Yeah, wrong. If the jury finds against the evidence, the judge can set the verdict and arrange a new trial. That's in the US. Try not to get all your legal knowledge from television ok?
Meh, when the police start to enforce laws that have, to date, been ignored, those laws are often quickly overturned. That's the way we do things in Australia (and the UK), it's a common law thing. They don't do things like that in the US because they like to thing they aint ruled.
Mark Tilden, the man behind the Robosapian and the BEAM robotics philosophy has been making robots that can compensate for damaged limbs and keep on functioning for, like, decades now. Oh, and did I mention that he does with with $12 worth of parts.
No, you missed the point. You have to actively enforce a trademark, or you lose it.. a patent, like a copyright, you don't have to actively enforce, but it is absolutely pointless unless you do. What I was suggesting is that you don't get this magic "exclusive right to practice the invention" when you get a patent, as some people are want to claim. If that were the case, the government would enforce my exclusive right for me.
Compare this to say, a land right. If someone comes and builds shit on my land, I just go to the police and report it.. they go kick the squatters out.
Source aint important. It really isn't. There's a whole lot of companies these days (including Microsoft) that will give you source code along with binaries, but they don't give you permission to do anything with that source code, and that's what is important. Without copyright, I don't need their permission for source, or binaries, and without copyright they can't use the force of law to demand licensing fees, so they can't put as much resources into their software than we can put into open source. The result is plain for everyone to see, the software for which source code is readily available is better maintained and has better features than the software that doesn't. And that's without even mentioning the fact that good tools now exist to reverse engineer binaries into high level languages which can then cheaply be turned into good source code by collaborative processes.
Without copyright protection, proprietary software would wither and die, whereas even with no copyright protection, free software would continue to grow.
That's great, I never said otherwise. Thing is, the moment my girlfriend or my brother start wondering whether or not their is any music out there that doesn't have DRM on it, and intellectually consider the possibility that choosing free culture, free software and, in general, freedom, is better than buying stuff from the mainstream content providers, it's all over. People can put up with a lot of shit if you don't get in their face about it. Vista will get in their face. They will start realising that there actually is a war going on and that so far, they've been sitting in occupied territory without a care in the world.
I don't think so. The norm currently is that if you ask me for a copy of the new albulm I just bought I might umm and ahh over it for 10 minutes, but ultimately I have the choice of giving you a copy. I might feel guilty about it, because all that propaganda I've seen on tv tells me it is wrong, but I actually have the option of doing the "wrong" thing. But if you ask me for a copy and I say "can't, its copy protected" you might reply with "can't we crack it?" and then we'll go search the net for 20 minutes, not find anything, call our geeky friend and ask him and he might say "as yet, there is no crack for Microsoft's DRM" and by that point you and I will be looking at my computer like most geeks look at this stuff: proprietary software stops me from doing what I want. And that's it man, the geeks have won then, and Microsoft just don't get that.
Yeah, well obviously people would be thinking they don't want DRM.. that's a given, but the general argument as to why DRM is "ok" is this whole "it's only enforcing copyright" argument.. and that argument might get some people thinking.
when people are actually forced to honour copyright they might actually start thinking about copyright, and that can only drive people not to want copyright.
Well it's not like Australian companies can take patented DARPA research and make products from it. Whereas a US company can use the product-of-public-funds defense if DARPA tries to sue them for violating patents.. obviously that doesn't extend to companies in other nations. So there already is a history of special-treatment-for-your-own-citizens, and Australia wouldn't be throwing the first stone here.
Section 4 is a laugh. Take a look at my comment on that little chestnut. That's a clear cut case of license obsolence. This is the real reason why GPL v3 is so important, precedents are making GPL v2 unenforcable.
