The fusion powered spacecraft is delayed due to a signal failure at Camden Town. Passengers are advided to board the next fusion power spacecraft and change at Saturn.
hazee, i am suprised that your intelligent observation has not been modded down to flamebait bu the rapid anti-patent groupthink of slashdot.
i have said many times that to think there is nothing left to invent in software, or that everything has already been invented, is to confuse software development with typing.
prohibiting patents on "software" would exclude every technical invention embodied in software from patent protection. speech codecs, digital decoders, compression algorithms, convolutional filters, etc. etc. etc. these are all technical inventions with a commercial application and a commercial value.
of course most people who post on slashdot have never invented anything in their lives - and never will. all they can do is copy other people's ideas and that is why they do not want software patents.
if open source could not copy what everyone else does, they would be gazing on a computer screen as blank as their stare and empty as their heads.
However, there has been no sign at all from the "everything under the Sun should be patentable" camp that they are the least interested in a compromise.
Halo1, i see you are still spreading FUD and demonstrating how little you really understand about this. first of all, "everything under the sun" has NOTHING to do with software patents. that was the language that was used in Diamond v. Charkrabarty to affirm the patentability of micro-organisms.
the case you should be citing is Diamond v. Diehr which, by the way, was a patent applied for by the Federal-Mogul company, an automobile parts manufacturer - a brick and mortar company from america's rust belt.
but it would make your side look bad to recognize that patents on software is a actually a far bigger economic issue than the narrow interests of "software" companies. you think this is YOUR debate and you ignore everyone else. big mistake, amigo.
For them, it's indeed all or nothing it seems.
bingo! give the man a prize. this is the problem Halo1, because you people are acting like a bunch of tree-hugging dimwits, the professional patent community is IGNORING you when actually your side has some perfectly valid points that should be heard and should be considered.
but no, it's much more fun to scream and yell and call people names. it's not only childish, it's counterproductive to your "cause."
why do you think that axel horns and many others dismiss you as a "bunch of communists?"
some of you are, that's hard to deny, but there are a few - a very few - that actually have something constructive to say.
this is my point. as long as you rant and rave and behave like a bunch of spoiled children, no one in the professional patent community is going to listen to you and they are going to continue to attempt to impose the bog standard regime of patents on software, when it is absolutely clear to me that sui generis protection is what is needed.
software IS different, but it is not so bloody different that it should not be patented at all however some special considerations have to be made.
what is needed is some calm rational debate between all the parties in order to arrive at a compromise on these special considerations.
but every time i try to get my clients to listen to what you guys have to say, one of you idiots says something inflamatory that pisses everyone off and the attitude becomes one of "to hell with them."
that being said, i take a deep breath and try very hard to separate the message from the messenger because it is my job to be rational.
i suggest you do the same.
oh, and by the way, the EPO is going to go its own way unless some rational compromise is reached. the EU hate that institutions like the EPC still exist in Europe, but until the EU can demonstrate that they can craft better legislation, the EPC will remain the forum through which patent legislation will be amended.
being somewhat involved in these discussions, i can tell you that the NO SOFTWARE PATENT attitude and the petulancy with which it is aadvanced is getting Open Source no where fast.
the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is and most of the arguments boil down to no patents period - which is never going to happen.
instead of engaging the pro-patent side in thoughtful debate and trying to reach a compromise, Open Source is shooting themselves in the head by taking such a strident anti approach.
my colleagues are of the opinion that the best way to combat the anti-patent forces is simply to let them speak and make fools of themselves in front of the parliament. it seems to be working. emotion and passion are simply no substitute for sustained debate.
at the end of the day, friends, the EPO is not controlled by the EU and even if the EU does nothing the situation at the EPO and in the member states of the EPC will remain unchanged.
torvalds et al, despite their god like status on slashdot, are simply no counterweight to the European companies supporting the directive:
what is needed is to put down the spears and drums and to engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result. give up the NO PATENT position and try to reach the compromise that is inevitable and that best serves everyone's interests.
This article contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered....
marketing speak?
firstly, it is simply a fact that there are 1 billion GSM SIM cards in use.
secondly, while early versions of the GSM SIM where theoretically capable of being cloned you had to have physical possession of the SIM card to do it.
as a practical matter fraud in GSM is virtually unheard of and the system as a whole is very much secure.
even without passwords.
