It is the responsibility of companies and investors to understand the legal systems and constitutions of their target markets.
Canadian legislation enshrines our right to make copies of media to lend to friends, but restricts outright piracy or sharing with the general public and people you don't know personally. Australian law has similar guarantees; I don't know about other jurisdictions.
I think it's likely that Vista and DRM are illegal in Canada.
It's easy enough to claim "most countries that have a DMCA" when there are very few examples, and only one original.
It's as specious as the US DEA argument that there is no valid research in the United States demonstrating medical use of cannabis, while other US departments prevent any such research from being done. Catch-22. It's Schedule I because there is no documented medical use; there is no documented medical use because it's illegal to research.
Technically the viewpoint and phrasing is correct: there is no such research in the US. But there is in the rest of the world.
If you give someone permission to do something that infringes copyright, that in itself is infringement as if you'd done it yourself.
How can you give someone "permission" to infringe a copyright, patent, or other IP that you don't own? I could see that being considered fraud, like selling the Golden Gate Bridge or the CN Tower, but contributory?
If you have a group of people discussing ways to infringe restrictions or bypass IP laws, you might have opportunities for collusion or some variant on racketeering. But as a society, how can you afford to make it illegal to discuss such important issues and avenues for bringing about social change when the *AA and such get out of hand? There would have to be significant allowance for the freedom of speech in many jurisdictions; certainly I wouldn't expect the legislation around the world to be too consistent given the variety of viewpoints on the issues of IP.
Take the US patent database, for instance. Several attempts to push that database of junk patents on the EU have been rebuffed.
Those who try to create business patents forget a few key points:
Any information or ideas published in the public domain cannot be patented. That includes ideas discussed in taxpayer-funded research papers from universities and schools, publicly accessible web forums, newspapers, and any other media that does not make an attempt to protect the information physically. Printed documentation marked "internal use only", "private", "secure", "confidential", or otherwise indicated as not for public access does not lose it's privacy when stolen and published to the internet.
Computing is extremely open. The vast majority of fundamental algorithms, hardware and language concepts, data processing approaches, data structures, and even conceptualization of graphical user interfaces, pen tablets, and other such information are shared knowledge of the IT community.
If an algorithm, data structure, protocol, or technique is designed as a generic solution, sample, or template, there is no way you can possibly claim that a specific use of that concept is patentable.
The US patent database is stuffed to the brim with such junk. My favourite example is trying to claim a patent over linking a user action to triggering a sale. Whether it is a single mouse click in a GUI, web browser, menu item, popup list selection, or other user interaction is irrelevant. The basic user interaction techniques and algorithms have been discussed, designed, prototyped, and implemented since Alan Kay was at Xerox PARC.
I don't understand the need for DMCA-like legislation when there are hard encryptions available to negate the question. DMCA is like claiming you're cracking a bank safe when all you did is slide a latch or ignore the "No Trespassing" sign.
Aren't DMCA legislations just a means of guaranteeing that companies keep using insecure technologies?
It's not part of the Jewish texts, but I'd presume they have similar end-of-the-world scenarios.
If you take the time to actually read the Koran, Mohammed told his followers that his visions were an extension of existing Jewish and Christian beliefs, referring to those two as the "People of the Book". So I would presume that the Bible's "Revelations" are considered part of the Islamic reading list, even if they don't accept Christ as being "the" Son of God, but merely a prophet.
Don't forget there are a few million Christians, Jews, and Muslims who read such prophecies and consider it a sign of the apocalypse. It's not relevant to the technology, but it is very relevant to the acceptance of national ID in any form.
Any senior application developer, architect, or DBA knows the importance of having the database provide as much data protection as possible. That's why thousands of engineers were involved in the creation of the ANSI92 specs.
caveat that this is more then 15 months old.
Which implies that the results likely DO NOT include all the work sponsored by an overseas company (NEC?)
Any bird stupid enough to fly into something that moves so slowly and gracefully was a brain-damaged genetic flaw deserving of it's Darwinian end.:p
Apparently there were proposals to build a similar facility off the shores of Connecticut, but the NIMBYs with their mansions complained it would destroy the view. How sad. Your view is more important than the environment.:(
In my eyes, the bleating about some mythical "Number of the Beast" is human-injected claptrap to secure the power of the priesthood over society and prevent interference with their collection of tithe. It an artifice of religious dogma, not some sort of "God's Law" or relevant prophecy.
I do not for a second believe that it has anything to do with national id card proposals.
