around $1000, possibly less if you do some of the paperwork yourself
But the orignal post is quite right- in this case it must have cost a comparative fortune. Looking at the prosecution history, you can see two office actions and an appeal. I'm not sure "DIY" is even in the ballpark for non-lawyer IP professionals (let alone the average guy) in such circumstances.
There's some additional prosecution history here if you're curious. Gotta say, the approach to get around the objections based on registrations for BSD and FREEBSD (see the 11/26/02 doc) is pretty interesting, and certainly emphasizes that getting a NETBSD registration required a fair amount of work/resources.
All I wanted to point out is that this stuff shouldn't really surprise anyone. Which 16 year old in the US isn't hoping they get the lazy hungover driving examiner instead of someone that takes their job super-seriously? Have you ever been to the post office looking for lost mail? Same story- some people say 'nope, it's gone', others say 'fill out this form', and still others might get off their chair for you.
Anyway, that being said, the trademark side of the PTO works just the same. If I could count the number of times I've heard a lawyer advise that a mark might be considered descriptive but there's still the luck of the draw on examiners, I would be able to amaze you with my counting skills.
An application shall not be published if an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen-month publication.
So unfortunately, you can still keep things completely secret for a very long time, assuming you're willing to forgo patent protection in other jurisdictions. Given those other jurisdictions' negative perceptions of software/business method/ridiculous patents, I still see secrecy as an issue. While you'd expect a novel microchip design to get published, your one-off of one-click-purchase is very likely to still sit unnoticed until you can spring it on someone later.
Okay, so the reliability of this information is obviously suspect given the source, but over the weekend I caught an Art Bell show on the radio, where the President of the American Relay Radio League claimed that interference from this kind of power line networking would essentially kill broadcasting in North America over a wide spectrum- if I remember correctly, something like 20Mhz-80Mhz. Art Bell's recap is here.
Looking into it now a little further, some of the American Relay Radio Leauge documents and links has some mentions of problems for radio astronomy and a few other low-profile endeavors.
Anyway, I had no idea this was a possible outcome, and these claims make me think that perhaps it's better to insist that we really work on existing non-interfering technologies before we kill one of the few sections of spectrum that an individual can use on his own.
The Earthsea books aren't likely to translate well to TV even in the best of hands.
Agreed. I'm not sure how they can go from the now-freed-of-his-shadow ascendant mage to Tenar's plotline without the in-print convention of having to pick up another book. Years since I've read them, but I distinctly remember being entirely focused on the new characters and situations in the second book, then being blown away by Ged starving and dehydrated, lost in the tunnels. To say nothing of the character development from that point forward.
If they can't get that one bit right, the video treatment will miss most of what I loved about those books as a whole.
The question then become is a DVD considered a derivative work?
Current copyright law grants the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work and the exclusive right to distribute copies of the work to the public. These are the more appropriate issues in play here, and given their centrality to the overall copyright scheme, the reason that the ultimate parent poses a not-so-great question to the interviewee.
I think it still does show (more or less) what you're thinking of. The first registration I can find for MICROSOFT WINDOWS has a 2(f) claim, meaning that WINDOWS was registered on the basis of acquired distinctiveness. Essentially that in the abstract, the element WINDOWS was not registrable and thus subject to disclaimer- the 2(f) claim cures that by asserting that it is distinctive in the marketplace in spite of that. It only requires that the term be in "substantially exclusive and continuous use" for the previous 5 years, and such an assertion by Microsoft is sufficient to forgo any further PTO analysis of the issue. The registration also includes a logo.
Anyway, I have to bet that actual registration rights are just perhipheral to this litigation anyway- I'm sure it would impress a judge/jury more if MS were able to trot out some unrestricted trademark registration from the mid-80's, but it doesn't seem strictly necessary to show likelihood of confusion.
Despite what many people here think, patenting software does not make it closed source, in fact since a patent requires the disclosure of the best known means of implementation it can actually facilitate open code.
