Undoubtedly, Apple would have their own chips already running in a lab somewhere. They can make all the chips they want in-house, as long as they are for internal use only in their labs, but the moment they incorporate those chips into a commercial device then they immediately become subject to patents and licensing issues. Even if Apple could somehow claim they have come up with a completely clean room implementation (which is rather impossible given their past technical collaboration with Qualcomm, and now with Intel) there are still standards essential patents that Apple will need to license. Some of these patents are at the heart of one of the many lawsuits between Apple and Qualcomm.
Apple is clearly trying to take advantage of the Federal Court ruling that Qualcomm must license its standards essential patents to competing chipmakers (previously Qualcomm only offered those licenses to smartphone manufacturers). The problem is that that case is likely to be under appeal, and the court didn't rule on how much Qualcomm can charge. It also doesn't force other chipmakers to license their patents. Of course, given the timing of this 'leak' this could be a ruse to put pressure on Qualcomm to settle.
This is not the same as Apple and its A-series SoCs. Apple purchased licenses from ARM Holdings to produce their own ARM-based CPUs. There is no one single company Apple can go to to license the technology to produce its own baseband chipsets. Additionally, Apple is in a very public battle with Qualcomm about the very patents and licenses that underpin 3G/4G/5G baseband technology.
The patent licensing aside, one of the other Qualcomm lawsuits involves the violation of NDAs and Apple violating Qualcomm's baseband technology trade secrets. In order to integrate Qualcomm's chipsets into the iPhone, Apple entered into NDAs with Qualcomm for detailed technical information. Qualcomm alleges that Apple shared these secrets with Intel after Apple dumped Qualcomm chipsets. Even if Qualcomm cannot prove that Apple did this, it is going to be impossible for Apple to prove that they somehow did not use this same information to produce their own baseband chipsets. I believe this is a much bigger issue for Apple than the patent licensing issue. Undoubtedly there will be direct non-compete clauses in these NDAs.
Short of actually purchasing Qualcomm, or some other baseband chipset manufacturer, it will be impossible for Apple to show that they have come up with their own cleanroom implementation of baseband chipsets that is unencumbered by some kind of patent or licensing issue or NDA contractual issue.
I find it impossible to believe that Sotheby's didn't know a thing about this. Any real art curator would have noticed something odd with the frame immediately. I also do not believe that the thing sat there for months/weeks standing by to be triggered (especially cellular trigger) and maintained enough charge to shred anything. This would mean the art curator would have to have been complicit in this too. This would be career ending for an art curator, so it is far more likely that Sotheby's knew about this the whole time.
I expect that the buyers will sue Sotheby's pretty quickly after this. Even if the remains are now worth double, the work that was sold has been irreparably damaged/destroyed. It can easily be shown that Sotheby's knew or should have known about this. If the buyers don't sue, either Sotheby's buried a clause in their buyer Terms & Conditions, or the buyer was in on this too.
Either way, this is an elaborate stunt that reveals Banksy as a sellout...
The other advantage for the government is that, as they run the network, they can run tracking and call interception on anyone at a whim, without having to rely on involving third party telecommunication companies and silly things like warrants.
The phrase "fair use" is not a random assemblage of words, it has a specific legal meaning.
Indeed it does have a specific legal meaning. You have a point that, by definition, "fair use" is an unauthorized use. But not all unauthorized uses fall under the "fair use" defense. This is why there is even a four step test that judges use to determine if something is fair use:
The purpose and character of use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion taken; and the effect of the use upon the potential market.
The kid made the video to show off the unauthorized cheat mods, and show other how to use the cheat mods. The video was specifically of the game (a game he used in breach of EULA and TOS, and a game did not have permission to play, according to his mother). The content solely of the game, and was not incidental to something else (as in the Lenz vs Universal case). The effects of the kid's cheating, as well as showing other how to cheat, negatively impact other players gameplay (even though the game itself was free, causing players to leave is a negative impact).
Considering this, it is pretty hard to spin this in a way it could be fair use. For a start, to any judge, it would fail the first test.
The attorneys for the plaintiff will doubtless be censured for being stupid enough to name a 14 year old as the target of a lawsuit - and any claims that they didn't know the child's age will be viewed as negligence and incompetence: they should have done their research first.
They did do research, but that can only tell them so much. This is why they use the statement 'upon information and belief' when identifying the other party (take a look at the actual filing). They have since revised their claim to state that they will only be referring to the kid by his initials. This is legal. Interestingly, they also point out that the mother has provided far more identifying information in her letter to the Judge that was outlined in the original legal filing.
I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.
Violating the EULA and TOS means that he had no right to capture the game footage that he did. This is the whole point. This is exactly what Epic Games are now going to argue in court. His only defense to the copyright claims in this instance is Fair Use.
There are four things judges look at to see if it is Fair Use:
1) The purpose and character of the use. The kid was capturing the video to show off the cheat mods, and to show others how to cheat at the game as well.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work. The kid was capturing gameplay footage a Copyrighted game (of which the Copyright extends to imagery and soundtrack).
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. The footage was solely of the game, and showing off his unauthorized mods to it.
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market. Even though the game was free, the unauthorized cheat mods had significant impacts on other players (causing many to leave the game).
...I fail to see how that enables - morally - sound grounding for potential abuse of the DMCA unless it can be demonstrated that the actions actually do violate the DMCA, of course.
The use of the DMCA to take down cheating howto videos is a novel concept that has yet to be tested. However, the only way to demonstrate that his actions do violate the DMCA is in Court. There is no other way. This does not automatically make it abuse. Abuse would be if a court found that concept invalid and Epic Games kept using it for DMCA takedowns anyway.
The only other reason that people seem to be claiming this as abuse is that the kid is 14 years old, but Epic Games had no way of knowing his age when filing the suit. When the kid filed the DMCA counter-notice with Youtube, Epic Games had 10 days to file a suit or drop the claims. It is highly likely if they knew he was 14 years old at that time, they would just have dropped the claim instead of risk bad publicity, but it is too late now.
