The bad publicity associated with suing "little guys" tends to prevent big companies from suing.
For each instance where this is true, there are an equal number of instances where the "little guy" is strong-armed by the big guys. In any event, the point of the original post remains true - the cost of litigating patent validity between parties is high; it makes more sense to offload those costs to the PTO which has the internal mechanisms in place to make review more efficient.
If the costs to litigate validity are significantly reduced, the blackmailing that occurs on both sides of the patent would be reduced. Obviously, the PTO would only answer the question of validity, courts would still decide infringement issues.
It doesn't seem to me that the patent process is inherently ill-suited to software. In fact, it's a far better fit than copyright because of the nature of the resultant work. The patent system requires full disclosure of the invetion (the copyright laws do not) and the term is definite (20 years v at least 70 years for copyright). With the copyright system (the only system left for protection if patents are withdrawn), there is no disclosure, so you end up with DRM to protect access to copyrighted elements even though not all the elements are copyrightable. However, circumventing the DRM to discover non-copyrightable elements is either a violation of the law or it is a violation of the EULA that you agreed to. If the software could only be patented, the applicant would be required to disclose the entirety of the invention and thereby promoting science. It would, by definition, only allow those elements that are protectable to be protected and the patent would clearly disclose what those are. Copyright laws only act to obfuscate the promotion of science.
The problem with software patents is not that patenting is ill-suited but rather that discovery of prior art and laziness by the PTO have resulted in questionable patents being issued. Even this isn't a problem, because when challenged and scrutinized those patents that are bad are discarded and those that are good are upheld. The problem lies in the cost to litigate this - essentially ensuring that the "little guy" must bow to the pressures of the multi-national corporation.
Instead, maybe the PTO should adopt a cheap ex-parte reconsideration procedure (to my knowledge only the applicant can request reconsideration for a patent that is denied) that lasts for the lifetime of a patent where the challenger only needs to present some evidence of a patent-destroying issue. This would eliminate the huge costs of trying the patent in a court of law and make the process a little more fair. If there is evidence of non-obviousness or prior use for a "progress bar" the patent will destroyed, otherwise, why shouldn't the patentee be rewarded for his new and novel invention (it should be to his benefit that such an invention is widely used!)
Not to mention that promises of charitable donations are generally not enforceable. For example, see the MLK donation cases and the 'private school donation' case. Courts will generally enforce promises of charitable donation because it is against public policy to force people to give money to charities, even if they have said they would. And even if they've been more specific than Mr. Thompson was here. Courts have also said that public policy dictates that charities should not rely on promises of donations for this very reason.
And besides, the game was created. So, the withdrawal defense doesn't work. The offeror made an offer which could be accepted by performance, the performance was made. Now, there are some situations where I could foresee holding him legally responsible. Imagine this scenario: instead of saying "I will donate to charity x amount if someone creates y," (besides which you would have 3rd party beneficiary problems) he says "I will pay x amount to whoever creates this game for me." (direct contractual privity with whomever takes up the challenge) This is not charity, but rather a promise to pay money for performance of an action (create y) for which he could be held legally liable (presuming he doesn't withdraw prior to completion of performance, and he STILL might liable on a promissory estoppel or detrimental reliance theory). Then, if there is a caveat "You must donate the money to charity" the caveat would be unenforceable for the reasons given above, but the initial term of handing over the money might still be enforceable (of course, the court would then look at whether this transaction was essentially a charitable donation, or whether it was a contract for services, with a single unenforceable clause - in other words severability).
Talk about a law school exam in the making. Sheesh.
When I was a code monkey at a manufacturing company in the midwest, it was well-known that we were going to go through a down-sizing. But nobody bothered telling anyone when. The first date given was in September. September came and went without any problems. The next date given was in early December. Then in the week between Thanksgiving and the first week of December my team held their team "christmas" meeting. We were doing the 'gift-exchange-thing' and then afterwards holding our monthly team meeting. So, we exchange gifts, then during the meeting part we were assigning upcoming projects. As the meeting went on, two things occurred to me: 1) I wasn't being assigned any projects; 2) the projects I was working on were being given to other people!!!!!! Talk about a hint.
It turned out that the company pushed off their downsizing until AFTER the holidays. So, I got paid to do nothing for the month of December. When January came along I was given a severance package for 3 months plus my official release date wasn't until Feb. 1. Part of the severance package was a 'free' out-placement service. By the time I got home that day (I stopped at a few bars before going home to party a bit) I had 4 messages from headhunters; 2 guaranteed interviews. Within 2 weeks I had another job to start in Mid-Feb. I took a few months off. Played lots of video games. Drank lots of beer. Enjoyed being laid-off.
