My reading is different. Legitimate uses are irrelevant if the party wishing to stop the distribution of the p2p software can demnonstrate that the distributor made the software available with the intent to foster copyright infringement, i.e. the illegal downloading of copyrighted material. So you have to be a distributer of p2p software to get sued and they have to prove your nefarious intent. It's quite possible that two different individuals could distribute the exact same p2p software, one with a bad intent and the other with an innocent intent, and one would have liability and the other would not. You should also note that proving intent is invariably a very fact bound inquiry in court. However, I think prior case law makes it pretty clear that they would have to show more than the distributor's knowledge that the p2p software could be used for illegal file sharing. How much more is what's up in the air with this decision.
A vendor cannot dictate the resale price of goods sold to other middlemen. That's called price fixing; it's illegal; you can go to jail for it. So Apple cannot license OSX to Dell and dictate the end price to the consumer unless Jobs wants to do a little time in the joint.
The employer can only obtain those rights that the employee has to give. If the code written by the employee is truly "derived" from GPL'd code it too will be covered by the GPL and no contract between the employer and the employee will or can change that.
The key here is whether the derived code is covered by the GPL; If it is the employer is in violation of the GPL and a call to the Free Software Foundation would be in order.
His contract is with Marvel, not the movie studio, so he get's 10% of Marvel's profits from the deal and the article states Marvel has already collected $50 million on the first movie alone. Marvel just licensed the use of the Spiderman character to the movie studio, i.e. Marvel's take is all pure profit and I'm sure Marvel's lawyers made sure Marvel wouldn't get screwed on their cut from the movie studio.
Actually, the above article seems to contradict your theory that reality is determined by a shared subjective vision of what reality should be. The physicists proved a theorem that demonstrtated that a stable objective reality on the macro level emerges from the chaotic quantuum world where the act of observation determines the state of the system in ways that can only be described in probablistic terms. In short, if a tree falls in the middle of the desert and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a noise(i.e. propogates sound waves through the air) because that is the quantuum state which must appear on the macro level for their to be an observable universe. Other inconsistent quantuum states on the macro level are cancelled by mathematical necessity as proved by this theorem.
I don't know if it's a boon or a bane and either does anyone else. The two opposing viewpoints can be summarized as follows:
1. Making OSS apps available on windows will make users familiar with OSS apps and therefore more likely to switch to linux or other free OS platforms;
2. Making OSS apps available on windows will make it less likely that people will switch to linux or other free OSes because there will be no need to switch since the OS apps are available for windows already.
My gut tells me that 1 has the better argument but, unfortunately, my gut also tells me that a heavy object should fall faster than a lighter object. In short, gut feelings based on intuition can be wrong. 1 and 2 cannot both be right. That's why you need to gather data, not anecdotes, to determine the truth. A good experimental psychologist could probably devise an experiment to shed light on this question but in the abscence of hard data we're all just talking through our collective buts.
A great start to a top ten list. Your response is surely number 1. Here's No. 2:
A parrot with Bill Gates head randomly appears on your desktop screaming "Pieces of eight, pieces of eight".
I don't think your history is entirely accurate. The reason given by auto manufacturers for lagging on safety features was that safety didn't sell and was an added expense to the cost of the car. Why build a safer car when the public doesn't care and doing so would make your product more expensive compared to a competitor that didn't include safety features? What got the safety movement going was another powerful, monied interest - the insurance industry. There the ones that did the initial crash tests, safety design research and lobbied hard for safety laws because they were the ones taking it in the shorts in claims they had to pay out. In the software world you have no conterbalancing powerful interest group because no one has any liability for security breaches and the damage they cause.
The police can get an arrest warrant based on dna evidence. However, they can't compel a suspect to give sample dna without a warrant issued by a judge based on showing of probable cause.
This I don't understand and am not sure it's true. The law varies from state to state but generally a parent is not responsible for the criminal activity of their child absent a parental responsibilty statute and that would only apply to violations of state criminal law. Copyright infringement is a matter of federal law so state parental responsibility laws would not apply. Also, this is clearly not a criminal prosecution; only the state can prosecute crimes, not the RIAA or it's British equivalent.
In the US, a parent can be held liable for the civil wrongs commited by their children based on a negligent supervision theory but that is a very tough case to prove. The parent would have to be sued in state court separately after the RIAA prevailed against the child in federal court and there only actual damages can be recovered, not the punitive fine imposed under the federal copyright statutes.
