Nokia's first offer was a cross licensing deal. Apple refused! So now every GSM Association member thinks "Apple will sue us over their shitty interface patents." Oops!
I expect the GSM Association will ignore Nokia's FRAND obligations with respect to Apple, thanks to Apple's behavior here.
Apple has been acting like a spoiled little child ever since they entered the phone market. I'm sure the big players will happily flush them down the toilet.
Nokia might not be obligated to offer RAND terms to Apple because Apple is not a member of the GSM Association. Another GSM Association member could likely force Nokia to license these patents under RAND, but...
Guess what? Nokia's first offer was a cross licensing deal. Apple refused! So now every GSM Association member thinks "Apple will sue us over their shitty interface patents."
Nokia offered Apple a cross licensing deal beneficial to both companies. Apple refused, indicating their intent to use their interface patents against other mobile phone makers.
I've no idea what FRAND obligations Nokia faces under their original GSM Association membership, but Apple cannot pursue those obligations in court, as Apple is not the GSM Association.
Would some GSM Association member pursue those obligations in court on Apple's behalf? Doubtful, given Apple's indications that they'll sue other mobile makers once the GSM patents are off the table.
Apple's best option is simply agreeing to Nokia's original cross licensing deal.
p.s. It's very likely that Nokia merely asked for the cross licensing scheme built into the FRAND obligations of GSM Association membership, meaning even if Apple paid another GSM Association member to sue Nokia, they might still lose.
In fact, cross licensing is a perfectly normal part of these sorts of deals. If A actually needs B's patent X, then B asks for money plus patents. Why? Well, A might fall upon hard times and sue B with crappy patents
Apple needs Nokia's GSM patents. Nokia doesn't *need* any Apple patents. Nokia just wants the usual industry standard insurance policy granted by buyers when sellers give up the protection afforded by valuable patents. Guess what? Apple refused.
Apple acted like a spoiled brat and started a whole fight by refusing cross licensing. All other mobile makers are now saying "Oh, shit Apple is gonna be a patent troll!" Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, and Google will all back Nokia.
Apple must realize their "multitouch" technology just isn't very valuable next to the underlying hardware that makes phones possible. "Yes, pretty interface, we'll happily knock a bit off the cross licensing deal for the rights to freely copy it, but your interface patent isn't nearly as valuable as our patent on the underlying technology."
I started learning basic between age 6 and 7 for the purpose of writing my own games, and then learned C from K&R around age 12.
I don't feel like the language is nearly as important as why she'll remain interested. First, you must provide a role model by visibly playing by writing programs yourself. Second, you need a medium of action which the kid will appreciate. A few possible medium are (1) lego mindstorm, (2) X10 home automation devices, and (3) video games.
I think the language will often then be determined by your own entertainment interests.
p.s. A major threat here is the potential distraction from more passive entertainment like better video games and television. If you play flash games, then start writing them. If you play WoW yourself, then write Lua script addons, and teach her how to write them too. If you play counterstrike, then learn how to program bots, and play games involving bots. etc. I'd seriously consider selling your wii, playstation, xbox, etc. and also avoiding the television.
I wonder if more interaction between passengers would actually help matters.
I'm sure keeping people from the toilet won't help anybody though, as people simply cannot always be forced to hold their pee.
If an airline ever holds you in your seat when you need to pee, simply call an attendant to explain that you likely cannot hold it, and offer that they may either (a) bring you a bucket, or (b) frisk you and let you go. I bet the airline must ground the plane for longer if you pee in your seat or on the floor.
If you carry a pee bottle, then explain what your doing to nearby passengers first, as you don't want them attacking you for "mixing stuff".
Yes, but *that* redistribution meant mass produced copying. If I xerox my highlighted textbook, my highlights will actually *add* to my fair use defense, so your argument is invalid.
Copyright law cannot make sense unless you either say (a) a single copy is a legal entity, i.e. my argument, or else (b) recognize that copyright infringement is question of scale, i.e. return to the historical definition, exclude friend to friend copying, etc.