Except for the fact that at every turn Microsoft is telling you it is secure. That it's software will stand up to a DDOS. The firewall operator exists for the same reason. Yet, when that DDOS occurs, there is no recourse because of the disclaimer of liability by both MS and the firewall. "Oh, well you agreed when you clicked 'I Agree' that you acknowledge that everything we said prior was mere 'puffery' and that it was blatantly obvious to anyone that our products don't ACTUALLY stop a DDOS."
So, yeah. If I install Windows (as opposed to say, some IBM provided Linux derivative) because of the express assertions by MS (or the firewall software - whose express purpose is to deny said attacks) that such-and-such configure will withstand a DDOS, then yes, I expect MS (and the firewall vendor) to be liable when said DDOS causes me $15mil in damages due to downtime of those servers. In other words, as a purchaser, why should I assume that liability when the purpose of the software purchase was to prevent the occurrence in the first place!
As far as Firefox and other open-source. If I use Firefox, I have an expectation that someone was reasonably competent in their duties to provide software that will not allow my system to be compromised. I understand that it is "hard" and "time consuming;" however, that doesn't make the expectations any different. If I provide pro bono legal services, or free medical services, or I offer a free education, I still have a duty to provide those services in a competent manner. If I fail to meet those expectations, a court doesn't just say "Well, his services were free! what did you expect?" A court finds me liable for malpractice and I owe someone a lot of money. (whether I have it or not)
More than anywhere there is a generational gap in the copyright universe. There are those, currently at the top, who want to protect the things they grew up with (Mickey Mouse, we love you - I wanted to be member of the Mickey Mouse club - haha, wasn't Mickey so cute.) And there is the current generation who, for better or worse, have no attachment to anything - everything is just play-doh to make something else. At some point there will be a changing of the guard and the public domain will rise like a phoenix.
I also think to some extent the generational gap results in over protection to those with the pocket-books. Copyright didn't play an important part of culture so the leaders aren't comfortable speaking its language. Whenever you have that situation, where a leader is relying entirely on the advice of his "counselors" you have the problem of the leader's view taking on the characteristics of the view of whomever speaks to him the most. And quite frankly those with the most get the ear. As more of us get into congress that are comfortable with the issues and have independently formed opinions, you will see a change to a more reasoned debate.
Hogwash. If you are paid hourly, then you should be compensated for the number of hours you work. If you are salaried it is your duty to do your job. If it takes you more than 40 hours one week, so be it. If it takes less than 40 hours per week, then such is life. But have some respect for yourself and your job. If you do a job that you enjoy and you take some pride and ownership in the work you do, you shouldn't mind doing the job to the best of your abilities - even if that means working more than 40 hours a week to do it. If you feel you are not being adequately compensated for the work that you do, then you should ask for a raise.
...I have no problem with advertisements. In general they stay out of my way. However, I do mind when the advertisement attempts to take over my viewing experience. When I open up a newspaper, it's not a pop-up book of advertisements; it does not urge me to punch a monkey; a weird creature does not go scurrying across the page and block the text I want to read; it does not spawn child newspapers whose only task is show me advertising; and it does not take a picture of me and sell my personal data (like whether I bought a newspaper yesterday and which articles I read) to the highest bidder so they can inundate me with more advertising.
Yeah, gee, I'll be NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE. Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.NY 2004).
In the Court's view, ready availability of judicial process to pursue such a challenge is necessary to vindicate important rights guaranteed by the Constitution or by statute. On separate grounds, the Court also concludes that the permanent ban on disclosure contained in 2709(c), which the Court is unable to sever from the remainder of the statute, operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The Court's ruling is broad in that even if 2709 could be fairly construed in accordance with the Government's proposed reading to incorporate the availability of some judicial review, and putting aside the impairment of Fourth Amendment protections the Court finds countenanced by 2709 as applied, other structural flaws inherent in the statute as a whole render it invalid on its face. In particular, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that 2709(c), the non-disclosure provision, is unconstitutional. In simplest terms, 2709(c) fails to pass muster under the exacting First Amendment standards applicable here because it is so broad and open-ended. In its all-inclusive sweep, it prohibits the NSL recipient, or its officers, employees, or agents, from revealing the existence of an NSL inquiry the FBI pursued under 2709 in every case, to any person, in perpetuity, with no vehicle for the ban to ever be lifted from the recipient or other persons affected, under any circumstances, either by the FBI itself, or pursuant to judicial process. Because the Court cannot sever 2709(c) from 2709(a) and (b), the Court grants the remedy Plaintiffs request enjoining the Government from using 2709 in this or any other case as a means of gathering information from the sources specified in the statute.