As I stated in my previous post, I don't believe there is a Fair Use defense here at all. Even though the kid is a minor, there is an argument to be made that he (and/or his mother) has some kind of legal liability. I don't think Epic Games are out to crush the financial future of a 14 year old kid. That would be immoral, now they know his age. But they are making a point that they are serious about dealing with cheaters.
What I do think is going to happen here is a settlement, just like Epic Games just reached with another cheater. I guess it depends if the kid's mother is going to try and fight this.
One of the key elements of this case that people seem to be overlooking is that this kid registered an account (supposedly without the required parental consent), cheated in the game and got banned. Instead of stopping, he did it again and got banned again. He then did it again... and again... and again. He got banned 14 times (according to Epic Games; the kid admits to being banned, but says 'it was like 5 or 10 times'). It is clear he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he kept on doing it.
This kid also made multiple video streams that showed people how to perform the cheats as well as showing the cheats in action. This is the part that raised the DMCA claims, as Epic Games claimed that the cheat videos were an unauthorized derivative works. The kid's response was to file counterclaims (although it is clear from his lawsuit response video he has no clue what filing a counterclaim actually meant). He even created a second YouTube account to get around claims/bans. Again, it is clear he knew that he was doing something wrong, but kept on doing it. This left Epic Games with no other legal alternative but to sue.
The letter from the kid's mother doesn't even try to deny the claims from Epic Games, and she even admits he was cheating. Her defense boils down to "he was 14 years old so the rules don't apply". While the law states he cannot enter into a contract, that does not mean he cannot be legally liable for his actions. On top of this it is clear that the mother also has a legal responsibility here. She says she didn't consent to him installing the game, but that does not absolve her of the responsibilities for policing her son's actions. It is very clear from the kid's response videos he has absolutely no understanding of the repercussions of his actions and is just relying on mommy to leap to his defense.
I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.
While I normally hate DMCA cases, there is very clear evidence for the kid's utter disregard for the rules (especially if you watch his videos in response to the lawsuit), so I think he (and his mother) deserve to have a lesson. I doubt the letter to the Judge will be very persuasive here. It is not any kind of formal Motion to Dismiss the case, and many judges don't like it when people try to sidestep process.
In the US, 70% of electricity is generated by coal or fossil fuels. When you plug your EV in to the electrical grid, you make use of the power generated by coal & fossil fuels.
While the vehicle itself doesn't directly output emissions, you are are still responsible for the creation of CO2 emissions.
I notice that the projection in ownership costs is only for four years. I do have to wonder if they chose that time frame because of the five year warranty some Electric Vehicle manufacturers have on the battery pack. If you factor in a battery pack replacement to those costs for the longer term running of an electric vehicle, then those figures don't look so rosy for EVs.
I also wonder if they have factored in the cost of installing high output charging outlets in homes to accommodate electric vehicles. When charging from a standard 110V outlet EVs, such as the Tesla, will only get about 5 miles of range charge per hour. It would take a couple of days to fully charge most EVs at that rate. Faster charging is done by installing higher output outlets (using twin chargers, or 240V lines, or three phase). EV advertising typically show people plugging their cars in when they get home, so that is clearly an intended use case. However, upgrading a residential switchboard to handle a high output EV charger is a significant expense, and one that reasonably needs to be factored into the total cost of owning an EV.
The other issue is that the electricity has to come from somewhere. While some countries have the benefit of renewable energy, other countries still rely heavily on coal and fossil fuels for power generation (for instance in the US 70% of electricity comes from coal & fossil fuels). With the use of EVs predicted to dramatically increase, the demands on electrical grids is also going to dramatically increase. While hydroelectric powerstations are cheaper than coal / fossil fuel plants, they can only be built in limited places. Both wind and solar are very expensive, and again can only be built in limited places. That leaves coal/fossil fuel and nuclear as practical generation alternatives. With nobody investing in new nuclear, that just leaves coal/fossil fuel plants. Burning coal is far worse for the environment than refined fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). Burning bulk natural gas and liquid petroleum is not much better. It seems to me that while EVs are directly free of emissions, they are just moving the Greenhouse Emissions issue further up the chain. In the US, more Greenhouse Emissions come from electricity generation than from transport.
I really do think EVs are great, but they aren't perfect (yet) and they don't solve everything.
While I'd love to jump on the "he didn't invent e-mail" bandwagon, I have to agree with the judge on this one.
The term 'email' doesn't represent one particular thing. It isn’t a brand or trademark, and is just a shortened term for ‘electronic mail’. What we know email today is just a collection of standards and protocols. It is possible to call other implementations email, and for that to still be valid. Shiva Ayyadurai invented an implementation of email, but his implementation was independent of other projects and he had no role in the definition of standards and protocols that make up email as we know it today. He was also not the first to build an electronic mail implementation.
In defamation cases, the Plaintiff has to prove that the defaming statements were false. The judge has essentially stated that there is no way he can conclusively prove that because the definition of email is actually really broad and that Techdirt's statements can be true depending on interpretation.
Now, there could be a case against Shiva Ayyadurai for Defamation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation or False Light for claiming he is 'THE inventor of email'(emphasis mine) when he is 'AN inventor of one email program'. Many others have created email implementations before him and his creation played no part in building email as we know it today. However, that would be a separate case entirely and would need to be brought by people who can represent the various creators and contributors of email as we know it today.
Legal format shifting is just one possibility for the media being legally in someone's library. It comes down to jurisdiction, especially for those that live outside the US where the DMCA does not apply.
Firstly, 'Probable Cause' only applies to criminal cases not civil cases. As much as the MPAA like to pretend otherwise, they are not a law enforcement agency and cannot prosecute criminal cases.
Being in possession of copyrighted media is not illegal, especially as there are a number of perfectly legal ways that media could have been obtained.
It is the act of unauthorized reproduction or distribution that is copyright infringement. A list of filenames just doesn't get close to proving infringement. The cat movies was just an example to show that you really have no idea what the actual content is if all you have is a list media titles in a library. Sure, it is reasonable to suggest that the files are what they are titled, but that alone does not a) prove that they are, nor b) prove that the files were obtained through copyright infringement.
