Good. Now let's look at other documents in the case. Why were Monsanto patents rejected? Four of them were tested and each was rejected completely - not a single claim stands.
Basically all of them were based on the results made in universities and published in Nature and the likes. These results were paid by taxpayers, our unfortunate farmer included...
I agree that Monsanto has spent billions and worked hard. But your working hard does not give you a right to go to a highway and rob people. You have invented an illegal business model to sell the results of your hard work? Go to jail - why I should care. This is capitalism, there will be a lot of honest people that will invent a proper, honest business model to sell the (same or better) results of their hard work. No?
In the wikipedia article you cited, the sequence of events in Schmeiser case is as follows:
1. Schmeiser field was contaminated by Roundup Ready gene. 2. Schmeiser discovered this and decided to harvest, save seeds and plant them next year. 3. He has not used Roundup at all, so his decision in 2 was not because he wanted a free benefit, but just because he did not want to burn contaminated crop. 4. Appelate courts split 5:4. 5 for "use" means "any use", 4 for "use" means "for profit use".
Should he have burnt his contaminated harvest? Why? He was not under contract with Monsanto.
You are missing one point I think. US has a precedent-based court system. So a law on the book need not be changed to make you a criminal overnight. Just a new case can be tried in your local court and "clarify" a statute a bit.
Actually I am amazed how anyone can say that he/she is doing nothing wrong. To state such a thing you should:
1. Know all the facts. There are statutory crimes. Prosecution does not need to prove that you knew that a girl you've privately written in your diary about - is age of consent minus one day old. If she is - you are guilty. No such thing as "she said she is 21" is relevant. 2. Know all law in the book. Finished law school already? Do you know how many paragraphs are in your state's Vehicle Code? Make a guess. Then check. Got it? Look at this one - it was not RETROACTIVELY changed. It is there from 1888... 3. Research all interpretation of the law given by the courts. Do you own any money to the state of Califronia? I am not talking about people not paying California sale taxes while shopping on Internet. They know they have something to hide. No mercy for them. Not here. But let's suppose you are doing consulting work via your own company in Connecticut. Strictly in Connecticut. Do you own CA taxes? Law on the book says: only if you are doing business in California. Problem is - court decisions have already clarified this "doing business" extensively. You can't just read the statute and say: nothing to hide, no taxes past due. Suppose collected data says: you transferred in LAX on the trip to Hawaii and used your laptop to pay your company bill. Paying your company bill has already been clarified as "doing business" by some court decision. You were on CA soil while doing business in 2002 - you owe this state $800 tax plus $700 fee for non-filing in time. Regardless of your company profits. And next year too - it's easy to start doing business in the Golden state, but to terminate you need to pay money and file proper paperwork. Not filed? that's five years in taxes not paid. (I am a bit exagerating here, but based on my own real life experience).
And, if such a case law clarification what "doing business" means is made after your data is recorded - it is NOT A RETROACTIVE change. It's just a clarification...
Basically, you should hire a lawyer just to answer this question: have you done anything wrong. 10 lawyers, even better. And they will not give you a definite answer. They will spent a year (at least) to study you monthly activity and research applicable case law. And you will get an estimate: you will be acquitted with 0.99999 probability. Based on the facts presented. Have you missed something? Are you sure this girl was 21? Have you mentioned that bill paid while in the airport?
Well, OK. Five nines. Good enough? But next month is also collected. Probability goes to square of five nines that is 0.99998. Then next month is also collected... Got the picture?
Every bit collected by the government gets you one step closer to jail. Yes, you. Never volunteer any information.
What Putin said is a plain simple truth. If looking at a plain simple truth you realize that "things weren't really that bad" - you can reject either 1) truth or 2) "that" as in "that bad". Your choice.
Getaway includes all the papers in the paper form in the box.
As for if contract is made when money change hands, you'd better not ask me or Slashdot. Read the appelate court decision. They ruled on this point too:
--The question in ProCD was not whether terms were added to a contract after its formation, but how and when the contract was formed -- in particular, whether a vendor may propose that a contract of sale be formed, not in the store (or over the phone) with the payment of money or a general "send me the product," but after the customer has had a chance to inspect both the item and the terms.
And gave some logic to it:
--Customers as a group are better off when vendors skip costly and ineffectual steps such as telephonic recitation, and use instead a simple approve-or-return device. Competent adults are bound by such documents, read or unread.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product.
Customers as a group are better off when vendors skip costly and ineffectual steps such as telephonic recitation, and use instead a simple approve-or-return device. Competent adults are bound by such documents, read or unread.