Yeah, but ALL the "sectors of the copyright industry" were privy to the last copyright extension (which, by the way, only applied to US copyrights). And this one, would, presumably, also apply to all types of (UK) copyrights. Discrimination is a BIG no-no in international copyright treaties (you can't treat one copyright any different from another). So, I can't imagine that the extension would ONLY apply to pop music.
This is a true story...about 3.5 years ago I bought a brand new Dell laptop to take to law school. In my second semester I had to write a brief for my legal writing class. It was getting close to the deadline and I really had barely started. I was sitting in my girlfriend's apartment typing away and BRAIN FREEZE. I couldn't think of what to type next. I literally just sat there staring at my computer. After about 20 minutes I was getting very frustrated and I balled my hand into a fist and slammed it onto the keyboard. Why? Who the hell knows - sort of one of those throw-the-controller moments. The screen went black. I was horrified. Not only had I been unproductive, but the entirety of my paper was stored in this little device that was no longer functional. At this point I almost threw the laptop out of a window. But I thought better of it thinking I could at least salvage the hard drive if I had to. After about 10 or 15 minutes (when my girlfriend stopped laughing at me and I had calmed down a little) I tried the power button again. Low and behold the little bastard worked! To this day I still have that laptop, it works just fine but there is a fist-sized dent in the keyboard. Whenever someone asks I suggest that my keyboard needed to be more ergonomically designed so I could type better.
I know from personal experience that the opportunities for a patent clerk (not a patent attorney) are limited to: 1) examining applications for the USPTO, or 2) working in-house for a LARGE patenting company (3M, etc). Very few law firms are hiring 'patent clerks' - why hire a patent clerk when you can just hire one of the 8 zillion patent attorneys applying for the same position?
A person considering patent work is better off just taking the 3 years of law school, passing the patent bar and their state bar and being a patent attorney - every 'patent clerk' I know has gotten frustrated with the job limitations and gone 'back' to law school to become a patent attorney.
I recently read the book (recently, like two weeks ago) and I was unimpressed. I understand that it was the FIRST of its kind but I was baffled as to why it was the BEST. I will admit that I do not read much into that genre so, but I picked it up because I'd like to read MORE of the genre and I wanted to see where the bar was set. I'll admit that I guess that I expected too much.
The comic-within-a-comic was a nice flourish of parellelism, but why was it there? The link made in one of the later 'pre-chapter text' seemed a little tenuous to justify its prominent exposure through the narrative. The newspaper vendor seemed pointless, he moved the plot forward without adding anything TO the plot.
I did like the 'pre-chapter text' and I thought it added to the overall story. I also liked that the "superheros" were so self-conscious of themselves and their decision to dress up in a costume to fight crime; a jitteriness that adds some 'humanity' to the characters.
But ultimately I think I didn't like Ozymandius and Dr. Manhatten. They edge too close to 'superhero'-dom and I couldn't really identify with either. I thought Ozy...'s justification for destroying Manhatten was lacking and that everyone bought into it at the end (though perhaps because it had been set in motion and unstoppable) (and except Rorshach of course) and just didn't make sense. It felt like he was little more than Travis Bickle with a lot of money and Bickle was nothing more than the criminals and urchins and he despised. Finally, I never really got any feeling for whether Dr. Manhattan had 'settled into' his new skin or whether he would have preferred to remain a non-mutant; he seemed indifferent to the transformation.
"Uh, if you are buying the album and you're going to rip it to iTunes why not just buy it from the iTunes Music Store in the first place? Then you only need to buy it once."
Why? Because maybe I don't want a file that has the iTunes (or Napster or MusicMatch or whatever) restrictions on it. I just want a 256kbps MP3 file to go along with the other 50GB of 256kbps MP3 files that I have on my harddrive.
A good music review will leave you NEEDING to hear whatever it is that was the subject of the review. After reading Psychedelic Reactions and Carborateur Dung (the finest collection of rock criticism ever) I needed to run out and listen to Bowie and The Clash and the MC5 and James Brown and The Animals and The Velvet Underground. And I hate Lou Reed. But damn Bangs is convincing.
