The problem is that argument doesn't hold water. If the hardware manufacturers wanted it, there has never been anything stopping them from requiring firmware signed by them. It never stopped Tivo.
Wrong! The line about "legal tender for all debts public and private" is a lie.
Wrong! There is a difference between debts and "goods and services". From your link:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
The banks issuing your credit cards, or holding your car loan or mortgage must accept US Currency as legal tender in payment for that loan. There are certain schools of thought that hold that if they don't, they have lost the ability to collect on that debt. Following that school, If a car dealer and I signed a purchase agreement for a car, a debt has been created. If I offer to pay in cash and the dealer refuses, the car could well be mine for free under the law.
You are correct, however, on the goods and services, unless the goods and services have been delivered prior to payment, in which case a debt does indeed exist.
A year and a half here and I'm in the same boat. Yes, a year ago I was selling a lot more of one of my apps. $60-70 a week or so. These days i averages 2 copies a day and its bringing me about 10 bucks a week. Not a lot, no, but it definitely pays for the data plan AT&T makes me have to go along with my iPhone. I haven't spent a dime on advertising and marketing, relying solely on search results for sales. If I ever have a need to update it, then perhaps I'll shell out for some targeted ads, but for now, its paying its own bills, so to speak, and I'm perfectly OK with that because this particular app was more of a teaching exercise for myself than anything. Now, I've got other apps that are much better sellers because they have a larger audience than a calculator for quilters but hey every $0.70 commission I pick up from it still makes me smile.
Costco is irrelevant though. in Costco, the copyright issue was based on items imported into the country by someone other than the copyright holder. Costco pitted 17USC 602(a)(1) against 17 USC 109(a). 602 covers the importation, while 109 codifies the first sale doctrine for "copies made lawfully under this title".
in this hypothetical case, apple, the copyright holder, has already lawfully imported the items into the country, so 602 doesn't apply. Since 602 was what Costco was decided on, it wouldn't apply.
Now, honestly, I really would have liked to see an actual decision in Costco from SCOTUS. Omega was contending that 109 didn't come into play since the logo copies were made overseas so they didn't meet the lawfully made under this title clause. However they were depending on their US copyright registration in enforcing their rights. I would have loved to have been able to read an opinion (regardless of which way it went) in the case, simply because the previous case balancing 109 and 602, Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. 523 U.S. 135 (1998) was tailored specifically to constructing the 109 first sale doctrine to copies made within the US, whereas the Omega logo copies were made in Switzerland.
if you're only using one or two chapters out of a book, i'd recommend you find a different source for that material if its that important to the course. chances are it exists somewhere (checking the chapters' citations can be of use here), and if it doesn't it probably isn't that important.
I'm inclined to agree with you. the patent seems to have a handful of base claims on which the remainder of the claims are built. Logic (which we can all guess as to its existence in the court system) would dictate that in order to infringe one of the derivative claims, the device or method would have to infringe on the parent claim.
1) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
If we assume that the commodity in question here is the app itself, the question of whether this one is infringed hinges on whether the upgrade button is considered to be eliciting information about the user's perception of the application. This one is critical since it can easily be argued that as long as the app doesn't store and otherwise process the fact that a user has seen the upgrade option and not used it, there is no perception information gathered. Someone else can figure out the opposite argument if they are so inclined; I'll not be providing the bad guys an argument.
54) A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units and is configured to trigger a two-way interaction to occur on-line between the unit of the facsimile equipment and a vendor of the facsimile equipment, the user interface being configured to generate information about use of the unit by the user, a communication element associated with each of the units capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
This one an its derivatives ought to be irrelevant, since there isn't fax equipment involved.
60) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.
This one seems to require that "the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or sup
Further, assuming a 3/4 second reaction time, it takes 55 feet at 50mph for a driver to even get a foot on the brake pedal, which is 5 feet more than the manufacturer's expert claimed the average distance from sensor to photograph was. so, assuming the.363 second difference occurred after the driver realized the camera had taken his picture, he would actually not have the full.363 seconds to decelerate to meet the mean time theorem criteria for the photograph.