Put the cork back in the champagne bottle. The '517 patent is but one of four patents that are included in Microsoft's FAT Licensing Program that include:
U.S. Patent #5,579,517
U.S. Patent #5,745,902
U.S. Patent #5,758,352
U.S. Patent #6,286,013
If Mr. Ravicher is correct and 70% of patents are revoked in re-examination, then at least one of these will survive.
All empirical studies carried out until now answer that question with either a "We don't know" or "NO!" (Bessen&Hunt, FTC study, European Commission Directorate General on Research study,...).
Actually, a more recent (and more rigourous) empirical study concluded just the opposite:
Big company steals idea from small company, refuses to pay.
"Patriot says the Intel processors used by Sony and others are violating its 5,809,336 patent. Granted in 1998, the patent describes a microprocessor with a variable speed system clock."
Small company seeks redress through the courts.
Big companies file countersuits to intimidate smaller rival.
Looks like a serious, non-trivial patent, so what's the problem?
Silly me, this is slashdot. Last bastion of Leninist ideology where the belief that there should be no private property and everything should be free for the taking is held as a sacred truth.
"However if I buy this CD I own it..."
NoGuffCheck this isn't how copyright works. Copyright protects expression not content. You most certainly own the CD you bought, but you do not own the content on it. There is a difference. You can sell your CD, give it away, listen to it, etc. but you can't take the content from the CD and do the same things.
What the German band is doing is giving you their permission to make two additional copies of the content to create two new copyright protected works.
No one is forcing you to buy anything, but if you decide to take it anyway, well then you run into problems with those Federal guys and their guns... you can choose to go down in a rain of gunfire like those people in Waco, but your desire to listen to Justin Timberlake on your Linux box can't really be worth it.
A car company can move its factories to Mexico and claim it's a free market.
A toy company can outsource to a Chinese subcontractor and claim it's a free market.
A major bank can incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes and claim it's a free market.
We can buy HP Printers made in Mexico. We can buy shirts made in Bangladesh.
We can purchase almost anything we want from many different countries BUT, heaven help the elderly who dare to buy their prescription drugs from a Canadian (Or Mexican) pharmacy. That's called un-American!
And you think the pharmaceutical companies don't have a powerful lobby? Think again!
pammie's a shill for IBM, one month ago Groklaw.com was registered to an address in White Plains, New York (home of IBM) now she's using a store front in Arizona.
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160
PMB353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: GROKLAW.COM
Created on: 26-Sep-02
Expires on: 26-Sep-04
Last Updated on: 13-Sep-03
Domain servers in listed order:
MATHFOX.XS4ALL.NL
NS1.DEWINTER.COM
GROKLAW, you/. nimrods, has played you.
through the nice folks at GROKLAW, IBM has turned their skirmish with SCO in to a war against Linux instead of a war against IBM which is ALL it is.
nice to see how IBM, again, gets people to work on their behalf - for free.
"The internet is a reflection of our society and that mirror is going to be reflecting what we see," he said. "If we do not like what we see in that mirror the problem is not to fix the mirror, we have to fix society."
this unnerves me even more.....
looking forward to when this communication system joins fire signaling, the pony express, and the telegraph in the dustbin of history.
However, it has NEVER been made clear in anyway how piracy has a direct link to profits/sales of a given product, and most likely never really could.
well, the copyright owners, represented by the evil RIAA, are making exactly this argument - apparently not to your satisfaction though.
there has been a 20-30% decrease in CD sales over the same period of time that there has been an substantial increase in downloading activity.
obvious cause and effect according to the RIAA, but according to your argument CD sales should have increased - not decreased - due to the publicity from increased filesharing.
i think your argument is far more difficult to defend. if what you're saying is demonstrably true why wouldn't the profit-driven RIAA support filesharing? or is it just a control thing with them and they don't really care about money?