This guy is worth 30 billion dollars. He's at least in a 30% tax bracket so he recieves a tax break of 6 million on his charitable gift so his net giving is really more like 14 million. $14 million is about 0.05% of his net worth. So his gift is equivalent to a person with a net worth of $1 million dollars giving a gift of $500. Big woo!!! He's still a greedy pig IMHO.
Not to mention that surrepticious electronic recording is a felony in many states(ask Linda Tripp). You may want to contact your law dept. as well as your CS dept.
However, I suspect that what you are really studying is slashdot social behaviour and your post is just a ruse to elicit responses.
Forget it, we're on to you.
First off, there is no jury trial in these types of cases where the employer seeks an injunction againnst a former employee under a noncompete clause. In general, juries are not allowed to give injunctive relief; that's soley the province of the judge.
The enforceability of these clauses is a matter of state law and varies significantly from state to state. California bans them in most cases IIRC. But in most states, they are enforceable if properly limited as to time and geographical scope.
As a practical matter, WD would be crazy to hire this guy and put him to work on the same R&D stuff that he was doing at Seagate. WD would invariably find themnselves on the wrong end of a trade secrets misappropriation case and juries just hate it when a competitor hires away an employee under these circumstances. In that kind of case, the whole deal just smells to jurors and you have real problems defending even if nothing wrong was going on.
Not true. My 11 year old son plays PS1 games on his PS2 all the time to this day. Why?? They're cheaper and he can buy a lot more of them on the miserly(according to him) allowance I give him. Kids and young adult males drive this market IMHO and they don't have a lot of $$$.
And where there's no profit there's no innovation; therefore, we will create our own stone age.
That's probably true for hardware but not so for software. In fact, it's the same argument MS makes about free software killing innovation. But I see plenty of innovation in the free software area. The distinguishing characteristic is that hardware is a capital intensive business, i.e. you need lots of money to even think about manufacturing hardware, much less doing any innovative R&D. In contrast, the capital startup costs for making software are minimal, especially when those costs can be spread around a cooperative community. That's why MS is having a hissy fit over it.
There's never been a shortage of crap in the popular music industry and there never will be. It goes hand and hand with mass marketing. I'd like David Crosby to sit down and give a good listen to "Yummy Yummy Yummy,I've Got Love In My Tummy" and explain to me how that is superior to todays popular offerings.
The problem isn't the overwhelming majority of pop crap that's out there; that's always been the case. The problem that Crosby articulates is that's all that there seems to be room for anymore given the consolidation in the music industry and the few clueless people running the industry. I think he's right.
Face it. Crap sells and makes predictable fortunes for those that effectively market it because crap is what the overwhelming majority of the public want. If you don't believe me, tune into the hugely popular American Idol, a musical caricature of pop crap music at its worse.
Saw this one coming a mile down the road:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102379&cid=872 6739
as any competent litigator would. And so did SCOs lawyers. That's why they have moved for this part of the case to be stayed and IBM has moved for partial summary judgment on their carefully crafted counterclaim.
This is really ironic. Janus is the Roman god of portals(gates and doors) and was commonly placed at Roman doors. Janus had two faces, one to look out for evil doers as a guard and the other to look in to safeguard the residents from harm.
In true MS fashion, MS is using this mythological figure in just the opposite way. Here, Janus looks into the home to spy on the residents and make sure they don't use digital media "improperly" and looks out to safeguard the interests of the outsider industries coming into the home with their digital media.
I think you have to read the provisos at the begginning of the article, namely that the nature of consiousness is not well understood by science and that they are making a big unproven assumption that conciousness is computational in nature for purposes of this article. The authors are clearly stating that physics does not presently understand the phenomena known as consiousness, only that this result follows if consciousness is computational in nature and certain other assumptions are made about the nature of the universe. It's nice to see a scientist approach this subject with some humility for a change.
Baystar just wants to get paid. What do you expect them to publicly say? "You lied to us about the strength of your case and we want our money now". They could then watch the stock price go to zero along with the probablility of ever getting a cent out of SCO. They are bolstering the stock price by publicly stating that SCO should pursue their IP claims more diligently and professionally as if those claims had merit in hopes of getting their money out before this house of cards comes crashing down.