IANAL, but simply being in possession of Copyrighted material is not a crime and the MPAA could do absolutely nothing if they did have a user's content library. Copyright Infringement comes from the act of reproducing or distributing those works. The MPAA would have to have separate evidence that the media in a user's library was obtained through illegal means. This means having evidence of you in the act (in which case the list of content of your library would gain them nothing extra) or having a full copy the media itself in your library to prove it is infringing and not just cat videos with a similar filenames (which is impossible to determine simply from a list of your Library).
On top of that, in some jurisdictions, some forms of reproducing works are legal. These include Fair Use, making a backup, time-shifting (recording a show for watching later), or format shifting (ripping a DVD to your media server). The MPAA would have to prove that the works weren't legally present on the user's Plex Server. That alone would be impossible to prove just from a list of a user's content library.
It is easy to say 'OMG teh MPAA are commin for mah Plex!!!1!' but the logistics of them actually being bring a successful prosecution with that data are enormous. It wouldn't be an easy win for them, and it most likely wouldn't be worth their while to try.
My partner had the same issue. She has <firstname>.<lastname>@gmail.com registered as an alias. Some lady in the US started giving that out as her own email address. At first, it was small things like fitness club registrations or store discount cards, but then it was rental agreements and loan applications. It became clear that this wasn't a one-off instance or simple misspelling. It was like reverse identity theft: this woman was effectively giving out everything (full name, birthdate, SS number, family member details, work details, bank details, CC details). The kind of things that can ruin a person's life if it got into the wrong hands.
Firstly we started documented everything, to show that it had been sent in an unsolicited manner, so there could be no accusations of identity theft.
Secondly, we tried responding to some of the emails stating that they had been given an incorrect email address. Most never responded, and some just didn't care. Many were from 'noreply' addresses, so nothing could be done.
Finally we managed to track this lady down on Facebook (from the information that had been sent) and my partner managed to message her in a friendly way to tell her to stop. The response she got was along the lines of 'HOW DARE YOU!!1! THAT IS MY NAME! YOU CAN'T STOP ME USING IT!". Reminding that it may be her name but it was not her email address got nowhere. My partner then responded that if she received anything more that she would treat it as a threat to her own identity and unsubscribe or seek to cancel any unsolicited agreements or communications.
The problem went away for a little bit, but then she tried to sign her kid up to some exclusive school with the email address, and my partner received the application. My partner responded simply that she had no idea what the application was about, that she would never consent to the application, and for the school to never contact her again. I guess the school did exactly that, because then the lady started emailing my partner: 'OMG!! IMA GONNA SUE YOU!'
At this point we stated that: 1) she was using my partner's email address without her permission; 2) she continued to do so after being advised that she was giving out the wrong email address, and after being advised of the consequences if she continued to do so; and 3) we weren't in the US, but she was welcome to try and bring a lawsuit against us. We don't care if she does. We have everything documented, should she wish to try.
Smart people do dumb things, especially when they think they know better than things like the law. I do think that John Carmack has done some really dumb things even though so many people are putting him on a pedestal and calling him a genius. Sure he knows code and he founded a successful business, but that doesn't automatically translate into him being smart at everything.
As I understand, Zenimax were originally going to sue Carmack for breach of his employment contract as part of the Oculus lawsuit, but this was left out. The Oculus lawsuit did establish a few key facts: Carmack did copy information before he left Zenimax, he did deliberately destroy evidence after Zeinmax filed the lawsuit, and he lied on an affidavit denying he wiped evidence.
While Zenimax weren't able to convince the jury of all their claims, it was established that something was taken by Carmack. Ultimately, Carmack wasn't directly on trial there, merely whether Oculus had clear benefit from his actions.
I have no doubt that Zenimax will counter-sue for breach of contract, theft of intellectual property and breach of NDA (among other things). Likely they will argue that Carmack's breach of employment contract is tied to his final contract payment and that damage from his actions equal or exceed the $22.5 million they would have owed him.
Carmack says that Zenimax's refusal to pay is based on 'sour grapes', but I think Carmack's lawsuit is being filed based on 'sour grapes' too. I do recall him making a rant about the independent forensics after Oculus lost the case. Now I believe that this latest lawsuit is another dumb thing being done by a smart person.
He is kicking a legal hornet's nest, especially when Zenimax's lawyers have plenty of information already gained from the Oculus lawsuit. They will know exactly what to go for when they file for discovery in this case.
Regardless of how I feel about each of the parties, in the long run I believe that Facebook/Occulus have the resources to drag this case for years by which point either VR will be dead or the lawyer's fees will outweigh any potential wins either party would make. Zenimax should know this, so filing for an injunction is really a sensible legal move here.
On one hand this will allow Zenimax to effectively re-argue the IP portion section of their case to a Judge instead of to a Jury, especially since it was determined that there was an NDA breach and misappropriation of source code. There is a chance (albeit a very slim one), that this could even go in their favour.
But, on the other hand (and what I believe this is really about), is Zenimax showing Occulus that they won't back down in the face of Occulus's public claims to appeal the original case. This is about forcing Occulus to negotiate a settlement and bring and end the case now.
Of course it could be that Zenimax want to win this case at all costs, in which their chances if getting a quick and easy win are slim-to-none.
So, as the article states, the Java SE downloadable comes with the JDK and JRE which are free to use "for general purpose computing", but the one of the key issues is that additional components such as Java SE Advanced Desktop, Java SE Advanced and Java SE Suite are also included in the same software package, but are not free to use without a license. While there is an EULA, there is nothing to warn users that installing those extra components is not free and there is no form of license checking to prevent user installation without a license. As a result there are many installations where the non-free components have been installed and it is this (in large part) Oracle are chasing money for. While Oracle may be able to point to the EULA, it may be possible this will fail the Reasonable Person test (ie. an average person downloading the package for free, and allowed to install the extra components unopposed, might reasonably believe that all the software in that package is free to use). It seems to be the software equivalent of a bait and switch. I wonder how long it will be before someone challenges Oracle on this tactic.
