You can seek justice in a US court. But you can't collect. Most of the time you can't even collect with a judgement in hand from a US court against a US company. They simply stone wall you. You have zero chance of collecting from a guy working out of a loft in Paris.
So if you had a point, it was lost by your naivety of the real world.
Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?
I agree, lets get them to stand up and take a bow. I don't think it's reasonable to hold an anonymous copyright and let all that hard work go unrecognized.
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
In the absence of any real penalty in the laws for filing false takedown notices, it seems to me that everyone should simply start filing takedown notices on every single thing they find on the net anywhere until the hosting companies realize that it is a total mess, and start demanding more than an automated statement, something like proof, a statement of the work it is supposed to actually violate, etc.
Clearly if these files were compressed and encrypted, any hash or content match was random, and virtually any executable code or encrypted file might trigger a match with whatever engine these take-down artists were using.
Perhaps there is a business opportunity to set up a company in East Timor or some such place that would automatically file a counter notices (putback), which then requires the takedown artists to file suit, or shut up. This puts the cost burden back on them, and at worst case, an improperly accused person has a ten day interruption of availability.
As long as the hollywood darlings are in office I see no chance of this ever being corrected via legislation. The best bet is to get it to topple over of its own weight.
"Forced" doesn't mean "I had to do it because I needed the money" in China. From the description of the article I think this is the same thing -- the authorities rounding up people to "help" the industry. The only difference is that when I was doing it, we were doing it for the "country". Now it is for Foxconn.
Well apparently the international attention this story is receiving has attracted the attention of Apple and the Chinese Government. Its not clear who acted first, but it appears the Government has ordered an end to the practice of using students to to fulfil industrial orders.
According to the statement, the Huai'an government has ordered higher education institutions to strictly follow the policies and correct the violations. But students who volunteered to do internship in the factory could stay, China National Radio reported yesterday.
So now only [cough] "Volunteers" are used for this purpose.
I'm sure you meant to say that when you were a kid you were offered the opportunity to "Volunteer" in the fields, right? I'm sure your relatives still living in the area "Volunteer" would confirm this, would they not?
And once people notice, word will spread like wildfire. As will customer dissatisfaction, and people will shift to vendors who simply offer a straight-up price without trying to play games.
Exactly. It is a self defeating technology. The vendor that doesn't do it wins.
Given how hard trolls like Apple are slamming companies without sufficiently large patent profiles, Google needs to be able to defend itself. If it sues anyone over this sort of bullshit except in self defense you have a case. As it stands, failure to patent this would be stupid.
Its just as likely Google filed this to prevent Apple/Amazon from using it.
After all, google sells ads, (and android music/apps/video) but not a great deal of other stuff. They would not be the most likely users of this technology. They might sell the info to other on-line retailers, but those people will be undercut by retailers who don't buy this service from Google. In other words, use of this technology is likely to put the seller at a disadvantage, because even people who will pay more, want to pay less.
Selling Ice in Texas is easier and will fetch a higher price than selling Ice to Eskimos. But in Texas, they aren't stupid. Given the same Ice at two different prices they have no problem making up their mind.
The manufacturing side owe their allegiance to the same people the mobile side does.
And no, Apple does not design the majority of chips that are in their phones. Only the processor, and NO again, not just anybody can make those chips. Apple doesn't own a single fab.
Yes there are contracts in place. (You got one thing right). But all industrial contract have cost escalation clauses for things that are beyond their control.
Wait, the size of a given file can not reliably be determined by the packet stream when the stream is encrypted. All sorts of "white space" can be added to files on the fly.
Further, there is not that much on Wiki that would trigger an arrest anyway.
has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
But you forgot Claim #9:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes a phone.
Further, the pictures may be stored elsewhere (on the network or in your google account for example). So you buy new android phone, and hold it in front of your face and it automatically logs you into your account, using a comparison against photos the phone doesn't actually contain.