Yes, psystar would have been guilty of copyright infringement under (b), but the world has been moving away from (b) and towards (a) for a very long time, largely due to the copyright lobby getting it's panties in a wad over every new technology, like records for example.
The worst ones will ruin it for everyone else, unless google plans on creating an ad rating service. Well, google's ads are the least annoying on the planet. Anti-trust case anyone?
First sale clearly should allow modification of copyrighted works though. If you mod a bike, you can resell it. If you mod a MacBook, you can resell it. etc.
You don't seem to understand that this case will be used by all manor of assholes to attack all sorts of legitimate mods, possibly even classical first sale situations like cars.
Apple should have won the case eventually, but *only* by modifying their business practice to thoroughly avoid "selling" the OS alone. Apple cannot be compelled to sell the OS alone since they are not a monopoly, btw.
Fair enough, but the legal precedent against the doctrine of first sale is still bad news. As I said, Apple should have won eventually, just not this easily.
Sad, the whole case should have hinged upon whether Psystar was buying their copies of Mac OS X.
The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale. In response, Apple should have then changed their upgrade path to "free for people with genuine Apple hardware", sued psystar a second time. Apple should have then won easily once their upgrade path no longer required a "sale".
Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.
Yes, I agree, indeed this is the whole point of an LLC. LLCs are horribly abused quite routinely. I often observe that chemical companies should really be charged with manslaughter for some of their pollutants. *But* a serious research project that happens to "break a few eggs" should really be let slide.
A reasonable compromise might be awarding shares in this company to the damaged cities and the Swiss national science funding body, so the company current backers face dilution as punishment, but no immediate funds change hands, and any IP becomes closer to public property.
Hollywood has considered redirecting any significant effort towards people who actually press pirate DVD instead of their own fans? Seriously?
Oh! I see, they want congress to pay for it, they'll keep using their own lawyers on their fans.
It's obviously good if these sorts of large scale industrial pirates are sued for copyright infringement. I'd strongly support a fund that aided small publishers when going up against pirate publishers, especially the largest pirates that are members of the RIAA and MPAA. *But* I simply don't believe these large guys need $30 million in aid for tracking down the large scale pirates.
If anything, the RIAA members should have all their copyrights revoked for abuse, and rights should be restored to the people who created the original works, bypassing the old "work for hire" provisions that Hollywood snuck in.
VDR devices like MythTV can detect changes between commercials and shows now : http://www.mythpvr.com/mythtv/how-commercial-flagging-works.html But the user is normally responsible for actually pressing the skip to next change button.
If the commercials are really louder however, they may be identified automatically by examining the auto during the upcoming scene, and the volume muted accordingly.
I think the treaty also imposes French style three strikes laws which are a fundamental violation of human rights not that the internet has become so widespread. (Fine print : yes rights may be revoked by courts, but ACTA bypasses the courts.)
We've had almost continuously accelerating cultural, scientific, and technological advancement and increasing levels of freedom for quite some time now, most cultures have collapsed back upon idiocy eventually. Imho, copyright law and patent law have already achieved the same level of absurdity as civil servants being selected upon poetry prowess in ancient China or Islam's decent into traditionalism.
I find piracy an unlikely culprit largely because the quality is just so damn low usually, people use tv piracy mostly for time shifting and "nation shifting", but everyone uses TiVo whenever available, and movies start out higher quality, so your losing much much more.
I'd bet the single biggest reason is that television and home theaters have cut into their sales.
There are now more shows that more people *perceive* as high quality, more shows are designed to addict people (X Files, Lost, etc.), comedy shows have diversified, reality tv took off, and the array of channels is now staggering. We make a big deal about all the computer graphics used in movies, but Hollywood always had the best effects guys, while computer graphic have dramatically improved tv's options too, and proportionally more so.
Conversely, we've radically advanced the home theater during the last decade, i.e. everyone got surround sound, good tvs and DVDs players, while people rarely choose their cinema based upon technology. Another unprecedented shift has been how Netflicks, DVD vending machines, and TiVo all make tv vastly more convenient than movies, which leads to the big killer : TiVo, Netflicks, etc. let people watch tv with friends. Yes, that's right, movies loose even on the social appeal!
