When it comes to people's lives (911 Service) then the government has a responsibility to take up a stand for consumer's rights. Vonage advertises as a REPLACEMENT for land-line telephones.
If they want to advertise as such, they need to offer the same basic emergency services. If they provide adequate disclosure, then this suit probably won't go anywhere. If they don't, we can only hope that this suit will prompt Vonage and other companies to provide quality, reliable 911 service to all of their customers.
BTW, these lawsuits are how people are educated about VoIP.
I live in Houston, and I saw the story about VoIP on the local NBC affiliate. They talked about the shortcomings of VoIP, but seemed to show VoIP offerings other than Vonage, companies I had never even heard of. I'm not entirely sure that these companies offer ANY 911 service.
I don't know why the AG is going after just Vonage. To me, it sounds a little more politically motivated (read as: SBC is based in Texas) against the biggest VoIP provider rather than trying to help a girl who used an unnamed VoIP provider.
However, that said, and I don't know if Vonage does this, but Vonage needs to ensure that it's customers have properly setup their 911 service by requiring some sort of verification system prior to using their phone for regular calls. IMHO.
The courts look at possible trademarks in one of four ways.
1. Generic - The term is used in a generic sense. Like selling cars with the name CAR or AUTO. Can be a bit broader, but that's the general idea. It has nothing to do with if a word is in the dictionary. (ie. GAP is a legitimate trademark, because GAP in it's dictionary sense has nothing to do with clothes). Generic words CAN NEVER be trademarks.
2. Descriptive - Words that describe the product. A classic descriptive mark is FROSTED MINI WHEATS. It describes the product we all know, but we also identify that name with that product. There is a connection between the product and the consuming public. This connection is known as "secondary meaning" and is necessary for the protection of descriptive trademarks.
3. Suggestive - Suggestive trademarks are words that allude to the product. PARK N FLY is one that was featured in a famous trademark case. The line between descriptive and suggestive is difficult to articulate, but suggestive marks are protectable without secondary meaning.
4. Fanciful or arbitary - These marks have nothing to do with the product or are just made up. EXXON and YAHOO are examples of fanciful marks. These marks receive the strongest protection.
Of course it can get more complicated, but that's the basics.
I know this will probably result in all sorts of "you are a f-ing idiot" responses, but here it goes.
Is it possible that pop-up blocking may actually constitute copyright infringement. I know the idea seems a little far-fetched, but it's possible. I use the pop-up blocking feature of FireFox, but it's occurred to me that it's possible that I am engaging in copyright infringement by blocking pop up advertisements. It may be analogous to the DVD players that filtered out the more "damaging" content of some DVDs. Would it constitute copyright infringement if a person sold newspapers that had all the advertisements blacked out/cut-out. Maybe. I'm not sure.
I know people are going to come back and say, copyright exhaustion, fair use, among other arguments. And I think it's an interesting debate, but fundamentally pop-up blocking modifies the "copy" of the web site provided to an end user.
In Europe, where "Author's Rights" are more important (contrasted with the copyright holder/end user rights) it may even be a stronger case that pop-up blocking is a misuse of the copyrighted material. I'm not taking a side either way on this one, I think it's just an interesting issue that people may want to consider. Be a little open-minded on this issue, think about the companies and employees that rely on that advertising to survive, feed their families, etc and just ponder the question.
Let's say you own a store that sells widgets. You've spent a lot of money developing these widgets, and people really like the widgets you sell. But somewhere along the way, Mr. BadGuy starts stealing your widgets on the way to the store.
Now let's say Mr. BadGuy sets up shop down the street from you, giving away your widgets (the stolen widgets) and most of the people who go into the store either know or should know the widgets are stolen.
What would you do? Would you want them shut down? Would you want a warning posted to Mr. BadGuy's customers letting them know they were buying stolen goods?
And since when has software not relied on a for-profit company? I use a mix of F/OSS and proprietary software. My rule is that I use whatever gives me the best result for my money (considering the value of my time+cost of software).
Personally, since it was already installed on my machine Windows XP Pro works fine for me. I've tried Linux several times. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and it still requires more time to figure out than I care to put into it. If I have to put more than a couple of hours of effort into setting it up/using it/learning the other software it's NOT cost-effective for me to install. I'm better off buying proprietary software like Windows XP that I think works better out of the box than Linux. (Disclaimer: that was a personal opinion, I respect other's different opinions on the issue.)