I think a much better solution for keeping open code open would just be to publish the stuff. Certainly cheaper for those that are writing the code in the first place. Moreover, you might ask why, if there's a "best known means of implementation" better than existing published code, you would spend time and money getting it into a Patent-Office-acceptable form rather than just getting it written into a program.
Sure, the Patent Office doesn't search non-patent prior art, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have a pretty short day in court saying, "see, this was published 5 years before they applied for this patent."
And as for executing a royalty-free license every time some GPL'ed software gets changed/redistributed, this is simply unfeasable, and I think in that context, you'd be hard pressed to collect from the closed-source guys, certainly not enough to cover the patent prosecution and maintenance costs.
So, toss this idea around with me: an internet consumer, when placing a term into a search engine, is accustomed to exercising a high degree of care in the search results, knowing full well that the first few actual results may not be the site/item/service/company they're looking for. This line of thought seems even more relevant, given the instant case involves banner ads rather than search results.
I'm honestly not sure how you show the requisite confusion, given you need some relative idiot to suggest that he/she expects the banner ads to provide a link to the sought-for site. Indeed, I think the facts can support the arguement that there is no likelihood of confusion: anyone with any brainpower looking for legitimate goods/services originating from, sponsored by, or affiliated with Playboy Enterprises, Inc. would try typing "playboy.com" before entering "playboy" into a search engine.
Isn't it possible instead that the term has become unsavvy-porn-surfer shorthand for "naked chick" and thus not subject to any indication of source in the mind of these surfers?
I hope they'll spend some serious CGI money on Zaphod- I was always somewhat disappointed that on the TV series, the 2nd head mostly looked asleep or simply turned from side-to-side. I've always thought there are sections of dialogue in the books that make much less sense or are less funny if you can't imagine each head speaking its own mind.
The original comment is kind of amusing, but for the sake of accuracy I think I should point out that the Houston Chronicle is published in the 4th largest city in the US, and the largest city in the US with just one daily newspaper. My own bias says it might be the worst paper in the country- I've even gotten tired of explaining to the solicitors of free monthly trial subscriptions that they'd have to pay me, given the effort required to recycle it- but it's hardly a 'local paper'.
Okay, so I'll say Captured By Robots is a great and entertaining show. But my problem is that what I want out of my enslaving machine musical masters is a little more up-front politics of destruction. I mean, I don't remember the Robots threatening to capture me. Or charging the humans for the privilege of liberating their automobiles via bumper sticker.
I believe the true pinnacle of the genre is the now-defunct Servotron. (Forgive the archive.org link, it's sad to realize how much disappears over time- I guess I should feel lucky I found it.) Those guys were dressed and ready for sonic domination, and they had the lyrics to back it up: Today is your birthday; We are going to kill you
Silly celebration; there is no logic for it.
I don't really mean to take anything away from Captured By Robots, but as a veteran of a few Servotron shows, I end up wishing for Z4-OBX on drums instead of DRMBOT 0110.
W3C seems to have an odd inconsistency in its filing:
Raggett I and II specifically teach those of ordinary skill in the art to modify a prior art browser, such as the Mosaic browser, to incorporate the allegedly new features of claims 1-3 and 6-8, rendering those claims obvious.
Then it says this about 'ordinary skill in the art':
The person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to the claimed invention is a software programmer with at least a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, and five years of programming experience in Internet, Web and browser technology, including specific experience with programming in HTML.
I can't help but think that if the "new" prior art is dated July 1993 and the first NCSA Mosaic is February 1993 (?), there wasn't anybody around with the requisite "5 years' experience" for the invention to have been obvious to, not even by the time the application gets filed in 1994.
Anyway, I just thought it was strange that they'd make such an effort on this stuff but make that kind of apparent mistake.
The number later changes to 1500 in further correspondence. Not that that affects your point, but it at least suggests there's no reason to trust their numbers. Anyway, why is that unreasonable in my first three days of service? Surely you can understand I would be browsing this as-yet-unexplored site and think, oh I'd like to listen to that someday, why don't I add it to that huge download list they let me keep?