It's also true that ticket prices have inflated while wages have not inflated, but I doubt that's significant next to the sheer onslaught of technological and cultural forces pushing us away from cinemas and towards home entertainment. Internet usage will also have directly cut into ticket sales some too, especially among young people, but who knows how much.
I might buy an argument that movie piracy was hurting DVD sales of course, simply because many people want specific movies on their laptop for travel, but again we're seeing a "home theater" like effect where convenience overshadows other concerns. Just consider, virtually every time you see people watching movies on a train, they're most likely tolerating the poor quality of a pirate version simply because they don't know how to successfully rip their own DVDs!
Re:high quality digital cameras doom textbooks
on
The DIY Book Scanner
·
· Score: 1
Or just download them from other students?
I recently taught an upper level computer science course in a second world country. I was worried about whether the students would have access to books. No problem, students have already digitized all common undergraduate text books and share them on various eastern european websites. So the official course webpages often just link the textbook directly.
I think most medical, science, engineering, etc. texts are all available on the russian book text pirate sites like giggle and gigapedia. I doubt people outside the U.S. bother scanning U.S. law text books, but maybe you'll find some particularly common ones uploaded by American students.
In the long run, the best way to cut port would be deliberative democracy, meaning a citizens line item veto by jury trial.
You might for example eliminate the presidential veto but say that all laws must pass a jury trial with a large enough jury that you don't need jury selection, like say 100 to 200 people. Any group of 10% of the house or senate or 5% of each could send an advocate to argue for or against all or part of the law, and the president could send an advocate or even appear himself. If the law was substantially modified from it's original form by the jury deliberations, then congress would have an opportunity to veto it, but once spending items were cut by the jurors it'd be pretty hard to reintroduce them.
A well respect president would effectively still have veto power, although not the pocket veto.
True, plagiarism isn't used in the corporate world. *But* I bet if you called up a games company that ripped your idea off and only wanted an attribution, then they'd acquiesce, just for PR reasons.
I think a better example is Ebaums world, which modifies other people's funny videos, giving the impression that they were created by Ebaums world. I've seen people get all huffy and accuse Ebaums world of plagiarism.. and now most informed people avoid ever linking Ebaums world.
Aquatica is very clearly a flOw knock off, so Aquatica is plagiarism if and only if the author did not explain that flOw inspired him.
All these terms have very different meanings with very different real purposes, but all cover an aspect of "depriving the creator".
Plagiarism the closest to theft by far because plagiarism deprives the creator of the credit due for their creation. Plagiarism has no legal status for various sound reasons, like being only indirectly tied to compensation and not being abused by large corporations, but society tries to punish it indirectly nevertheless.
Copyright exists solely to prevent those who control distribution channels from distributing works without compensating the creators. Copyright is vastly further from theft than plagiarism since the creator has far less intrinsic right to distribution than to credit. Copyright has legal status because (a) the criteria is fairly well defined and (b) publishers will never reward authors otherwise. Btw, copyright is basically functioning correctly when shutting down commercial distribution channels like Napster and TPB who have no intention of compensating creators, but copyright is being grossly misused when attacking individual file sharers.
Patents exist solely to protect the investments of venture capitalists while creating new industries. Patents are by far the furthest IP device from "theft" since they protect venture capitalists not creators. Patents are more just a contract between society and the capitalist that says "If you fund this, then we'll grant you a monopoly for a few years." Clearly patents have also drifted extremely far from their original purpose, now functioning more as a "currency" between businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
Nokia's first offer was a cross licensing deal. Apple refused! So now every GSM Association member thinks "Apple will sue us over their shitty interface patents." Oops!
I expect the GSM Association will ignore Nokia's FRAND obligations with respect to Apple, thanks to Apple's behavior here.
Apple has been acting like a spoiled little child ever since they entered the phone market. I'm sure the big players will happily flush them down the toilet.