On ther other hand, Firefox is great, it's free, and it was initially supported by a for-profit company, Netscape, releasing some source code and opening it up. The Linux distributors, Red Hat et al, provide some support (albeit indirectly) to Linux. If they weren't able to make a buck on Linux, it'd be a different piece of software today. So even free software gets some support from for-profit companies.
Until F/OSS software applications provide the same kind of reliability/usability as proprietary software then I will to continue to evaluate each piece of software on it's merits, not just on the fact I save a few bucks and have the "comfort" of knowing I can modify it if I need to.
Thanks Europe! The Slashdotters on this board love to bash the U.S. and Japan for introducing "Software patents", or the idea of using algorithms to accomplish useful activities. Now, the U.S. has adopted, per the Paris convention and European thought, the idea of the opt-out system where everything is copyrighted without express assertion of copyright.
What is even scarier is the idea of "author's rights". Hey, maybe the U.S. system isn't entirely wrong?
---
I'm not a hater of "Slashdot" ideas, but I am an IP (soon-to-be) attorney who wants people to understand where some of these ideas originate.
The problem is that 95% of people install software without reading the license agreement. If it says they can sell information about what you do without your permission, it's generally legal, if you click on the "Yes" button.
Congress is RARELY going to tell people what they can and cannot do in their own house, in their own room. Anyone who says thinks spyware is illegal just because it hides the fine print is just kidding themselves.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions and that means reading the damn fine print when they install programs and live with the consequences.
If you check the PTO web site, it is for "published patent applications."
Microsoft applied for a patent on "IsNot" on May 14, 2004, and the patent was published 18 months later on November 14, 2004.
This doesn't mean that the patent will issue and that Microsoft will receive patent protection for the operator. The author is getting ahead of himself...
Stillwater is exactly backwoods. It's home to a fairly http://www.okstate.edu/large state university and supposedly has one of the highest rates of PhDs in the nation because of the university. I think this Rural Source is looking to even smaller towns.
Actually you can trademark a word, you just can't trademark a word in it's generic sense. For example, you can't trademark Seats for use as a furniture store, but it can't be trademarked in reference to "concert and event reservation services." That was an actual case.
Microsoft probably can have a "Windows" trademark, but it's a lot easier to pay Lindows $20M to leave them alone than risk litigation that might declare their trademark for "windows" as legal.
The only thing that makes "Windows" generic with respect to the computer software is that many people refer to programs that run in "windows." If that term hadn't been used in such a widespread fashion, they might be able to maintain their trademark on "Windows"
IP-lawyer-in-training
I strongly disagree with calling the purchase of a "DVD" the purchase of a "license". When you purchase a DVD or CD you purchase a copy. It is yours to do with however you want. The doctrine of copyright exhaustion says you can pretty much do anything you want with the copy that is not forbidden in copyright law (Cf, you can't publicly play or rent the copy). But, "Licenses" are contractual agreements between the purchaser and the seller/manufacturer/producer of the goods. Software is usually sold with under license terms. If you read the fine print you probably don't OWN a copy of the software you just purchased, you have a contractual right to install and use the software, but you don't own it. DVDs up until now are not sold with the shrink-wrap licenses (although I could see the MPAA start to do that) so for DVD's your restrictions are based on federal copyright law.
In summary, material governed by copyright is subject only to restrictions of use based on federal law. Material "sold" under the terms of a license are subject to whatever terms the seller/manufacturer/producer wants. That's what scares me the most, the possibility of the MPAA bypassing copyright law and restricting use to those terms of a shrinkwrap license to "bypass" copyright "fair use". (i.e., no backup copies, "format-shifting" etc.)
More likely this is an example of the companies taking a morally responsible step to prevent illegal use of their products. It seems like a good balance between offering a quality product and corporate responsibility. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it seems like a reasonable step by software manufacturer's to prevent their indirect support of illegal activities. I'm sure if you could come up with some legitimate reasons to allow currency to be scanned it, maybe the manufacturer's would allow some version to permit such activity.
As a future IP lawyer myself, I have to agree with this comment. Although, if you feel you have a strong case, you may want to talk to an IP lawyer earlier in the process and bring as much evidence as possible. If you have a real case, an IP lawyer may be willing to work on a contingency basis, meaning a portion of the recovery. There are some pretty interesting issues when it involves the GPL, we spent two days in a class discussing it's ramifications. It may be hard to find someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to GPL enforcement. Contact the FSF for assistance.