Shya, it's not like any of these devices are physically made in the USA. They're all built in Taiwan and China. But the devices are designed and sold by US companies.. and there's plenty of Australian companies that do exactly the same thing.
huh? Can you put that into coherent human language please? They can't just "make them anyways", the CSIRO has a patent which is valid for at least the next 10 years, they can take companies that "make them anyways" to the cleaners. As for refusing to ship to Australia, yeah, I can see you justifying that to your share holders. "Oh, Australia, yeah, they pissed us off, so we're not shipping to them anymore. Huh? What's that? Abandoning profits? Uhh, yeah, I guess technically we are, yeah. Oh, that's nice and pink, what's that?"
Well, technically, a patent gives you the exclusive right to stop others from practicing the invention.
It's not just a semantic quibble I'm making here, the difference is that the patent holder has to actively enforce their patent, and typically that is not an economically feasible thing to do against infringers who don't have deep pockets.
I think our US friends might disagree with the notion that population count is a determination of the importance of a country.
Regardless of your particular nationalist preference, the CSIRO exists to invent stuff, aid in the commercialisation of that stuff by Australian industry and use whatever legal protections are available to prevent non-Australian industry from doing the same. What happens to the Australian businesses once they have been established is a different matter altogether. Typically, Australian businesses don't pay any royalties to the CSIRO for use of their research, but should an Australian company be bought out by a non-Australian investor, that relationship will change.. usually a royalty agreement will be worked out.
What part of Australian industry, Australian economy and Australian national interests did you miss there? The CSIRO should be using this patent, and any other patents they have, to lock non-Australian companies out of this market. I think the real shame is the fact that it has taken them 10 years to do anything. But, hey, 10 years from lab to market, that's standard.
they would use this finding to stop the manufacture of all infringing devices in the world, except the ones that are made in Australia. Seeing as the charter of the CSIRO is to produce research which exclusively benefits Australian business, that's what they should be doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, wrong. If the jury finds against the evidence, the judge can set the verdict and arrange a new trial. That's in the US. Try not to get all your legal knowledge from television ok?
Meh, when the police start to enforce laws that have, to date, been ignored, those laws are often quickly overturned. That's the way we do things in Australia (and the UK), it's a common law thing. They don't do things like that in the US because they like to thing they aint ruled.
For a start, the judge can overrule the jury and order a new trial.
Mark Tilden, the man behind the Robosapian and the BEAM robotics philosophy has been making robots that can compensate for damaged limbs and keep on functioning for, like, decades now. Oh, and did I mention that he does with with $12 worth of parts.
The reason the GPL v3 is so important is that the legalise will be updated to avoid precedents like this.
No, you missed the point. You have to actively enforce a trademark, or you lose it.. a patent, like a copyright, you don't have to actively enforce, but it is absolutely pointless unless you do. What I was suggesting is that you don't get this magic "exclusive right to practice the invention" when you get a patent, as some people are want to claim. If that were the case, the government would enforce my exclusive right for me.
Compare this to say, a land right. If someone comes and builds shit on my land, I just go to the police and report it.. they go kick the squatters out.
Source aint important. It really isn't. There's a whole lot of companies these days (including Microsoft) that will give you source code along with binaries, but they don't give you permission to do anything with that source code, and that's what is important. Without copyright, I don't need their permission for source, or binaries, and without copyright they can't use the force of law to demand licensing fees, so they can't put as much resources into their software than we can put into open source. The result is plain for everyone to see, the software for which source code is readily available is better maintained and has better features than the software that doesn't. And that's without even mentioning the fact that good tools now exist to reverse engineer binaries into high level languages which can then cheaply be turned into good source code by collaborative processes.
Without copyright protection, proprietary software would wither and die, whereas even with no copyright protection, free software would continue to grow.
I want my computer to run my software, period. It's a tool, nothing more.
It's a tool that serves two masters, the owner and the user, that's the problem.
That's great, I never said otherwise. Thing is, the moment my girlfriend or my brother start wondering whether or not their is any music out there that doesn't have DRM on it, and intellectually consider the possibility that choosing free culture, free software and, in general, freedom, is better than buying stuff from the mainstream content providers, it's all over. People can put up with a lot of shit if you don't get in their face about it. Vista will get in their face. They will start realising that there actually is a war going on and that so far, they've been sitting in occupied territory without a care in the world.
