The article has no by-line. That's one of the first signs it's bogus. The article provides no verifiable details. There is no "Kolsky Research Institute" according to Google, although there is a mineralogist Yakov Pakhomovsky who works at the Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Science, Apatity, Russia. Perhaps some enterprising/.er will contact him and see if he can verify the quote and/or the find.
the document is not flexible, living, breathing and adapting
The Founding Fathers designed the Constitution to evolve. That's why they included Article V, the one about amending the Constitution. If the Constitution is inflexible and non-adaptable, we shouldn't need to change it, right?
That Article is why we don't have slavery, why blacks and women can vote, why we have due process and equal protection under the law, etc. It's why we have the Bill of Rights: those 10 amendments weren't passed until four years AFTER the rest of the Constitution and two years AFTER the new government started operations. If the Constitution is inflexible and was perfect when it was originally passed, we never should have followed it up with the Bill of Rights. Think about that for awhile.
I don't just run Ad Block, I also run NoScript and QuickJava. I disable Javascript from sites I don't like. This also disables their Firefox blocker. Fail.
The 9th Circuit also said the threats violated the US Constitution's Commerce Clause.
This statement directly contradicts the ruling. From the middle of the last paragraph on page 4 of the PDF:
Because we conclude that Jones' actions were not sufficiently tailored to advance the State's legitimate interests, we do not reach Appellants' further claims that those actions were an unconstitutional prior restraint, violated the dormant Commerce Clause and were ultra vires under state law.
1) If it was only a 20 second clip, they're covered by fair use provisions.
I wish people would stop propagating this myth. It is wrong, wrong, and unequivocally wrong. Read the fair use law, 17 USC 107:
the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It's only a fair use if the court decides it is after looking at all four of the above factors (and perhaps others) and balancing them.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but that's not the conclusion I reach when there are thousands of chefs in the kitchen, and only a few of them get to decide whose meals are served. And even with that much power, the lead chef can't really fire anybody whose cooking he doesn't like, he can just refuse to serve it (in his restaurant, at any rate). Which is what's happening here. Except that the lead chef just said, "if you don't like the dishes I choose to serve, you don't deserve to be near a frying pan." What??
Exactly. Remember NTP v. RIM? The guy who developed wireless email tried to market it to Blackberry, but they turned him down and made their own, infringing system. At that time NTP had no "market share, reputation, good will, or name recognition." How were they supposed to get any use out of their patent, unless there was the threat of injunction? And why have patents at all, if they don't protect your ideas?
one of the main reasons that I never ended entertaining the notion of merging SD for very long at all:
Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than trying to work with them.
OK, Linus doesn't like people who don't play well with others.
instead of keeping to your isolated world, instead of just talking about your own machine and ignoring other peoples machines and issues and instead of just denying that problems may exist, and instead of attacking people who report problems, how about working with them?
OK, he really doesn't like people who don't play well with others. We get it.
If a kernel developer uses Windows for his day-to-day work, I sure as hell wouldn't want to have him developing Linux. That has nothing to do with anything anti-windows: but the whole "eat your own dogfood" is a very fundamental thing, and somebody who doesn't do that shouldn't be allowed to be even _close_ to a compiler!
Wait, what? Now who's not playing well with others? My hypocrisy meter just pegged.
And what's with the massive ego? It's as if suddenly Linus thinks he invented compilers or something. I think he needs to take a vacation and regain some perspective.
You should know something before you go congratulating Debbie Foster's lawyers for a job well done. The opinion slams them pretty hard.
She asked for over $114,000 but the court only gave her about $68,000, because her lawyers charged too much. For example, the "docket in this case is replete with the defendant's supplemental and corrective filings designed to cure defects in motions and responses that should have been complete and correct when originally filed." (page 8). In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -- the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent
If someone else thought of the dumb idea before you, even if you didn't know about it, you publishing it won't prevent them from patenting it. Obviously -- one purpose of patent laws is to get inventors to disclose their inventions to the public. If an inventor told someone else, and that person could prevent them from getting a patent by publishing, there would be a disincentive for the inventor to talk to others.
As Keith Olbermann pointed out, this came out on a Monday, the start of the weekly news cycle, not Friday when any sane wonk would bury it. With a holiday Wednesday which most people use to think about what this nation means and where we're going. It's the worst timing imaginable.
"But our winner, by unanimous decision: the 43rd President of the United States, who has tonight commuted the sentence of one of the key members of his own administration. Who has done it gutlessly, by press release. Who has buried it on the Monday of the longest 4th of July weekend possible. And who has, in so doing, forfeited his claim to being president of anything larger than a small, privileged, elitist, undemocratic, anti-constitutional cabal. As Oliver Cromwell said to the infamous Rump Parliament in England more than 350 years ago, 'You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.' George Walker Bush, today's worst person in the world."
Tomorrow night on Countdown (8pm ET), Olbermann will call on Bush & Cheney to resign.
