Yea those levels are nice but it would have been nice for Valve to release a few more. The game is quite repetitive with the same few maps over and over and over again. I've played maybe 2 decent user created maps but most of those are pretty weak so far.
We were working on it and running it internally before that. AT&T had it prior to 1995, it just wasn't available to the public Unfortunately, to be used to rule a patent obvious, the information/documentation/use etc. must be available to the public before the filing date. Secret use by someone else won't be enough. I think it may actually have to be at least a year before the filing date but I just woke up and my brain isn't fully awake yet.
The bottom line is I should be able to do what i want with something i pay for, and apple can fuck off and die if they think their control should extend past the sale (or any vendor for that matter) A little off topic here but the Supreme Court is taking up this issue right now in the LG v. Quanta case. It's a case that asks whether patent owners can impose restrictions on what you can do with a product after you buy it. The law right now says that they can restrict you however they want by using licenses. Many are saying that the Supreme Court only hears cases from the Federal Circuit when they want to reverse them so you just may get your wish.
I am not familiar with this technology but am familiar with patent law. A quick search through the claims does not mention DTMF. I am assuming you read the "DTMF" that is in the abstract of the patent and in the specification (the part that comes before the claims). The claims are what define the invention and the limitations from the spec are not allowed to be read into the meanings of the claims. The descriptions with "DTMF" are most likely descriptions of possible uses of the invention.
It is a common mistake here on/. The abstract and spec DO NOT define the boundaries of the invention. Keep that in mind
The patent in suit, 5572576, was filed Mar 15, 1994. The ATT thing you speak is after that date and thus cannot be used to rule the patent in suit as obvious. Obviousness is determined by date of filing, not date of issuance. http://www.google.com/patents?id=iPAoAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,572,576
I doubt this was real obvious in 1994. Good luck. As the summary says, they've already won before with it. Thus, I doubt it'll get rule as obvious. I doubt the new Supreme Court cases will help.
Once you violate the GPL, your right to distribute the licensed software is terminated. You can only start distributing it again if the copyright holder relicenses you to do so. In GPL violation disputes, the FSF have normally relicensed a distributer once they conform to the GPL's requirements - but this is not automatic, or written into the GPL. This is interesting. What this basically means is that the MPAA may never use Xubuntu again. I highly doubt any of the developers will give them permission. And I think for them to get permission, they have to ask EVERY SINGLE ONE of them. They still can't use later versions either because those will be derivatives and it would violate the copyright of this older one.
Many people worked on the B-2 for awhile before they even knew what the entire project was. They were just tasked to work on parts of it without knowing that the final product was a stealth bomber. This is probably why it was such a well kept secret during the 80s.
The labels can still fund tours. Tours expensive unlike what the guy above me said. For example, renting a bus is at least $1000 a week. That might seem low for a large act but for a band who is just starting out, it is a lot of money and they'll need help from the label to do it.
Yea but my point really is that albums still are selling really well and that this whole "piracy is killing us" talk is just BS because albums are still selling. Artists are still going platinum and record execs are still getting rich.
I really think this is BS. I have a friend who has worked at Atlantic for the past year or two and he currently has 5 gold records hanging on his wall and one platinum is on the way. If these bands are selling so well, why is the industry doing so poorly. Also, these bands are not totally mainstream. I bet 90% of/. hasn't even heard of them.
So the question about sexual orientation is never going to give an answer you can use to determine if someone's open to blackmail. If someone's openly gay, they'll say "gay". If they're secretly gay, and thus open to blackmail, they'll answer "straight". 90% of the population will also answer "straight". Yea but they use lie detectors to determine if you are telling them the truth. I had a clearance but didn't get to the point of having to do a polygraph test but from what I've heard they are pretty rigorous and by the time you are done, you are really pissed off by the questions asked. In fact, it is apparently the interviewer's job to make you angry.
This probably just depends on how they are written. This is a good point though. I think they might actually fall into correspondence more often. Chats would be more like conversation.
That is correct. Emails, however, often fall into the "conversation" realm and would lack the necessary creativity to gain copyright protection. So you can't just say all emails are copyrightable because some, if not most, will not be.
Their copyrightability is questionable. The U.S. Copyright Office will not register them.
My 2 second google search brings up this. Disclamer: I haven't read that page though other than the title.