Look around, it's already happening.
No. Geeks care about freedom. And having Microsoft tell me what I can and can't do with my computer aint freedom.
Or, ya know, they replace CeeDees with a new DRM encrusted format and don't sell any new music without it. Didn't you get the memo?
Meh, if it wasn't for copyright, we wouldn't need the GPL.
I don't think so. The norm currently is that if you ask me for a copy of the new albulm I just bought I might umm and ahh over it for 10 minutes, but ultimately I have the choice of giving you a copy. I might feel guilty about it, because all that propaganda I've seen on tv tells me it is wrong, but I actually have the option of doing the "wrong" thing. But if you ask me for a copy and I say "can't, its copy protected" you might reply with "can't we crack it?" and then we'll go search the net for 20 minutes, not find anything, call our geeky friend and ask him and he might say "as yet, there is no crack for Microsoft's DRM" and by that point you and I will be looking at my computer like most geeks look at this stuff: proprietary software stops me from doing what I want. And that's it man, the geeks have won then, and Microsoft just don't get that.
Yeah, well obviously people would be thinking they don't want DRM.. that's a given, but the general argument as to why DRM is "ok" is this whole "it's only enforcing copyright" argument.. and that argument might get some people thinking.
Cause Apple is already doing it themselves?
when people are actually forced to honour copyright they might actually start thinking about copyright, and that can only drive people not to want copyright.
Well it's not like Australian companies can take patented DARPA research and make products from it. Whereas a US company can use the product-of-public-funds defense if DARPA tries to sue them for violating patents.. obviously that doesn't extend to companies in other nations. So there already is a history of special-treatment-for-your-own-citizens, and Australia wouldn't be throwing the first stone here.
Section 4 is a laugh. Take a look at my comment on that little chestnut. That's a clear cut case of license obsolence. This is the real reason why GPL v3 is so important, precedents are making GPL v2 unenforcable.
Shya, it's not like any of these devices are physically made in the USA. They're all built in Taiwan and China. But the devices are designed and sold by US companies.. and there's plenty of Australian companies that do exactly the same thing.
huh? Can you put that into coherent human language please? They can't just "make them anyways", the CSIRO has a patent which is valid for at least the next 10 years, they can take companies that "make them anyways" to the cleaners. As for refusing to ship to Australia, yeah, I can see you justifying that to your share holders. "Oh, Australia, yeah, they pissed us off, so we're not shipping to them anymore. Huh? What's that? Abandoning profits? Uhh, yeah, I guess technically we are, yeah. Oh, that's nice and pink, what's that?"
Well, technically, a patent gives you the exclusive right to stop others from practicing the invention.
It's not just a semantic quibble I'm making here, the difference is that the patent holder has to actively enforce their patent, and typically that is not an economically feasible thing to do against infringers who don't have deep pockets.
I think our US friends might disagree with the notion that population count is a determination of the importance of a country.
Regardless of your particular nationalist preference, the CSIRO exists to invent stuff, aid in the commercialisation of that stuff by Australian industry and use whatever legal protections are available to prevent non-Australian industry from doing the same. What happens to the Australian businesses once they have been established is a different matter altogether. Typically, Australian businesses don't pay any royalties to the CSIRO for use of their research, but should an Australian company be bought out by a non-Australian investor, that relationship will change.. usually a royalty agreement will be worked out.
What part of Australian industry, Australian economy and Australian national interests did you miss there? The CSIRO should be using this patent, and any other patents they have, to lock non-Australian companies out of this market. I think the real shame is the fact that it has taken them 10 years to do anything. But, hey, 10 years from lab to market, that's standard.
they would use this finding to stop the manufacture of all infringing devices in the world, except the ones that are made in Australia. Seeing as the charter of the CSIRO is to produce research which exclusively benefits Australian business, that's what they should be doing.