I have to agree with everything you've said. I installed Mandrake Linux on one of my old Windows machines a couple of months ago. The girlfriend refused to use it because it wasn't as simple and as intuitive as Windows, eventually I gave in and reinstalled Windows. Everything is so simple, integrated, and intuitive. Macs have the same kind of attributes. Until you can accomplish tasks (installing software, managing menus, etc.) in Linux with 3-clicks and intuitive wizards, the 98% of the world that doesn't know how to use computers and sure doesn't want to invest the time to learn Linux will keep using Windows. Linux has a bright future, but it's still several years away from catching up with the ease and newfound stability of Windows XP.
In this case, the outcome is only binding to the persons involved in the suit. There is no precedent without true adverse parties. The courts will clearly see right through that and the costs will still be substantial without ever resolving anything completely.
In the U.S., one can not (with VERY FEW exceptions) be bound to a third-party judgment without a FAIR and FULL opportunity to argue your side. What if the RIAA sued a file-trader/employer and the person agreed to pay 5 dollars for every song he downloaded, could you force every file-trader to pay the same?
--Brandon, B.S.E.E., working on J.D.
I'm a first-year law student after just graduating with a degree in Electrical Engineering. I think there was some grade inflation, obviously there were average students who made above C's. But what's average??? It's hard to say, because nowadays everyone is special in their own way.
When I applied to Law School, the LSDAS who processes transcripts and reports my percentile against other law applicatants, compared me against every student who graduated from the same University regardless of their major. I don't know for sure, but I would guess my grades were in the upper echelon of the Engr school, but in the bottom half of the entire school. I had some schools that looked at my major before they looked at my grade, and I had some schools that just looked at my grade.
Overall, I think the policy my law school has is fairer. Their policy is the average for all classes is a 3.0. Half the students get above a 3.0 and half get below a 3.0. That means regardless of the classes you take, everyone is graded on a similar curve. Smaller classes can vary from the average more than bigger classes, but grade-inflation would seem to be eliminated somewhat in this way.
You make the assumption that all people do the same amount of exchange of copyrighted material. Allowing arbitrary charges like this is another example of a slippery slope and it punishes those who use the internet for completely legal reasons...
Secondly, I'm very concerned when people call the US using 'extrajudicial tricks' when they claim they have jurisdiction over businesses that operate in the United States. (KAZAA, AKA 'HaHa I sold your email address') The US should have full authority to exercise jurisdiction over foriegn companies who operate even slightly in the U.S. to protect both U.S. interests and foreign interests. If you created content, whether it be software, movies, music, and say an 'Axis of Evil country' allowed free distribution of your products including allowing US citizens to access it, wouldn't you like the U.S. to get involved to provide protection of your copy rights.
Copy rights are here to protect companies and their IP. People deserve protection for the work and money they put into projects. I do believe that copyright protection should be reduced somewhat, and DRM is okay IF (BIG IF) fair use rights are fairly protected, but I don't know how that will work anytime in the near future...
So It sounds like they acknowledge the fact that other cities use 10-digit dialing, Houston included, which has two seperate area codes for two areas 281/713 and an additional area code that overlays both areas 832. I found a chart of this on the Internet once, but no luck since.
The real interesting thing though is that it appears the reason New York took so long is the NYPSC/CFA sued the FCC to be exempt from the requirement.
Inverse Relationship between # of lawyers and time for implementation??? Hmmm....
That really isn't true. The question the court settled here is whether Kazaa has substantial contacts with the United States to justify jurisdiction of the courts over it's actions. The court found that with millions of CA people downloading the software, it is completely justified for the CA courts to exercise jursidiction. That doesn't mean that financially the US courts can get money from Kazaa, for that they would have to have an Australian court enforce there ruling, or wherever Kazaa has assets.
The question isn't whether Kazaa is violating Vanatu law, but whether Kazaa is violating U.S. law by allowing downloads in the U.S. I'm not saying they are violating the law, usually the users, but I think the court is right in allowing the trial to continue.
I've actually had luck asking the telemarketer to stop calling me. I know that sounds like a wierd plan, but it works. I actually had a friend who worked at telemarketer in OK, and they will stop calling you if you ask them although most people I ask say it will take at least 30 days. I have yet to have anyone hang up on this request. AT&T actually sent me a letter explaining the whole situation since I asked them to stop calling, and I use their long distance.
-- Knowledge is the answer, but answers require more knowledge than you think...
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are confusing patent terms and copyright terms.
Patent term in the United States used to be 17 years from the date of issue, now it's 20 years from the date of filing.
Copyright term in the U.S. was originally 14, extendable for another 14. Subsequent developments have lengthened the term to what it is today.