Your birth certificate number could be read as CN.DN.cert-number. You have a social insurance number, social security number, or equivalent. You are numbered by your driver's license, your chequing account, your power bill, and a host of other unique identifiers.
I have no objection to SECURE identification. I object to wasting billions on useless crap.
A UK Home Office spokesman dismissed it all, saying "It is hard to see why anyone would want to access the information on the chip."
But isn't the whole point of a secure passport to secure the identity of an individual? If the identity is not secure, we may as well not waste the time or money.
Operator overloading is syntactic sugar. What is the difference between a C++ "+" overload and a Java "add" method in the context of abstract interfaces? Granted operator overloading lets you write more concise code, but the functionality is equivalent.
I've spent many long years in C, C++, Java, and other languages. Procedural, object oriented, and functional languages all form "families" of equivalent capability. If anything, they find their roots in Pascal/Modula, Smalltalk, and LISP as their seminal releases.
As you say, use the right tool for the job. If you have a Linux, AIX, Windows, Solaris, or other box, the odds are it runs Java and Eclipse.
My own pet project work has moved from platform to platform for a decade or so, shifting from Borland JBuilder to Sun's tools and eventually Eclipse. Java 1.0-1.5 have always been true to the concept of platform neutrality.
GPLv2 is not a detractor. If Oracle can mandate that the web users have to be counted and the number of web sessions limited, then clearly the GPLv2 demands to release source apply to any web-deployed application as well. Only users WITHIN an organization are allowed to access GPLv2 based application enhancements without publishing those changes back to the community.
If an individual has a message they feel is important that they want to get out, I don't see an issue with posting a reference or two. Flooding a board is another story.
Besides, using the term "SPAM" is inaccurate: what is the commercial benefit of his links?
Or are you trying to use distactics to distract people from his core argument, building up hatred by labelling him a spammer?
BTW, Java is far from "dead" or even a coma
on
2007 Java Predictions
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Out of all the interviews I did this year, only one shop wanted.Net services, and they wanted VB, not C#. Half a dozen shops about the same size were sticking with Java. Half a dozen shops several times the size were also sticking with Java.
I think it's a lot easier to add unsigned types to Java than it is to switch to a new framework.
Cornell: 'The open-sourcing of Java will have no effect whatsoever on Java's slow decline in favor of dynamic languages (Ruby, Python) and C#';
Apparently Cornell doesn't realize C#/.Net is just Microsoft's implementation of a p-machine and framework, the same as Java. With such insightful educators, it is no wonder some of the newer computer science students don't have an adequate background in abstraction and conceptualization of systems.
Yeah, but the naval commanders could never pull off the pinkie-lip snear as well as they did in the movies. Plus, having a bunch of bald or balding military commanders making such comments would really freak people out.:D
Didn't they used to do the same thing with dolphins back in the 1960's-70's? IIRC animal rights activists objected to the bottlenose being trained to carry bombs.
Yikes! The US military was training sea life to be suicide terrorist bombers!:eek:
His argument could be improved, but he is correct. W3C should be the fallback default for websites, not some IE variant. Too many websites default to IE if they don't recognize the browser id string, and that frells even W3C compliant browsers.
The other thing the bozo in transit forgets is that Opera is one of the most popular microbrowsers built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable devices -- the very customer base that is most likely to need mobile access to information about the transit system.
The whole series of "browser wars" arguments are bull IMNSHO. W3C HTML first, W3C approved standards next (e.g. XHTML, XML documents), vendor-specific variants LAST. If developers would stop working around that godawful mess, Microsoft would be forced to fix IE by a deluge of customer complaints. Our own policy of appeasement in search of market share is what forces the entire web community to keep working around the incompatible platform-specific enhancements, costing the entire planet money.
I love a good biting comeback! Especially when it's clearly been thought out.:)
Digraphs just clarify the client-server directional relationship between process bubbles. The physical distribution of those processes has nothing to do with whether a box is labelled as having "server" capacity.
My point is that the relationship between client and server has to do with the processes that are running on the various boxen, not some magical capability of a "server" box.
But what you're buying with RHEL or SLED is the service contract that goes with it. It's not a different code base, it's just on a different test-and-release schedule that better serves business. There aren't pieces yanked out to try and force you to buy an enterprise edition.
Note the name: "Enterprise Edition". Suitable for business, not required for servers.
I agree it's nice to have a government that remembers their place in society, especially the legal contracts that took all those decades to work through the system.:)
If the Chinese manufacturers didn't participate in the DVD and follow-on format specification meetings, then they obviously have to pay royalties or license fees to use the format.
