It is most likely a number that ties to your "official" credit card number. I really doubt the credit card companies would report multiple accounts on it.
On a sidenote, some CC companies will allow you to disable online purchases unless you call in to approve it first. One of mine turned that on without asking me and I kept getting a denial until I called in and they told me that I had to approve it first over the phone.
Actually it is well known that you can license or contract on top of copyright to prevent people from reselling a copyrighted work that they have paid for. Courts are kinda wishy washy on EULAs but I believe a majority of them hold them up. You can contract away the first-sale doctrine that you are speaking of. It should be considered a copyright misuse IMO but it's not.
Actually, you can get all the way to the checkout page with only one minor reference to a license at the bottom of the page:
"Software Products and services sold from this online store are only licensed for use within US and Canada. Training materials, books, manuals and e-courses are available for sale worldwide."
So wait, are they selling it or licensing it? The language is obviously ambiguous. They should be more up front about their policy, no matter what the standard is in the industry. If the court determines it to be a sale, they are out of luck due to copyright's first sale doctrine.
Companies have teams of lawyers writing their employment contracts. Did you have a lawyer read over your employment contract before you signed it? Very few people do.
"If you agreed to the contract you really dont have a right to bitch about it,"
Not necessarily. Many contracts have been thrown out by courts after it was determined that the bargaining power was so one-sided that the other side really had no say and was forced to sign. This also applies to cases where the signing party was unaware of what he/she was signing and was somehow coerced into signing. They'll probably use an argument along these lines.
Morality leaves the equation when a billion dollar corporation is on the other end of the transaction. Also, Apple is the one not playing fair here. Not the iPhone owners.
I consistently open 10-20 tabs in Firefox and it hardly ever gets over 250 MB of RAM use. I think that's acceptable. I have other beefs with Firefox, such as the PDF crash issue (Maybe this is an adobe problem, I don't know.) and other random crashes that have been happening lately. There was just a recent update though so maybe the random crashing will stop.
I think the most important requirement should be that the patent itself be publicly peer-reviewed. Some will argue that the downside is that if the patent isn't granted, then suddenly the invention will be made known to the world -- the inventor won't have the opportunity to keep it secret.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe all patent applications publish after 18 months whether they are granted or not so that argument is pointless. Once you file an application, it becomes public record.
The biggest problem with lowering the damages in patent lawsuits is that it then becomes more cost effective for the large companies to just infringe the small guy's patent instead of licensing or buying the company. Believe it or not, most innovation comes from the little guys. Kill the high damages, then you kill all the little guys and the incentive for new little guys to start new innovative companies. Innovation in the US then comes to a standstill.
If you live near a big city, you can probably get a decent number of HD channels over the air. I get about 10 and they all look 5 times better than any channel the cable company offers. Cable companies compress the hell out of their HD signals.
I had a similar situation last year with Dell actually. I bought an E1505 and installed Ubuntu but kept Windows on it as well. Well the video card was malfunctioning and after sending it in once they were refusing to replace it, specifically mentioning my installation of Linux as a reason. Well I posted on my blog about it and less than a week later I had a new laptop in the mail. The surprising part is that I had no readers. The Dell rep found it on his own. They wanted to avoid this type of thing. I still probably won't buy a Dell again though.
"the 9th Circuit is traditionally the most overturned circuit in cases that end up being heard by the S. Ct...."
Yes but the Sup. Ct. will have to agree to hear this case before it is overturned. The Sup. Ct. usually only takes cases on issues where circuits are split. Have other circuits gone the other way with this? If not, then the Sup. Ct. probably won't hear it and it'll continue to be binding in the 9th Circuit.
Slashdot Mirror
So instead of at least giving them a fighting chance in court, you'd rather just give them no chance at all?
Your plan will eliminate 99% of startups or "small guy" businesses.
In case anyone wants to read the opinion, it's here
I think we just discovered the real use for the guard's handcuffs....gross.
It is most likely a number that ties to your "official" credit card number. I really doubt the credit card companies would report multiple accounts on it.