See this website for the history of copyright http://arl.cni.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html
When it comes to people's lives (911 Service) then the government has a responsibility to take up a stand for consumer's rights. Vonage advertises as a REPLACEMENT for land-line telephones.
If they want to advertise as such, they need to offer the same basic emergency services. If they provide adequate disclosure, then this suit probably won't go anywhere. If they don't, we can only hope that this suit will prompt Vonage and other companies to provide quality, reliable 911 service to all of their customers.
BTW, these lawsuits are how people are educated about VoIP.
I live in Houston, and I saw the story about VoIP on the local NBC affiliate. They talked about the shortcomings of VoIP, but seemed to show VoIP offerings other than Vonage, companies I had never even heard of. I'm not entirely sure that these companies offer ANY 911 service.
I don't know why the AG is going after just Vonage. To me, it sounds a little more politically motivated (read as: SBC is based in Texas) against the biggest VoIP provider rather than trying to help a girl who used an unnamed VoIP provider.
However, that said, and I don't know if Vonage does this, but Vonage needs to ensure that it's customers have properly setup their 911 service by requiring some sort of verification system prior to using their phone for regular calls. IMHO.
The courts look at possible trademarks in one of four ways.
1. Generic - The term is used in a generic sense. Like selling cars with the name CAR or AUTO. Can be a bit broader, but that's the general idea. It has nothing to do with if a word is in the dictionary. (ie. GAP is a legitimate trademark, because GAP in it's dictionary sense has nothing to do with clothes). Generic words CAN NEVER be trademarks.
2. Descriptive - Words that describe the product. A classic descriptive mark is FROSTED MINI WHEATS. It describes the product we all know, but we also identify that name with that product. There is a connection between the product and the consuming public. This connection is known as "secondary meaning" and is necessary for the protection of descriptive trademarks.
3. Suggestive - Suggestive trademarks are words that allude to the product. PARK N FLY is one that was featured in a famous trademark case. The line between descriptive and suggestive is difficult to articulate, but suggestive marks are protectable without secondary meaning.
4. Fanciful or arbitary - These marks have nothing to do with the product or are just made up. EXXON and YAHOO are examples of fanciful marks. These marks receive the strongest protection.
Of course it can get more complicated, but that's the basics.
I know this will probably result in all sorts of "you are a f-ing idiot" responses, but here it goes.
Is it possible that pop-up blocking may actually constitute copyright infringement. I know the idea seems a little far-fetched, but it's possible. I use the pop-up blocking feature of FireFox, but it's occurred to me that it's possible that I am engaging in copyright infringement by blocking pop up advertisements. It may be analogous to the DVD players that filtered out the more "damaging" content of some DVDs. Would it constitute copyright infringement if a person sold newspapers that had all the advertisements blacked out/cut-out. Maybe. I'm not sure.
I know people are going to come back and say, copyright exhaustion, fair use, among other arguments. And I think it's an interesting debate, but fundamentally pop-up blocking modifies the "copy" of the web site provided to an end user.
In Europe, where "Author's Rights" are more important (contrasted with the copyright holder/end user rights) it may even be a stronger case that pop-up blocking is a misuse of the copyrighted material. I'm not taking a side either way on this one, I think it's just an interesting issue that people may want to consider. Be a little open-minded on this issue, think about the companies and employees that rely on that advertising to survive, feed their families, etc and just ponder the question.
Let's say you own a store that sells widgets. You've spent a lot of money developing these widgets, and people really like the widgets you sell. But somewhere along the way, Mr. BadGuy starts stealing your widgets on the way to the store.
Now let's say Mr. BadGuy sets up shop down the street from you, giving away your widgets (the stolen widgets) and most of the people who go into the store either know or should know the widgets are stolen.
What would you do? Would you want them shut down? Would you want a warning posted to Mr. BadGuy's customers letting them know they were buying stolen goods?
And since when has software not relied on a for-profit company? I use a mix of F/OSS and proprietary software. My rule is that I use whatever gives me the best result for my money (considering the value of my time+cost of software).
Personally, since it was already installed on my machine Windows XP Pro works fine for me. I've tried Linux several times. I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and it still requires more time to figure out than I care to put into it. If I have to put more than a couple of hours of effort into setting it up/using it/learning the other software it's NOT cost-effective for me to install. I'm better off buying proprietary software like Windows XP that I think works better out of the box than Linux. (Disclaimer: that was a personal opinion, I respect other's different opinions on the issue.)
