The patents are part of the trial, but if you too closely copy the entire look-and-feel of a product, there's a separate possible claim of infringement of "trade dress", which is more like trademark law than patent law. Apple's also alleging that here.
On the other hand, if you look at how generic products tend to refer to brand names, in other areas trade-dress restrictions don't seem to put too many bars in the way. Walmart gets away with selling a Dr. Pepper clone named Dr. Thunder, for example, whose packaging is clearly reminiscent of Dr. Pepper's. So I don't see why a "generic iPhone" can't come as close as "generic Dr. Pepper" does on the trade-dress claim.
It's not impossible, but if you look at the editors who've made most of the edits, they're fairly active, longstanding Wikipedians who edit lots of things. A more likely explanation is that the causality is the other way around: they've heard the speculation about Rob Portman and Marco Rubio from the news, just like the rest of us have, and went over to see what shape the Wikipedia article is in. Some out of personal interest, some out of political interest, but probably not with inside information.
Hah, I suppose I should preview better before posting. I was going to vote for him of course. But maybe I should indeed write-in "me" instead. My Twitter-follower count is genuine.
Whereas I previously liked all of Mitt Romney's policies and was going to vote for me, this shocking revelation that his Twitter follower count might be manipulated is just too much for me to swallow, so he loses my vote!
This doesn't much help you now, but I've been told that the MIT Press Platform Studies series, which looks at both technical and cultural/artistic aspects of gaming platforms, and how those aspects impact each other, has an SNES book in the pipeline. May want to look for it later. They just came out with one on the Amiga that was pretty interesting, so hopefully the SNES one will be good, too.
When I try to turn on two-factor authentication at Google, it gives me a screen that asks me for a phone number, and doesn't seem to have a way to bypass this. I'd rather not give them my phone number.
Their help pages say that you don't have to use SMS-based authentication. Apparently there is a setting, once two-factor authentication is enabled, to switch from receiving the codes via SMS, and instead either write down a batch of 10 "backup codes" at a time, or else install the Google Authenticator app, initialize it with a key, and then use it to generate tie-synchronized codes thereafter. Either of these solutions is fine with me. But how do I enable them without having to give Google my phone number on the initial screen?
Missing plot twist: the fake Russian Foreign Ministry account was actually operated by the real Russian Foreign Minister, who is also the one who also bought the stocks!
I agree it can get tricky, but so far that argument hasn't worked with paintings at least. Museums tried to argue that they made careful color-corrections and such, but that wasn't deemed enough. On the other hand, photography of sculptures has been considered "creative", because of choice of angles/lighting/etc. Film seems closer to the photo-of-a-painting case to me, but I'll admit I wouldn't want to bet a lot of money on it.
It looks like the Criterion Collection has restored several public-domain films, which would make for plausible test-cases, but I can't find any cases involving those. Either they aren't sue-happy, or nobody high-profile enough has baited them yet.
So if NASA releases footage of something that is public domain (paid for by your tax dollars) then if, say, NBC, replays that footage and adds a logo in the lower right corner... NBC can then sue you if you save that footage to your harddrive.
This area isn't actually that clear. You probably cannot rebroadcast the version that has NBC's logo on it, but not because this footage has been re-copyrighted by the addition of the logo. Rather, it's just that the logo itself is copyrighted, and you can't broadcast that. You can, however, remove the logo and broadcast NBC's version of the public-domain footage sans logo. Assuming, at least that they broadcast essentially the original PD video, and have not made any other changes sufficiently creative to produce a new copyright.
I'm not sure if it's been litigated with film, but in the art world, that was litigated in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which found that scanning a public-domain artwork does not make your scan copyrighted. So I don't believe simply rebroadcasting NASA footage creates a new copyrighted version of the footage. Maybe if you do some creative editing, then that specific sequence of cuts is copyrighted.
small missing bit of information
on
CDE Open Sourced
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
"CDE was created by a collaboration of Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, SCO, Fujitsu and Hitachi" in 1993. It's interesting historically, but even commercial Unices have phased it out. Sun dumped it from Solaris ten years ago.
Open-sourcing Motif at least makes it easier to maintain some legacy apps, though sucks for the LessTif guys that they put so much work into cloning it that could've been avoided if Motif had been open-sourced years ago.
Well yes, and GameStop is not free either, nor are their used game sales. The question is whether each additional re-user should make a new payment to the original copyright holder, which they typically don't at either used [book|game] stores or at libraries.