Some of the best reviews do exactly what you suggest, they hint at what has gone before (isn't that what all music does anyway?)...it can be difficult to describe a band in words without referencing the influences because the basis for your commentary is also the basis for the music. So, stay away from reviews that say: "I deem this album 3.5 stars because I am able to determine what's good." (I don't think David Fricke of Rolling Stone has ever written a good review. And Greil Marcus stopped being good when he stopped emulating Lester Bangs.)
A good review is objective: "This album sounds like Aphex Twin, Pink Floyd and Nine Inch Nails got together, kicked each other's asses, and then had torrid, violent make-up sex." Or "If Tom Petty and Willie Nelson wrote a Counting Crows song, it wouldn't sound anything like this, but the words might be similar."
OK; stupid to reply to my own post but from XMRadio's website:
"XM's powerful strategic and equity partners are leaders in their respective industries. These include General Motors, the largest U.S. auto and truck manufacturer; Honda Motors; Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio station operator."
What's kept me from Debian/other linux distros has never, oddly, been the install stuff. I'm willing (and able) to decipher/accept default when I don't know what's going on. The one thing that keeps me from keeping linux on a system is the networking issues.
If someone can make networking transparent then I'll buy in completely. Right now, if I plug my (MS XP) laptop into my network, my desktop 'sees' it and my laptop 'sees' my desktop, printer, internet connection, etc. When I had RedHat/Debian, etc. on my laptop I would plug it in but I couldn't see my Desktop shares, I could get to the internet connection, which was ok; but I just couldn't find my printer and my desktop shares. Make this happen without too much difficulty, and you'll have converts for life.
While having a 'pretty' install is great, it's these other issues, I think, that are more important. There's finally easy package (un)install, a great office system, and numerous desktop choices, but transparent networking is necessary before I'll make the switch permanently.
Oddly, I have not had any problems with my Dells and I have recommended them to everyone I know. Here's why: 1) Refurb units. They're best deal on the market for good systems for an excellent price with little hassle. 2) I bought a Dell laptop my first year at school (2 years ago) and I "accidentally" punched the keyboard 2 months after purchasing it. After a brief (5 mins while I went for a brief walk!) short-circuit, it booted right up and now still works like a champ (even with the dented keyboard) 3) My laptop has been dropped numerous times; one time from my backpack onto a concrete sidewalk; it's still going strong 4) I have never had to call technical support. I now have reasonable control over 4 Dells (2 laptops, and 2 desktops) for over 3 years, and I have never once had to call to tech support. Of course, I know what I'm doing (more or less), but still no serious problems.
Do I like banner ads? Not particularly? Do I like TV ads? Even less. Why do I 'tolerate' one and not think about the other? Because I have 'geek cred' and I can claim that I used the internet back in the day when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the internet was free of advertising. But look at how TIVO is forcing television to rethink its marketing strategies. More and more shows (24, Alias, among others) are going to "commercial free" episodes and putting the ads right in the show itself (Macs for the good guys, Linux for the bad guys;) The consumer doesn't mind because the advertising is more subtle; the ad has gone from "Mom's who know, use JIF" to "Sydney Bristow uses Peter Pan peanutbutter."
If technology causes banner ads to go away, then good riddance, but I don't think we, as consumers would really want advertising to go away. It's what keeps the internet free. Why can I read the Chicago Tribune online? Because I give them my email address (or at least AN email address;) so they can advertise to me. Without that, I would have to pay to read the newspaper. Of course, I COULD just go to the library and read the print edition for free, or rely on one of you folks (!!!) to manually re-type it everyday (copyright violation anyone??). Anyway, without ads, consumers wouldn't have much of the content we take for granted. While SOME of us will pay for the content (just like SOME of us pay for the newspaper), advertising allows those of us who don't want to pay for it (or those of us who can't afford to pay for it) to get the content for free.
For the same reason, the airwaves are free, the internet is free. But for advertising (which keeps it free) or subscriptions neither would exist.
In sum, if I were a webmaster or internet-based company who was faced with the prospect of my ads being taken away without my consent, I'd start looking at legal action in the vein of 'tortious interference with contract' among others; for example, all of the 'deep linking' and 'frames' cases of a few years ago about 'forcing advertising' onto others.
Without using Lexis/Westlaw, virtually every case published is available for free at the court's site and in free databases such as www.findlaw.com and others.