I AM correct. Research before you talk.
Registration IS REQUIRED before infringement to get STATUTORY damages:
17 U.S.C. Section 412:
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), an action for infringement of the copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408 (f) before the commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1 month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action instituted under section 411 (b), no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for--
(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work.http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html
Slashdot Mirror
Those were invented years ago man
Yea those levels are nice but it would have been nice for Valve to release a few more. The game is quite repetitive with the same few maps over and over and over again. I've played maybe 2 decent user created maps but most of those are pretty weak so far.
I am not familiar with this technology but am familiar with patent law. A quick search through the claims does not mention DTMF. I am assuming you read the "DTMF" that is in the abstract of the patent and in the specification (the part that comes before the claims). The claims are what define the invention and the limitations from the spec are not allowed to be read into the meanings of the claims. The descriptions with "DTMF" are most likely descriptions of possible uses of the invention.
/. The abstract and spec DO NOT define the boundaries of the invention. Keep that in mind
It is a common mistake here on
The patent in suit, 5572576, was filed Mar 15, 1994. The ATT thing you speak is after that date and thus cannot be used to rule the patent in suit as obvious. Obviousness is determined by date of filing, not date of issuance.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=iPAoAAAAEBAJ&dq=5,572,576
I doubt this was real obvious in 1994. Good luck. As the summary says, they've already won before with it. Thus, I doubt it'll get rule as obvious. I doubt the new Supreme Court cases will help.
Don't be ridiculous. If the GPL is never enforced or threatened to be enforced in court, you will continue to see violations such as this.
The breached the license and violated the copyright.
What's the point of the GPL if no one is going to enforce it? Pretty much makes it useless eh?
Sup, IAAlsoALS@ELS, 2L. What year are you?
Many people worked on the B-2 for awhile before they even knew what the entire project was. They were just tasked to work on parts of it without knowing that the final product was a stealth bomber. This is probably why it was such a well kept secret during the 80s.
The labels can still fund tours. Tours expensive unlike what the guy above me said. For example, renting a bus is at least $1000 a week. That might seem low for a large act but for a band who is just starting out, it is a lot of money and they'll need help from the label to do it.
Yea but my point really is that albums still are selling really well and that this whole "piracy is killing us" talk is just BS because albums are still selling. Artists are still going platinum and record execs are still getting rich.
The RIAA says the criteria for full length albums is still 500,000 for gold and 1,000,000 for platinum.
I really think this is BS. I have a friend who has worked at Atlantic for the past year or two and he currently has 5 gold records hanging on his wall and one platinum is on the way. If these bands are selling so well, why is the industry doing so poorly. Also, these bands are not totally mainstream. I bet 90% of /. hasn't even heard of them.
Does the apple-att contract really end in 2012? That seems excessively long for the industry.
This probably just depends on how they are written. This is a good point though. I think they might actually fall into correspondence more often. Chats would be more like conversation.
A work has to be registered for you to sue for copyright infringement but it doesn't have to be registered before the infringement takes place before you sue. It does, however, need to be registered before the infringement takes place to be able to get statutory damages. See 17 USC 411 & 412.
That is correct. Emails, however, often fall into the "conversation" realm and would lack the necessary creativity to gain copyright protection. So you can't just say all emails are copyrightable because some, if not most, will not be.
Also, the main reason that the are not copyrightable most likely is because they are considered to be "useful" tools.
Their copyrightability is questionable. The U.S. Copyright Office will not register them.
My 2 second google search brings up this. Disclamer: I haven't read that page though other than the title.
Where are the second and third mouse buttons on the Macbooks? Am I supposed to squeeze its sides?
Registration IS REQUIRED before infringement to get STATUTORY damages:
17 U.S.C. Section 412:
In any action under this title, other than an action brought for a violation of the rights of the author under section 106A (a), an action for infringement of the copyright of a work that has been preregistered under section 408 (f) before the commencement of the infringement and that has an effective date of registration not later than the earlier of 3 months after the first publication of the work or 1 month after the copyright owner has learned of the infringement, or an action instituted under section 411 (b), no award of statutory damages or of attorney's fees, as provided by sections 504 and 505, shall be made for--
(1) any infringement of copyright in an unpublished work commenced before the effective date of its registration; or
(2) any infringement of copyright commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration, unless such registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html