This is vaguely interesting, but imo, near-term predictions of technological development aren't really what you go to sci-fi for. If you really want an accurate prediction 15 years out, there are more qualified but generally less exciting people to get it from than sci-fi authors: that's near enough that you really just need people with a good amount of historical knowledge, extensive information about current developments, and perhaps especially, accurate knowledge of current research progress, prospects, and bottlenecks. And a decent ability to synthesize and evaluate all those variables.
Sci-fi's strengths are, instead, more about what-if than what-is-likely. One kind is technological what-ifs, imagining (at least in hard sci-fi) conceptually plausible but not anywhere near buildable technologies and their results and implications; and ethical/political/etc. what-ifs, analyzing how future societies might operate (often in either dystopian or utopian visions).
Why should they be less liable on their own services? If companies are responsible for comments posted on their Facebook page, I don't see why they shouldn't also be responsible for comments posted on their blog.
You may be dismayed to learn this, but nearly every large company has fake communications from its CEO. You don't think the Delta CEO personally pens the "from the CEO" letter at the front of each month's in-flight magazine, do you? He may read it and suggest (or even make) changes, but I am pretty sure he isn't writing the draft.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this story is, but afaict, Microsoft, like most large firms, has always taken the most boring possible position on any political issue that doesn't directly affect their bottom line. Their two driving factors are: 1) appeal to likely employees, who are generally urban, young, and moderate social liberals; while 2) not pissing everyone else off too much. Both their 2005 and 2012 actions are consistent with that.
While there is such a crime as criminal infringement of copyright, it's not frequently prosecuted, and it wasn't being prosecuted here. This was a civil lawsuit filed by Flava Works and the Motion Picture Association of America, not a criminal prosecution brought by the Department of Justice.
This article claims that part of the reason for the "Fighting Falcon" rather than "Falcon" name was to avoid being named too similarly to the Dassault Falcon.
These "wi-fi police" are clearly infringing on the exclusive intellectual property rights of the Metropolitan Police Service, The Official Police Force of the Olympic Games®.
Come on, man, surely you can use that Wikipedia search button too. Orcs Must Die! (2011) is the original, and Orcs Must Die! 2 (2012) is the sequel being reviewed here.
So how do I know that some random Wikipedia user is not bullshitting me, if his/her citation is "I know this from personal experience"? How do you distinguish between real physics and fringe-physics kooks?
Slashdot Mirror
The patents are part of the trial, but if you too closely copy the entire look-and-feel of a product, there's a separate possible claim of infringement of "trade dress", which is more like trademark law than patent law. Apple's also alleging that here.
On the other hand, if you look at how generic products tend to refer to brand names, in other areas trade-dress restrictions don't seem to put too many bars in the way. Walmart gets away with selling a Dr. Pepper clone named Dr. Thunder, for example, whose packaging is clearly reminiscent of Dr. Pepper's. So I don't see why a "generic iPhone" can't come as close as "generic Dr. Pepper" does on the trade-dress claim.
It's not impossible, but if you look at the editors who've made most of the edits, they're fairly active, longstanding Wikipedians who edit lots of things. A more likely explanation is that the causality is the other way around: they've heard the speculation about Rob Portman and Marco Rubio from the news, just like the rest of us have, and went over to see what shape the Wikipedia article is in. Some out of personal interest, some out of political interest, but probably not with inside information.
So who are you going to vote for, then?
Hah, I suppose I should preview better before posting. I was going to vote for him of course. But maybe I should indeed write-in "me" instead. My Twitter-follower count is genuine.
Whereas I previously liked all of Mitt Romney's policies and was going to vote for me, this shocking revelation that his Twitter follower count might be manipulated is just too much for me to swallow, so he loses my vote!
This doesn't much help you now, but I've been told that the MIT Press Platform Studies series, which looks at both technical and cultural/artistic aspects of gaming platforms, and how those aspects impact each other, has an SNES book in the pipeline. May want to look for it later. They just came out with one on the Amiga that was pretty interesting, so hopefully the SNES one will be good, too.
When I try to turn on two-factor authentication at Google, it gives me a screen that asks me for a phone number, and doesn't seem to have a way to bypass this. I'd rather not give them my phone number.
Their help pages say that you don't have to use SMS-based authentication. Apparently there is a setting, once two-factor authentication is enabled, to switch from receiving the codes via SMS, and instead either write down a batch of 10 "backup codes" at a time, or else install the Google Authenticator app, initialize it with a key, and then use it to generate tie-synchronized codes thereafter. Either of these solutions is fine with me. But how do I enable them without having to give Google my phone number on the initial screen?
Missing plot twist: the fake Russian Foreign Ministry account was actually operated by the real Russian Foreign Minister, who is also the one who also bought the stocks!