From the previous link (an appelate court decision):
A contract need not be read to be effective; people who accept take the risk that the unread terms may in retrospect prove unwelcome.
A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance." Id. at 1452. Gateway shipped computers with the same sort of accept-or-return offer ProCD made to users of its software.
Getting your own mailbox requires just showing your ID (or have a copy notarized if a MB is in another city). I've just got one in Nevada for my company. I doubt that anyone checks them afterwards, unless some fraud triggers investigation.
But mailboxes are not actually required to cash your credit card number. Here are my 2 real-life examples, that my card was used by fraudsters.
1. Retail store. We made a purchase, forget to take a slip (newbies). The card was charged an hour later the second time to buy a box of wine bottles. Most probably it was a cashier - who else? We noticed immediately - those $200 were our last money - were scared like hell and offered full cooperation to the bank and the store. No one was interested. A shift manager gave us money back and that was it (yes, we were stupid enough to make a trip to the store to settle things - their attidute was: why are you bothering us?).
2. $9.95 charge. There was a charge in this amount on my monthly bill. And there was a website url conviniently next to the amount. I went to website to remind myself what I had bought there. 3 products, all of them - electronic ones (like e-books), all of them of no interest to me. And next to the products was the link - press here if charged by mistake... The owner was easily located - he answered cell phone listed in domain registration info (yes, I've talked to him - this time I was just curious). His pitch - if we charged you wrongly we will reverse the charge in a second.
So. The first fraudster need no PO Box - he got his wine and doesn't care if he get caught or not. No one cares to catch him too. The second fraudster is probably a end-point of some massive cashing operation. But no one will go after him, since 80% of people charged $9.95 would not ever notice, and 80% of those who notice will just reverse the charge and that would be it. The website was alive half a year after I've notified my bank...
Mathematical theorems are important, but imagine Holywood functioning without mentioning words "one", "two", "three" and "love". Or they should pay me, since it is my ancestors that have invented them. Probably more, but other words are in Russian, while these four are definetely derived from a common ancestor... Same as "brother", "sister", "milk", "cow"...
Actually, what should strike anyone as strange is the fact that MS-Novell deal was about the product created and owned by FSF, and FSF was not included in the deal.
Suppose I own some product and am selling it for $50 a copy. You, for reasons of your own, decided to sell vouchers for it. Why not? Go ahead. But what prevents me (having realized how great a demand is) to raise the price to, say, $1000 a copy?
You can argue that you've never intended to reimburse $1000, just $50. But so what? It's your problem. We never had a contract. Your intentions regarding something not you, but I do own were never discussed with me, the owner, let alone formalized in a contract. So your choice is either 1) respect the coupons and lose money, or 2) cancel coupons and lose business reputation.
Lesson: making deals do not forget about creators and owners of things you are trying to profit on. (Sorry for English errors if any).
Turnitin's EULA really does say: "ALL YOUR COMMUNICATIONS ARE BELONG TO US", but it adds: "excluding any papers submitted"... Look for yourself: http://turnitin.com/static/pdf/Usage_Policy.pdf . Sigh. It's so easy to check, nobody is checking, everyone is talking...
The prevailing story so far is that pirated MS software was pre-installed on the computer the accussed bought. Obvious alternative is to avoid MS completely and use Linux. That's what is now recommended: Google-translated from Russian
Well, if reading $0.002 as "0.002 cents" is such a common mistake, then using prices less then 1 cent should be avoided. "$2 per Mb" would not have caused any misunderstanding. But probably Verizon marketeers need some misunderstanding...
You wrote: probably, none of the actors were actually hurt while those rape scenes were being filmed. (Or at least, not physically hurt more than in filming any normal "fight scene.")
But the article states: proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury". So, I guess, all this "normal" fight scenes will be outlawed too. Isn't it a good riddance? Next, war reporting. Sick bastards can use Israeli-Palestinian bombimg images to jerk off, so these would be outlawed too... Much more sterile and healthy society would result.
Authorities aren't gonna make people get on planes naked
Why not? It's a final and effective solution to a suicide bomber (which liquid-banning is not). Naked and cavity-checked. Those who consider nudity a sin could receive airline-issued blankets to cover it. More than that - no luggage should be allowed on a passenger plane at all. Why do you need it anyway? A week's supply of clothing and other small items can be purchased at the destination airport. It would be less than 10% of the cost of the plane ticket.
Really rich can pay for delivering their luggage on a separate, luggage plane. But say, if you convert one plane to hold extra passengers and no luggage, and other - to hold more luggage, no passengers - will the separate delivery of both a passenger and his luggage be much more expensive?