Nokia might not be obligated to offer RAND terms to Apple because Apple is not a member of the GSM Association. Another GSM Association member could likely force Nokia to license these patents under RAND, but ...
Guess what? Nokia's first offer was a cross licensing deal. Apple refused! So now every GSM Association member thinks "Apple will sue us over their shitty interface patents."
Umm, so what? Nokia has an enormous patent portfolio too.
Nokia has the patents Apple wants. Nokia asked for cross licensing. Apple refused, indicating that Apple means to sue Nokia using their patents.
Apple started the fight by acting like a patent troll and refusing the standard cross licensing deal.
Nokia offered Apple a cross licensing deal beneficial to both companies. Apple refused, indicating their intent to use their interface patents against other mobile phone makers.
I've no idea what FRAND obligations Nokia faces under their original GSM Association membership, but Apple cannot pursue those obligations in court, as Apple is not the GSM Association.
Would some GSM Association member pursue those obligations in court on Apple's behalf? Doubtful, given Apple's indications that they'll sue other mobile makers once the GSM patents are off the table.
Apple's best option is simply agreeing to Nokia's original cross licensing deal.
p.s. It's very likely that Nokia merely asked for the cross licensing scheme built into the FRAND obligations of GSM Association membership, meaning even if Apple paid another GSM Association member to sue Nokia, they might still lose.
In fact, cross licensing is a perfectly normal part of these sorts of deals. If A actually needs B's patent X, then B asks for money plus patents. Why? Well, A might fall upon hard times and sue B with crappy patents
Apple needs Nokia's GSM patents. Nokia doesn't *need* any Apple patents. Nokia just wants the usual industry standard insurance policy granted by buyers when sellers give up the protection afforded by valuable patents. Guess what? Apple refused.
Apple acted like a spoiled brat and started a whole fight by refusing cross licensing. All other mobile makers are now saying "Oh, shit Apple is gonna be a patent troll!" Sony Ericsson, Motorola, HTC, and Google will all back Nokia.
Apple must realize their "multitouch" technology just isn't very valuable next to the underlying hardware that makes phones possible. "Yes, pretty interface, we'll happily knock a bit off the cross licensing deal for the rights to freely copy it, but your interface patent isn't nearly as valuable as our patent on the underlying technology."
I started learning basic between age 6 and 7 for the purpose of writing my own games, and then learned C from K&R around age 12.
I don't feel like the language is nearly as important as why she'll remain interested. First, you must provide a role model by visibly playing by writing programs yourself. Second, you need a medium of action which the kid will appreciate. A few possible medium are (1) lego mindstorm, (2) X10 home automation devices, and (3) video games.
I think the language will often then be determined by your own entertainment interests.
p.s. A major threat here is the potential distraction from more passive entertainment like better video games and television. If you play flash games, then start writing them. If you play WoW yourself, then write Lua script addons, and teach her how to write them too. If you play counterstrike, then learn how to program bots, and play games involving bots. etc. I'd seriously consider selling your wii, playstation, xbox, etc. and also avoiding the television.
I wonder if more interaction between passengers would actually help matters.
I'm sure keeping people from the toilet won't help anybody though, as people simply cannot always be forced to hold their pee.
If an airline ever holds you in your seat when you need to pee, simply call an attendant to explain that you likely cannot hold it, and offer that they may either (a) bring you a bucket, or (b) frisk you and let you go. I bet the airline must ground the plane for longer if you pee in your seat or on the floor.
If you carry a pee bottle, then explain what your doing to nearby passengers first, as you don't want them attacking you for "mixing stuff".
Yes, but *that* redistribution meant mass produced copying. If I xerox my highlighted textbook, my highlights will actually *add* to my fair use defense, so your argument is invalid.
Copyright law cannot make sense unless you either say (a) a single copy is a legal entity, i.e. my argument, or else (b) recognize that copyright infringement is question of scale, i.e. return to the historical definition, exclude friend to friend copying, etc.