Slashdot Mirror
If the costs to litigate validity are significantly reduced, the blackmailing that occurs on both sides of the patent would be reduced. Obviously, the PTO would only answer the question of validity, courts would still decide infringement issues.
It doesn't seem to me that the patent process is inherently ill-suited to software. In fact, it's a far better fit than copyright because of the nature of the resultant work. The patent system requires full disclosure of the invetion (the copyright laws do not) and the term is definite (20 years v at least 70 years for copyright). With the copyright system (the only system left for protection if patents are withdrawn), there is no disclosure, so you end up with DRM to protect access to copyrighted elements even though not all the elements are copyrightable. However, circumventing the DRM to discover non-copyrightable elements is either a violation of the law or it is a violation of the EULA that you agreed to. If the software could only be patented, the applicant would be required to disclose the entirety of the invention and thereby promoting science. It would, by definition, only allow those elements that are protectable to be protected and the patent would clearly disclose what those are. Copyright laws only act to obfuscate the promotion of science.
The problem with software patents is not that patenting is ill-suited but rather that discovery of prior art and laziness by the PTO have resulted in questionable patents being issued. Even this isn't a problem, because when challenged and scrutinized those patents that are bad are discarded and those that are good are upheld. The problem lies in the cost to litigate this - essentially ensuring that the "little guy" must bow to the pressures of the multi-national corporation.
Instead, maybe the PTO should adopt a cheap ex-parte reconsideration procedure (to my knowledge only the applicant can request reconsideration for a patent that is denied) that lasts for the lifetime of a patent where the challenger only needs to present some evidence of a patent-destroying issue. This would eliminate the huge costs of trying the patent in a court of law and make the process a little more fair. If there is evidence of non-obviousness or prior use for a "progress bar" the patent will destroyed, otherwise, why shouldn't the patentee be rewarded for his new and novel invention (it should be to his benefit that such an invention is widely used!)
Not to mention that promises of charitable donations are generally not enforceable. For example, see the MLK donation cases and the 'private school donation' case. Courts will generally enforce promises of charitable donation because it is against public policy to force people to give money to charities, even if they have said they would. And even if they've been more specific than Mr. Thompson was here. Courts have also said that public policy dictates that charities should not rely on promises of donations for this very reason.
And besides, the game was created. So, the withdrawal defense doesn't work. The offeror made an offer which could be accepted by performance, the performance was made. Now, there are some situations where I could foresee holding him legally responsible. Imagine this scenario: instead of saying "I will donate to charity x amount if someone creates y," (besides which you would have 3rd party beneficiary problems) he says "I will pay x amount to whoever creates this game for me." (direct contractual privity with whomever takes up the challenge) This is not charity, but rather a promise to pay money for performance of an action (create y) for which he could be held legally liable (presuming he doesn't withdraw prior to completion of performance, and he STILL might liable on a promissory estoppel or detrimental reliance theory). Then, if there is a caveat "You must donate the money to charity" the caveat would be unenforceable for the reasons given above, but the initial term of handing over the money might still be enforceable (of course, the court would then look at whether this transaction was essentially a charitable donation, or whether it was a contract for services, with a single unenforceable clause - in other words severability).
Talk about a law school exam in the making. Sheesh.
When I was a code monkey at a manufacturing company in the midwest, it was well-known that we were going to go through a down-sizing. But nobody bothered telling anyone when. The first date given was in September. September came and went without any problems. The next date given was in early December. Then in the week between Thanksgiving and the first week of December my team held their team "christmas" meeting. We were doing the 'gift-exchange-thing' and then afterwards holding our monthly team meeting. So, we exchange gifts, then during the meeting part we were assigning upcoming projects. As the meeting went on, two things occurred to me: 1) I wasn't being assigned any projects; 2) the projects I was working on were being given to other people!!!!!! Talk about a hint.
It turned out that the company pushed off their downsizing until AFTER the holidays. So, I got paid to do nothing for the month of December. When January came along I was given a severance package for 3 months plus my official release date wasn't until Feb. 1. Part of the severance package was a 'free' out-placement service. By the time I got home that day (I stopped at a few bars before going home to party a bit) I had 4 messages from headhunters; 2 guaranteed interviews. Within 2 weeks I had another job to start in Mid-Feb. I took a few months off. Played lots of video games. Drank lots of beer. Enjoyed being laid-off.