Or you borrow a phone, the owner of which has unlocked it for you, and you go thru the face-unlock (again) and for the duration of that login it is your phone with your account on it. (claim 1 and Claim 20)
Further, fall back methods are specified in case the images don't compare, or the environment is not conducive to photos (dark).
Google cited many if not all of the relevant patents in this field. Then they added claim 9, and claim 20, which both specify a phone.
Its a narrow patent (not that you would ever learn that from the Slashdot summary), that applies to phones and has the added wrinkle of allowing off-device storage of the comparison set of photos which are used to make a 3d model of your face).
The other thing to realize is that Samsung is one of Apple's biggest suppliers, and one that Apple can't avoid.
Simply by imposing the industry standard cost escalator contract clause they recoup the entire Billion in one year from Apple. Piss Samsung off too badly, and "shortages" could develop.
Apple still needs Samsung, but Samsung has a wealth of customers these days.
Yes the 11.2 and 11.4 were very good releases. But that is pretty normal for OpenSuse. Really good releases interspersed with an occasional not so good developmental release.
I suspect 12.2 will be pretty good based on all the fixes applied and lessons learned from the early 12.x versions.
Google asked for $4 million. Of that, $3 million was for electronic discovery, which the judge disallowed. Groklaw says that it's usual for a claim to be reduced, but that doesn't explain why he disallowed this particular cost.
Electronic discovery is basically about using advanced software to do forensic analysis of discovery documents. I find it really interesting that Google spent three times as much on this as they spent on paying lawyers to actually argue the case.
Actually Groklaw does explain why the e-discovery costs were denied:
However, “fees for exemplification and copying are permitted only for the physical preparation and duplication of documents, not the intellectual effort involved in their production.”... The problem with Google’s e-discovery bill of costs is that many of item-line descriptions seemingly bill for “intellectual effort” such as organizing, searching, and analyzing the discovery documents.
They made a billing error. They tried to bill consultant "think" time as document prep time.
Had they done this work with lawyers they may have been able to bill it, but on the other hand by doing it with researchers and analysts the actually prevailed where it is less likely lawyers alone would have done so, not being specialists in this particular type of research. I suspect Google will take that outcome any day.
Ah, no. The process from beginning to nearly the end was about patents. Google ended up getting virtually all of them invalidated, and Oracle tried to fall back on copyright. Go read Groklaw:
Oracle initially alleged infringement of seven patents and 132 claims but each claim ultimately was either dismissed with prejudice or found to be non-infringed by the jury.... Oracle’s first damages report barely mentioned copyright claims),... but instead fell back on an overreaching (albeit somewhat novel) theory of copyright infringement for its own financial interests late in litigation.
Yes, its amazing just how many bloggers are running away from their predictions:
It's all but said and done that Oracle is going to have some kind of pay day. During a court hearing last July, Judge Alsup admitted that Google is definitely going to pay up "probably in the millions, maybe in the billions" at some point.
SF Gate, on the other hand pretty much predicted this outcome just 9 days later on April 25, 2012:
The remarkable thing is that, when the dust settles, five of the seven patents Oracle claimed that Google violated will likely be overturned because Google forced the patent office to take a second look.... If only two of Oracle's patents hold up on review, that means the patent office got it right less than 30 percent of the time, an average we have every reason to believe is representative of the entire sector's patents. In fact, software patent holders lose nearly 90 percent of the time in litigation, Stanford law Professor Mark Lemley found in a research paper published last year.
Can you point out where in the constitution it says they need a warrant to search my robot that was walking around in public? Fourth Amendment you say? Maybe you should read up a little bit. If they can stop and frisk YOU for nothing more than walking while black, they can certainly detain and drain your robot.
Did you know that the percentage of overweight children and adolescents in the US has nearly tripled since the early 1970’s? More than one in five children between the ages of 6 and 17 are now considered overweight. The lack of physical education (and sports) is going to cost us billions in medical expenses because our children believe like you.
In destroy your point in your own post.