Why would the BBC lease you a radio to access their service? What would be in it for them to hold all that hardware in inventory?
it seems to work pretty well for directv and dish network. of course as anyone who has the slightest modicum of knowledge of accounting knows, this is merely a ruse to keep assets on their books while still charging the same upfront fees for them that they did when the upfront fee was a purchase price.
If the day arrives when an honest person who truly wants to change things for the better without any self-serving need to fulfill an ego or provide companies/politicians/lobbyists with favors, I'll vote for them. Until such a time, I'm not going to casually toss my support behind someone just for the hell of it.
We tried that here in Minnesota for a while. We had this guy who truly didn't like the way the city council was going. So he ran for mayor and won. Later on he ran as an independent for Governor and also won. The Jesse Ventura experiment failed miserably, because as we all know, power corrupts.
I attended a lecture the attorney against Cali gave a few weeks back where he was discussing this case. I found it very interesting that he was relying exclusively on the fact that the court, conservative though they may be, has been as of late giving the first amendment strong leeway in what it encompasses. He's relying solely on the first amendment in his case. Were it my case, I'd invoke the commerce clause, as such regulations are clearly the realm of Congress, as they can have a major effect on interstate commerce, and we all know how broadly SCOTUS has interpreted that particular clause.
the problem with that line of thought is that if you change one protocol that the internet relies on so heavily to function (DNS) instead of another (IP), nothing has been accomplished. yes this is an oversimplification of the problem at hand, but standard port numbers are standard port numbers for a reason. what's worse, if you allow the two to coexist, if a couple of https web sites mapped to the same ip address but with different ports, older clients that didn't have the support for the new DNS extension would still have the problem of not being able to get to one of them.
i won't get into the matter of alternate name resolution systems (NIS,/etc/hosts, etc.), because i home they're not sufficiently common for internet purposes to be an issue.
There's no reason you can't NAT to 100 servers for SSH, run 50 webservers (with both SSL and non-SSL ports)
Sure there's no reason you can't run 50 web servers on different ports on the same IP. except for customers who will never learn that you have to type in http://www.google.com:8080/ instead of google.com. browsers have been designed to assume that any url without a protocol type is for http port 80. why? because port 80 is the standard designated protocol for http.
the inability for customers or potential customers to access your business's web site is a sufficient motivator to not stray from the standard.
have a look into the linux kernel that is used to provide nat on the vast majority of home routers. while it has certainly been a while since i had to build a kernel from scratch, the functionality you are referring to, dropping all incoming connections et seq., is provided by a completely different section of the codebase than the packet rewriting code. while creating nat rules without the use of the connection tracking (nf_conntrack, etc.) is difficult if not impossible, creating firewall rules without the use of the nat code (nf_nat, iptable_nat, etc.) is certainly possible. so while nat'ed systems inherently provide security in the form of a prerequisite stateful firewall, please don't make the incorrect assumption that the security exists because of the nat. it doesn't.
i don't know about this guy, but my own auto policies have a $250 deductible, and full glass coverage, which they've had since i was in college. so, since tfa mentions other things besides the laptop, there may be a significantly larger expenditure on the part of the insurance company (and would be if it had been my car, not that my car would have had a laptop or other valuable electronic equipment in it ripe for stealing). in addition, every time i've had a claim that wasn't my fault, and the insurance company recovered, i've received a check for the amount of my deductible.
so, assuming the insurance company pays out anything, they will make every effort to recover their expenditures. knowing where the guy is will only serve to lessen their expenditures because they don't have to spend as much time tracking the thief down.
exactly! presumably there's some loss the insurance company incurs (whether its replacing the glass in the window under glass coverage) or the laptop, or something. at that point, the insurance company is going to want to know where they can send a bill (no-fault or not). they have minions, i mean attorneys, who are very good at recovering money. your insurance agent (or claims adjuster) would definitely like to know this information.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that argument doesn't hold water. If the hardware manufacturers wanted it, there has never been anything stopping them from requiring firmware signed by them. It never stopped Tivo.
Wrong! The line about "legal tender for all debts public and private" is a lie.
Wrong! There is a difference between debts and "goods and services". From your link:
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services.
The banks issuing your credit cards, or holding your car loan or mortgage must accept US Currency as legal tender in payment for that loan. There are certain schools of thought that hold that if they don't, they have lost the ability to collect on that debt. Following that school, If a car dealer and I signed a purchase agreement for a car, a debt has been created. If I offer to pay in cash and the dealer refuses, the car could well be mine for free under the law.