On ther other hand, Firefox is great, it's free, and it was initially supported by a for-profit company, Netscape, releasing some source code and opening it up. The Linux distributors, Red Hat et al, provide some support (albeit indirectly) to Linux. If they weren't able to make a buck on Linux, it'd be a different piece of software today. So even free software gets some support from for-profit companies.
Until F/OSS software applications provide the same kind of reliability/usability as proprietary software then I will to continue to evaluate each piece of software on it's merits, not just on the fact I save a few bucks and have the "comfort" of knowing I can modify it if I need to.
Thanks Europe! The Slashdotters on this board love to bash the U.S. and Japan for introducing "Software patents", or the idea of using algorithms to accomplish useful activities. Now, the U.S. has adopted, per the Paris convention and European thought, the idea of the opt-out system where everything is copyrighted without express assertion of copyright.
What is even scarier is the idea of "author's rights". Hey, maybe the U.S. system isn't entirely wrong?
---
I'm not a hater of "Slashdot" ideas, but I am an IP (soon-to-be) attorney who wants people to understand where some of these ideas originate.
Crow
The problem is that 95% of people install software without reading the license agreement. If it says they can sell information about what you do without your permission, it's generally legal, if you click on the "Yes" button.
Congress is RARELY going to tell people what they can and cannot do in their own house, in their own room. Anyone who says thinks spyware is illegal just because it hides the fine print is just kidding themselves.
People need to take responsibility for their own actions and that means reading the damn fine print when they install programs and live with the consequences.
If you check the PTO web site, it is for "published patent applications."
Microsoft applied for a patent on "IsNot" on May 14, 2004, and the patent was published 18 months later on November 14, 2004.
This doesn't mean that the patent will issue and that Microsoft will receive patent protection for the operator. The author is getting ahead of himself...
Stillwater is exactly backwoods. It's home to a fairly http://www.okstate.edu/large state university and supposedly has one of the highest rates of PhDs in the nation because of the university. I think this Rural Source is looking to even smaller towns.
Actually you can trademark a word, you just can't trademark a word in it's generic sense. For example, you can't trademark Seats for use as a furniture store, but it can't be trademarked in reference to "concert and event reservation services." That was an actual case.
Microsoft probably can have a "Windows" trademark, but it's a lot easier to pay Lindows $20M to leave them alone than risk litigation that might declare their trademark for "windows" as legal.
The only thing that makes "Windows" generic with respect to the computer software is that many people refer to programs that run in "windows." If that term hadn't been used in such a widespread fashion, they might be able to maintain their trademark on "Windows"
IP-lawyer-in-training
I strongly disagree with calling the purchase of a "DVD" the purchase of a "license". When you purchase a DVD or CD you purchase a copy. It is yours to do with however you want. The doctrine of copyright exhaustion says you can pretty much do anything you want with the copy that is not forbidden in copyright law (Cf, you can't publicly play or rent the copy). But, "Licenses" are contractual agreements between the purchaser and the seller/manufacturer/producer of the goods. Software is usually sold with under license terms. If you read the fine print you probably don't OWN a copy of the software you just purchased, you have a contractual right to install and use the software, but you don't own it. DVDs up until now are not sold with the shrink-wrap licenses (although I could see the MPAA start to do that) so for DVD's your restrictions are based on federal copyright law.
In summary, material governed by copyright is subject only to restrictions of use based on federal law. Material "sold" under the terms of a license are subject to whatever terms the seller/manufacturer/producer wants.
That's what scares me the most, the possibility of the MPAA bypassing copyright law and restricting use to those terms of a shrinkwrap license to "bypass" copyright "fair use". (i.e., no backup copies, "format-shifting" etc.)
Crow23
More likely this is an example of the companies taking a morally responsible step to prevent illegal use of their products. It seems like a good balance between offering a quality product and corporate responsibility. I'm not saying it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it seems like a reasonable step by software manufacturer's to prevent their indirect support of illegal activities. I'm sure if you could come up with some legitimate reasons to allow currency to be scanned it, maybe the manufacturer's would allow some version to permit such activity.
As a future IP lawyer myself, I have to agree with this comment. Although, if you feel you have a strong case, you may want to talk to an IP lawyer earlier in the process and bring as much evidence as possible. If you have a real case, an IP lawyer may be willing to work on a contingency basis, meaning a portion of the recovery. There are some pretty interesting issues when it involves the GPL, we spent two days in a class discussing it's ramifications. It may be hard to find someone who knows what they are doing when it comes to GPL enforcement. Contact the FSF for assistance.