They do say "conduct that triggers the criminal statutes is analogous to theft", but don't even remotely try to claim that which acts fall under this statute. Instead, they try to make the case that there is a hidden theft that nobody can see but the artist.
a victimless crime Iceparr0t, like punching someone in the dark?
from an earlier slashdot posting, this is what the department of justice says about your theory:
Question to the DOJ:
"Given that from a legal standpoint (and, many would argue, an ethical one) there is a distinction between "copyright infringement"/IP violation and "theft", what views do you have on the regular and incorrect/misleading application of the latter term by such people as the RIAA and law enforcement? Such misuse of language seems disingenuous, and taints the arguments of those who might otherwise have valid points to make about the morality of misuse of intellectual property rights.
It seems that if there are ethical arguments against piracy and other forms of copyright misuse, those arguments can and should be made on their own merits without the introduction of psychological wordplay apparently designed to confuse the public and cloud the debate. Accordingly, what steps are being taken to clarify the correct terminology and to avoid jingoistic use of words like 'theft', 'thieves' and 'stealing' amongst law enforcement and elsewhere?"
Answer from the DOJ:
"You're correct that words are important, in particular as they apply to characterizations of specific conduct. As you suggest, people with differing views on intellectual property enforcement should be careful not to overstate their case, nor should they do the opposite in an effort to minimize the effects of their conduct.
Traditionally, theft involves taking something from another person without their permission. In short, you deprive that person of their property and they can no longer enjoy its use. Some have argued, particularly in the context of online or digital piracy, that infringement or misappropriation really doesn't deprive the victim of their product because it is merely being copied, so infringement or misappropriation is not truly theft.
As criminal prosecutors, we focus on the conduct, regardless of the label that might be applied. That said, in the cases we prosecute, we believe that using the term theft is not misleading. While there may be technical differences between certain types of infringing activity, conduct that triggers the criminal statutes is analogous to theft.
In some instances, piracy can actually be more damaging than traditional theft. Unlike traditional theft, where a person steals a specific number of tangible objects, one product in digital format can alone be used to generate hundreds of thousands of near-perfect digital copies within hours. In the case of software piracy, for example, the developer has not been deprived of his product in the traditional sense it has merely been copied. Yet, he faces the grim reality that his product is now available around the world, often for free, to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. In very real terms, even though he retains his property, the digital victim is in a much worse position than the victim of a more traditional theft. To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real."
In other words, downloading MP3s without the permission of the copyright owner is a crime.
Icepar0t, please download a clue.
you have zero guilt in the same way michael jackson has zero guilt. just because you think it's ok doesn't mean that other members of society have a problem with it.
"we're definitely seeing an increase in traffic through the store which is good," said a wallmart spokesman, hal dumbdoilook, "people steal something off the shelves, and if they like it, they usually come back and pay for it later."
"this year, we are encouraging wallmart customers with our steal for the holidays campaign."
"this strategy is based on our belief in the moral integrity of each and every wallmart customer."
Shrill hyperbole empathically supported by the previous court
well this is the partly the basis of the appeal isn't it? the lower court got this wrong. emphatic or not. accessing the contents is one thing, accessing the master key and master key list are something else.
The charges OKOKRIM filed against Johansen were brought under the Norwegian criminal code section 145.2, which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access. Johansen's prosecution is the first time that this law has been used to prosecute a person for accessing his own property.
this is misleading.
according to the complaint filed against him he was charged with vilolating section 145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."
according to the criminal complaint he was charged with accessing the master key, the master key list, as well as the contents of a protected disk.
the question is whether the master key, and the master key list, which are intentionally encrypted, can be considered as data he is not "entitled to access."
to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole.
despite the confidence expressed by his lawyer, his case is not so clear cut.
Slashdot Mirror
The fusion powered spacecraft is delayed due to a signal failure at Camden Town. Passengers are advided to board the next fusion power spacecraft and change at Saturn.
i have said many times that to think there is nothing left to invent in software, or that everything has already been invented, is to confuse software development with typing.
prohibiting patents on "software" would exclude every technical invention embodied in software from patent protection. speech codecs, digital decoders, compression algorithms, convolutional filters, etc. etc. etc. these are all technical inventions with a commercial application and a commercial value.
of course most people who post on slashdot have never invented anything in their lives - and never will. all they can do is copy other people's ideas and that is why they do not want software patents.
if open source could not copy what everyone else does, they would be gazing on a computer screen as blank as their stare and empty as their heads.