But there is nothing illegal about them creating a competing format. There are already two competing DVD follow-on formats -- who is to know in advance which will "own" the market, or how a shared market will end up divided by the globe?
On the bright side, I'm sure it pisses off the *AA to no end that they can't force every country to follow US law. Awww. Guess you'll have to compete on a level playing field with competitors in the target markets, or wrangle enough agreements with foreign partners or divisions to try and force your views.
It blows me away how little some foreign investors know about the law in the markets they put their money into, relying on their local government's connections and leverage instead of doing research.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a chuckle out of the name references to all the Sci-Fi and horror classics. :)
It is the responsibility of companies and investors to understand the legal systems and constitutions of their target markets.
Canadian legislation enshrines our right to make copies of media to lend to friends, but restricts outright piracy or sharing with the general public and people you don't know personally. Australian law has similar guarantees; I don't know about other jurisdictions.
I think it's likely that Vista and DRM are illegal in Canada.
It's easy enough to claim "most countries that have a DMCA" when there are very few examples, and only one original.
It's as specious as the US DEA argument that there is no valid research in the United States demonstrating medical use of cannabis, while other US departments prevent any such research from being done. Catch-22. It's Schedule I because there is no documented medical use; there is no documented medical use because it's illegal to research.
Technically the viewpoint and phrasing is correct: there is no such research in the US. But there is in the rest of the world.
How can you give someone "permission" to infringe a copyright, patent, or other IP that you don't own? I could see that being considered fraud, like selling the Golden Gate Bridge or the CN Tower, but contributory?
If you have a group of people discussing ways to infringe restrictions or bypass IP laws, you might have opportunities for collusion or some variant on racketeering. But as a society, how can you afford to make it illegal to discuss such important issues and avenues for bringing about social change when the *AA and such get out of hand? There would have to be significant allowance for the freedom of speech in many jurisdictions; certainly I wouldn't expect the legislation around the world to be too consistent given the variety of viewpoints on the issues of IP.
Take the US patent database, for instance. Several attempts to push that database of junk patents on the EU have been rebuffed.
Those who try to create business patents forget a few key points:
The US patent database is stuffed to the brim with such junk. My favourite example is trying to claim a patent over linking a user action to triggering a sale. Whether it is a single mouse click in a GUI, web browser, menu item, popup list selection, or other user interaction is irrelevant. The basic user interaction techniques and algorithms have been discussed, designed, prototyped, and implemented since Alan Kay was at Xerox PARC.
I don't understand the need for DMCA-like legislation when there are hard encryptions available to negate the question. DMCA is like claiming you're cracking a bank safe when all you did is slide a latch or ignore the "No Trespassing" sign.
Aren't DMCA legislations just a means of guaranteeing that companies keep using insecure technologies?
It's not part of the Jewish texts, but I'd presume they have similar end-of-the-world scenarios.
If you take the time to actually read the Koran, Mohammed told his followers that his visions were an extension of existing Jewish and Christian beliefs, referring to those two as the "People of the Book". So I would presume that the Bible's "Revelations" are considered part of the Islamic reading list, even if they don't accept Christ as being "the" Son of God, but merely a prophet.
Don't forget there are a few million Christians, Jews, and Muslims who read such prophecies and consider it a sign of the apocalypse. It's not relevant to the technology, but it is very relevant to the acceptance of national ID in any form.
Any senior application developer, architect, or DBA knows the importance of having the database provide as much data protection as possible. That's why thousands of engineers were involved in the creation of the ANSI92 specs.
Which implies that the results likely DO NOT include all the work sponsored by an overseas company (NEC?)
Any bird stupid enough to fly into something that moves so slowly and gracefully was a brain-damaged genetic flaw deserving of it's Darwinian end. :p
Apparently there were proposals to build a similar facility off the shores of Connecticut, but the NIMBYs with their mansions complained it would destroy the view. How sad. Your view is more important than the environment. :(
In my eyes, the bleating about some mythical "Number of the Beast" is human-injected claptrap to secure the power of the priesthood over society and prevent interference with their collection of tithe. It an artifice of religious dogma, not some sort of "God's Law" or relevant prophecy.
I do not for a second believe that it has anything to do with national id card proposals.
Your birth certificate number could be read as CN.DN.cert-number. You have a social insurance number, social security number, or equivalent. You are numbered by your driver's license, your chequing account, your power bill, and a host of other unique identifiers.
I have no objection to SECURE identification. I object to wasting billions on useless crap.
But isn't the whole point of a secure passport to secure the identity of an individual? If the identity is not secure, we may as well not waste the time or money.
