BSD licensed code infringes upon freedom of the user to modify the software [after a middleman developer created a proprietary derivative work from it]
Yeah, he would never see any benefit from it [if Linux were BSD-licensed]. Except the fact that it would make the whole Linux system more viable, thus attracting more users, thus bringing in more people who don't have the sub-licensing issues that nvidia does and may choose to contribute.
Of course it would make the whole system more viable, which is why my smartphone runs BSD! Oh, wait...
You may argue that the GPL is the big dog in FOSS, but looking around at the various large FOSS projects out there, Linux is the only major GPL'ed software.
So you've never heard of GCC, or the GNU userland utilities that most Linuxes and BSDs (including OS X) use, or the Busybox userland utilities that all the rest of the (embedded, etc.) Linuxes use? All that's GPL, and (IMHO) more important than the Linux kernel (even though I'm not one of those folks who cares about calling it "GNU/Linux").
So, should they not sell the lower cost drugs and leave the developing world to fend for themselves?
Yes.
The more humane, solution, of course, would be to remove responsibility for drug research from corporate interests entirely and instead treat it as a social good.
if this is upheld, you're looking at a radical change in the consumer/producer relationship, and potentially the near total (if not completely total) collapse of the US economy assuming it is strictly enforced, or enforced at all
It would fling our economic system so far in the direction of socialism that we'd go past communism and loop back around to feudalism, only this time based on Imaginary Property instead of real estate.
Why would they need permission? They're not making any copies (but rather only moving around ones previously made legally), so copyright law should never kick in.
If anything, the company should be sued in Great Britain for breach of contract.
Frankly, I suspect that most people will never have heard of this case. A quick Google for the case gives first-page results that are mainly on blogs. Market Watch and Reason Magazine are the only two reasonably well-known publications on the first page of Google results (some people might argue scotus blog, but let's face it, that blog caters to a niche's niche and no one would have heard of it if cameras had been allowed inside the Supreme Court for the Obamacare ruling). I subscribe to Wall Street Journal and Reason, and if this story was every played up in either of those, then I must have totally missed it, because this is the first time I'm hearing of it.
I've gotten several emails from demandprogress.org about it. (That's the price of being an independent thinker, I guess: I get liberal petition emails and conservative survey mailers!)
If some law which creates a right of first sale specifically refers to goods made in the United states...
The right of first sale an axiom upon which the entire structure of the United States is based. You know the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? In the first draft, that was "life, liberty and property" and even though the wording was changed, the essential idea remained the same. There is no law "creating" a right of first sale; it is an inherent human right!
Destroying the right to sell property is the same as destroying the right to own property; a ruling such as this would transform the US into the most socialist country the world has ever known -- way beyond even the Soviet Union.
And, I'm sorry, but given what people pay for their cars, the idea that we would need permission to sell it (or almost anything else) is kind of scary. This kind of thing is truly getting ridiculous, and IP law will have fully jumped the shark.
It's more than that; this is the point where every patriotic American should say "enough is enough" and reach for the proverbial "fourth box!"
Sorry to reply to myself, but I thought of a way to rephrase it more succinctly:
The privilege of forming a corporation does and should come with trade-offs, and it's both reasonable and desirable for one of those trade-offs to be limitations on political speech.
Otherwise, "PEOPLE" are still perfectly free to exercise whatever free speech they want -- just without the tax advantages and leverage afforded by the corporate legal structure.
Nor can a corporation, by itself, run ads or do anything else. Instead the PEOPLE working for the company decide what the company will do, and it's the right of those PEOPLE to say what they like in support of or against someone running for office.
But why should those "PEOPLE" be conferred the special advantage of structuring themselves as a corporation? Forming a corporation is not some kind of inherent right; corporations are constructions of government that were supposedly created to serve the public interest. Once they cease to do that, their continued existence loses all legitimacy.
Well, considering that many hybridizations are just enhancing natural processes like cross-pollenization, it should be obvious that changes are going to happen whether we want them to or not. So how do we protect food crops from change? Short answer, unfortunately, is we cannot.