You had to have been running an automatic downloader.
Nope, in fact, I was using their supplied downloader.
However, as it is, I think that the customer service team at emusic was being rather patient with you.
Yes, patiently retaining my money and trying to explain why it's not fraud or theft. Speaking of ad absurdum arguments, it appears you believe that some unvalued good (an indefinite number of files) can be substituted for a identified service at a precise cost. If I've hired (and paid) a lawn service to cut my grass for 3 months, could they realistically say, sorry, we've already cut 1,500,000 blades of grass on your lawn, we're walking away after a week and we get to keep your money? What you ignore is that I may very well have found the modified service perfectly acceptable, but that the very first company response on the issue told me sorry, even if you don't like it, you're on the hook.
I'm not saying I didn't get a decent deal, but that doesn't make them right.
For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account
Um, no. Vivendi Universal, owner of emusic, also owns Universal Records, an RIAA member. In fact, the first label I recognized on that RIAA membership roster, 4AD, also appears on emusic. For that matter, the label for the box set you mention downloading is also an RIAA member. You may not be landing as much cash in their pockets, but it's not "RIAA-free" by any means.
To add my own rant, I should mention that emusic is the only company that has ever flatly stolen my money. (Partial details here if you're interested.) As much as I liked the service for 3 days, I'd say you should be wary of these guys. The Better Business Bureau record on emusic pretty well supports this point, but (to my mind) it doesn't really emphasize the point enough.
What the government already does online is good enough.
Not that I'm in favor of "national ID cards, electronic voting, and everything else that you could possibly not want," but you're clearly overstating the government's internet presence if you think it shouldn't grow. I can think of several things:
1. Free access to U.S. District Court filings. You're a shareholder, a class action member, an interested member of the public, whatever- why should you wait for a press release and then take the media's word for how a case is progressing?
2. Local government legislation/rules/activity. I had an opportunity to research local sign ordinances recently, and it's almost unbelievable how hard it was to get a current copy of the actual laws that apply to me. Such information inefficiency has economic ramifications, too.
3. Delaware. Those guys have a huge amount of corporate information that could be critical to citizen-crusaders (or simply an informed electorate) hidden behind a telephone number and fees.
I think there's a ton more examples out there, but that'll do for now.
Things I find relevant not mentioned in the review:
1) The display does indeed power down when you're listening to mp3's, but you have to power it back up to skip songs or even adjust volume. It's especially irritating in that you need to hit the relevant control once to wake it up, the second time to do what you're trying to do.
2) The ability to record from DVD is somewhat suspect- I've been putting Baby Einstein videos on there to have a portable version, and there's a certain DVD in my collection that has turned into garbage halfway through the recording process like 10 times. Not longer than the other ones that work, not identifiably any different at all, but still, it isn't recording. DRM issues or what, I couldn't tell you.
3) Ships without any kind of screen protector. Try getting this in the mail and _not_ carrying it around in your pocket or playing with it until you've had a chance to discover that no standard PDA screen thingy fits and you have to cut your own. Mine has small scratches on the screen from merely a couple of days of use.
4) The video file format conversion process is kind of haphazzard. Their program to convert has rejected numerous.avi files I've attempted to convert and it is invariably too much work to figure out why.
I love this thing, but it's not without a few problems that went unmentioned in the review. As to those that can't believe someone would spend money on this, I say: it's fun and useful right now and it does enough that you'd be buying its future replacement for weight/dimension changes only. I'll enjoy mine while you wait for the weightless free version with infinite battery life and forward compatibility with dimensional warp generators.
"The courts have already ruled that you're not anonymous when you're publicly distributing music online," said Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president at the RIAA. "Her lawyers are trying to obtain a free pass to download or upload music online illegally. Their arguments have already been addressed by federal court and been rejected."