Except for the fact that at every turn Microsoft is telling you it is secure. That it's software will stand up to a DDOS. The firewall operator exists for the same reason. Yet, when that DDOS occurs, there is no recourse because of the disclaimer of liability by both MS and the firewall. "Oh, well you agreed when you clicked 'I Agree' that you acknowledge that everything we said prior was mere 'puffery' and that it was blatantly obvious to anyone that our products don't ACTUALLY stop a DDOS." So, yeah. If I install Windows (as opposed to say, some IBM provided Linux derivative) because of the express assertions by MS (or the firewall software - whose express purpose is to deny said attacks) that such-and-such configure will withstand a DDOS, then yes, I expect MS (and the firewall vendor) to be liable when said DDOS causes me $15mil in damages due to downtime of those servers. In other words, as a purchaser, why should I assume that liability when the purpose of the software purchase was to prevent the occurrence in the first place! As far as Firefox and other open-source. If I use Firefox, I have an expectation that someone was reasonably competent in their duties to provide software that will not allow my system to be compromised. I understand that it is "hard" and "time consuming;" however, that doesn't make the expectations any different. If I provide pro bono legal services, or free medical services, or I offer a free education, I still have a duty to provide those services in a competent manner. If I fail to meet those expectations, a court doesn't just say "Well, his services were free! what did you expect?" A court finds me liable for malpractice and I owe someone a lot of money. (whether I have it or not)
More than anywhere there is a generational gap in the copyright universe. There are those, currently at the top, who want to protect the things they grew up with (Mickey Mouse, we love you - I wanted to be member of the Mickey Mouse club - haha, wasn't Mickey so cute.) And there is the current generation who, for better or worse, have no attachment to anything - everything is just play-doh to make something else. At some point there will be a changing of the guard and the public domain will rise like a phoenix.
I also think to some extent the generational gap results in over protection to those with the pocket-books. Copyright didn't play an important part of culture so the leaders aren't comfortable speaking its language. Whenever you have that situation, where a leader is relying entirely on the advice of his "counselors" you have the problem of the leader's view taking on the characteristics of the view of whomever speaks to him the most. And quite frankly those with the most get the ear. As more of us get into congress that are comfortable with the issues and have independently formed opinions, you will see a change to a more reasoned debate.
I hope.
Hogwash. If you are paid hourly, then you should be compensated for the number of hours you work. If you are salaried it is your duty to do your job. If it takes you more than 40 hours one week, so be it. If it takes less than 40 hours per week, then such is life. But have some respect for yourself and your job. If you do a job that you enjoy and you take some pride and ownership in the work you do, you shouldn't mind doing the job to the best of your abilities - even if that means working more than 40 hours a week to do it. If you feel you are not being adequately compensated for the work that you do, then you should ask for a raise.
...I have no problem with advertisements. In general they stay out of my way. However, I do mind when the advertisement attempts to take over my viewing experience. When I open up a newspaper, it's not a pop-up book of advertisements; it does not urge me to punch a monkey; a weird creature does not go scurrying across the page and block the text I want to read; it does not spawn child newspapers whose only task is show me advertising; and it does not take a picture of me and sell my personal data (like whether I bought a newspaper yesterday and which articles I read) to the highest bidder so they can inundate me with more advertising.
Yeah, gee, I'll be NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THAT BEFORE. Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.NY 2004).
In the Court's view, ready availability of judicial process to pursue such a challenge is necessary to vindicate important rights guaranteed by the Constitution or by statute. On separate grounds, the Court also concludes that the permanent ban on disclosure contained in 2709(c), which the Court is unable to sever from the remainder of the statute, operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The Court's ruling is broad in that even if 2709 could be fairly construed in accordance with the Government's proposed reading to incorporate the availability of some judicial review, and putting aside the impairment of Fourth Amendment protections the Court finds countenanced by 2709 as applied, other structural flaws inherent in the statute as a whole render it invalid on its face. In particular, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that 2709(c), the non-disclosure provision, is unconstitutional. In simplest terms, 2709(c) fails to pass muster under the exacting First Amendment standards applicable here because it is so broad and open-ended. In its all-inclusive sweep, it prohibits the NSL recipient, or its officers, employees, or agents, from revealing the existence of an NSL inquiry the FBI pursued under 2709 in every case, to any person, in perpetuity, with no vehicle for the ban to ever be lifted from the recipient or other persons affected, under any circumstances, either by the FBI itself, or pursuant to judicial process. Because the Court cannot sever 2709(c) from 2709(a) and (b), the Court grants the remedy Plaintiffs request enjoining the Government from using 2709 in this or any other case as a means of gathering information from the sources specified in the statute.