There IS NO LACK of physical education, by law, in the US over that same time span. Yet obesity continues to increase. So while every student has been in gym class all these years it hasn't helped.
Had you paid as much attention in biology as you did at practice, you would have learned that you simply can't exercise weight away without changing diet. No amount of jumping jacks will make up for two bowls of Apple Jacks, or a burger and fries for lunch every day at Jack-in-the-Box.
Note that physical education classes are really not the issue here. Competitive inter-school football, basketball, hockey programs are what this thread is about. Gym class is cheap, arguably effective. Competitive sports are a waste of money, except where its used as a means of making money. And when is is used that way, it often becomes corrupt.
Vandalized or stolen doesn't come close to covering it.
Can it be searched? Its in plain view. It has no expectation of privacy. Will police "taps" be allowed? Is a warrant needed? Can I clone its memory cards if it walks across my property? Is it mine if it walks across my property? How does anyone know its not a walking bomb? Can shopkeepers refuse it access, or does it have implied "rights" of access like service animals in service to their owners?
As long as its your robot you can parts it out do your heart's content.
But if I send my robot down the street to get groceries, I don't want someone yanking its memory modules or salvaging its servos just because it was running around loose and had no feelings.
We really don't have many laws that cover a device that runs around in public spaces doing errands and perhaps spending money (digital or otherwise). Yes its property, and my property rights may still apply, but I'm not sure that's enough to prevent someone from declaring it abandoned property and partsing it out on the spot.
There are more imminent questions that need to be answered: Are they licensed like cars to be in public spaces? Carry and spend money? Carry weapons? Plug in and recharge when they need? Be searched by police at will? Will Police disable and memory strip my Asimo just because it might have recorded a police beatdown while passing a dimly lit alley?
Almost everything you said is exactly wrong. Most parents would rather their children didn't play high school sports, except for dads who played high school sports and want to live vicariously thru junior, so they can brag about down at the plant during lunch break from their meaningless drone jobs that high school sports prepared them for.
Just because you cannot see the point of sports does not mean that there is not a good one.
Seriously, you are going with the "you're too dumb to see things my way" argument?
There is really no point in high school sports, and even less in middle school sports. All the team effort lessons can be taught in Science, or even English classes by group learning projects.
You could have learned as much in a basic after school pick up game of basketball as 3 years o football taught you, and you would still have your knees and far more of your brain cells intact.
My high school taught home construction as a team activity out of the industrial arts program. Building 3 bedroom houses, and selling them at a profit, until labor unions objected. The workmanship was excellent and electrical and plumbing codes were followed to the letter. The grade was based on how well they understood the concepts, as well as how they got the job done, and extra credit if the house sold at a profit.
Some of those kids went on to become engineering students, others went straight into the trades. None of them went on to running around bashing into other people for a living.
Corporate bought and paid for? That's quite a stretch. When have you seen GM sitting on the school board or attending aPta meeting?
Oh right you haven't because you never attend these things either. But hey, never miss an opportunity to lay the blame for any fucking thing at the door step of corporations. Hate rage much?
I love my system. And I wish more people encrypted and backed up their stuff regularly. The peace of mind is worth it. My data is always safe from failures and intruders, whether it be one my system at home, or my backups in other locations throughout the country.
Chances that your data will be stolen over the net probably exceed the chance of physical theft by a factor of 10. Full disk encryption doesn't help this, and anything that can be foisted into your system will have disk access.
This is where the fallacy in TFA manifests itself. The risk is the network connection, not the drive.
Slashdot Mirror
You can seek justice in a US court.
But you can't collect. Most of the time you can't even collect with a judgement in hand from a US court against a US company. They simply stone wall you.
You have zero chance of collecting from a guy working out of a loft in Paris.
So if you had a point, it was lost by your naivety of the real world.
Malware authors are content creators too. Don't they deserve the recognition and profits for their hard work?
I agree, lets get them to stand up and take a bow. I don't think it's reasonable to hold an anonymous copyright and let all that hard work go unrecognized.