Seems to me like this is an entirely different set of issues. As far as I know, the courts never addressed this on an individual, MY-rights-are-violated level. Surely her privacy rights are a lot stonger when asserted on her own behalf than when an ISP says they shouldn't have to disclose identities because that might be bad for whoever that might be that isn't represented in this hearing.
The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, granted in 1998.
I follow the patent stories here all the time, and I'm used to trying to take the scattered details of whatever news service we're linking to to find the actual patents. Just wanted to point out that it's refreshing to find a major information source using actual patent nos.
My apologies if this question is asked above in non-modded-up comments. I like it, though:
How do you feel about the possibility that you as a candidate (as well as those that vote for you) could be tarred with the same brush as Nader in 2000, namely, that you 'gave' the recall election to someone distasteful to the accuser, merely by being less distasteful but still participating? What do you think this says about democracy in California and the US when so many individual candidates could be similarly accused?
The money to pay for that health care has to come out of somewhere Indeed, it does come from somewhere. Who do you think pays for the unnecessary ER visits of the uninsured? Or the... (why get into particularities of the messed-up system?) Anyway, you already are paying for the bulk of a universal healthcare system if you're employed, so the difference isn't really right pocket vs. left pocket, but more whether it actually costs more to do it the right way or half-assed.
My message is only tangentially on-topic, and certainly ranting.
That being said, the parent poster asks totally key questions. I thought, gee, I do random legal research all the time, surely I can find out just what the ruling covered. But no, I'd have to register on the Northern District of California's stupid PACER system, wait for snail mail to give me my login, and then pay $.07 per web page viewed. Silly me, I thought my taxes should pay for public access to public documents.
Sure, I'm used to having to pay some third party fees for the data they collect or obtain, but I guess I'm surprised to have to pay the federal courts for information they've already put online behind a login/password.
Slashdot Mirror
around $1000, possibly less if you do some of the paperwork yourself
But the orignal post is quite right- in this case it must have cost a comparative fortune. Looking at the prosecution history, you can see two office actions and an appeal. I'm not sure "DIY" is even in the ballpark for non-lawyer IP professionals (let alone the average guy) in such circumstances.
There's some additional prosecution history here if you're curious. Gotta say, the approach to get around the objections based on registrations for BSD and FREEBSD (see the 11/26/02 doc) is pretty interesting, and certainly emphasizes that getting a NETBSD registration required a fair amount of work/resources.
All I wanted to point out is that this stuff shouldn't really surprise anyone. Which 16 year old in the US isn't hoping they get the lazy hungover driving examiner instead of someone that takes their job super-seriously? Have you ever been to the post office looking for lost mail? Same story- some people say 'nope, it's gone', others say 'fill out this form', and still others might get off their chair for you.
Anyway, that being said, the trademark side of the PTO works just the same. If I could count the number of times I've heard a lawyer advise that a mark might be considered descriptive but there's still the luck of the draw on examiners, I would be able to amaze you with my counting skills.
Just a note re: the contents of your link:
An application shall not be published if an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires eighteen-month publication.
So unfortunately, you can still keep things completely secret for a very long time, assuming you're willing to forgo patent protection in other jurisdictions. Given those other jurisdictions' negative perceptions of software/business method/ridiculous patents, I still see secrecy as an issue. While you'd expect a novel microchip design to get published, your one-off of one-click-purchase is very likely to still sit unnoticed until you can spring it on someone later.
Okay, so the reliability of this information is obviously suspect given the source, but over the weekend I caught an Art Bell show on the radio, where the President of the American Relay Radio League claimed that interference from this kind of power line networking would essentially kill broadcasting in North America over a wide spectrum- if I remember correctly, something like 20Mhz-80Mhz. Art Bell's recap is here.
Looking into it now a little further, some of the American Relay Radio Leauge documents and links has some mentions of problems for radio astronomy and a few other low-profile endeavors.
Anyway, I had no idea this was a possible outcome, and these claims make me think that perhaps it's better to insist that we really work on existing non-interfering technologies before we kill one of the few sections of spectrum that an individual can use on his own.
The Earthsea books aren't likely to translate well to TV even in the best of hands.
