Purely out of curiosity, does anyone know of a single instance in any Western country of a major record or film company taking a member of the general public to court, the defendant putting forward a robust defence and the issue left to the court to resolve rather than either the defendant or the plaintiff eventually folding?
Blizzard v. bnetd, MPAA v. 2600, Sony v. Tenenbaum.
You'll notice a common characteristic to these cases, namely that the bad guys always won. Despite what some seem to think, we have no allies in the system. All three branches of US government (and however many branches of all the other major governments out there) are on the other side.
However, she insisted that they stream it without DRM and their system is just not set up to do that, it's like they never conceived of the idea of Free content when they designed it. Kinda ironic in retrospect because I'd be really surprised if, just like most of the interwebs, a whole lot of netflix's infrastructure didn't run on Free software,
Anyway, she was willing to compromise - she would grant an exception to the licensing terms and they could DRM it, if they would run a placard at the start of the movie telling viewers that it was Free and where to get it from. No dice said Netflix. So she no dice too.
I love it when scumbags are caught in a lie. Come up with a technical excuse and when presented with a perfectly reasonable alternative, reject it anyway -- proving the technical excuse was, if not outright untrue, nothing more than a smokescreen. Why should a placard saying the movie is free and available be different than an ordinary copyright notice or the annoying FBI warning? It's not like customers are going to feel cheated; Netflix streaming isn't pay-per-view.
Apple will need to host the code, and make a note somewhere that it is available. Then they will be compliant.
Apple can't do that. The developer still has the copyright on the parts of the code he didn't copy from Gnu Go. So they'd be violating the developer's copyright if they did that.
The mistake that most attempts at fixing the system make is the same one that the security industry has been making for the past 20 years - coming up with solutions for todays actual problems. But the evil guys are already working on tomorrows exploits.
You can not win if all you do is playing catch-up.
Probably true, but the alternative is dissolving the system and starting over. That wasn't even done during the US Revolutionary War (the state governments remained basically intact, as did the system of common law). And even if you tried, the evil guys would probably co-opt the process and you'd find yourself taking the short path to totalitarian oligarchy, instead of the long path we're on now.
"We" don't want intraday trading? You want all transactions handled in 24-hour batches, then? That was too slow for the horse-and-buggy days, let alone now.
Usually you handle positive feedback by turning the gain down, not slowing the loop to a crawl. I admit I have no idea how to do the former, but I don't think the latter is an option. Also, there are positive feedback mechanisms in the market which have nothing to do with daytraders. Short-covering is one, stop-loss orders are another; both can be significant.
Unfortunately, those who predict an earthquake don't give much guidance for preparation. It would be useful to know, for example, what an earthquake is likely to do to a wooden house held together by nails.
Less than you'd think, compared to a building which isn't specifically designed to survive earthquakes and is made out of brick, stone, or concrete, anyway. Most wooden buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake. Unfortunately they burned down shortly thereafter. Earthquake-proof gas lines would be a good thing.
...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."
Even when his income is substantially above the median for his home state, city or county.
High income does not equate to wealth and power. Your average IT professional is going to be upper middle class, which is to say prime sheep for fleecing, not wealthy and powerful.
George Carlin is a crazy old anarchist stand-up comedian, not someone you should ever take seriously on political philosophy...
Technically, he's scattered ashes at this point. Which still makes him a better choice to take seriously for political philosophy than any political pundit.
As far as I recall methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas, but not so long-lived in the atmosphere, while carbon dioxide's effects are lesser, but much longer lived. Which wikipedia agrees with.
So I guess in reality the answer's pretty complicated, requiring that we look at the cumulative costs going into the future.
Nope, it's simple. Methane breaks down into CO2 + H2O in the atmosphere; by burning it you're merely hastening that process, so there's no downside as far as reducing greenhouse gases is concerned.
The idea of people being sued all the time and having to worry about being sued is an invention of the Free Software movement.
Now you're just trolling.
The chances of a small enterprise EVER having to unfairly pay out of its pocket to some multinational corporate for violating a patent are as close as fart to absolute ZERO.
The chances of a small enterprise having to CEASE TO EXIST because it is accused of violating a patent by some multinational corporate entity is rather larger than absolute zero, however. The chance of an open-source software developer having to abandon their work because he/she is accused of violating a patent of some multinational corporate entity is also quite a bit greater than absolute zero.
You can't patent your novel because the book was invented millennia ago, and has existed in its current form for a very long time--much longer than the term of any modern patent.
The computer was invented a long time ago too, longer than the term of any modern patent. That doesn't stop people from writing (and enforcing) patent claims essentially "A device, consisting of CPU, memory, and storage, which does X", where X is non-patentable on its own. So why not a claim for "A device, consisting of leafs, ink, and a spine, where the leaves contain the text of my story"?
Ummm, "Hello World" is not even close to being in the category of one of the very first programs ever made. At least not by straight chronological measure.
Murphy's law says the very first program either crashed the machine immediately, or went into a tight infinite loop with no output.
Resources are like slices in a pie. However, that pie grows under capitalism which in effect also grows the slices of said pie. In communism, the size of the pie often stagnates if not shrinks all together once rationing starts.
And cap&trade skips directly to that result; the size of the pie is capped and reduced by fiat.
I wonder if either of them will actually have established valid use rights under this dispute. Geekgirl would almost surely be descriptive and as such would need to prove secondary meaning under the American system.