Mod parent down. The very first line of TFA: "Dawnell Leadbetter, the successful defendant in Interscope v. Leadbetter, has brought a motion for attorneys fees against the record company plaintiffs, Interscope Records, Capitol Records, SONY BMG, Atlantic Recording, BMG Music, and Virgin Records." RTFA (in before you must be new here).
Also, mod CowboyNeal down for misleading article title.
Perfect Devices are bad for business because it leaves no room for failure, improvements, and other features which companies rely on. If your computer was always easily upgraded, and you never needed that new Video Card, what good would it be for the companies?
It would force them to innovate in wholly new areas of technology. Which is a primary purpose of the patent system.
everyone is anonymous on the internet. you and i aren't posting as anonymous cowards, but we're still anonymous: all you know of me is my moniker, and a few tid bits of information about who i am that i choose to disclose which may or may not be true
I'll take that bet, and raise you a subpoena. You think Taco wouldn't roll over in a heartbeat and cough up your IP if he got a court order? How do you think they catch child pornographers? You're not anonymous, you're just hard to track. That doesn't mean it can't be done if it's important enough. Here, she's alleging that she was denied a job because of libel. Imagine if that happened to you and your family, then tell me that's not important enough.
Lawsuits are serious business. Court can issue orders, and if you don't comply, they can throw you in jail until you do. If you want to think that you can just smear people online with no consequences, go ahead, live in fantasy-land. Just don't be surprised when you don't live happily ever after.
Slashdot Mirror
Getting evidence admitted is one thing, but getting a jury to believe it or give it any weight or credibility is something else entirely.
The article has no by-line. That's one of the first signs it's bogus. The article provides no verifiable details. There is no "Kolsky Research Institute" according to Google, although there is a mineralogist Yakov Pakhomovsky who works at the Kola Science Centre of the Russian Academy of Science, Apatity, Russia. Perhaps some enterprising /.er will contact him and see if he can verify the quote and/or the find.
That Article is why we don't have slavery, why blacks and women can vote, why we have due process and equal protection under the law, etc. It's why we have the Bill of Rights: those 10 amendments weren't passed until four years AFTER the rest of the Constitution and two years AFTER the new government started operations. If the Constitution is inflexible and was perfect when it was originally passed, we never should have followed it up with the Bill of Rights. Think about that for awhile.
I don't just run Ad Block, I also run NoScript and QuickJava. I disable Javascript from sites I don't like. This also disables their Firefox blocker. Fail.
A quick followup: the article has been updated to fix the error.
Wait, did you just say zero point module? Uh oh...
In sum, the '30 second rule' is pure fiction.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but that's not the conclusion I reach when there are thousands of chefs in the kitchen, and only a few of them get to decide whose meals are served. And even with that much power, the lead chef can't really fire anybody whose cooking he doesn't like, he can just refuse to serve it (in his restaurant, at any rate). Which is what's happening here. Except that the lead chef just said, "if you don't like the dishes I choose to serve, you don't deserve to be near a frying pan." What??
Exactly. Remember NTP v. RIM? The guy who developed wireless email tried to market it to Blackberry, but they turned him down and made their own, infringing system. At that time NTP had no "market share, reputation, good will, or name recognition." How were they supposed to get any use out of their patent, unless there was the threat of injunction? And why have patents at all, if they don't protect your ideas?
And what's with the massive ego? It's as if suddenly Linus thinks he invented compilers or something. I think he needs to take a vacation and regain some perspective.
She asked for over $114,000 but the court only gave her about $68,000, because her lawyers charged too much. For example, the "docket in this case is replete with the defendant's supplemental and corrective filings designed to cure defects in motions and responses that should have been complete and correct when originally filed." (page 8). In other words, her lawyers screwed up, and had to fix their mistakes at her expense. Also, once they learned that she was the winner and their bills would be paid, they started "frenetic activity" which they billed her for. (page 9). Also, they nickel-and-dimed her to the tune of about $1,500 on things like copy and fax costs (they charged $1.50 per fax page, where the court found $0.20 to be "generous"). (page 13).
Ouch.
Copyright lawsuits in: 3... 2... 1...
Do your own homework.
As Keith Olbermann pointed out, this came out on a Monday, the start of the weekly news cycle, not Friday when any sane wonk would bury it. With a holiday Wednesday which most people use to think about what this nation means and where we're going. It's the worst timing imaginable.
Tomorrow night on Countdown (8pm ET), Olbermann will call on Bush & Cheney to resign.
Suing Satan, eh? It's been tried. No joke.
I for one welcome our socially outgoing, well-adjusted, fuzzy minuscule overlords.
Also, mod CowboyNeal down for misleading article title.
Lawsuits are serious business. Court can issue orders, and if you don't comply, they can throw you in jail until you do. If you want to think that you can just smear people online with no consequences, go ahead, live in fantasy-land. Just don't be surprised when you don't live happily ever after.
Never bet against ingenuity.