Are we supposed to believe that Oracle really had the best interests of the Open Source community at heart? Are we really supposed to believe that this case was all about Oracle's altruistic intentions instead of a $9Billion payday??
Now that they have lost this particular legal battle, Oracle are just trying to save face in front of the Open Source community. This lawsuit has alienated a massive segment of the developer community. Arguably that alienation began the moment Oracle acquired Sun, and this lawsuit simply confirmed many people's worst fears. It is clear, from comments in the trial, that Oracle only acquired Sun to have total control over Java, and anything related to it. Now that this lawsuit has confirmed that Oracle don't have the control they thought they did, their only option is to try and sway public opinion with the developer community. I don't see how that will start to happen unless Oracle abandon any appeal and let this case rest.
Hurst said that the whole Open Source community is in jeopardy because this will allow anyone to ignore copyright on source code and claim 'fair use'. Sure, there may be a possibility that 'fair use' could be pose a risk to enforcing the GPL, but the precedent in this case is limited because it specifically involved APIs. That hardly means that the GPL is now worthless. What is certain is that all developers everywhere, including the Open Source community, would have been in far greater jeopardy had Oracle been victorius.
If Oracle had been victorius, then Annette Hurst would have been busy firing off dozens of other API copyright lawsuits instead of writing Op-ed pieces on ArsTechnica. (The only thing that surprises me about this article is that ArsTechnica were so willing to publish something from such a clearly biased source.) Given that this was published so quickly after the trial, I find it hard to believe that Hurst penned this in her spare time after the trial as her personal opinion instead of the opinion of her client. To me it just seems like a lame 'Plan B' approach to sway public opinion for her client while they work on an appeal.
To be clear, I don't for one second believe that Hurst and Oracle have the best interests of the Open Source community in mind. I also don't believe that this is just about making money out of Google (although that is the starting point). This is about Oracle trying to regain total control over Java and anything related to it. The are billions of devices and programs that use Java or make use Java APIs (and not just Android devices), so the potential licensing revenue stream would be massive for Oracle. This is about Oracle trying to put an Open Source genie back in the bottle, and represents a far greater threat to the GPL than fair use ever will.
This article misses the critical point that the Project Ara phones will no longer be upgradeable.
From the Project Ara website: "The Ara frame contains the CPU, GPU, antennas, sensors, battery and display..."
The whole concept behind Phonebloks, which grew into Project Ara, was that everything was to be upgradeable. When a new CPU came out, you could just upgrade the module. If you wanted better gaming performance, you could drop in a better GPU module. If you needed a larger battery, or if the current battery performance was poor, you could swap it out. If you wanted a better display, you could just upgrade the module. The idea was to create an ecosystem when you didn't have to replace the whole phone if a new upgrade came out.
Yes, the new Project Ara is modular, but only to the point of secondary functions. Key functionality (ie. Display, CPU/GPU, battery and cellular) is not modular, and therefore not upgradeable. This goes completely against the original concept of Phonebloks and Project Ara.
This article completely brushes over the Trademark dispute, where if the facts were published it would become clear that ArduinoSRL (formerly Smart Projects) has been attempting to hijack the Arduino brand. ArduinoSRL/Smart Projects produced boards under license from Arduino.cc. In 2008 they sneakily registered the trademark in Italy just before Arduino.cc pursued registering the trademark internationally. Arduino.cc found out and tried to negotiate for the trademark that was rightfully theirs. Subsequently, Smart Projects stopped paying royalties to Arduino.cc, changed their name to ArduinoSRL, and have declared themselves the real Arduino. Funny thing is that the code they distribute to run their hardware is still from Arduino.cc
HERF pulse guns have been around on sites like this for a long time now. DroneDefender haven't exactly invented anything new, they have just repackaged in a format more palatable to Law Enforcement and Military.
Are the point you want to separate displays between two machines, you deviate from what KVMs are designed for. It comes down to what you want to spend. I'd suggest you get an HDMI matrix with at least 5 inputs (PC1 1&2, PC2 1&2 and Laptop) and 2 outputs (screen 1 & 2), and then get a separate USB switch. Finally you need control to link them together (unless you really want to switch them manually). If you get IR controllable HDMI matrix and USB switch, something like a Logitech Harmony should easily control both. Then you just customise whatever modes you want.
I feel a great disturbance in the Reality Distortion Field, as if millions of fanboys suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. They probably all want one now. But it isn't a stylus, its a pencil, right?
Seriously, I'm looking at the iPad Pro, and all I see is a slavish copy of what Microsoft are already doing with the Surface line.
Steve Jobs also said "if you see a stylus, they blew it" and "as soon as you have a stylus, you’re dead." Perhaps this is a sign that Apple have hit peak Apple, and are now on the decline.
I have enjoyed previous Galaxy Notes, but my current will probably be my last. The upgradeable storage and removable battery were (for me and many others) key points of difference over the iPhone, but Samsung have decided that they don't want to be different.
I don't want Cloud storage. Why would I waste my phone plan's data allowance when I should just have expandable local storage? Oh, I should pay for model with the largest capacity? No, not for the price per GB that they're selling.
Sure, I may be able to charge in 90 minutes (with Samsung's charger only, of course), but what happens when my battery gets end of life? Planned obsolescence sucks.
I also liked that the previous flip covers and smart covers, that clipped on instead of the battery cover, more or less became part of the phone. That was much more useful to me than a back plate of glass that will just be a crack magnet.
Yes, this release was the standard fare of a processor/RAM bump and screen resolution bump, but for me this release is far more notable for the features that have been removed....
Slashdot Mirror
Undoubtedly, Apple would have their own chips already running in a lab somewhere. They can make all the chips they want in-house, as long as they are for internal use only in their labs, but the moment they incorporate those chips into a commercial device then they immediately become subject to patents and licensing issues. Even if Apple could somehow claim they have come up with a completely clean room implementation (which is rather impossible given their past technical collaboration with Qualcomm, and now with Intel) there are still standards essential patents that Apple will need to license. Some of these patents are at the heart of one of the many lawsuits between Apple and Qualcomm.