Slashdot Mirror
You can also make extended format floppies up to 1992K in linux using a utility called fdutils:
http://fdutils.linux.lu/
My reading is different. Legitimate uses are irrelevant if the party wishing to stop the distribution of the p2p software can demnonstrate that the distributor made the software available with the intent to foster copyright infringement, i.e. the illegal downloading of copyrighted material.
So you have to be a distributer of p2p software to get sued and they have to prove your nefarious intent. It's quite possible that two different individuals could distribute the exact same p2p software, one with a bad intent and the other with an innocent intent, and one would have liability and the other would not.
You should also note that proving intent is invariably a very fact bound inquiry in court. However, I think prior case law makes it pretty clear that they would have to show more than the distributor's knowledge that the p2p software could be used for illegal file sharing. How much more is what's up in the air with this decision.
A vendor cannot dictate the resale price of goods sold to other middlemen. That's called price fixing; it's illegal; you can go to jail for it.
So Apple cannot license OSX to Dell and dictate the end price to the consumer unless Jobs wants to do a little time in the joint.
The employer can only obtain those rights that the employee has to give. If the code written by the employee is truly "derived" from GPL'd code it too will be covered by the GPL and no contract between the employer and the employee will or can change that. The key here is whether the derived code is covered by the GPL; If it is the employer is in violation of the GPL and a call to the Free Software Foundation would be in order.
His contract is with Marvel, not the movie studio, so he get's 10% of Marvel's profits from the deal and the article states Marvel has already collected $50 million on the first movie alone. Marvel just licensed the use of the Spiderman character to the movie studio, i.e. Marvel's take is all pure profit and I'm sure Marvel's lawyers made sure Marvel wouldn't get screwed on their cut from the movie studio.
Actually, the above article seems to contradict your theory that reality is determined by a shared subjective vision of what reality should be. The physicists proved a theorem that demonstrtated that a stable objective reality on the macro level emerges from the chaotic quantuum world where the act of observation determines the state of the system in ways that can only be described in probablistic terms. In short, if a tree falls in the middle of the desert and no one is around to hear it, it still makes a noise(i.e. propogates sound waves through the air) because that is the quantuum state which must appear on the macro level for their to be an observable universe. Other inconsistent quantuum states on the macro level are cancelled by mathematical necessity as proved by this theorem.
that's what they's like you to believe. Don't be fooled; 2004 MN4 is coming and it's going to kill you and your little dog too.
I don't know if it's a boon or a bane and either does anyone else. The two opposing viewpoints can be summarized as follows: 1. Making OSS apps available on windows will make users familiar with OSS apps and therefore more likely to switch to linux or other free OS platforms; 2. Making OSS apps available on windows will make it less likely that people will switch to linux or other free OSes because there will be no need to switch since the OS apps are available for windows already. My gut tells me that 1 has the better argument but, unfortunately, my gut also tells me that a heavy object should fall faster than a lighter object. In short, gut feelings based on intuition can be wrong. 1 and 2 cannot both be right. That's why you need to gather data, not anecdotes, to determine the truth. A good experimental psychologist could probably devise an experiment to shed light on this question but in the abscence of hard data we're all just talking through our collective buts.
A great start to a top ten list. Your response is surely number 1. Here's No. 2: A parrot with Bill Gates head randomly appears on your desktop screaming "Pieces of eight, pieces of eight".
To me his most memorable role will always be The Big Giant Head on Third Rock From The Sun.
I don't think your history is entirely accurate. The reason given by auto manufacturers for lagging on safety features was that safety didn't sell and was an added expense to the cost of the car. Why build a safer car when the public doesn't care and doing so would make your product more expensive compared to a competitor that didn't include safety features?
What got the safety movement going was another powerful, monied interest - the insurance industry. There the ones that did the initial crash tests, safety design research and lobbied hard for safety laws because they were the ones taking it in the shorts in claims they had to pay out.
In the software world you have no conterbalancing powerful interest group because no one has any liability for security breaches and the damage they cause.
The police can get an arrest warrant based on dna evidence. However, they can't compel a suspect to give sample dna without a warrant issued by a judge based on showing of probable cause.
Great name for a porn movie - Down the Slippery Slope.