You're right. I missed the parenthesis. Two bytes changes the whole meaning of the sentance. :)
Operator overloading is syntactic sugar. What is the difference between a C++ "+" overload and a Java "add" method in the context of abstract interfaces? Granted operator overloading lets you write more concise code, but the functionality is equivalent.
I've spent many long years in C, C++, Java, and other languages. Procedural, object oriented, and functional languages all form "families" of equivalent capability. If anything, they find their roots in Pascal/Modula, Smalltalk, and LISP as their seminal releases.
As you say, use the right tool for the job. If you have a Linux, AIX, Windows, Solaris, or other box, the odds are it runs Java and Eclipse.
My own pet project work has moved from platform to platform for a decade or so, shifting from Borland JBuilder to Sun's tools and eventually Eclipse. Java 1.0-1.5 have always been true to the concept of platform neutrality.
GPLv2 is not a detractor. If Oracle can mandate that the web users have to be counted and the number of web sessions limited, then clearly the GPLv2 demands to release source apply to any web-deployed application as well. Only users WITHIN an organization are allowed to access GPLv2 based application enhancements without publishing those changes back to the community.
If an individual has a message they feel is important that they want to get out, I don't see an issue with posting a reference or two. Flooding a board is another story.
Besides, using the term "SPAM" is inaccurate: what is the commercial benefit of his links?
Or are you trying to use distactics to distract people from his core argument, building up hatred by labelling him a spammer?
Out of all the interviews I did this year, only one shop wanted .Net services, and they wanted VB, not C#. Half a dozen shops about the same size were sticking with Java. Half a dozen shops several times the size were also sticking with Java.
I think it's a lot easier to add unsigned types to Java than it is to switch to a new framework.
Apparently Cornell doesn't realize C#/.Net is just Microsoft's implementation of a p-machine and framework, the same as Java. With such insightful educators, it is no wonder some of the newer computer science students don't have an adequate background in abstraction and conceptualization of systems.
You're right about there being no incentive for Microsoft to fix IE. In fact, the platform lockin aspect is a disincentive. :(
Yeah, but the naval commanders could never pull off the pinkie-lip snear as well as they did in the movies. Plus, having a bunch of bald or balding military commanders making such comments would really freak people out. :D
Didn't they used to do the same thing with dolphins back in the 1960's-70's? IIRC animal rights activists objected to the bottlenose being trained to carry bombs.
Yikes! The US military was training sea life to be suicide terrorist bombers! :eek:
His argument could be improved, but he is correct. W3C should be the fallback default for websites, not some IE variant. Too many websites default to IE if they don't recognize the browser id string, and that frells even W3C compliant browsers.
The other thing the bozo in transit forgets is that Opera is one of the most popular microbrowsers built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable devices -- the very customer base that is most likely to need mobile access to information about the transit system.
The whole series of "browser wars" arguments are bull IMNSHO. W3C HTML first, W3C approved standards next (e.g. XHTML, XML documents), vendor-specific variants LAST. If developers would stop working around that godawful mess, Microsoft would be forced to fix IE by a deluge of customer complaints. Our own policy of appeasement in search of market share is what forces the entire web community to keep working around the incompatible platform-specific enhancements, costing the entire planet money.
I love a good biting comeback! Especially when it's clearly been thought out. :)
Digraphs just clarify the client-server directional relationship between process bubbles. The physical distribution of those processes has nothing to do with whether a box is labelled as having "server" capacity.
My point is that the relationship between client and server has to do with the processes that are running on the various boxen, not some magical capability of a "server" box.
But what you're buying with RHEL or SLED is the service contract that goes with it. It's not a different code base, it's just on a different test-and-release schedule that better serves business. There aren't pieces yanked out to try and force you to buy an enterprise edition.
Note the name: "Enterprise Edition". Suitable for business, not required for servers.
I agree it's nice to have a government that remembers their place in society, especially the legal contracts that took all those decades to work through the system. :)
If the Chinese manufacturers didn't participate in the DVD and follow-on format specification meetings, then they obviously have to pay royalties or license fees to use the format.
But there is nothing illegal about them creating a competing format. There are already two competing DVD follow-on formats -- who is to know in advance which will "own" the market, or how a shared market will end up divided by the globe?
On the bright side, I'm sure it pisses off the *AA to no end that they can't force every country to follow US law. Awww. Guess you'll have to compete on a level playing field with competitors in the target markets, or wrangle enough agreements with foreign partners or divisions to try and force your views.
It blows me away how little some foreign investors know about the law in the markets they put their money into, relying on their local government's connections and leverage instead of doing research.