Apple is clearly trying to take advantage of the Federal Court ruling that Qualcomm must license its standards essential patents to competing chipmakers (previously Qualcomm only offered those licenses to smartphone manufacturers). The problem is that that case is likely to be under appeal, and the court didn't rule on how much Qualcomm can charge. It also doesn't force other chipmakers to license their patents. Of course, given the timing of this 'leak' this could be a ruse to put pressure on Qualcomm to settle.
This is not the same as Apple and its A-series SoCs. Apple purchased licenses from ARM Holdings to produce their own ARM-based CPUs. There is no one single company Apple can go to to license the technology to produce its own baseband chipsets. Additionally, Apple is in a very public battle with Qualcomm about the very patents and licenses that underpin 3G/4G/5G baseband technology.
The patent licensing aside, one of the other Qualcomm lawsuits involves the violation of NDAs and Apple violating Qualcomm's baseband technology trade secrets. In order to integrate Qualcomm's chipsets into the iPhone, Apple entered into NDAs with Qualcomm for detailed technical information. Qualcomm alleges that Apple shared these secrets with Intel after Apple dumped Qualcomm chipsets. Even if Qualcomm cannot prove that Apple did this, it is going to be impossible for Apple to prove that they somehow did not use this same information to produce their own baseband chipsets. I believe this is a much bigger issue for Apple than the patent licensing issue. Undoubtedly there will be direct non-compete clauses in these NDAs.
Short of actually purchasing Qualcomm, or some other baseband chipset manufacturer, it will be impossible for Apple to show that they have come up with their own cleanroom implementation of baseband chipsets that is unencumbered by some kind of patent or licensing issue or NDA contractual issue.
I find it impossible to believe that Sotheby's didn't know a thing about this. Any real art curator would have noticed something odd with the frame immediately. I also do not believe that the thing sat there for months/weeks standing by to be triggered (especially cellular trigger) and maintained enough charge to shred anything. This would mean the art curator would have to have been complicit in this too. This would be career ending for an art curator, so it is far more likely that Sotheby's knew about this the whole time.
I expect that the buyers will sue Sotheby's pretty quickly after this. Even if the remains are now worth double, the work that was sold has been irreparably damaged/destroyed. It can easily be shown that Sotheby's knew or should have known about this. If the buyers don't sue, either Sotheby's buried a clause in their buyer Terms & Conditions, or the buyer was in on this too.
Either way, this is an elaborate stunt that reveals Banksy as a sellout...
The other advantage for the government is that, as they run the network, they can run tracking and call interception on anyone at a whim, without having to rely on involving third party telecommunication companies and silly things like warrants.
The phrase "fair use" is not a random assemblage of words, it has a specific legal meaning.
Indeed it does have a specific legal meaning. You have a point that, by definition, "fair use" is an unauthorized use. But not all unauthorized uses fall under the "fair use" defense. This is why there is even a four step test that judges use to determine if something is fair use:
The purpose and character of use; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion taken; and the effect of the use upon the potential market.
The kid made the video to show off the unauthorized cheat mods, and show other how to use the cheat mods. The video was specifically of the game (a game he used in breach of EULA and TOS, and a game did not have permission to play, according to his mother). The content solely of the game, and was not incidental to something else (as in the Lenz vs Universal case). The effects of the kid's cheating, as well as showing other how to cheat, negatively impact other players gameplay (even though the game itself was free, causing players to leave is a negative impact).
Considering this, it is pretty hard to spin this in a way it could be fair use. For a start, to any judge, it would fail the first test.
The attorneys for the plaintiff will doubtless be censured for being stupid enough to name a 14 year old as the target of a lawsuit - and any claims that they didn't know the child's age will be viewed as negligence and incompetence: they should have done their research first.
They did do research, but that can only tell them so much. This is why they use the statement 'upon information and belief' when identifying the other party (take a look at the actual filing). They have since revised their claim to state that they will only be referring to the kid by his initials. This is legal. Interestingly, they also point out that the mother has provided far more identifying information in her letter to the Judge that was outlined in the original legal filing.
I do agree the kid violated the EULA and the TOS, but this doesn't mean his Youtube video was in violation of Epic Games' copyrights.
Violating the EULA and TOS means that he had no right to capture the game footage that he did. This is the whole point. This is exactly what Epic Games are now going to argue in court. His only defense to the copyright claims in this instance is Fair Use.
There are four things judges look at to see if it is Fair Use:
1) The purpose and character of the use. The kid was capturing the video to show off the cheat mods, and to show others how to cheat at the game as well.
2) The nature of the copyrighted work. The kid was capturing gameplay footage a Copyrighted game (of which the Copyright extends to imagery and soundtrack).
3) The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. The footage was solely of the game, and showing off his unauthorized mods to it.
4) The effect of the use upon the potential market. Even though the game was free, the unauthorized cheat mods had significant impacts on other players (causing many to leave the game).
...I fail to see how that enables - morally - sound grounding for potential abuse of the DMCA unless it can be demonstrated that the actions actually do violate the DMCA, of course.
The use of the DMCA to take down cheating howto videos is a novel concept that has yet to be tested. However, the only way to demonstrate that his actions do violate the DMCA is in Court. There is no other way. This does not automatically make it abuse. Abuse would be if a court found that concept invalid and Epic Games kept using it for DMCA takedowns anyway.
The only other reason that people seem to be claiming this as abuse is that the kid is 14 years old, but Epic Games had no way of knowing his age when filing the suit. When the kid filed the DMCA counter-notice with Youtube, Epic Games had 10 days to file a suit or drop the claims. It is highly likely if they knew he was 14 years old at that time, they would just have dropped the claim instead of risk bad publicity, but it is too late now.