Halo1, i see you are still spreading FUD and demonstrating how little you really understand about this. first of all, "everything under the sun" has NOTHING to do with software patents. that was the language that was used in Diamond v. Charkrabarty to affirm the patentability of micro-organisms.
the case you should be citing is Diamond v. Diehr which, by the way, was a patent applied for by the Federal-Mogul company, an automobile parts manufacturer - a brick and mortar company from america's rust belt.
but it would make your side look bad to recognize that patents on software is a actually a far bigger economic issue than the narrow interests of "software" companies. you think this is YOUR debate and you ignore everyone else. big mistake, amigo.
For them, it's indeed all or nothing it seems.
bingo! give the man a prize. this is the problem Halo1, because you people are acting like a bunch of tree-hugging dimwits, the professional patent community is IGNORING you when actually your side has some perfectly valid points that should be heard and should be considered.
but no, it's much more fun to scream and yell and call people names. it's not only childish, it's counterproductive to your "cause."
why do you think that axel horns and many others dismiss you as a "bunch of communists?"
some of you are, that's hard to deny, but there are a few - a very few - that actually have something constructive to say.
this is my point. as long as you rant and rave and behave like a bunch of spoiled children, no one in the professional patent community is going to listen to you and they are going to continue to attempt to impose the bog standard regime of patents on software, when it is absolutely clear to me that sui generis protection is what is needed.
software IS different, but it is not so bloody different that it should not be patented at all however some special considerations have to be made.
what is needed is some calm rational debate between all the parties in order to arrive at a compromise on these special considerations.
but every time i try to get my clients to listen to what you guys have to say, one of you idiots says something inflamatory that pisses everyone off and the attitude becomes one of "to hell with them."
that being said, i take a deep breath and try very hard to separate the message from the messenger because it is my job to be rational.
i suggest you do the same.
oh, and by the way, the EPO is going to go its own way unless some rational compromise is reached. the EU hate that institutions like the EPC still exist in Europe, but until the EU can demonstrate that they can craft better legislation, the EPC will remain the forum through which patent legislation will be amended.
the FFII and others cannot even define precisely what a "software patent" is and most of the arguments boil down to no patents period - which is never going to happen.
instead of engaging the pro-patent side in thoughtful debate and trying to reach a compromise, Open Source is shooting themselves in the head by taking such a strident anti approach.
my colleagues are of the opinion that the best way to combat the anti-patent forces is simply to let them speak and make fools of themselves in front of the parliament. it seems to be working. emotion and passion are simply no substitute for sustained debate.
at the end of the day, friends, the EPO is not controlled by the EU and even if the EU does nothing the situation at the EPO and in the member states of the EPC will remain unchanged.
torvalds et al, despite their god like status on slashdot, are simply no counterweight to the European companies supporting the directive:
Accenture, Agilent, Alcatel, Apple, Bang&Olufsen, Blaupunkt, Bull, Canon, Corning, Dell, EADS, Epson, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Grundig, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Infineon, Intel, JVC, Kenwood, Konica-Minolta, Lexmark, LG Electronics, Loewe Opta, Lucent, Marconi, Matsushita, Microsoft, Motorola, NEC, NEC-Mitsubishi, Nokia, Nortel, Philips, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, SAP, Sharp, Siemens, Sony, Texas Instruments, Thales, Thomson, Toshiba.
and the National Trade Associations:
Austria: FEEI; Belgium: AGORIA; Czech Republic: SPIS; Denmark: ITEK, ITB; Finland: SET; France: ALLIANCE TICS, SIMAVELEC; Germany: BITKOM, ZVEI; Greece: SEPE; Hungary: IVSZ; Italy: ANIE, ASSINFORM; Ireland: ICT Ireland; Latvia: LITTA; Lithuania: INFOBALT; Malta: ITTS; Netherlands: Nederland-ICT; Norway: ABELIA, IKT Norge; Poland: KIGEIT, PIIT; Slovakia: ITAS; Slovenia: GZS; Spain: AETIC; Sweden: IT Företagen; Switzerland: SWICO, SWISSMEM; United Kingdom: INTELLECT; Turkey: ECID, TESID
http://www.patents4innovation.org/
what is needed is to put down the spears and drums and to engage in thoughtful debate so that reasonable legislation will result. give up the NO PATENT position and try to reach the compromise that is inevitable and that best serves everyone's interests.