I was just yesterday installing a new MS OS on a very old box using pretty much legitimate coprorate license. Problem was I used some basic XP Pro install disk, but needed SP2 to run some damn application that _requires_ SP2. No big deal - I went to update site and said "give me updates". "Oops" said update site, "there is some error 80080299 in verification program. But no verification - no updates."
Mind you: not just security, not just automatic - no updates at all. This leaved my box pretty useless for me. Luckily I was not the first to encounter error 80080299 and there was already a solution to it in Google - just go through a different url. See http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/05/26/windows-genu ine-advantage-error-0x80080299/
So you do not need a legal grounds to turn someone else's OS. Just a little programming error somewhere...
I have another part I disagree with. Or actually being non-American am just wondering about.
"Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to argue that Aaron's conduct was purely out-of-school conduct, the undisputed evidence establishes that the icon was a threat to kill a teacher at the school, that Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks; that he had no reasonable expectation that it would not come to the attention of school officials; that when it did so, it caused a substantial disturbance at the school; that it is reasonable that it should have done so; and that Aaron had reason to expect that it would do so."
Why should I expect my classmates to report on me? Especially if my conduct is an out-of-school conduct? Reasonable expectation is that classmates do not report their peers to authorities at all. It's not cool, it's not being done. And that there is no point in reporting out-of-school conduct to school authorities... Or am I missing something here?
In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to, "identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at least articulated which methods and concetps formed "the basis of their action against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their methods and conceptws in the final submission pursuant to this original order entered in December 2003 ane Judge Kimball's order entered in July 2005.
Slashdot Mirror
Good. Now let's look at other documents in the case. Why were Monsanto patents rejected? Four of them were tested and each was rejected completely - not a single claim stands.
Basically all of them were based on the results made in universities and published in Nature and the likes. These results were paid by taxpayers, our unfortunate farmer included...
I agree that Monsanto has spent billions and worked hard. But your working hard does not give you a right to go to a highway and rob people. You have invented an illegal business model to sell the results of your hard work? Go to jail - why I should care. This is capitalism, there will be a lot of honest people that will invent a proper, honest business model to sell the (same or better) results of their hard work. No?
In the wikipedia article you cited, the sequence of events in Schmeiser case is as follows:
1. Schmeiser field was contaminated by Roundup Ready gene.
2. Schmeiser discovered this and decided to harvest, save seeds and plant them next year.
3. He has not used Roundup at all, so his decision in 2 was not because he wanted a free benefit, but just because he did not want to burn contaminated crop.
4. Appelate courts split 5:4. 5 for "use" means "any use", 4 for "use" means "for profit use".
Should he have burnt his contaminated harvest? Why? He was not under contract with Monsanto.
You are missing one point I think. US has a precedent-based court system. So a law on the book need not be changed to make you a criminal overnight. Just a new case can be tried in your local court and "clarify" a statute a bit.
Actually I am amazed how anyone can say that he/she is doing nothing wrong. To state such a thing you should:
1. Know all the facts. There are statutory crimes. Prosecution does not need to prove that you knew that a girl you've privately written in your diary about - is age of consent minus one day old. If she is - you are guilty. No such thing as "she said she is 21" is relevant.
2. Know all law in the book. Finished law school already? Do you know how many paragraphs are in your state's Vehicle Code? Make a guess. Then check. Got it? Look at this one - it was not RETROACTIVELY changed. It is there from 1888...
3. Research all interpretation of the law given by the courts. Do you own any money to the state of Califronia? I am not talking about people not paying California sale taxes while shopping on Internet. They know they have something to hide. No mercy for them. Not here. But let's suppose you are doing consulting work via your own company in Connecticut. Strictly in Connecticut. Do you own CA taxes? Law on the book says: only if you are doing business in California. Problem is - court decisions have already clarified this "doing business" extensively. You can't just read the statute and say: nothing to hide, no taxes past due. Suppose collected data says: you transferred in LAX on the trip to Hawaii and used your laptop to pay your company bill. Paying your company bill has already been clarified as "doing business" by some court decision. You were on CA soil while doing business in 2002 - you owe this state $800 tax plus $700 fee for non-filing in time. Regardless of your company profits. And next year too - it's easy to start doing business in the Golden state, but to terminate you need to pay money and file proper paperwork. Not filed? that's five years in taxes not paid. (I am a bit exagerating here, but based on my own real life experience).
And, if such a case law clarification what "doing business" means is made after your data is recorded - it is NOT A RETROACTIVE change. It's just a clarification...