As I stated in my previous post, I don't believe there is a Fair Use defense here at all. Even though the kid is a minor, there is an argument to be made that he (and/or his mother) has some kind of legal liability. I don't think Epic Games are out to crush the financial future of a 14 year old kid. That would be immoral, now they know his age. But they are making a point that they are serious about dealing with cheaters.
What I do think is going to happen here is a settlement, just like Epic Games just reached with another cheater. I guess it depends if the kid's mother is going to try and fight this.
One of the key elements of this case that people seem to be overlooking is that this kid registered an account (supposedly without the required parental consent), cheated in the game and got banned. Instead of stopping, he did it again and got banned again. He then did it again... and again... and again. He got banned 14 times (according to Epic Games; the kid admits to being banned, but says 'it was like 5 or 10 times'). It is clear he knew what he was doing was wrong, and he kept on doing it.
This kid also made multiple video streams that showed people how to perform the cheats as well as showing the cheats in action. This is the part that raised the DMCA claims, as Epic Games claimed that the cheat videos were an unauthorized derivative works. The kid's response was to file counterclaims (although it is clear from his lawsuit response video he has no clue what filing a counterclaim actually meant). He even created a second YouTube account to get around claims/bans. Again, it is clear he knew that he was doing something wrong, but kept on doing it. This left Epic Games with no other legal alternative but to sue.
The letter from the kid's mother doesn't even try to deny the claims from Epic Games, and she even admits he was cheating. Her defense boils down to "he was 14 years old so the rules don't apply". While the law states he cannot enter into a contract, that does not mean he cannot be legally liable for his actions. On top of this it is clear that the mother also has a legal responsibility here. She says she didn't consent to him installing the game, but that does not absolve her of the responsibilities for policing her son's actions. It is very clear from the kid's response videos he has absolutely no understanding of the repercussions of his actions and is just relying on mommy to leap to his defense.
I, respectfully, disagree with Cory Doctrow here that there is a fair use claim. If the kid's mother is to be believed (that she didn't give consent) then the kid was running the game in violation of the EULA and using false accounts in violation of TOS, meaning the game footage was illegitimate. He was also running cheats on the game, making the videos unauthorized derivative works. This is something very different from a 'Let's Play' video.
While I normally hate DMCA cases, there is very clear evidence for the kid's utter disregard for the rules (especially if you watch his videos in response to the lawsuit), so I think he (and his mother) deserve to have a lesson. I doubt the letter to the Judge will be very persuasive here. It is not any kind of formal Motion to Dismiss the case, and many judges don't like it when people try to sidestep process.
In the US, 70% of electricity is generated by coal or fossil fuels. When you plug your EV in to the electrical grid, you make use of the power generated by coal & fossil fuels. While the vehicle itself doesn't directly output emissions, you are are still responsible for the creation of CO2 emissions.
I notice that the projection in ownership costs is only for four years. I do have to wonder if they chose that time frame because of the five year warranty some Electric Vehicle manufacturers have on the battery pack. If you factor in a battery pack replacement to those costs for the longer term running of an electric vehicle, then those figures don't look so rosy for EVs.
I also wonder if they have factored in the cost of installing high output charging outlets in homes to accommodate electric vehicles. When charging from a standard 110V outlet EVs, such as the Tesla, will only get about 5 miles of range charge per hour. It would take a couple of days to fully charge most EVs at that rate. Faster charging is done by installing higher output outlets (using twin chargers, or 240V lines, or three phase). EV advertising typically show people plugging their cars in when they get home, so that is clearly an intended use case. However, upgrading a residential switchboard to handle a high output EV charger is a significant expense, and one that reasonably needs to be factored into the total cost of owning an EV.
The other issue is that the electricity has to come from somewhere. While some countries have the benefit of renewable energy, other countries still rely heavily on coal and fossil fuels for power generation (for instance in the US 70% of electricity comes from coal & fossil fuels). With the use of EVs predicted to dramatically increase, the demands on electrical grids is also going to dramatically increase. While hydroelectric powerstations are cheaper than coal / fossil fuel plants, they can only be built in limited places. Both wind and solar are very expensive, and again can only be built in limited places. That leaves coal/fossil fuel and nuclear as practical generation alternatives. With nobody investing in new nuclear, that just leaves coal/fossil fuel plants. Burning coal is far worse for the environment than refined fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). Burning bulk natural gas and liquid petroleum is not much better. It seems to me that while EVs are directly free of emissions, they are just moving the Greenhouse Emissions issue further up the chain. In the US, more Greenhouse Emissions come from electricity generation than from transport.
I really do think EVs are great, but they aren't perfect (yet) and they don't solve everything.
While I'd love to jump on the "he didn't invent e-mail" bandwagon, I have to agree with the judge on this one.
The term 'email' doesn't represent one particular thing. It isn’t a brand or trademark, and is just a shortened term for ‘electronic mail’. What we know email today is just a collection of standards and protocols. It is possible to call other implementations email, and for that to still be valid. Shiva Ayyadurai invented an implementation of email, but his implementation was independent of other projects and he had no role in the definition of standards and protocols that make up email as we know it today. He was also not the first to build an electronic mail implementation.
In defamation cases, the Plaintiff has to prove that the defaming statements were false. The judge has essentially stated that there is no way he can conclusively prove that because the definition of email is actually really broad and that Techdirt's statements can be true depending on interpretation.
Now, there could be a case against Shiva Ayyadurai for Defamation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation or False Light for claiming he is 'THE inventor of email'(emphasis mine) when he is 'AN inventor of one email program'. Many others have created email implementations before him and his creation played no part in building email as we know it today. However, that would be a separate case entirely and would need to be brought by people who can represent the various creators and contributors of email as we know it today.
Legal format shifting is just one possibility for the media being legally in someone's library. It comes down to jurisdiction, especially for those that live outside the US where the DMCA does not apply.
Firstly, 'Probable Cause' only applies to criminal cases not civil cases. As much as the MPAA like to pretend otherwise, they are not a law enforcement agency and cannot prosecute criminal cases.
Being in possession of copyrighted media is not illegal, especially as there are a number of perfectly legal ways that media could have been obtained.