This article contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered....
sorry, the hyperlink to the theoretical studies in the last post didn't show up.... http://www.isaac.cs.berkeley.edu/isaac/gsm-faq.htm l
marketing speak? firstly, it is simply a fact that there are 1 billion GSM SIM cards in use. secondly, while early versions of the GSM SIM where theoretically capable of being cloned you had to have physical possession of the SIM card to do it. as a practical matter fraud in GSM is virtually unheard of and the system as a whole is very much secure. even without passwords.
1 billion GSM subscribers are using smart cards.
fucking brilliantly funny post.
thanks for the laugh!
U.S. Patent #5,579,517
U.S. Patent #5,745,902
U.S. Patent #5,758,352
U.S. Patent #6,286,013
If Mr. Ravicher is correct and 70% of patents are revoked in re-examination, then at least one of these will survive.
All empirical studies carried out until now answer that question with either a "We don't know" or "NO!" (Bessen&Hunt, FTC study, European Commission Directorate General on Research study, ...).
Actually, a more recent (and more rigourous) empirical study concluded just the opposite:
The myth of the software patent thicket
Enjoy.
"Patriot says the Intel processors used by Sony and others are violating its 5,809,336 patent. Granted in 1998, the patent describes a microprocessor with a variable speed system clock."
Small company seeks redress through the courts.
Big companies file countersuits to intimidate smaller rival.
Looks like a serious, non-trivial patent, so what's the problem?
Silly me, this is slashdot. Last bastion of Leninist ideology where the belief that there should be no private property and everything should be free for the taking is held as a sacred truth.
"However if I buy this CD I own it..." NoGuffCheck this isn't how copyright works. Copyright protects expression not content. You most certainly own the CD you bought, but you do not own the content on it. There is a difference. You can sell your CD, give it away, listen to it, etc. but you can't take the content from the CD and do the same things. What the German band is doing is giving you their permission to make two additional copies of the content to create two new copyright protected works. No one is forcing you to buy anything, but if you decide to take it anyway, well then you run into problems with those Federal guys and their guns... you can choose to go down in a rain of gunfire like those people in Waco, but your desire to listen to Justin Timberlake on your Linux box can't really be worth it.
A car company can move its factories to Mexico and claim it's a free market. A toy company can outsource to a Chinese subcontractor and claim it's a free market. A major bank can incorporate in Bermuda to avoid taxes and claim it's a free market. We can buy HP Printers made in Mexico. We can buy shirts made in Bangladesh. We can purchase almost anything we want from many different countries BUT, heaven help the elderly who dare to buy their prescription drugs from a Canadian (Or Mexican) pharmacy. That's called un-American! And you think the pharmaceutical companies don't have a powerful lobby? Think again!
pammie's a shill for IBM, one month ago Groklaw.com was registered to an address in White Plains, New York (home of IBM) now she's using a store front in Arizona.
Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States
Registered through: GoDaddy.com Domain Name: GROKLAW.COM Created on: 26-Sep-02 Expires on: 26-Sep-04 Last Updated on: 13-Sep-03
Domain servers in listed order: MATHFOX.XS4ALL.NL NS1.DEWINTER.COM
GROKLAW, you /. nimrods, has played you.
through the nice folks at GROKLAW, IBM has turned their skirmish with SCO in to a war against Linux instead of a war against IBM which is ALL it is.
nice to see how IBM, again, gets people to work on their behalf - for free.
chumps.
this unnerves me even more.....
looking forward to when this communication system joins fire signaling, the pony express, and the telegraph in the dustbin of history.
The US DOJ has recorded a substantial number of FELONY copyright prosecutions.
However, it has NEVER been made clear in anyway how piracy has a direct link to profits/sales of a given product, and most likely never really could.
well, the copyright owners, represented by the evil RIAA, are making exactly this argument - apparently not to your satisfaction though.
there has been a 20-30% decrease in CD sales over the same period of time that there has been an substantial increase in downloading activity.
obvious cause and effect according to the RIAA, but according to your argument CD sales should have increased - not decreased - due to the publicity from increased filesharing.
i think your argument is far more difficult to defend. if what you're saying is demonstrably true why wouldn't the profit-driven RIAA support filesharing? or is it just a control thing with them and they don't really care about money?