Basically, you should hire a lawyer just to answer this question: have you done anything wrong. 10 lawyers, even better. And they will not give you a definite answer. They will spent a year (at least) to study you monthly activity and research applicable case law. And you will get an estimate: you will be acquitted with 0.99999 probability. Based on the facts presented. Have you missed something? Are you sure this girl was 21? Have you mentioned that bill paid while in the airport?
Well, OK. Five nines. Good enough? But next month is also collected. Probability goes to square of five nines that is 0.99998. Then next month is also collected... Got the picture?
Every bit collected by the government gets you one step closer to jail. Yes, you. Never volunteer any information.
(excuse my English)
Virtualization (VM/370) was introduced on System/370 (1970), not System/390 (199x). Not sure though if IBM invented it...
What Putin said is a plain simple truth. If looking at a plain simple truth you realize that "things weren't really that bad" - you can reject either 1) truth or 2) "that" as in "that bad". Your choice.
Getaway includes all the papers in the paper form in the box.
As for if contract is made when money change hands, you'd better not ask me or Slashdot. Read the appelate court decision. They ruled on this point too:
--The question in ProCD was not whether terms were added to a contract after its formation, but how and when the contract was formed -- in particular, whether a vendor may propose that a contract of sale be formed, not in the store (or over the phone) with the payment of money or a general "send me the product," but after the customer has had a chance to inspect both the item and the terms.
And gave some logic to it:
--Customers as a group are better off when vendors skip costly and ineffectual steps such as telephonic recitation, and use instead a simple approve-or-return device. Competent adults are bound by such documents, read or unread.
Unfortunately, courts tend to approve EULAs (and even provide some logic for this decision):
http://www.badsoftware.com/hill.htm :
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), holds that terms inside a box of software bind consumers who use the software after an opportunity to read the terms and to reject them by returning the product.
Customers as a group are better off when vendors skip costly and ineffectual steps such as telephonic recitation, and use instead a simple approve-or-return device. Competent adults are bound by such documents, read or unread.
From the previous link (an appelate court decision):
A contract need not be read to be effective; people who accept take the risk that the unread terms may in retrospect prove unwelcome.
A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance." Id. at 1452. Gateway shipped computers with the same sort of accept-or-return offer ProCD made to users of its software.
Getting your own mailbox requires just showing your ID (or have a copy notarized if a MB is in another city). I've just got one in Nevada for my company. I doubt that anyone checks them afterwards, unless some fraud triggers investigation.
But mailboxes are not actually required to cash your credit card number. Here are my 2 real-life examples, that my card was used by fraudsters.
1. Retail store. We made a purchase, forget to take a slip (newbies). The card was charged an hour later the second time to buy a box of wine bottles. Most probably it was a cashier - who else? We noticed immediately - those $200 were our last money - were scared like hell and offered full cooperation to the bank and the store. No one was interested. A shift manager gave us money back and that was it (yes, we were stupid enough to make a trip to the store to settle things - their attidute was: why are you bothering us?).
2. $9.95 charge. There was a charge in this amount on my monthly bill. And there was a website url conviniently next to the amount. I went to website to remind myself what I had bought there. 3 products, all of them - electronic ones (like e-books), all of them of no interest to me. And next to the products was the link - press here if charged by mistake... The owner was easily located - he answered cell phone listed in domain registration info (yes, I've talked to him - this time I was just curious). His pitch - if we charged you wrongly we will reverse the charge in a second.
So. The first fraudster need no PO Box - he got his wine and doesn't care if he get caught or not. No one cares to catch him too. The second fraudster is probably a end-point of some massive cashing operation. But no one will go after him, since 80% of people charged $9.95 would not ever notice, and 80% of those who notice will just reverse the charge and that would be it. The website was alive half a year after I've notified my bank...
Mathematical theorems are important, but imagine Holywood functioning without mentioning words "one", "two", "three" and "love". Or they should pay me, since it is my ancestors that have invented them. Probably more, but other words are in Russian, while these four are definetely derived from a common ancestor... Same as "brother", "sister", "milk", "cow"...
Actually, what should strike anyone as strange is the fact that MS-Novell deal was about the product created and owned by FSF, and FSF was not included in the deal.
Suppose I own some product and am selling it for $50 a copy. You, for reasons of your own, decided to sell vouchers for it. Why not? Go ahead. But what prevents me (having realized how great a demand is) to raise the price to, say, $1000 a copy?
You can argue that you've never intended to reimburse $1000, just $50. But so what? It's your problem. We never had a contract. Your intentions regarding something not you, but I do own were never discussed with me, the owner, let alone formalized in a contract. So your choice is either 1) respect the coupons and lose money, or 2) cancel coupons and lose business reputation.