See also: Fourth Amendment Article
Yeah, but ALL the "sectors of the copyright industry" were privy to the last copyright extension (which, by the way, only applied to US copyrights). And this one, would, presumably, also apply to all types of (UK) copyrights. Discrimination is a BIG no-no in international copyright treaties (you can't treat one copyright any different from another). So, I can't imagine that the extension would ONLY apply to pop music.
This is a true story...about 3.5 years ago I bought a brand new Dell laptop to take to law school. In my second semester I had to write a brief for my legal writing class. It was getting close to the deadline and I really had barely started. I was sitting in my girlfriend's apartment typing away and BRAIN FREEZE. I couldn't think of what to type next. I literally just sat there staring at my computer. After about 20 minutes I was getting very frustrated and I balled my hand into a fist and slammed it onto the keyboard. Why? Who the hell knows - sort of one of those throw-the-controller moments. The screen went black. I was horrified. Not only had I been unproductive, but the entirety of my paper was stored in this little device that was no longer functional. At this point I almost threw the laptop out of a window. But I thought better of it thinking I could at least salvage the hard drive if I had to. After about 10 or 15 minutes (when my girlfriend stopped laughing at me and I had calmed down a little) I tried the power button again. Low and behold the little bastard worked! To this day I still have that laptop, it works just fine but there is a fist-sized dent in the keyboard. Whenever someone asks I suggest that my keyboard needed to be more ergonomically designed so I could type better.
Anyway. From then on, I swear by Dells.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Patent Clerk for a firm! Hilarious.
I know from personal experience that the opportunities for a patent clerk (not a patent attorney) are limited to: 1) examining applications for the USPTO, or 2) working in-house for a LARGE patenting company (3M, etc). Very few law firms are hiring 'patent clerks' - why hire a patent clerk when you can just hire one of the 8 zillion patent attorneys applying for the same position?
A person considering patent work is better off just taking the 3 years of law school, passing the patent bar and their state bar and being a patent attorney - every 'patent clerk' I know has gotten frustrated with the job limitations and gone 'back' to law school to become a patent attorney.
I recently read the book (recently, like two weeks ago) and I was unimpressed. I understand that it was the FIRST of its kind but I was baffled as to why it was the BEST. I will admit that I do not read much into that genre so, but I picked it up because I'd like to read MORE of the genre and I wanted to see where the bar was set. I'll admit that I guess that I expected too much.
The comic-within-a-comic was a nice flourish of parellelism, but why was it there? The link made in one of the later 'pre-chapter text' seemed a little tenuous to justify its prominent exposure through the narrative. The newspaper vendor seemed pointless, he moved the plot forward without adding anything TO the plot.
I did like the 'pre-chapter text' and I thought it added to the overall story. I also liked that the "superheros" were so self-conscious of themselves and their decision to dress up in a costume to fight crime; a jitteriness that adds some 'humanity' to the characters.
But ultimately I think I didn't like Ozymandius and Dr. Manhatten. They edge too close to 'superhero'-dom and I couldn't really identify with either. I thought Ozy...'s justification for destroying Manhatten was lacking and that everyone bought into it at the end (though perhaps because it had been set in motion and unstoppable) (and except Rorshach of course) and just didn't make sense. It felt like he was little more than Travis Bickle with a lot of money and Bickle was nothing more than the criminals and urchins and he despised. Finally, I never really got any feeling for whether Dr. Manhattan had 'settled into' his new skin or whether he would have preferred to remain a non-mutant; he seemed indifferent to the transformation.
So, is this the best the genre has to offer?
"Uh, if you are buying the album and you're going to rip it to iTunes why not just buy it from the iTunes Music Store in the first place? Then you only need to buy it once."
Why? Because maybe I don't want a file that has the iTunes (or Napster or MusicMatch or whatever) restrictions on it. I just want a 256kbps MP3 file to go along with the other 50GB of 256kbps MP3 files that I have on my harddrive.
A good music review will leave you NEEDING to hear whatever it is that was the subject of the review. After reading Psychedelic Reactions and Carborateur Dung (the finest collection of rock criticism ever) I needed to run out and listen to Bowie and The Clash and the MC5 and James Brown and The Animals and The Velvet Underground. And I hate Lou Reed. But damn Bangs is convincing.