This I don't understand and am not sure it's true. The law varies from state to state but generally a parent is not responsible for the criminal activity of their child absent a parental responsibilty statute and that would only apply to violations of state criminal law. Copyright infringement is a matter of federal law so state parental responsibility laws would not apply. Also, this is clearly not a criminal prosecution; only the state can prosecute crimes, not the RIAA or it's British equivalent. In the US, a parent can be held liable for the civil wrongs commited by their children based on a negligent supervision theory but that is a very tough case to prove. The parent would have to be sued in state court separately after the RIAA prevailed against the child in federal court and there only actual damages can be recovered, not the punitive fine imposed under the federal copyright statutes.
This guy is worth 30 billion dollars. He's at least in a 30% tax bracket so he recieves a tax break of 6 million on his charitable gift so his net giving is really more like 14 million. $14 million is about 0.05% of his net worth. So his gift is equivalent to a person with a net worth of $1 million dollars giving a gift of $500. Big woo!!! He's still a greedy pig IMHO.
Not to mention that surrepticious electronic recording is a felony in many states(ask Linda Tripp). You may want to contact your law dept. as well as your CS dept. However, I suspect that what you are really studying is slashdot social behaviour and your post is just a ruse to elicit responses. Forget it, we're on to you.
First off, there is no jury trial in these types of cases where the employer seeks an injunction againnst a former employee under a noncompete clause. In general, juries are not allowed to give injunctive relief; that's soley the province of the judge. The enforceability of these clauses is a matter of state law and varies significantly from state to state. California bans them in most cases IIRC. But in most states, they are enforceable if properly limited as to time and geographical scope. As a practical matter, WD would be crazy to hire this guy and put him to work on the same R&D stuff that he was doing at Seagate. WD would invariably find themnselves on the wrong end of a trade secrets misappropriation case and juries just hate it when a competitor hires away an employee under these circumstances. In that kind of case, the whole deal just smells to jurors and you have real problems defending even if nothing wrong was going on.
Since you asked, most feminist groups are also opposed to pornography.
Not true. My 11 year old son plays PS1 games on his PS2 all the time to this day. Why?? They're cheaper and he can buy a lot more of them on the miserly(according to him) allowance I give him. Kids and young adult males drive this market IMHO and they don't have a lot of $$$.
There's never been a shortage of crap in the popular music industry and there never will be. It goes hand and hand with mass marketing. I'd like David Crosby to sit down and give a good listen to "Yummy Yummy Yummy,I've Got Love In My Tummy" and explain to me how that is superior to todays popular offerings. The problem isn't the overwhelming majority of pop crap that's out there; that's always been the case. The problem that Crosby articulates is that's all that there seems to be room for anymore given the consolidation in the music industry and the few clueless people running the industry. I think he's right. Face it. Crap sells and makes predictable fortunes for those that effectively market it because crap is what the overwhelming majority of the public want. If you don't believe me, tune into the hugely popular American Idol, a musical caricature of pop crap music at its worse.
Saw this one coming a mile down the road: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102379&cid=872 6739
as any competent litigator would. And so did SCOs lawyers. That's why they have moved for this part of the case to be stayed and IBM has moved for partial summary judgment on their carefully crafted counterclaim.
This is really ironic. Janus is the Roman god of portals(gates and doors) and was commonly placed at Roman doors. Janus had two faces, one to look out for evil doers as a guard and the other to look in to safeguard the residents from harm. In true MS fashion, MS is using this mythological figure in just the opposite way. Here, Janus looks into the home to spy on the residents and make sure they don't use digital media "improperly" and looks out to safeguard the interests of the outsider industries coming into the home with their digital media.
I think you have to read the provisos at the begginning of the article, namely that the nature of consiousness is not well understood by science and that they are making a big unproven assumption that conciousness is computational in nature for purposes of this article. The authors are clearly stating that physics does not presently understand the phenomena known as consiousness, only that this result follows if consciousness is computational in nature and certain other assumptions are made about the nature of the universe. It's nice to see a scientist approach this subject with some humility for a change.
Baystar just wants to get paid. What do you expect them to publicly say? "You lied to us about the strength of your case and we want our money now". They could then watch the stock price go to zero along with the probablility of ever getting a cent out of SCO. They are bolstering the stock price by publicly stating that SCO should pursue their IP claims more diligently and professionally as if those claims had merit in hopes of getting their money out before this house of cards comes crashing down.