Lesson: making deals do not forget about creators and owners of things you are trying to profit on. (Sorry for English errors if any).
Actually it is not the fittest that survive. DNA + procreation + "survival of the survived" is the correct formula.
There is an excellent legal analysis in another paper at turnitin site: http://turnitin.com/static/pdf/us_Legal_Document.p df . They indeed are relying on Fair Use doctrine...
So? Here's turnitin's EULA: http://turnitin.com/static/pdf/Usage_Policy.pdf. It explicitly excludes submitted papers from the transfer of ownership requirement.
Turnitin's EULA really does say: "ALL YOUR COMMUNICATIONS ARE BELONG TO US", but it adds: "excluding any papers submitted"... Look for yourself: http://turnitin.com/static/pdf/Usage_Policy.pdf . Sigh. It's so easy to check, nobody is checking, everyone is talking...
The prevailing story so far is that pirated MS software was pre-installed on the computer the accussed bought. Obvious alternative is to avoid MS completely and use Linux. That's what is now recommended: Google-translated from Russian
Is the need for the provider's server SIP's advantage???
Well, if reading $0.002 as "0.002 cents" is such a common mistake, then using prices less then 1 cent should be avoided. "$2 per Mb" would not have caused any misunderstanding. But probably Verizon marketeers need some misunderstanding...
You wrote: probably, none of the actors were actually hurt while those rape scenes were being filmed. (Or at least, not physically hurt more than in filming any normal "fight scene.")
But the article states: proposed legislation will outlaw possession of images such as "material featuring violence that is, or appears to be, life-threatening or is likely to result in serious and disabling injury". So, I guess, all this "normal" fight scenes will be outlawed too. Isn't it a good riddance? Next, war reporting. Sick bastards can use Israeli-Palestinian bombimg images to jerk off, so these would be outlawed too... Much more sterile and healthy society would result.
Authorities aren't gonna make people get on planes naked
Why not? It's a final and effective solution to a suicide bomber (which liquid-banning is not). Naked and cavity-checked. Those who consider nudity a sin could receive airline-issued blankets to cover it. More than that - no luggage should be allowed on a passenger plane at all. Why do you need it anyway? A week's supply of clothing and other small items can be purchased at the destination airport. It would be less than 10% of the cost of the plane ticket.
Really rich can pay for delivering their luggage on a separate, luggage plane. But say, if you convert one plane to hold extra passengers and no luggage, and other - to hold more luggage, no passengers - will the separate delivery of both a passenger and his luggage be much more expensive?
I was just yesterday installing a new MS OS on a very old box using pretty much legitimate coprorate license. Problem was I used some basic XP Pro install disk, but needed SP2 to run some damn application that _requires_ SP2. No big deal - I went to update site and said "give me updates". "Oops" said update site, "there is some error 80080299 in verification program. But no verification - no updates."
u ine-advantage-error-0x80080299/
Mind you: not just security, not just automatic - no updates at all. This leaved my box pretty useless for me. Luckily I was not the first to encounter error 80080299 and there was already a solution to it in Google - just go through a different url. See http://blog.monkeyless.com/2006/05/26/windows-gen
So you do not need a legal grounds to turn someone else's OS. Just a little programming error somewhere...
I have another part I disagree with. Or actually being non-American am just wondering about.
"Further, to the extent that plaintiffs attempt to argue that Aaron's conduct was purely out-of-school conduct, the undisputed evidence establishes that the icon was a threat to kill a teacher at the school, that Aaron circulated it among classmates for three weeks; that he had no reasonable expectation that it would not come to the attention of school officials; that when it did so, it caused a substantial disturbance at the school; that it is reasonable that it should have done so; and that Aaron had reason to expect that it would do so."
Why should I expect my classmates to report on me? Especially if my conduct is an out-of-school conduct? Reasonable expectation is that classmates do not report their peers to authorities at all. It's not cool, it's not being done. And that there is no point in reporting out-of-school conduct to school authorities... Or am I missing something here?
Parent is INFORMATIVE
In December 2003, near the beginning of this case, the court ordered SCO to,
"identify and state with specificity the source code(s) that SCO is claiming
form the basis of their action against IBM." Even if SCO lacked the code behind
methods and concepts at this early stage, SCO could have and should have, at
least articulated which methods and concetps formed "the basis of their action
against IBM." At a minimum, SCO should have identified the code behind their
methods and conceptws in the final submission pursuant to this original order
entered in December 2003 ane Judge Kimball's order entered in July 2005.