Agreed. I'm not sure how they can go from the now-freed-of-his-shadow ascendant mage to Tenar's plotline without the in-print convention of having to pick up another book. Years since I've read them, but I distinctly remember being entirely focused on the new characters and situations in the second book, then being blown away by Ged starving and dehydrated, lost in the tunnels. To say nothing of the character development from that point forward.
If they can't get that one bit right, the video treatment will miss most of what I loved about those books as a whole.
The question then become is a DVD considered a derivative work?
Current copyright law grants the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work and the exclusive right to distribute copies of the work to the public. These are the more appropriate issues in play here, and given their centrality to the overall copyright scheme, the reason that the ultimate parent poses a not-so-great question to the interviewee.
I think it still does show (more or less) what you're thinking of. The first registration I can find for MICROSOFT WINDOWS has a 2(f) claim, meaning that WINDOWS was registered on the basis of acquired distinctiveness. Essentially that in the abstract, the element WINDOWS was not registrable and thus subject to disclaimer- the 2(f) claim cures that by asserting that it is distinctive in the marketplace in spite of that. It only requires that the term be in "substantially exclusive and continuous use" for the previous 5 years, and such an assertion by Microsoft is sufficient to forgo any further PTO analysis of the issue. The registration also includes a logo.
Anyway, I have to bet that actual registration rights are just perhipheral to this litigation anyway- I'm sure it would impress a judge/jury more if MS were able to trot out some unrestricted trademark registration from the mid-80's, but it doesn't seem strictly necessary to show likelihood of confusion.
Despite what many people here think, patenting software does not make it closed source, in fact since a patent requires the disclosure of the best known means of implementation it can actually facilitate open code.
I think a much better solution for keeping open code open would just be to publish the stuff. Certainly cheaper for those that are writing the code in the first place. Moreover, you might ask why, if there's a "best known means of implementation" better than existing published code, you would spend time and money getting it into a Patent-Office-acceptable form rather than just getting it written into a program.
Sure, the Patent Office doesn't search non-patent prior art, but that doesn't mean you wouldn't have a pretty short day in court saying, "see, this was published 5 years before they applied for this patent."
And as for executing a royalty-free license every time some GPL'ed software gets changed/redistributed, this is simply unfeasable, and I think in that context, you'd be hard pressed to collect from the closed-source guys, certainly not enough to cover the patent prosecution and maintenance costs.
how is that not trademark infringement?
So, toss this idea around with me:
an internet consumer, when placing a term into a search engine, is accustomed to exercising a high degree of care in the search results, knowing full well that the first few actual results may not be the site/item/service/company they're looking for. This line of thought seems even more relevant, given the instant case involves banner ads rather than search results.
I'm honestly not sure how you show the requisite confusion, given you need some relative idiot to suggest that he/she expects the banner ads to provide a link to the sought-for site. Indeed, I think the facts can support the arguement that there is no likelihood of confusion: anyone with any brainpower looking for legitimate goods/services originating from, sponsored by, or affiliated with Playboy Enterprises, Inc. would try typing "playboy.com" before entering "playboy" into a search engine.
Isn't it possible instead that the term has become unsavvy-porn-surfer shorthand for "naked chick" and thus not subject to any indication of source in the mind of these surfers?
I hope they'll spend some serious CGI money on Zaphod- I was always somewhat disappointed that on the TV series, the 2nd head mostly looked asleep or simply turned from side-to-side. I've always thought there are sections of dialogue in the books that make much less sense or are less funny if you can't imagine each head speaking its own mind.
HAL became operational in 1997:
I became operational at the HAL plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997
local newspaper
The original comment is kind of amusing, but for the sake of accuracy I think I should point out that the Houston Chronicle is published in the 4th largest city in the US, and the largest city in the US with just one daily newspaper. My own bias says it might be the worst paper in the country- I've even gotten tired of explaining to the solicitors of free monthly trial subscriptions that they'd have to pay me, given the effort required to recycle it- but it's hardly a 'local paper'.