There is a reason these takedown companies are all moving off shore. This way they avoid the perjury penalty for filing false reports. Who has time to fly to Paris to file perjury claims against this company on their home turf, in a French Court.
In the absence of any real penalty in the laws for filing false takedown notices, it seems to me that everyone should simply start filing takedown notices on every single thing they find on the net anywhere until the hosting companies realize that it is a total mess, and start demanding more than an automated statement, something like proof, a statement of the work it is supposed to actually violate, etc.
Clearly if these files were compressed and encrypted, any hash or content match was random, and virtually any executable code or encrypted file might trigger a match with whatever engine these take-down artists were using.
Perhaps there is a business opportunity to set up a company in East Timor or some such place that would automatically file a counter notices (putback), which then requires the takedown artists to file suit, or shut up. This puts the cost burden back on them, and at worst case, an improperly accused person has a ten day interruption of availability.
As long as the hollywood darlings are in office I see no chance of this ever being corrected via legislation. The best bet is to get it to topple over of its own weight.
"Forced" doesn't mean "I had to do it because I needed the money" in China.
From the description of the article I think this is the same thing -- the authorities rounding up people to "help" the industry.
The only difference is that when I was doing it, we were doing it for the "country". Now it is for Foxconn.
Well apparently the international attention this story is receiving has attracted the attention of Apple and the Chinese Government.
Its not clear who acted first, but it appears the Government has ordered an end to the practice of using students to to fulfil industrial orders.
According to the statement, the Huai'an government has ordered higher education institutions to strictly follow the policies and correct the violations. But students who volunteered to do internship in the factory could stay, China National Radio reported yesterday.
So now only [cough] "Volunteers" are used for this purpose.
I'm sure you meant to say that when you were a kid you were offered the opportunity to "Volunteer" in the fields, right?
I'm sure your relatives still living in the area "Volunteer" would confirm this, would they not?
And once people notice, word will spread like wildfire. As will customer dissatisfaction, and people will shift to vendors who simply offer a straight-up price without trying to play games.
Exactly. It is a self defeating technology. The vendor that doesn't do it wins.
Further, its easily detected and defeated.
Given how hard trolls like Apple are slamming companies without sufficiently large patent profiles, Google needs to be able to defend itself. If it sues anyone over this sort of bullshit except in self defense you have a case. As it stands, failure to patent this would be stupid.
Its just as likely Google filed this to prevent Apple/Amazon from using it.
After all, google sells ads, (and android music/apps/video) but not a great deal of other stuff.
They would not be the most likely users of this technology. They might sell the info to other on-line retailers, but those people will be undercut by retailers who don't buy this service from Google. In other words, use of this technology is likely to put the seller at a disadvantage, because even people who will pay more, want to pay less.
Selling Ice in Texas is easier and will fetch a higher price than selling Ice to Eskimos.
But in Texas, they aren't stupid. Given the same Ice at two different prices they have no problem making up their mind.
The manufacturing side owe their allegiance to the same people the mobile side does.
And no, Apple does not design the majority of chips that are in their phones. Only the processor, and NO again, not just anybody can make those chips. Apple doesn't own a single fab.
Yes there are contracts in place. (You got one thing right). But all industrial contract have cost escalation clauses for things that are beyond their control.
Wait, the size of a given file can not reliably be determined by the packet stream when the stream is encrypted. All sorts of "white space" can be added to files on the fly.
Further, there is not that much on Wiki that would trigger an arrest anyway.
has had this for over 2 years. It logs onto windows using facial recognition, and different users are logged in under their respective username.
But you forgot Claim #9:
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes a phone.
Further, the pictures may be stored elsewhere (on the network or in your google account for example). So you buy new android phone, and hold it in front of your face and it automatically logs you into your account, using a comparison against photos the phone doesn't actually contain.