The original registration was "publication of electronic books, magazines and/or multimedia both online on a communications network and on recorded media including optical disks and magnetic media". In that category it might be suggestive rather than merely descriptive.
Yes, "liberals and conservatives are all the same" is a popular lie put out by conservatives. As is "Political correctness," "Rewarding poverty," and "Stepping on self employment." All of which are actually things conservatives do. Which makes them different from liberals.
Liberals and conservatives are not the same. They are, however, equivalent by certain important measures. Like the "if I haven't provided 6 figures in campaign contributions, they'll fuck me over" measure.
Rewarding poverty both do, though it's different groups they reward (usually). Stepping on self-employment they both do as well; both favor large corporations, either as a matter of policy or simply because large corporations are more able to absorb the boatloads of regulations both require.
It is a slight misquote of an example used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr in the majority decision in Schenck vs the United States. The proper quote is falsely yelling "fire" in a theater.
And the case concerned a prohibition distributing leaflets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional. A prohibition that was upheld. Fortunately, Schenck is no longer good law.
Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard v. bnetd, MPAA v. 2600, Sony v. Tenenbaum.
You'll notice a common characteristic to these cases, namely that the bad guys always won. Despite what some seem to think, we have no allies in the system. All three branches of US government (and however many branches of all the other major governments out there) are on the other side.
The kettle is polished metal; the pot only thinks the kettle is black because it sees its own reflection.
Too easy. I'm thinking we need to go back to the realities of the _French_ revolution. Off with their heads!
I love it when scumbags are caught in a lie. Come up with a technical excuse and when presented with a perfectly reasonable alternative, reject it anyway -- proving the technical excuse was, if not outright untrue, nothing more than a smokescreen. Why should a placard saying the movie is free and available be different than an ordinary copyright notice or the annoying FBI warning? It's not like customers are going to feel cheated; Netflix streaming isn't pay-per-view.
Apple can't do that. The developer still has the copyright on the parts of the code he didn't copy from Gnu Go. So they'd be violating the developer's copyright if they did that.
Hold on there, pardner. The trade secrets belong to the company, but the talent belongs to the employees.
But did she also reap?
Probably true, but the alternative is dissolving the system and starting over. That wasn't even done during the US Revolutionary War (the state governments remained basically intact, as did the system of common law). And even if you tried, the evil guys would probably co-opt the process and you'd find yourself taking the short path to totalitarian oligarchy, instead of the long path we're on now.
"We" don't want intraday trading? You want all transactions handled in 24-hour batches, then? That was too slow for the horse-and-buggy days, let alone now.
Usually you handle positive feedback by turning the gain down, not slowing the loop to a crawl. I admit I have no idea how to do the former, but I don't think the latter is an option. Also, there are positive feedback mechanisms in the market which have nothing to do with daytraders. Short-covering is one, stop-loss orders are another; both can be significant.
Less than you'd think, compared to a building which isn't specifically designed to survive earthquakes and is made out of brick, stone, or concrete, anyway. Most wooden buildings in San Francisco survived the 1906 earthquake. Unfortunately they burned down shortly thereafter. Earthquake-proof gas lines would be a good thing.
Good luck getting that relief well drilled.
...if you don't ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal". The patent is "here's a bunch of ideas that might work to control fuel consumption at signals, we claim them all."
High income does not equate to wealth and power. Your average IT professional is going to be upper middle class, which is to say prime sheep for fleecing, not wealthy and powerful.
Technically, he's scattered ashes at this point. Which still makes him a better choice to take seriously for political philosophy than any political pundit.
Nope, it's simple. Methane breaks down into CO2 + H2O in the atmosphere; by burning it you're merely hastening that process, so there's no downside as far as reducing greenhouse gases is concerned.
Now you're just trolling.
The chances of a small enterprise having to CEASE TO EXIST because it is accused of violating a patent by some multinational corporate entity is rather larger than absolute zero, however. The chance of an open-source software developer having to abandon their work because he/she is accused of violating a patent of some multinational corporate entity is also quite a bit greater than absolute zero.
The computer was invented a long time ago too, longer than the term of any modern patent. That doesn't stop people from writing (and enforcing) patent claims essentially "A device, consisting of CPU, memory, and storage, which does X", where X is non-patentable on its own. So why not a claim for "A device, consisting of leafs, ink, and a spine, where the leaves contain the text of my story"?
Murphy's law says the very first program either crashed the machine immediately, or went into a tight infinite loop with no output.
And cap&trade skips directly to that result; the size of the pie is capped and reduced by fiat.
Err, no. A gun's primary function is to shoot, but what they're made to shoot at varies.
The original registration was "publication of electronic books, magazines and/or multimedia both online on a communications network and on recorded media including optical disks and magnetic media". In that category it might be suggestive rather than merely descriptive.
Cap & Trade is worse than a tax. Cap & Trade is rationing AND taxation.
Extra, Extra, read all about it! Quasi-governmental organizations tells government to do what head of government wants to do anyway!
Liberals and conservatives are not the same. They are, however, equivalent by certain important measures. Like the "if I haven't provided 6 figures in campaign contributions, they'll fuck me over" measure.
Rewarding poverty both do, though it's different groups they reward (usually). Stepping on self-employment they both do as well; both favor large corporations, either as a matter of policy or simply because large corporations are more able to absorb the boatloads of regulations both require.
And the case concerned a prohibition distributing leaflets claiming that the draft was unconstitutional. A prohibition that was upheld. Fortunately, Schenck is no longer good law.