You are correct, however, on the goods and services, unless the goods and services have been delivered prior to payment, in which case a debt does indeed exist.
I looked at the contents of the Tor Packet. It looked like random garbage. so I sent it along.
you must be new here.
The micropayments, while limited in scope, are significantly less expensive than full payments:
https://www.paypalobjects.com/IntegrationCenter/ic_micropayments.html
A year and a half here and I'm in the same boat. Yes, a year ago I was selling a lot more of one of my apps. $60-70 a week or so. These days i averages 2 copies a day and its bringing me about 10 bucks a week. Not a lot, no, but it definitely pays for the data plan AT&T makes me have to go along with my iPhone. I haven't spent a dime on advertising and marketing, relying solely on search results for sales. If I ever have a need to update it, then perhaps I'll shell out for some targeted ads, but for now, its paying its own bills, so to speak, and I'm perfectly OK with that because this particular app was more of a teaching exercise for myself than anything. Now, I've got other apps that are much better sellers because they have a larger audience than a calculator for quilters but hey every $0.70 commission I pick up from it still makes me smile.
Costco is irrelevant though. in Costco, the copyright issue was based on items imported into the country by someone other than the copyright holder. Costco pitted 17USC 602(a)(1) against 17 USC 109(a). 602 covers the importation, while 109 codifies the first sale doctrine for "copies made lawfully under this title".
in this hypothetical case, apple, the copyright holder, has already lawfully imported the items into the country, so 602 doesn't apply. Since 602 was what Costco was decided on, it wouldn't apply.
Now, honestly, I really would have liked to see an actual decision in Costco from SCOTUS. Omega was contending that 109 didn't come into play since the logo copies were made overseas so they didn't meet the lawfully made under this title clause. However they were depending on their US copyright registration in enforcing their rights. I would have loved to have been able to read an opinion (regardless of which way it went) in the case, simply because the previous case balancing 109 and 602, Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. 523 U.S. 135 (1998) was tailored specifically to constructing the 109 first sale doctrine to copies made within the US, whereas the Omega logo copies were made in Switzerland.
if you're only using one or two chapters out of a book, i'd recommend you find a different source for that material if its that important to the course. chances are it exists somewhere (checking the chapters' citations can be of use here), and if it doesn't it probably isn't that important.
I'm inclined to agree with you. the patent seems to have a handful of base claims on which the remainder of the claims are built. Logic (which we can all guess as to its existence in the court system) would dictate that in order to infringe one of the derivative claims, the device or method would have to infringe on the parent claim.
1) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
If we assume that the commodity in question here is the app itself, the question of whether this one is infringed hinges on whether the upgrade button is considered to be eliciting information about the user's perception of the application. This one is critical since it can easily be argued that as long as the app doesn't store and otherwise process the fact that a user has seen the upgrade option and not used it, there is no perception information gathered. Someone else can figure out the opposite argument if they are so inclined; I'll not be providing the bad guys an argument.
54) A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units and is configured to trigger a two-way interaction to occur on-line between the unit of the facsimile equipment and a vendor of the facsimile equipment, the user interface being configured to generate information about use of the unit by the user, a communication element associated with each of the units capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
This one an its derivatives ought to be irrelevant, since there isn't fax equipment involved.
60) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.
This one seems to require that "the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or sup
Further, assuming a 3/4 second reaction time, it takes 55 feet at 50mph for a driver to even get a foot on the brake pedal, which is 5 feet more than the manufacturer's expert claimed the average distance from sensor to photograph was. so, assuming the .363 second difference occurred after the driver realized the camera had taken his picture, he would actually not have the full .363 seconds to decelerate to meet the mean time theorem criteria for the photograph.
Why would the BBC lease you a radio to access their service? What would be in it for them to hold all that hardware in inventory?
it seems to work pretty well for directv and dish network. of course as anyone who has the slightest modicum of knowledge of accounting knows, this is merely a ruse to keep assets on their books while still charging the same upfront fees for them that they did when the upfront fee was a purchase price.
iptables -a INPUT -j DROP $Bad_Scraper_IP_Address
just because a book is out of print doesn't mean that the author/copyright owner has abandoned it.
you could still buy windows xp based netbooks as late as q4 2010.