Some of the best reviews do exactly what you suggest, they hint at what has gone before (isn't that what all music does anyway?)...it can be difficult to describe a band in words without referencing the influences because the basis for your commentary is also the basis for the music. So, stay away from reviews that say: "I deem this album 3.5 stars because I am able to determine what's good." (I don't think David Fricke of Rolling Stone has ever written a good review. And Greil Marcus stopped being good when he stopped emulating Lester Bangs.)
A good review is objective: "This album sounds like Aphex Twin, Pink Floyd and Nine Inch Nails got together, kicked each other's asses, and then had torrid, violent make-up sex." Or "If Tom Petty and Willie Nelson wrote a Counting Crows song, it wouldn't sound anything like this, but the words might be similar."
ps. You still BUY albums??! Loser.
OK; stupid to reply to my own post but from XMRadio's website: "XM's powerful strategic and equity partners are leaders in their respective industries. These include General Motors, the largest U.S. auto and truck manufacturer; Honda Motors; Clear Channel, the largest U.S. radio station operator."
Doesn't Clear Channel OWN XM Radio???
What's kept me from Debian/other linux distros has never, oddly, been the install stuff. I'm willing (and able) to decipher/accept default when I don't know what's going on. The one thing that keeps me from keeping linux on a system is the networking issues.
If someone can make networking transparent then I'll buy in completely. Right now, if I plug my (MS XP) laptop into my network, my desktop 'sees' it and my laptop 'sees' my desktop, printer, internet connection, etc. When I had RedHat/Debian, etc. on my laptop I would plug it in but I couldn't see my Desktop shares, I could get to the internet connection, which was ok; but I just couldn't find my printer and my desktop shares. Make this happen without too much difficulty, and you'll have converts for life.
While having a 'pretty' install is great, it's these other issues, I think, that are more important. There's finally easy package (un)install, a great office system, and numerous desktop choices, but transparent networking is necessary before I'll make the switch permanently.
Oddly, I have not had any problems with my Dells and I have recommended them to everyone I know. Here's why:
1) Refurb units. They're best deal on the market for good systems for an excellent price with little hassle.
2) I bought a Dell laptop my first year at school (2 years ago) and I "accidentally" punched the keyboard 2 months after purchasing it. After a brief (5 mins while I went for a brief walk!) short-circuit, it booted right up and now still works like a champ (even with the dented keyboard)
3) My laptop has been dropped numerous times; one time from my backpack onto a concrete sidewalk; it's still going strong
4) I have never had to call technical support. I now have reasonable control over 4 Dells (2 laptops, and 2 desktops) for over 3 years, and I have never once had to call to tech support. Of course, I know what I'm doing (more or less), but still no serious problems.
Do I like banner ads? Not particularly? Do I like TV ads? Even less. Why do I 'tolerate' one and not think about the other? Because I have 'geek cred' and I can claim that I used the internet back in the day when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the internet was free of advertising. But look at how TIVO is forcing television to rethink its marketing strategies. More and more shows (24, Alias, among others) are going to "commercial free" episodes and putting the ads right in the show itself (Macs for the good guys, Linux for the bad guys ;) The consumer doesn't mind because the advertising is more subtle; the ad has gone from "Mom's who know, use JIF" to "Sydney Bristow uses Peter Pan peanutbutter."
;) so they can advertise to me. Without that, I would have to pay to read the newspaper. Of course, I COULD just go to the library and read the print edition for free, or rely on one of you folks (!!!) to manually re-type it everyday (copyright violation anyone??). Anyway, without ads, consumers wouldn't have much of the content we take for granted. While SOME of us will pay for the content (just like SOME of us pay for the newspaper), advertising allows those of us who don't want to pay for it (or those of us who can't afford to pay for it) to get the content for free.
If technology causes banner ads to go away, then good riddance, but I don't think we, as consumers would really want advertising to go away. It's what keeps the internet free. Why can I read the Chicago Tribune online? Because I give them my email address (or at least AN email address
For the same reason, the airwaves are free, the internet is free. But for advertising (which keeps it free) or subscriptions neither would exist.
In sum, if I were a webmaster or internet-based company who was faced with the prospect of my ads being taken away without my consent, I'd start looking at legal action in the vein of 'tortious interference with contract' among others; for example, all of the 'deep linking' and 'frames' cases of a few years ago about 'forcing advertising' onto others.
Without using Lexis/Westlaw, virtually every case published is available for free at the court's site and in free databases such as www.findlaw.com and others.