I agree it can get tricky, but so far that argument hasn't worked with paintings at least. Museums tried to argue that they made careful color-corrections and such, but that wasn't deemed enough. On the other hand, photography of sculptures has been considered "creative", because of choice of angles/lighting/etc. Film seems closer to the photo-of-a-painting case to me, but I'll admit I wouldn't want to bet a lot of money on it.
It looks like the Criterion Collection has restored several public-domain films, which would make for plausible test-cases, but I can't find any cases involving those. Either they aren't sue-happy, or nobody high-profile enough has baited them yet.
This area isn't actually that clear. You probably cannot rebroadcast the version that has NBC's logo on it, but not because this footage has been re-copyrighted by the addition of the logo. Rather, it's just that the logo itself is copyrighted, and you can't broadcast that. You can, however, remove the logo and broadcast NBC's version of the public-domain footage sans logo. Assuming, at least that they broadcast essentially the original PD video, and have not made any other changes sufficiently creative to produce a new copyright.
I'm not sure if it's been litigated with film, but in the art world, that was litigated in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. , which found that scanning a public-domain artwork does not make your scan copyrighted. So I don't believe simply rebroadcasting NASA footage creates a new copyrighted version of the footage. Maybe if you do some creative editing, then that specific sequence of cuts is copyrighted.
"CDE was created by a collaboration of Sun, HP, IBM, DEC, SCO, Fujitsu and Hitachi" in 1993. It's interesting historically, but even commercial Unices have phased it out. Sun dumped it from Solaris ten years ago.
Open-sourcing Motif at least makes it easier to maintain some legacy apps, though sucks for the LessTif guys that they put so much work into cloning it that could've been avoided if Motif had been open-sourced years ago.
Well yes, and GameStop is not free either, nor are their used game sales. The question is whether each additional re-user should make a new payment to the original copyright holder, which they typically don't at either used [book|game] stores or at libraries.
This is vaguely interesting, but imo, near-term predictions of technological development aren't really what you go to sci-fi for. If you really want an accurate prediction 15 years out, there are more qualified but generally less exciting people to get it from than sci-fi authors: that's near enough that you really just need people with a good amount of historical knowledge, extensive information about current developments, and perhaps especially, accurate knowledge of current research progress, prospects, and bottlenecks. And a decent ability to synthesize and evaluate all those variables.
Sci-fi's strengths are, instead, more about what-if than what-is-likely. One kind is technological what-ifs, imagining (at least in hard sci-fi) conceptually plausible but not anywhere near buildable technologies and their results and implications; and ethical/political/etc. what-ifs, analyzing how future societies might operate (often in either dystopian or utopian visions).
At least, that's what I go to sci-fi for.
Why should they be less liable on their own services? If companies are responsible for comments posted on their Facebook page, I don't see why they shouldn't also be responsible for comments posted on their blog.
You may be dismayed to learn this, but nearly every large company has fake communications from its CEO. You don't think the Delta CEO personally pens the "from the CEO" letter at the front of each month's in-flight magazine, do you? He may read it and suggest (or even make) changes, but I am pretty sure he isn't writing the draft.
But there's always the supply-chain problem: how do we get it into supermarkets?
You can get a better explanation from the usual source anyway.
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this story is, but afaict, Microsoft, like most large firms, has always taken the most boring possible position on any political issue that doesn't directly affect their bottom line. Their two driving factors are: 1) appeal to likely employees, who are generally urban, young, and moderate social liberals; while 2) not pissing everyone else off too much. Both their 2005 and 2012 actions are consistent with that.
While there is such a crime as criminal infringement of copyright, it's not frequently prosecuted, and it wasn't being prosecuted here. This was a civil lawsuit filed by Flava Works and the Motion Picture Association of America, not a criminal prosecution brought by the Department of Justice.
This article claims that part of the reason for the "Fighting Falcon" rather than "Falcon" name was to avoid being named too similarly to the Dassault Falcon.
These "wi-fi police" are clearly infringing on the exclusive intellectual property rights of the Metropolitan Police Service, The Official Police Force of the Olympic Games®.
I figure the edit history of Mars Science Laboratory will get me up to speed on anything important.
Are you some kind of ESDF heretic?
Come on, man, surely you can use that Wikipedia search button too. Orcs Must Die! (2011) is the original, and Orcs Must Die! 2 (2012) is the sequel being reviewed here.
So how do I know that some random Wikipedia user is not bullshitting me, if his/her citation is "I know this from personal experience"? How do you distinguish between real physics and fringe-physics kooks?