Delta MSP->LAS two weeks ago.
but I could probably handle a Singapore Airlines stewardess handing my search...
but I could probably handle a Singapore Airlines stewardess searching my handle...
ftfy
If the day arrives when an honest person who truly wants to change things for the better without any self-serving need to fulfill an ego or provide companies/politicians/lobbyists with favors, I'll vote for them. Until such a time, I'm not going to casually toss my support behind someone just for the hell of it.
We tried that here in Minnesota for a while. We had this guy who truly didn't like the way the city council was going. So he ran for mayor and won. Later on he ran as an independent for Governor and also won. The Jesse Ventura experiment failed miserably, because as we all know, power corrupts.
I attended a lecture the attorney against Cali gave a few weeks back where he was discussing this case. I found it very interesting that he was relying exclusively on the fact that the court, conservative though they may be, has been as of late giving the first amendment strong leeway in what it encompasses. He's relying solely on the first amendment in his case. Were it my case, I'd invoke the commerce clause, as such regulations are clearly the realm of Congress, as they can have a major effect on interstate commerce, and we all know how broadly SCOTUS has interpreted that particular clause.
ever try running multiple https virtual hosts on the same ip address/port 443 combination like that? becuase of the nature of ssl, it doesn't work.
the problem with that line of thought is that if you change one protocol that the internet relies on so heavily to function (DNS) instead of another (IP), nothing has been accomplished. yes this is an oversimplification of the problem at hand, but standard port numbers are standard port numbers for a reason. what's worse, if you allow the two to coexist, if a couple of https web sites mapped to the same ip address but with different ports, older clients that didn't have the support for the new DNS extension would still have the problem of not being able to get to one of them.
i won't get into the matter of alternate name resolution systems (NIS, /etc/hosts, etc.), because i home they're not sufficiently common for internet purposes to be an issue.
There's no reason you can't NAT to 100 servers for SSH, run 50 webservers (with both SSL and non-SSL ports)
Sure there's no reason you can't run 50 web servers on different ports on the same IP. except for customers who will never learn that you have to type in http://www.google.com:8080/ instead of google.com. browsers have been designed to assume that any url without a protocol type is for http port 80. why? because port 80 is the standard designated protocol for http.
the inability for customers or potential customers to access your business's web site is a sufficient motivator to not stray from the standard.
i'll bite.
have a look into the linux kernel that is used to provide nat on the vast majority of home routers. while it has certainly been a while since i had to build a kernel from scratch, the functionality you are referring to, dropping all incoming connections et seq., is provided by a completely different section of the codebase than the packet rewriting code. while creating nat rules without the use of the connection tracking (nf_conntrack, etc.) is difficult if not impossible, creating firewall rules without the use of the nat code (nf_nat, iptable_nat, etc.) is certainly possible. so while nat'ed systems inherently provide security in the form of a prerequisite stateful firewall, please don't make the incorrect assumption that the security exists because of the nat. it doesn't.
it might be old but its true. like the current sitting potus said, you can put lipstick on a pig but its still a pig.
while nat tends to => firewalling capacities, firewall !=> nat therefore nat != firewall
i don't know about this guy, but my own auto policies have a $250 deductible, and full glass coverage, which they've had since i was in college. so, since tfa mentions other things besides the laptop, there may be a significantly larger expenditure on the part of the insurance company (and would be if it had been my car, not that my car would have had a laptop or other valuable electronic equipment in it ripe for stealing). in addition, every time i've had a claim that wasn't my fault, and the insurance company recovered, i've received a check for the amount of my deductible.
so, assuming the insurance company pays out anything, they will make every effort to recover their expenditures. knowing where the guy is will only serve to lessen their expenditures because they don't have to spend as much time tracking the thief down.
exactly! presumably there's some loss the insurance company incurs (whether its replacing the glass in the window under glass coverage) or the laptop, or something. at that point, the insurance company is going to want to know where they can send a bill (no-fault or not). they have minions, i mean attorneys, who are very good at recovering money. your insurance agent (or claims adjuster) would definitely like to know this information.