Yes, psystar would have been guilty of copyright infringement under (b), but the world has been moving away from (b) and towards (a) for a very long time, largely due to the copyright lobby getting it's panties in a wad over every new technology, like records for example.
The worst ones will ruin it for everyone else, unless google plans on creating an ad rating service. Well, google's ads are the least annoying on the planet. Anti-trust case anyone?
So don't to that on a Mac. Mac's are terrible servers anyways.
VLC works fine on most servers (linux) and most machines period (windows).
VLC will still run under X windows on Mac.
Awesome! It'd be sweet if all the anti-RIAA pro-piracy rhetoric gives the industry such a bad reputation that they lose this one to the artists. lol
First sale clearly should allow modification of copyrighted works though. If you mod a bike, you can resell it. If you mod a MacBook, you can resell it. etc.
You don't seem to understand that this case will be used by all manor of assholes to attack all sorts of legitimate mods, possibly even classical first sale situations like cars.
Apple should have won the case eventually, but *only* by modifying their business practice to thoroughly avoid "selling" the OS alone. Apple cannot be compelled to sell the OS alone since they are not a monopoly, btw.
Fair enough, but the legal precedent against the doctrine of first sale is still bad news. As I said, Apple should have won eventually, just not this easily.
Sad, the whole case should have hinged upon whether Psystar was buying their copies of Mac OS X.
The judge should have thrown *this* case out based upon the doctrine of first sale. In response, Apple should have then changed their upgrade path to "free for people with genuine Apple hardware", sued psystar a second time. Apple should have then won easily once their upgrade path no longer required a "sale".
Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.
Ironically, this story might get more traction than Israel killing non-Americans since the laptop photo will look nice on TV.
Yes, I agree, indeed this is the whole point of an LLC. LLCs are horribly abused quite routinely. I often observe that chemical companies should really be charged with manslaughter for some of their pollutants. *But* a serious research project that happens to "break a few eggs" should really be let slide.
A reasonable compromise might be awarding shares in this company to the damaged cities and the Swiss national science funding body, so the company current backers face dilution as punishment, but no immediate funds change hands, and any IP becomes closer to public property.
Hollywood has considered redirecting any significant effort towards people who actually press pirate DVD instead of their own fans? Seriously?
Oh! I see, they want congress to pay for it, they'll keep using their own lawyers on their fans.
It's obviously good if these sorts of large scale industrial pirates are sued for copyright infringement. I'd strongly support a fund that aided small publishers when going up against pirate publishers, especially the largest pirates that are members of the RIAA and MPAA. *But* I simply don't believe these large guys need $30 million in aid for tracking down the large scale pirates.
If anything, the RIAA members should have all their copyrights revoked for abuse, and rights should be restored to the people who created the original works, bypassing the old "work for hire" provisions that Hollywood snuck in.
VDR devices like MythTV can detect changes between commercials and shows now :
http://www.mythpvr.com/mythtv/how-commercial-flagging-works.html
But the user is normally responsible for actually pressing the skip to next change button.
If the commercials are really louder however, they may be identified automatically by examining the auto during the upcoming scene, and the volume muted accordingly.
I think the treaty also imposes French style three strikes laws which are a fundamental violation of human rights not that the internet has become so widespread. (Fine print : yes rights may be revoked by courts, but ACTA bypasses the courts.)
We've had almost continuously accelerating cultural, scientific, and technological advancement and increasing levels of freedom for quite some time now, most cultures have collapsed back upon idiocy eventually. Imho, copyright law and patent law have already achieved the same level of absurdity as civil servants being selected upon poetry prowess in ancient China or Islam's decent into traditionalism.
I find piracy an unlikely culprit largely because the quality is just so damn low usually, people use tv piracy mostly for time shifting and "nation shifting", but everyone uses TiVo whenever available, and movies start out higher quality, so your losing much much more.
I'd bet the single biggest reason is that television and home theaters have cut into their sales.