On a sidenote, some CC companies will allow you to disable online purchases unless you call in to approve it first. One of mine turned that on without asking me and I kept getting a denial until I called in and they told me that I had to approve it first over the phone.
Actually it is well known that you can license or contract on top of copyright to prevent people from reselling a copyrighted work that they have paid for. Courts are kinda wishy washy on EULAs but I believe a majority of them hold them up. You can contract away the first-sale doctrine that you are speaking of. It should be considered a copyright misuse IMO but it's not.
sorry, I meant to bold "sold" also.
Actually, you can get all the way to the checkout page with only one minor reference to a license at the bottom of the page:
"Software Products and services
sold from this online store are only licensed for use within US and Canada. Training materials, books, manuals and e-courses are available for sale worldwide."
So wait, are they selling it or licensing it? The language is obviously ambiguous. They should be more up front about their policy, no matter what the standard is in the industry. If the court determines it to be a sale, they are out of luck due to copyright's first sale doctrine.
Someone please mod this guy "Idiot"
Companies have teams of lawyers writing their employment contracts. Did you have a lawyer read over your employment contract before you signed it? Very few people do.
"If you agreed to the contract you really dont have a right to bitch about it,"
Not necessarily. Many contracts have been thrown out by courts after it was determined that the bargaining power was so one-sided that the other side really had no say and was forced to sign. This also applies to cases where the signing party was unaware of what he/she was signing and was somehow coerced into signing. They'll probably use an argument along these lines.
Unfortunately, statutes are used to take away our rights in the U.S.
Morality leaves the equation when a billion dollar corporation is on the other end of the transaction. Also, Apple is the one not playing fair here. Not the iPhone owners.
I consistently open 10-20 tabs in Firefox and it hardly ever gets over 250 MB of RAM use. I think that's acceptable. I have other beefs with Firefox, such as the PDF crash issue (Maybe this is an adobe problem, I don't know.) and other random crashes that have been happening lately. There was just a recent update though so maybe the random crashing will stop.
Well then here you go my friend: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgP-23AQROo
Wrong.
I think the most important requirement should be that the patent itself be publicly peer-reviewed. Some will argue that the downside is that if the patent isn't granted, then suddenly the invention will be made known to the world -- the inventor won't have the opportunity to keep it secret.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe all patent applications publish after 18 months whether they are granted or not so that argument is pointless. Once you file an application, it becomes public record.
Rewarding the "first to invent" rather than the first to patent defeats this purpose.
Please explain this.
When was the last time Microsoft innovated? Yea, I can't remember either.
All of their innovation cames from little guys they have bought.
Theft of intellectual property is a much much bigger problem than patent trolls.
The biggest problem with lowering the damages in patent lawsuits is that it then becomes more cost effective for the large companies to just infringe the small guy's patent instead of licensing or buying the company. Believe it or not, most innovation comes from the little guys. Kill the high damages, then you kill all the little guys and the incentive for new little guys to start new innovative companies. Innovation in the US then comes to a standstill.
If you live near a big city, you can probably get a decent number of HD channels over the air. I get about 10 and they all look 5 times better than any channel the cable company offers. Cable companies compress the hell out of their HD signals.
I had a similar situation last year with Dell actually. I bought an E1505 and installed Ubuntu but kept Windows on it as well. Well the video card was malfunctioning and after sending it in once they were refusing to replace it, specifically mentioning my installation of Linux as a reason. Well I posted on my blog about it and less than a week later I had a new laptop in the mail. The surprising part is that I had no readers. The Dell rep found it on his own. They wanted to avoid this type of thing. I still probably won't buy a Dell again though.
your reading comprehension is pretty shitty.
"the 9th Circuit is traditionally the most overturned circuit in cases that end up being heard by the S. Ct...."
Yes but the Sup. Ct. will have to agree to hear this case before it is overturned. The Sup. Ct. usually only takes cases on issues where circuits are split. Have other circuits gone the other way with this? If not, then the Sup. Ct. probably won't hear it and it'll continue to be binding in the 9th Circuit.