It is the act of unauthorized reproduction or distribution that is copyright infringement. A list of filenames just doesn't get close to proving infringement. The cat movies was just an example to show that you really have no idea what the actual content is if all you have is a list media titles in a library. Sure, it is reasonable to suggest that the files are what they are titled, but that alone does not a) prove that they are, nor b) prove that the files were obtained through copyright infringement.
IANAL, but simply being in possession of Copyrighted material is not a crime and the MPAA could do absolutely nothing if they did have a user's content library. Copyright Infringement comes from the act of reproducing or distributing those works. The MPAA would have to have separate evidence that the media in a user's library was obtained through illegal means. This means having evidence of you in the act (in which case the list of content of your library would gain them nothing extra) or having a full copy the media itself in your library to prove it is infringing and not just cat videos with a similar filenames (which is impossible to determine simply from a list of your Library).
On top of that, in some jurisdictions, some forms of reproducing works are legal. These include Fair Use, making a backup, time-shifting (recording a show for watching later), or format shifting (ripping a DVD to your media server). The MPAA would have to prove that the works weren't legally present on the user's Plex Server. That alone would be impossible to prove just from a list of a user's content library.
It is easy to say 'OMG teh MPAA are commin for mah Plex!!!1!' but the logistics of them actually being bring a successful prosecution with that data are enormous. It wouldn't be an easy win for them, and it most likely wouldn't be worth their while to try.
My partner had the same issue. She has <firstname>.<lastname>@gmail.com registered as an alias. Some lady in the US started giving that out as her own email address. At first, it was small things like fitness club registrations or store discount cards, but then it was rental agreements and loan applications. It became clear that this wasn't a one-off instance or simple misspelling. It was like reverse identity theft: this woman was effectively giving out everything (full name, birthdate, SS number, family member details, work details, bank details, CC details). The kind of things that can ruin a person's life if it got into the wrong hands.
Firstly we started documented everything, to show that it had been sent in an unsolicited manner, so there could be no accusations of identity theft.
Secondly, we tried responding to some of the emails stating that they had been given an incorrect email address. Most never responded, and some just didn't care. Many were from 'noreply' addresses, so nothing could be done.
Finally we managed to track this lady down on Facebook (from the information that had been sent) and my partner managed to message her in a friendly way to tell her to stop. The response she got was along the lines of 'HOW DARE YOU!!1! THAT IS MY NAME! YOU CAN'T STOP ME USING IT!". Reminding that it may be her name but it was not her email address got nowhere. My partner then responded that if she received anything more that she would treat it as a threat to her own identity and unsubscribe or seek to cancel any unsolicited agreements or communications.
The problem went away for a little bit, but then she tried to sign her kid up to some exclusive school with the email address, and my partner received the application. My partner responded simply that she had no idea what the application was about, that she would never consent to the application, and for the school to never contact her again. I guess the school did exactly that, because then the lady started emailing my partner: 'OMG!! IMA GONNA SUE YOU!'
At this point we stated that: 1) she was using my partner's email address without her permission; 2) she continued to do so after being advised that she was giving out the wrong email address, and after being advised of the consequences if she continued to do so; and 3) we weren't in the US, but she was welcome to try and bring a lawsuit against us. We don't care if she does. We have everything documented, should she wish to try.
After all of that, there has been nothing since.
Smart people do dumb things, especially when they think they know better than things like the law. I do think that John Carmack has done some really dumb things even though so many people are putting him on a pedestal and calling him a genius. Sure he knows code and he founded a successful business, but that doesn't automatically translate into him being smart at everything.
As I understand, Zenimax were originally going to sue Carmack for breach of his employment contract as part of the Oculus lawsuit, but this was left out. The Oculus lawsuit did establish a few key facts: Carmack did copy information before he left Zenimax, he did deliberately destroy evidence after Zeinmax filed the lawsuit, and he lied on an affidavit denying he wiped evidence.
While Zenimax weren't able to convince the jury of all their claims, it was established that something was taken by Carmack. Ultimately, Carmack wasn't directly on trial there, merely whether Oculus had clear benefit from his actions.
I have no doubt that Zenimax will counter-sue for breach of contract, theft of intellectual property and breach of NDA (among other things). Likely they will argue that Carmack's breach of employment contract is tied to his final contract payment and that damage from his actions equal or exceed the $22.5 million they would have owed him.
Carmack says that Zenimax's refusal to pay is based on 'sour grapes', but I think Carmack's lawsuit is being filed based on 'sour grapes' too. I do recall him making a rant about the independent forensics after Oculus lost the case. Now I believe that this latest lawsuit is another dumb thing being done by a smart person.
He is kicking a legal hornet's nest, especially when Zenimax's lawyers have plenty of information already gained from the Oculus lawsuit. They will know exactly what to go for when they file for discovery in this case.
Regardless of how I feel about each of the parties, in the long run I believe that Facebook/Occulus have the resources to drag this case for years by which point either VR will be dead or the lawyer's fees will outweigh any potential wins either party would make. Zenimax should know this, so filing for an injunction is really a sensible legal move here.
On one hand this will allow Zenimax to effectively re-argue the IP portion section of their case to a Judge instead of to a Jury, especially since it was determined that there was an NDA breach and misappropriation of source code. There is a chance (albeit a very slim one), that this could even go in their favour.
But, on the other hand (and what I believe this is really about), is Zenimax showing Occulus that they won't back down in the face of Occulus's public claims to appeal the original case. This is about forcing Occulus to negotiate a settlement and bring and end the case now.
Of course it could be that Zenimax want to win this case at all costs, in which their chances if getting a quick and easy win are slim-to-none.