Or you borrow a phone, the owner of which has unlocked it for you, and you go thru the face-unlock (again) and for the duration of that login it is your phone with your account on it. (claim 1 and Claim 20)
Further, fall back methods are specified in case the images don't compare, or the environment is not conducive to photos (dark).
Google cited many if not all of the relevant patents in this field. Then they added claim 9, and claim 20, which both specify a phone.
Its a narrow patent (not that you would ever learn that from the Slashdot summary), that applies to phones and has the added wrinkle of allowing off-device storage of the comparison set of photos which are used to make a 3d model of your face).
As long as Bill is on this ship it would be fine.
Still, a horrible thing to inflict upon whatever world it lands on.
I swear to god, sometimes Slashdotters come off sounding like a bunch of gimps.
Wait, Gimp now has facial recognition too?
He said gimp!, right? I read it on the intertubes!
But its hard to steal their phone from hundreds of feet away....
The other thing to realize is that Samsung is one of Apple's biggest suppliers, and one that Apple can't avoid.
Simply by imposing the industry standard cost escalator contract clause they recoup the entire Billion in one year from Apple.
Piss Samsung off too badly, and "shortages" could develop.
Apple still needs Samsung, but Samsung has a wealth of customers these days.
Yes the 11.2 and 11.4 were very good releases. But that is pretty normal for OpenSuse. Really good releases interspersed with an occasional not so good developmental release.
I suspect 12.2 will be pretty good based on all the fixes applied and lessons learned from the early 12.x versions.
Google asked for $4 million. Of that, $3 million was for electronic discovery, which the judge disallowed. Groklaw says that it's usual for a claim to be reduced, but that doesn't explain why he disallowed this particular cost.
Electronic discovery is basically about using advanced software to do forensic analysis of discovery documents. I find it really interesting that Google spent three times as much on this as they spent on paying lawyers to actually argue the case.
Actually Groklaw does explain why the e-discovery costs were denied:
However, “fees for exemplification and copying are permitted only for the physical preparation and duplication of documents, not the intellectual effort involved in their production.” ...
The problem with Google’s e-discovery bill of costs is that many of item-line descriptions seemingly bill for “intellectual effort” such as organizing, searching, and analyzing the discovery documents.
They made a billing error. They tried to bill consultant "think" time as document prep time.
Had they done this work with lawyers they may have been able to bill it, but on the other hand by doing it with researchers and analysts the actually prevailed where it is less likely lawyers alone would have done so, not being specialists in this particular type of research. I suspect Google will take that outcome any day.
Ah, no.
The process from beginning to nearly the end was about patents. Google ended up getting virtually all of them invalidated, and Oracle tried to fall back on copyright.
Go read Groklaw:
Oracle initially alleged infringement of seven patents and 132 claims but each claim ultimately was either dismissed with prejudice or found to be non-infringed by the jury. ... Oracle’s first damages report barely mentioned copyright claims), ... but instead fell back on an overreaching (albeit somewhat novel) theory of copyright infringement for its own financial interests late in litigation.
Yes, its amazing just how many bloggers are running away from their predictions:
It's all but said and done that Oracle is going to have some kind of pay day. During a court hearing last July, Judge Alsup admitted that Google is definitely going to pay up "probably in the millions, maybe in the billions" at some point.
Rachel King April 16, 2012.
SF Gate, on the other hand pretty much predicted this outcome just 9 days later on April 25, 2012:
The remarkable thing is that, when the dust settles, five of the seven patents Oracle claimed that Google violated will likely be overturned because Google forced the patent office to take a second look. ...
If only two of Oracle's patents hold up on review, that means the patent office got it right less than 30 percent of the time, an average we have every reason to believe is representative of the entire sector's patents. In fact, software patent holders lose nearly 90 percent of the time in litigation, Stanford law Professor Mark Lemley found in a research paper published last year.
The courts would do best if they just struck down software patents again, as they have done three times in the past.
Even the output from software should not be patentable (slide to unlock).
Can you point out where in the constitution it says they need a warrant to search my robot that was walking around in public?
Fourth Amendment you say?