They do say "conduct that triggers the criminal statutes is analogous to theft", but don't even remotely try to claim that which acts fall under this statute. Instead, they try to make the case that there is a hidden theft that nobody can see but the artist.
a victimless crime Iceparr0t, like punching someone in the dark?
or a criminal offense, as described in Title 17 U.S.C. 506(a)?
Criminal Copyright Infringement
Willful copyright infringement committed:
for commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
by reproducing or distributing, in any 180-day period, works with a total retail value over $1,000
Punishment can be up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine.
from an earlier slashdot posting, this is what the department of justice says about your theory:
Question to the DOJ:
"Given that from a legal standpoint (and, many would argue, an ethical one) there is a distinction between "copyright infringement"/IP violation and "theft", what views do you have on the regular and incorrect/misleading application of the latter term by such people as the RIAA and law enforcement? Such misuse of language seems disingenuous, and taints the arguments of those who might otherwise have valid points to make about the morality of misuse of intellectual property rights.
It seems that if there are ethical arguments against piracy and other forms of copyright misuse, those arguments can and should be made on their own merits without the introduction of psychological wordplay apparently designed to confuse the public and cloud the debate. Accordingly, what steps are being taken to clarify the correct terminology and to avoid jingoistic use of words like 'theft', 'thieves' and 'stealing' amongst law enforcement and elsewhere?"
Answer from the DOJ:
"You're correct that words are important, in particular as they apply to characterizations of specific conduct. As you suggest, people with differing views on intellectual property enforcement should be careful not to overstate their case, nor should they do the opposite in an effort to minimize the effects of their conduct.
Traditionally, theft involves taking something from another person without their permission. In short, you deprive that person of their property and they can no longer enjoy its use. Some have argued, particularly in the context of online or digital piracy, that infringement or misappropriation really doesn't deprive the victim of their product because it is merely being copied, so infringement or misappropriation is not truly theft.
As criminal prosecutors, we focus on the conduct, regardless of the label that might be applied. That said, in the cases we prosecute, we believe that using the term theft is not misleading. While there may be technical differences between certain types of infringing activity, conduct that triggers the criminal statutes is analogous to theft.
In some instances, piracy can actually be more damaging than traditional theft. Unlike traditional theft, where a person steals a specific number of tangible objects, one product in digital format can alone be used to generate hundreds of thousands of near-perfect digital copies within hours. In the case of software piracy, for example, the developer has not been deprived of his product in the traditional sense it has merely been copied. Yet, he faces the grim reality that his product is now available around the world, often for free, to anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. In very real terms, even though he retains his property, the digital victim is in a much worse position than the victim of a more traditional theft. To him, the theft is clear and the harm couldn t be more real."
In other words, downloading MP3s without the permission of the copyright owner is a crime.
Period.
Nothing weird or gray about it.
Now go and download a conscience.
"And we hope with his capture this will bring an end to all illegal downloading."
Icepar0t, please download a clue. you have zero guilt in the same way michael jackson has zero guilt. just because you think it's ok doesn't mean that other members of society have a problem with it.
"we're definitely seeing an increase in traffic through the store which is good," said a wallmart spokesman, hal dumbdoilook, "people steal something off the shelves, and if they like it, they usually come back and pay for it later."
"this year, we are encouraging wallmart customers with our steal for the holidays campaign."
"this strategy is based on our belief in the moral integrity of each and every wallmart customer."
i wonder what tax cut is going to pay for this.
well this is the partly the basis of the appeal isn't it? the lower court got this wrong. emphatic or not. accessing the contents is one thing, accessing the master key and master key list are something else.
as i said, it's not so clear cut.
this is misleading.
according to the complaint filed against him he was charged with vilolating section 145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."
according to the criminal complaint he was charged with accessing the master key, the master key list, as well as the contents of a protected disk.
the question is whether the master key, and the master key list, which are intentionally encrypted, can be considered as data he is not "entitled to access."
to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole.
despite the confidence expressed by his lawyer, his case is not so clear cut.