There are now more shows that more people *perceive* as high quality, more shows are designed to addict people (X Files, Lost, etc.), comedy shows have diversified, reality tv took off, and the array of channels is now staggering. We make a big deal about all the computer graphics used in movies, but Hollywood always had the best effects guys, while computer graphic have dramatically improved tv's options too, and proportionally more so.
Conversely, we've radically advanced the home theater during the last decade, i.e. everyone got surround sound, good tvs and DVDs players, while people rarely choose their cinema based upon technology. Another unprecedented shift has been how Netflicks, DVD vending machines, and TiVo all make tv vastly more convenient than movies, which leads to the big killer : TiVo, Netflicks, etc. let people watch tv with friends. Yes, that's right, movies loose even on the social appeal!
It's also true that ticket prices have inflated while wages have not inflated, but I doubt that's significant next to the sheer onslaught of technological and cultural forces pushing us away from cinemas and towards home entertainment. Internet usage will also have directly cut into ticket sales some too, especially among young people, but who knows how much.
I might buy an argument that movie piracy was hurting DVD sales of course, simply because many people want specific movies on their laptop for travel, but again we're seeing a "home theater" like effect where convenience overshadows other concerns. Just consider, virtually every time you see people watching movies on a train, they're most likely tolerating the poor quality of a pirate version simply because they don't know how to successfully rip their own DVDs!
Or just download them from other students?
I recently taught an upper level computer science course in a second world country. I was worried about whether the students would have access to books. No problem, students have already digitized all common undergraduate text books and share them on various eastern european websites. So the official course webpages often just link the textbook directly.
I think most medical, science, engineering, etc. texts are all available on the russian book text pirate sites like giggle and gigapedia. I doubt people outside the U.S. bother scanning U.S. law text books, but maybe you'll find some particularly common ones uploaded by American students.
In the long run, the best way to cut port would be deliberative democracy, meaning a citizens line item veto by jury trial.
You might for example eliminate the presidential veto but say that all laws must pass a jury trial with a large enough jury that you don't need jury selection, like say 100 to 200 people. Any group of 10% of the house or senate or 5% of each could send an advocate to argue for or against all or part of the law, and the president could send an advocate or even appear himself. If the law was substantially modified from it's original form by the jury deliberations, then congress would have an opportunity to veto it, but once spending items were cut by the jurors it'd be pretty hard to reintroduce them.
A well respect president would effectively still have veto power, although not the pocket veto.
True, plagiarism isn't used in the corporate world. *But* I bet if you called up a games company that ripped your idea off and only wanted an attribution, then they'd acquiesce, just for PR reasons.
I think a better example is Ebaums world, which modifies other people's funny videos, giving the impression that they were created by Ebaums world. I've seen people get all huffy and accuse Ebaums world of plagiarism.. and now most informed people avoid ever linking Ebaums world.
Aquatica is very clearly a flOw knock off, so Aquatica is plagiarism if and only if the author did not explain that flOw inspired him.
All these terms have very different meanings with very different real purposes, but all cover an aspect of "depriving the creator".
Plagiarism the closest to theft by far because plagiarism deprives the creator of the credit due for their creation. Plagiarism has no legal status for various sound reasons, like being only indirectly tied to compensation and not being abused by large corporations, but society tries to punish it indirectly nevertheless.
Copyright exists solely to prevent those who control distribution channels from distributing works without compensating the creators. Copyright is vastly further from theft than plagiarism since the creator has far less intrinsic right to distribution than to credit. Copyright has legal status because (a) the criteria is fairly well defined and (b) publishers will never reward authors otherwise. Btw, copyright is basically functioning correctly when shutting down commercial distribution channels like Napster and TPB who have no intention of compensating creators, but copyright is being grossly misused when attacking individual file sharers.
Patents exist solely to protect the investments of venture capitalists while creating new industries. Patents are by far the furthest IP device from "theft" since they protect venture capitalists not creators. Patents are more just a contract between society and the capitalist that says "If you fund this, then we'll grant you a monopoly for a few years." Clearly patents have also drifted extremely far from their original purpose, now functioning more as a "currency" between businesses.