Okay, so I'll say Captured By Robots is a great and entertaining show. But my problem is that what I want out of my enslaving machine musical masters is a little more up-front politics of destruction. I mean, I don't remember the Robots threatening to capture me. Or charging the humans for the privilege of liberating their automobiles via bumper sticker.
I believe the true pinnacle of the genre is the now-defunct Servotron. (Forgive the archive.org link, it's sad to realize how much disappears over time- I guess I should feel lucky I found it.) Those guys were dressed and ready for sonic domination, and they had the lyrics to back it up:
Today is your birthday; We are going to kill you
Silly celebration; there is no logic for it.
I don't really mean to take anything away from Captured By Robots, but as a veteran of a few Servotron shows, I end up wishing for Z4-OBX on drums instead of DRMBOT 0110.
W3C seems to have an odd inconsistency in its filing:
Raggett I and II specifically teach those of ordinary skill in the art to modify a prior art browser, such as the Mosaic browser, to incorporate the allegedly new features of claims 1-3 and 6-8, rendering those claims obvious.
Then it says this about 'ordinary skill in the art':
The person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to the claimed invention is a software programmer with at least a bachelor's degree in Computer Science, and five years of programming experience in Internet, Web and browser technology, including specific experience with programming in HTML.
I can't help but think that if the "new" prior art is dated July 1993 and the first NCSA Mosaic is February 1993 (?), there wasn't anybody around with the requisite "5 years' experience" for the invention to have been obvious to, not even by the time the application gets filed in 1994.
Anyway, I just thought it was strange that they'd make such an effort on this stuff but make that kind of apparent mistake.
and I'm sure everybody else wants it too. NORAD has nothing, NASA has nothing, space.com has nothing, and I can't read Chinese.
Like it needs to be said, but if anybody stumbles across that information, totally post it.
1800 files in how many days
The number later changes to 1500 in further correspondence. Not that that affects your point, but it at least suggests there's no reason to trust their numbers. Anyway, why is that unreasonable in my first three days of service? Surely you can understand I would be browsing this as-yet-unexplored site and think, oh I'd like to listen to that someday, why don't I add it to that huge download list they let me keep?
You had to have been running an automatic downloader.
Nope, in fact, I was using their supplied downloader.
However, as it is, I think that the customer service team at emusic was being rather patient with you.
Yes, patiently retaining my money and trying to explain why it's not fraud or theft. Speaking of ad absurdum arguments, it appears you believe that some unvalued good (an indefinite number of files) can be substituted for a identified service at a precise cost. If I've hired (and paid) a lawn service to cut my grass for 3 months, could they realistically say, sorry, we've already cut 1,500,000 blades of grass on your lawn, we're walking away after a week and we get to keep your money? What you ignore is that I may very well have found the modified service perfectly acceptable, but that the very first company response on the issue told me sorry, even if you don't like it, you're on the hook.
I'm not saying I didn't get a decent deal, but that doesn't make them right.
For $10/mo I just signed up for an RIAA-free emusic account
Um, no. Vivendi Universal, owner of emusic, also owns Universal Records, an RIAA member. In fact, the first label I recognized on that RIAA membership roster, 4AD, also appears on emusic. For that matter, the label for the box set you mention downloading is also an RIAA member. You may not be landing as much cash in their pockets, but it's not "RIAA-free" by any means.
To add my own rant, I should mention that emusic is the only company that has ever flatly stolen my money. (Partial details here if you're interested.) As much as I liked the service for 3 days, I'd say you should be wary of these guys. The Better Business Bureau record on emusic pretty well supports this point, but (to my mind) it doesn't really emphasize the point enough.
What the government already does online is good enough.
Not that I'm in favor of "national ID cards, electronic voting, and everything else that you could possibly not want," but you're clearly overstating the government's internet presence if you think it shouldn't grow. I can think of several things:
1. Free access to U.S. District Court filings. You're a shareholder, a class action member, an interested member of the public, whatever- why should you wait for a press release and then take the media's word for how a case is progressing?