That is precisely why GM crops should be labeled (or perhaps banned): the point of GM is that the results are so extreme that they can't be obtained by "natural processes."
Maybe because it's apparently being offered by Stanford directly, not their spin-off, Coursera? (There's no way Slashdot could reasonably run an article for every new Coursera class; there's tons of them now.)
Slashdot Mirror
Good job... now give us all the excuses about why Nvidia can't give documentation to the Nouveau devs, please.
BSD licensed code infringes upon freedom of the user to modify the software [after a middleman developer created a proprietary derivative work from it]
Of course it would make the whole system more viable, which is why my smartphone runs BSD! Oh, wait...
So you've never heard of GCC, or the GNU userland utilities that most Linuxes and BSDs (including OS X) use, or the Busybox userland utilities that all the rest of the (embedded, etc.) Linuxes use? All that's GPL, and (IMHO) more important than the Linux kernel (even though I'm not one of those folks who cares about calling it "GNU/Linux").
Wait a second; wouldn't fusion create a new supply of helium, not use it?
The Hell you don't! Globalization works both ways, bitch!
The only copy made was made legally. Copyright is irrelevant when you merely move a copy that already exists.
US soldiers swear an oath of allegiance to the Constitution, not the Government. I would hope and expect that many of them would switch sides.
I would hope the government would be forced to kill you if that happened (because otherwise you'd kill it first).
If that's the case, then we should at least get the endemic casual sex too, damn it!
Yes.
The more humane, solution, of course, would be to remove responsibility for drug research from corporate interests entirely and instead treat it as a social good.
Who cares what country it was "intended for sale" in? Globalization works both ways, bitch!
It would fling our economic system so far in the direction of socialism that we'd go past communism and loop back around to feudalism, only this time based on Imaginary Property instead of real estate.
Yes... in the jurisdiction of the country it was exported from!
Why would they need permission? They're not making any copies (but rather only moving around ones previously made legally), so copyright law should never kick in.
If anything, the company should be sued in Great Britain for breach of contract.
I've gotten several emails from demandprogress.org about it. (That's the price of being an independent thinker, I guess: I get liberal petition emails and conservative survey mailers!)
sarchasm ('sÃr-"ka-z&m) : The giant gulf (chasm) between what is said and the person who doesn't get it (i.e., you).
The right of first sale an axiom upon which the entire structure of the United States is based. You know the phrase "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? In the first draft, that was "life, liberty and property" and even though the wording was changed, the essential idea remained the same. There is no law "creating" a right of first sale; it is an inherent human right!
Destroying the right to sell property is the same as destroying the right to own property; a ruling such as this would transform the US into the most socialist country the world has ever known -- way beyond even the Soviet Union.
It's more than that; this is the point where every patriotic American should say "enough is enough" and reach for the proverbial "fourth box!"
Sorry to reply to myself, but I thought of a way to rephrase it more succinctly:
The privilege of forming a corporation does and should come with trade-offs, and it's both reasonable and desirable for one of those trade-offs to be limitations on political speech.
Otherwise, "PEOPLE" are still perfectly free to exercise whatever free speech they want -- just without the tax advantages and leverage afforded by the corporate legal structure.
But why should those "PEOPLE" be conferred the special advantage of structuring themselves as a corporation? Forming a corporation is not some kind of inherent right; corporations are constructions of government that were supposedly created to serve the public interest. Once they cease to do that, their continued existence loses all legitimacy.
All corporations are sociopathic by design
Let's see, I like Arthur C. Clarke, so I'll pay $20.01: "2 0 . 0 !" (accidental shift+1)
Oops, now my account is overdrawn by $2.3 * 10 ^ 18...
That is precisely why GM crops should be labeled (or perhaps banned): the point of GM is that the results are so extreme that they can't be obtained by "natural processes."
Did he spray Round-Up on it and expect it to survive? If not, then he wasn't trying to "intention[ally] circumvent" anything.
Maybe because it's apparently being offered by Stanford directly, not their spin-off, Coursera? (There's no way Slashdot could reasonably run an article for every new Coursera class; there's tons of them now.)