I don't know whether EU companies can legally set up a server in Asia and spam people inside the EU from there,...
That would be a breach of "safe haven" law. Personal data can only be exported outside the EU if it doesn't pass directly or indirectly into a country that doesn't meet EU data protection standards.
Public services in the European Union tend to be funded from taxation or compulsory subscription. By avoiding payment of tax internet sales gain an unfair lead on traditional outlets and harm the common good. Where another nation doesn't follow a similar mechanism for raising needed revenue for public expenditure the end result is someones unfair gain for someone elses unfair pain. Putting taxation on internet sales levels the playing field and ensures that the public purse is not robbed.
Licenses are available from the inventor upon request.
Huh? I need a license to swing ? I'd better jump off right now then,-}
If a law is unenforceable in Britain it is considered a bad law and convention encourages its removal. I'm wondering why an individual patent that isn't enforceable is granted. If the convention was extended to patents how many could be removed off the books?
How might the principle be extended to patents which are deliberately obfuscated? If a similar principle or convention exists in American law would it be possible to strike all unenforceable and obfuscated patents from the registry?
I and my school friends used to swing side to side on swings in my old home town when I was a boy. Those swings were plastic seats, attached to chains, that hung from a galvanised tubular steel frame. Under British law all I would have to do to prove this is to find two of my old school friends who were prepared to sign an affidavit or testify in court.
One question I do have is that would the supporting structure being a steel frame make it a completely different device to one that used a tree as a supporting structure? If that was the case then wouldn't it set a precedent for taking existing patents, changing something small and insignificant, and then applying for a fresh patent as a new device?
That can't be right. Everyone would end up doing it and the whole patent system would collapse. Oh...
That doesnt make it your business in the slightest. If I sold something to someone, and they asked how much it cost me in the first place, I would probably say 'Non of your business'.
I asked other people to see if they knew what the cost of infrastructure and maintenance was to see how justified the price to the customer was. I also tried finding out how much the equipment cost when buying direct from the supplier. Nobody had any answers and the suppliers never openly quoted their prices. It is in my interest to find out what the cost of supplying a service is so that I can judge whether the markup is unfair. I also fail to see how *other* customers rushed to the companies defence. It's not exactly in their interests to see bloated margins. If the UK internet and telecoms market was genuinely free and competitive I wouldn't have to make an effort like that.
What business is it of yours how much it costs them?
I'm the customer. That makes it my business. I didn't just pressure the company. I asked in the private newsgroups for this sort of information or where I could get it. Not only did nobody know, what was worse was *other* customers defending the company. The company have a customer support and marketing department to handle that sort of stuff. With attitudes like that endemic within the population how are companies ever going to be held to account for anything?
When Telewest decided to charge dial up customers fifty pence a minute for technical support should this have been ignored? The management response was that technical support were so pressured by calls that the standard of service was slipping. The reality is that the standard of technical support was never any good to begin with. If the infrastructure was reliable the support calls wouldn't be required. The overall service was so bad that the service status page was a joke. Even if a major fault was present there was no guarantee that the status page would show it.
When faced with management failure of this kind it should be the shareholders who pay for management incompetance. This cost should not be passed onto the customer. By having a business environment that allows this sort of practice to go on any sort of management failing can be shrugged off and the people responsible never having to pay.
When customer service departments exist for the sole purpose of isolating and defusing the customer without taking responsibility for company mistakes where is the pressure for change?
I know little or nothing about the cost of equipment, cost of installation, or ongoing maintenance costs of a telco's infrastructure. I've asked Telewest (another member of the British ISP cartel) again, and again, for cost justifications, and never received an answer. What's even worse than that is company fanboys start warbling about "business confidentiality."
I have a similar problem when trying to dig behind the true cost of prescription glasses. Despite a so-called opening of the market place to competition average prices are triple what they were ten years ago. This is typically hidden behind a guise of "designer glasses" or "exotic materials" such as tungsten being used in their manufacture.
Even though the new management at BT have taken the right steps by raising the importance of customer service and value for money, I won't believe it until I see long and sustained delivery.
In an age of deregulation and opening of markets the amount of quality information a customer has to make a purchasing decision, and effect change within existing suppliers, is lower and lower. Companies seem to be getting their business models and customer service policies from the same select set of business gurus. The two factors in combination act as an effective means of controlling the customer and company revenue streams.
Slashdot Mirror
Public services in the European Union tend to be funded from taxation or compulsory subscription. By avoiding payment of tax internet sales gain an unfair lead on traditional outlets and harm the common good. Where another nation doesn't follow a similar mechanism for raising needed revenue for public expenditure the end result is someones unfair gain for someone elses unfair pain. Putting taxation on internet sales levels the playing field and ensures that the public purse is not robbed.
How might the principle be extended to patents which are deliberately obfuscated? If a similar principle or convention exists in American law would it be possible to strike all unenforceable and obfuscated patents from the registry?
One question I do have is that would the supporting structure being a steel frame make it a completely different device to one that used a tree as a supporting structure? If that was the case then wouldn't it set a precedent for taking existing patents, changing something small and insignificant, and then applying for a fresh patent as a new device?
That can't be right. Everyone would end up doing it and the whole patent system would collapse. Oh...
When Telewest decided to charge dial up customers fifty pence a minute for technical support should this have been ignored? The management response was that technical support were so pressured by calls that the standard of service was slipping. The reality is that the standard of technical support was never any good to begin with. If the infrastructure was reliable the support calls wouldn't be required. The overall service was so bad that the service status page was a joke. Even if a major fault was present there was no guarantee that the status page would show it.
When faced with management failure of this kind it should be the shareholders who pay for management incompetance. This cost should not be passed onto the customer. By having a business environment that allows this sort of practice to go on any sort of management failing can be shrugged off and the people responsible never having to pay.
When customer service departments exist for the sole purpose of isolating and defusing the customer without taking responsibility for company mistakes where is the pressure for change?
I have a similar problem when trying to dig behind the true cost of prescription glasses. Despite a so-called opening of the market place to competition average prices are triple what they were ten years ago. This is typically hidden behind a guise of "designer glasses" or "exotic materials" such as tungsten being used in their manufacture.
Even though the new management at BT have taken the right steps by raising the importance of customer service and value for money, I won't believe it until I see long and sustained delivery.
In an age of deregulation and opening of markets the amount of quality information a customer has to make a purchasing decision, and effect change within existing suppliers, is lower and lower. Companies seem to be getting their business models and customer service policies from the same select set of business gurus. The two factors in combination act as an effective means of controlling the customer and company revenue streams.
Is consumerism the new big brother?
Why doesn't it get cheaper faster?