Maybe you should read up a little bit. If they can stop and frisk YOU for nothing more than walking while black, they can certainly detain and drain your robot.
Did you know that the percentage of overweight children and adolescents in the US has nearly tripled since the early 1970’s? More than one in five children between the ages of 6 and 17 are now considered overweight. The lack of physical education (and sports) is going to cost us billions in medical expenses because our children believe like you.
In destroy your point in your own post.
There IS NO LACK of physical education, by law, in the US over that same time span. Yet obesity continues to increase. So while every student has been in gym class all these years it hasn't helped.
Had you paid as much attention in biology as you did at practice, you would have learned that you simply can't exercise weight away without changing diet. No amount of jumping jacks will make up for two bowls of Apple Jacks, or a burger and fries for lunch every day at Jack-in-the-Box.
Note that physical education classes are really not the issue here.
Competitive inter-school football, basketball, hockey programs are what this thread is about.
Gym class is cheap, arguably effective. Competitive sports are a waste of money, except where its used as a means of making money. And when is is used that way, it often becomes corrupt.
Vandalized or stolen doesn't come close to covering it.
Can it be searched? Its in plain view. It has no expectation of privacy. Will police "taps" be allowed?
Is a warrant needed?
Can I clone its memory cards if it walks across my property? Is it mine if it walks across my property?
How does anyone know its not a walking bomb?
Can shopkeepers refuse it access, or does it have implied "rights" of access like service animals in service to their owners?
As long as its your robot you can parts it out do your heart's content.
But if I send my robot down the street to get groceries, I don't want someone yanking its memory modules or salvaging its servos just because it was running around loose and had no feelings.
We really don't have many laws that cover a device that runs around in public spaces doing errands and perhaps spending money (digital or otherwise).
Yes its property, and my property rights may still apply, but I'm not sure that's enough to prevent someone from declaring it abandoned property and partsing it out on the spot.
There are more imminent questions that need to be answered:
Are they licensed like cars to be in public spaces? Carry and spend money? Carry weapons? Plug in and recharge when they need? Be searched by police at will? Will Police disable and memory strip my Asimo just because it might have recorded a police beatdown while passing a dimly lit alley?
Almost everything you said is exactly wrong.
Most parents would rather their children didn't play high school sports, except for dads who played high school sports and want to live vicariously thru junior, so they can brag about down at the plant during lunch break from their meaningless drone jobs that high school sports prepared them for.
Just because you cannot see the point of sports does not mean that there is not a good one.
Seriously, you are going with the "you're too dumb to see things my way" argument?
There is really no point in high school sports, and even less in middle school sports. All the team effort lessons can be taught in Science, or even English classes by group learning projects.
You could have learned as much in a basic after school pick up game of basketball as 3 years o football taught you, and you would still have your knees and far more of your brain cells intact.
My high school taught home construction as a team activity out of the industrial arts program. Building 3 bedroom houses, and selling them at a profit, until labor unions objected. The workmanship was excellent and electrical and plumbing codes were followed to the letter. The grade was based on how well they understood the concepts, as well as how they got the job done, and extra credit if the house sold at a profit.
Some of those kids went on to become engineering students, others went straight into the trades. None of them went on to running around bashing into other people for a living.
Corporate bought and paid for?
That's quite a stretch. When have you seen GM sitting on the school board or attending aPta meeting?
Oh right you haven't because you never attend these things either.
But hey, never miss an opportunity to lay the blame for any fucking thing at the door step of corporations.
Hate rage much?
I love my system. And I wish more people encrypted and backed up their stuff regularly. The peace of mind is worth it. My data is always safe from failures and intruders, whether it be one my system at home, or my backups in other locations throughout the country.
Chances that your data will be stolen over the net probably exceed the chance of physical theft by a factor of 10.
Full disk encryption doesn't help this, and anything that can be foisted into your system will have disk access.
This is where the fallacy in TFA manifests itself.
The risk is the network connection, not the drive.