I have to agree with everything you've said. I installed Mandrake Linux on one of my old Windows machines a couple of months ago. The girlfriend refused to use it because it wasn't as simple and as intuitive as Windows, eventually I gave in and reinstalled Windows. Everything is so simple, integrated, and intuitive. Macs have the same kind of attributes. Until you can accomplish tasks (installing software, managing menus, etc.) in Linux with 3-clicks and intuitive wizards, the 98% of the world that doesn't know how to use computers and sure doesn't want to invest the time to learn Linux will keep using Windows. Linux has a bright future, but it's still several years away from catching up with the ease and newfound stability of Windows XP.
In this case, the outcome is only binding to the persons involved in the suit. There is no precedent without true adverse parties. The courts will clearly see right through that and the costs will still be substantial without ever resolving anything completely.
In the U.S., one can not (with VERY FEW exceptions) be bound to a third-party judgment without a FAIR and FULL opportunity to argue your side. What if the RIAA sued a file-trader/employer and the person agreed to pay 5 dollars for every song he downloaded, could you force every file-trader to pay the same? --Brandon, B.S.E.E., working on J.D.
I'm a first-year law student after just graduating with a degree in Electrical Engineering. I think there was some grade inflation, obviously there were average students who made above C's. But what's average??? It's hard to say, because nowadays everyone is special in their own way.
When I applied to Law School, the LSDAS who processes transcripts and reports my percentile against other law applicatants, compared me against every student who graduated from the same University regardless of their major. I don't know for sure, but I would guess my grades were in the upper echelon of the Engr school, but in the bottom half of the entire school. I had some schools that looked at my major before they looked at my grade, and I had some schools that just looked at my grade.
Overall, I think the policy my law school has is fairer. Their policy is the average for all classes is a 3.0. Half the students get above a 3.0 and half get below a 3.0. That means regardless of the classes you take, everyone is graded on a similar curve. Smaller classes can vary from the average more than bigger classes, but grade-inflation would seem to be eliminated somewhat in this way.
You make the assumption that all people do the same amount of exchange of copyrighted material. Allowing arbitrary charges like this is another example of a slippery slope and it punishes those who use the internet for completely legal reasons... Secondly, I'm very concerned when people call the US using 'extrajudicial tricks' when they claim they have jurisdiction over businesses that operate in the United States. (KAZAA, AKA 'HaHa I sold your email address') The US should have full authority to exercise jurisdiction over foriegn companies who operate even slightly in the U.S. to protect both U.S. interests and foreign interests. If you created content, whether it be software, movies, music, and say an 'Axis of Evil country' allowed free distribution of your products including allowing US citizens to access it, wouldn't you like the U.S. to get involved to provide protection of your copy rights. Copy rights are here to protect companies and their IP. People deserve protection for the work and money they put into projects. I do believe that copyright protection should be reduced somewhat, and DRM is okay IF (BIG IF) fair use rights are fairly protected, but I don't know how that will work anytime in the near future...
So It sounds like they acknowledge the fact that other cities use 10-digit dialing, Houston included, which has two seperate area codes for two areas 281/713 and an additional area code that overlays both areas 832. I found a chart of this on the Internet once, but no luck since.
The real interesting thing though is that it appears the reason New York took so long is the NYPSC/CFA sued the FCC to be exempt from the requirement.
Inverse Relationship between # of lawyers and time for implementation??? Hmmm....
That really isn't true. The question the court settled here is whether Kazaa has substantial contacts with the United States to justify jurisdiction of the courts over it's actions. The court found that with millions of CA people downloading the software, it is completely justified for the CA courts to exercise jursidiction. That doesn't mean that financially the US courts can get money from Kazaa, for that they would have to have an Australian court enforce there ruling, or wherever Kazaa has assets. The question isn't whether Kazaa is violating Vanatu law, but whether Kazaa is violating U.S. law by allowing downloads in the U.S. I'm not saying they are violating the law, usually the users, but I think the court is right in allowing the trial to continue.
Yoda proud, very is...
I've actually had luck asking the telemarketer to stop calling me. I know that sounds like a wierd plan, but it works. I actually had a friend who worked at telemarketer in OK, and they will stop calling you if you ask them although most people I ask say it will take at least 30 days. I have yet to have anyone hang up on this request. AT&T actually sent me a letter explaining the whole situation since I asked them to stop calling, and I use their long distance. -- Knowledge is the answer, but answers require more knowledge than you think...