achieved simply by publishing (an academic paper, Open Source software, a web-page, whatever) without patenting.
The only reason you patent is so that you can sue.
"We're not building new highways so we can move tanks and troops from one place to another..."
No, the appropriate metaphor is that you're
building new highways for all government employees to drive on. And you think
that will deal with road rage, traffic
accidents, congestion, kids driving dirtbikes
down the shoulder, and folks dropping
rocks from bridges.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder where the organisation's corporate records will be when the Democrats gain power and commence a formal investigation into its involvement in the war? Good luck exercising a search warrant in Dubai. Timing seems about right -- I'm sure there are a lot of backup tapes and filing cabinets to ship out of the jurisdiction...
No, that's an error rate of at least 3%.
You must be new here...
Seriously though, it's a great idea which economics will kill stone dead, because consumers will not pay twice as much for the same capacity with marginally increased reliability. (I doubt whether most consumers even consider comparative MTBFs when buying drives, and manufacturers only care that the drive will survive the system's warranty period).
Oxygum! (Because everyone remembers Marine Boy).
They mean this patent owned by this company. What a surprise.
Luckily, we have s202 of the Copyright Act which says that it's illegal in Australia to make groundless threats of legal proceedings. That is, you cannot say "buy a licence or I'll sue you" unless you are really in a position to sue and win. We also have a "loser pays winner's costs" rule in litigation, which means that once you've started to sue, you cannot discontinue without being ordered to pay the other side's costs.
Employer: "Next!"
Candidate #2: "Hi. I wrote Samba."
Employer: "Welcome aboard Mr Tridgell!"
Hang on a minute. The article distinguishes (and criticises) the "turning a profit" motive from the "being useful" motive. But the only reason something turns a profit is because it's useful enough to someone for them to decide to pay for it. That's the whole market economy driver, and (I'm sorry) but it's responsible for the vast majority of your present quality of life.
Easy.
1. Drink the yummy green algal thickshake
2. Get on the dynamo-equipped exercise bike.
We have Shipping Law,
Trade Law,
Aerospace Law,
Media Law,
Entertainment Law,
Mining & Resources Law,
Telecommunications Law,
Why not Cyberlaw?
It's not that the law is different, it's just another subject-matter specialty.
"...60% of those surveyed..."
ie 100% confidence.
Didn't think so.
Usually, for "personal service," you need someone to actually hand over the document (or, if not accepted, to advise the subject of the nature of the document, and to leave it in their presence. Old Common Law legal procedure required that the server touch the recipient with the document. Don't think this still applies in most jurisdictions).
Since there is generally no way to know when an email has been received (return receipts are under the control of the recipient) it is likely that the Court simply required the server to prove that the email was sent. It would not have required the server to prove that the email has been read or even received.
The risk, of course, is that the recipient may not receive or not recognise the nature of the document, and will lose their rights when they fail to appear and the plaintiff obtains a default judgement.
In summary, this is not necessarily a good thing, and you can't avoid being served simply by willful blindness to your email, or by turning off return receipts.
The solution is simple. When my current employer cuts email & web access, I'll find a different one.
Hey hey hey, let's not get carried away here. Copyright infringement is a breach of someone's personal rights. It's not a crime in these circumstances, no matter what the BSA/RIAA/ MPAA may want you to think.
"Reprinted with the permission of Random House"
Ironic, huh?
When you go to sign the licence for the product, write in a warranty from Oracle that the software's unbreakable. (& when Oracle refuses to sign, phone the FTC).
Demanding vendors to step up to the mark of their own advertising is one way to deal with this kind of fraud.
If you use Microsoft / Oracle / etc, you must expressly sign away your right to sue for software defects, as a condition of using that software. How are you in a better position?
These flaws also exist with closed-source software. (They are expressly spelled out in most end-user licences; particularly the exclusion of functionality and performance warranties).
The point is, with popular closed-source applications, support expertise is available (to buy). However, this is a function of the popularity of the software, not of the development model.
Um, no.
The protection is a side effect of the publication of the patent. The same effect could be achieved simply by publishing (an academic paper, Open Source software, a web-page, whatever) without patenting.
The only reason you patent is so that you can sue.
No -- each claim is separate; if *any* of the claims is infringed, the patent (if valid) is infringed.
"We're not building new highways so we can move tanks and troops from one place to another..."
No, the appropriate metaphor is that you're building new highways for all government employees to drive on. And you think that will deal with road rage, traffic accidents, congestion, kids driving dirtbikes down the shoulder, and folks dropping rocks from bridges.