2. Local government legislation/rules/activity. I had an opportunity to research local sign ordinances recently, and it's almost unbelievable how hard it was to get a current copy of the actual laws that apply to me. Such information inefficiency has economic ramifications, too.
3. Delaware. Those guys have a huge amount of corporate information that could be critical to citizen-crusaders (or simply an informed electorate) hidden behind a telephone number and fees.
I think there's a ton more examples out there, but that'll do for now.
Vous devez dire:
Quant a moi, je fais bon accueil a nos nouveaux seigneurs et maitres francais.
Things I find relevant not mentioned in the review:
.avi files I've attempted to convert and it is invariably too much work to figure out why.
1) The display does indeed power down when you're listening to mp3's, but you have to power it back up to skip songs or even adjust volume. It's especially irritating in that you need to hit the relevant control once to wake it up, the second time to do what you're trying to do.
2) The ability to record from DVD is somewhat suspect- I've been putting Baby Einstein videos on there to have a portable version, and there's a certain DVD in my collection that has turned into garbage halfway through the recording process like 10 times. Not longer than the other ones that work, not identifiably any different at all, but still, it isn't recording. DRM issues or what, I couldn't tell you.
3) Ships without any kind of screen protector. Try getting this in the mail and _not_ carrying it around in your pocket or playing with it until you've had a chance to discover that no standard PDA screen thingy fits and you have to cut your own. Mine has small scratches on the screen from merely a couple of days of use.
4) The video file format conversion process is kind of haphazzard. Their program to convert has rejected numerous
I love this thing, but it's not without a few problems that went unmentioned in the review. As to those that can't believe someone would spend money on this, I say: it's fun and useful right now and it does enough that you'd be buying its future replacement for weight/dimension changes only. I'll enjoy mine while you wait for the weightless free version with infinite battery life and forward compatibility with dimensional warp generators.
"The courts have already ruled that you're not anonymous when you're publicly distributing music online," said Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president at the RIAA. "Her lawyers are trying to obtain a free pass to download or upload music online illegally. Their arguments have already been addressed by federal court and been rejected."
Seems to me like this is an entirely different set of issues. As far as I know, the courts never addressed this on an individual, MY-rights-are-violated level. Surely her privacy rights are a lot stonger when asserted on her own behalf than when an ISP says they shouldn't have to disclose identities because that might be bad for whoever that might be that isn't represented in this hearing.
The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, granted in 1998.
I follow the patent stories here all the time, and I'm used to trying to take the scattered details of whatever news service we're linking to to find the actual patents. Just wanted to point out that it's refreshing to find a major information source using actual patent nos.
My apologies if this question is asked above in non-modded-up comments. I like it, though:
How do you feel about the possibility that you as a candidate (as well as those that vote for you) could be tarred with the same brush as Nader in 2000, namely, that you 'gave' the recall election to someone distasteful to the accuser, merely by being less distasteful but still participating? What do you think this says about democracy in California and the US when so many individual candidates could be similarly accused?
The money to pay for that health care has to come out of somewhere
Indeed, it does come from somewhere. Who do you think pays for the unnecessary ER visits of the uninsured? Or the... (why get into particularities of the messed-up system?) Anyway, you already are paying for the bulk of a universal healthcare system if you're employed, so the difference isn't really right pocket vs. left pocket, but more whether it actually costs more to do it the right way or half-assed.
My message is only tangentially on-topic, and certainly ranting.
.07 per web page viewed. Silly me, I thought my taxes should pay for public access to public documents.
That being said, the parent poster asks totally key questions. I thought, gee, I do random legal research all the time, surely I can find out just what the ruling covered. But no, I'd have to register on the Northern District of California's stupid PACER system, wait for snail mail to give me my login, and then pay $
Sure, I'm used to having to pay some third party fees for the data they collect or obtain, but I guess I'm surprised to have to pay the federal courts for information they've already put online behind a login/password.