So, as the article states, the Java SE downloadable comes with the JDK and JRE which are free to use "for general purpose computing", but the one of the key issues is that additional components such as Java SE Advanced Desktop, Java SE Advanced and Java SE Suite are also included in the same software package, but are not free to use without a license. While there is an EULA, there is nothing to warn users that installing those extra components is not free and there is no form of license checking to prevent user installation without a license. As a result there are many installations where the non-free components have been installed and it is this (in large part) Oracle are chasing money for. While Oracle may be able to point to the EULA, it may be possible this will fail the Reasonable Person test (ie. an average person downloading the package for free, and allowed to install the extra components unopposed, might reasonably believe that all the software in that package is free to use). It seems to be the software equivalent of a bait and switch. I wonder how long it will be before someone challenges Oracle on this tactic.
Are we supposed to believe that Oracle really had the best interests of the Open Source community at heart? Are we really supposed to believe that this case was all about Oracle's altruistic intentions instead of a $9Billion payday??
Now that they have lost this particular legal battle, Oracle are just trying to save face in front of the Open Source community. This lawsuit has alienated a massive segment of the developer community. Arguably that alienation began the moment Oracle acquired Sun, and this lawsuit simply confirmed many people's worst fears. It is clear, from comments in the trial, that Oracle only acquired Sun to have total control over Java, and anything related to it. Now that this lawsuit has confirmed that Oracle don't have the control they thought they did, their only option is to try and sway public opinion with the developer community. I don't see how that will start to happen unless Oracle abandon any appeal and let this case rest.
Hurst said that the whole Open Source community is in jeopardy because this will allow anyone to ignore copyright on source code and claim 'fair use'. Sure, there may be a possibility that 'fair use' could be pose a risk to enforcing the GPL, but the precedent in this case is limited because it specifically involved APIs. That hardly means that the GPL is now worthless. What is certain is that all developers everywhere, including the Open Source community, would have been in far greater jeopardy had Oracle been victorius.
If Oracle had been victorius, then Annette Hurst would have been busy firing off dozens of other API copyright lawsuits instead of writing Op-ed pieces on ArsTechnica. (The only thing that surprises me about this article is that ArsTechnica were so willing to publish something from such a clearly biased source.) Given that this was published so quickly after the trial, I find it hard to believe that Hurst penned this in her spare time after the trial as her personal opinion instead of the opinion of her client. To me it just seems like a lame 'Plan B' approach to sway public opinion for her client while they work on an appeal.
To be clear, I don't for one second believe that Hurst and Oracle have the best interests of the Open Source community in mind. I also don't believe that this is just about making money out of Google (although that is the starting point). This is about Oracle trying to regain total control over Java and anything related to it. The are billions of devices and programs that use Java or make use Java APIs (and not just Android devices), so the potential licensing revenue stream would be massive for Oracle. This is about Oracle trying to put an Open Source genie back in the bottle, and represents a far greater threat to the GPL than fair use ever will.
This article misses the critical point that the Project Ara phones will no longer be upgradeable.
From the Project Ara website: "The Ara frame contains the CPU, GPU, antennas, sensors, battery and display..."
The whole concept behind Phonebloks, which grew into Project Ara, was that everything was to be upgradeable. When a new CPU came out, you could just upgrade the module. If you wanted better gaming performance, you could drop in a better GPU module. If you needed a larger battery, or if the current battery performance was poor, you could swap it out. If you wanted a better display, you could just upgrade the module. The idea was to create an ecosystem when you didn't have to replace the whole phone if a new upgrade came out.
Yes, the new Project Ara is modular, but only to the point of secondary functions. Key functionality (ie. Display, CPU/GPU, battery and cellular) is not modular, and therefore not upgradeable. This goes completely against the original concept of Phonebloks and Project Ara.
This article completely brushes over the Trademark dispute, where if the facts were published it would become clear that ArduinoSRL (formerly Smart Projects) has been attempting to hijack the Arduino brand. ArduinoSRL/Smart Projects produced boards under license from Arduino.cc. In 2008 they sneakily registered the trademark in Italy just before Arduino.cc pursued registering the trademark internationally. Arduino.cc found out and tried to negotiate for the trademark that was rightfully theirs. Subsequently, Smart Projects stopped paying royalties to Arduino.cc, changed their name to ArduinoSRL, and have declared themselves the real Arduino. Funny thing is that the code they distribute to run their hardware is still from Arduino.cc
HERF pulse guns have been around on sites like this for a long time now. DroneDefender haven't exactly invented anything new, they have just repackaged in a format more palatable to Law Enforcement and Military.
Are the point you want to separate displays between two machines, you deviate from what KVMs are designed for. It comes down to what you want to spend. I'd suggest you get an HDMI matrix with at least 5 inputs (PC1 1&2, PC2 1&2 and Laptop) and 2 outputs (screen 1 & 2), and then get a separate USB switch. Finally you need control to link them together (unless you really want to switch them manually). If you get IR controllable HDMI matrix and USB switch, something like a Logitech Harmony should easily control both. Then you just customise whatever modes you want.
Well, I guess he was wrong. *gasp*
I feel a great disturbance in the Reality Distortion Field, as if millions of fanboys suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. They probably all want one now. But it isn't a stylus, its a pencil, right?
Seriously, I'm looking at the iPad Pro, and all I see is a slavish copy of what Microsoft are already doing with the Surface line.
Steve Jobs also said "if you see a stylus, they blew it" and "as soon as you have a stylus, you’re dead." Perhaps this is a sign that Apple have hit peak Apple, and are now on the decline.
I have enjoyed previous Galaxy Notes, but my current will probably be my last. The upgradeable storage and removable battery were (for me and many others) key points of difference over the iPhone, but Samsung have decided that they don't want to be different.
I don't want Cloud storage. Why would I waste my phone plan's data allowance when I should just have expandable local storage? Oh, I should pay for model with the largest capacity? No, not for the price per GB that they're selling.
Sure, I may be able to charge in 90 minutes (with Samsung's charger only, of course), but what happens when my battery gets end of life? Planned obsolescence sucks.
I also liked that the previous flip covers and smart covers, that clipped on instead of the battery cover, more or less became part of the phone. That was much more useful to me than a back plate of glass that will just be a crack magnet.
Yes, this release was the standard fare of a processor/RAM bump and screen resolution bump, but for me this release is far more notable for the features that have been removed....