A visit to the Burgess Shale might be of interest This is the location of one of the major deposits of fossils from the Cambrian Explosion, the subject of Steven J. Gould's book Wonderful Life and Simon Conway Morris' Crucible of Creation. Tours are are run both by Parks Canada (for those without prior knowledge and the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation (for more knowledgable visitors). Note that the tours involve some real hiking, so you must be physically fit.
This year is the centennial of discovery of the deposit so there are all sorts of special activities going on. The point of departure is the town of Field, British Columbia, near the Alberta border.
It's rather specialized and so may or may not be of interest, but an unusual and little known museum is the JAARS Museum of the Alphabet near Waxhaw, North Carolina. It's about the history of writing systems and how writing systems are developed for languages without them. Its associated with Bible translators, but non-Christians (such as myself) need not be concerned: it has no Creationist axe to grind or anything like that. (JAARS originally stood for "Jungle Aviation and Radio Service". It is the technical support organization for Wycliffe Bible Translators. Think of them as the Indian Jones types of the missionary world.)
Yes, but that's irrelevant. Microsoft's patent covers a system in which a single XML file contains all of the information about the document. In ODF, there is no single XML file that contains all of the information. So they're two different systems.
One of the claims in this patent is that everything is stored in a single XML document. That is not true of ODF. An ODF file is the result of zipping up a bunch of files including not only XML files but various other things, such as image files.
I don't see why this would help. They can jam it like anything else. It isn't as if their jamming methods rely on blocking line-of-sight. And you aren't going to get much power from a transmitter in one of these.
This won't work, for two reasons. First, the journal won't give a hoot that Turnitin has a copy of the paper because the only use to which Turnitin puts the paper, internal comparison with submitted student papers, does not interfere with any interest of the journal's. Second, if the journal has any sense it will consult its attorney, who will advise it that it has no case because Turnitin's holding of a copy of the paper was: (a) licensed by its author when he or she submitted it; and (b) probably constitutes fair use. The journal's attorney will also advise it that even if it could win the case for infringement, it would be unable to establish any damages, and that the statutory damages available would not be worth the trouble.
Sure, news of a case might influence another court, but in law that isn't called precedent. If you tell a court that there is precedent for some point, you'd better be able to cite an appellate decision. And of course judges aren't supposed to be influenced by anything other than the facts before them and the law (including binding precedent). They're only human but they do generally try to hew to this standard.
Only the decision of a court superior to the one making the decision is binding on it. That means that the decision of a trial court such as this does not constitute a binding precedent - only decisions of appellate courts constitute binding precedents, and then only on courts inferior to them. Thus, a decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all federal courts, but a decision of the Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit is only binding within the 9th Circuit.
They are as much patent trolls as Amazon was for 1-click shopping.
True. Neither Blackboard nor Amazon is a patent troll. They're both trying to enforce dubious patents, but neither is a troll since by definition a patent troll is an organization trying to profit from a patent that it does not use in any product.
Of course, there is a small problem in no longer subscribing to a paper newspaper: what do you use to absorb the grease when you make greasy food like french fries or bacon? Paper towels seem like such a waste.
We don't have any WIPO obligations. Canada has signed the WIPO treaty but we have not ratified it.
See Howard Knopf's discussion of this issue. As he puts it, signing is to dating as ratification is to marriage.
This is not so clear. The part that follows what you quoted changes things. Here's the whole sentence:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The verb discover is here used in a sense very similar to invent since the discoveries covered are of processes, machines, and compounds. Discovery of a scientific fact arguably is not included.
I don't think anyone thinks that making high-quality photographs of paintings is easy, but
a task that has some degree of technical difficulty does not necessarily involve any originality or artistry, and that is what is required to make a derivative of a public domain work newly copyrightable. If you give me a text in some weird encoding and I have to figure out how to convert it to Unicode and write my own converter, that involves technical knowledge and skill on my part that most people don't have, but the Unicode-encoded version of the text that results from the conversion is not an original work in which I am entitled to copyright.
One other point: the right of publicity is a purely negative right. The holder of the right has the power to prevent certain uses of his or her image. He or she does not have the right to license uses of his or her image that infringe on other IP rights. If a photographer takes a picture of, say, Jennifer Aniston, she can prevent that photograph from being used in an advertising campaign for hairspray or clothing. She cannot, however, unilaterally grant a license to an advertising agency. The photographer owns the copyright to the photograph must grant a license for it to be used for commercial purposes. The permission of both Ms. Aniston and the photographer is necessary. So, in this case, since Obama didn't take the photograph, his approval is not sufficient to allow an infringing use of the photograph if the photographer or AP, whichever owns the copyright, does not approve.
What you're talking about is called "right of publicity". In the US it is a matter of state law, not federal law, and the details vary considerably from state to state. Obama probably has no claim here because the original photograph is a news photograph of a public figure. Obama might well have a claim if the photograph or a derivative work were used for something like advertising soap.
Maybe, but the village elder doesn't have any better access to the train schedule than the other villagers, or to information about which nearby market town is currently offering a higher price for millet. This service clearly outclasses him for questions of this type. If he is at all smart, he won't try to compete on this basis. He'll restrict himself to the topics on which he is better than google, say advice about how to approach your girlfriend's parents or what you should plant in which field.
Yes, but I meant, why would the owner of rights want to keep that fact confidential, as the RIAA claims to be the case for some songs? I don't see how that would be of commercial advantage. Are we talking about something like Pat Robertson not wanting to be known as the owner of some raunchy rap song? Or is this just RIAA BS?
Slashdot Mirror
A visit to the Burgess Shale might be of interest This is the location of one of the major deposits of fossils from the Cambrian Explosion, the subject of Steven J. Gould's book Wonderful Life and Simon Conway Morris' Crucible of Creation. Tours are are run both by Parks Canada (for those without prior knowledge and the Burgess Shale Geoscience Foundation (for more knowledgable visitors). Note that the tours involve some real hiking, so you must be physically fit.
This year is the centennial of discovery of the deposit so there are all sorts of special activities going on. The point of departure is the town of Field, British Columbia, near the Alberta border.
It's rather specialized and so may or may not be of interest, but an unusual and little known museum is the JAARS Museum of the Alphabet near Waxhaw, North Carolina. It's about the history of writing systems and how writing systems are developed for languages without them. Its associated with Bible translators, but non-Christians (such as myself) need not be concerned: it has no Creationist axe to grind or anything like that. (JAARS originally stood for "Jungle Aviation and Radio Service". It is the technical support organization for Wycliffe Bible Translators. Think of them as the Indian Jones types of the missionary world.)
I sure hope that the reason he only served two years for raping a five-year-old is that he is dead. That is WAY too short a sentence.
That's because FOSS programmers live forever.
Yes, but that's irrelevant. Microsoft's patent covers a system in which a single XML file contains all of the information about the document. In ODF, there is no single XML file that contains all of the information. So they're two different systems.
One of the claims in this patent is that everything is stored in a single XML document. That is not true of ODF. An ODF file is the result of zipping up a bunch of files including not only XML files but various other things, such as image files.
I don't see why this would help. They can jam it like anything else. It isn't as if their jamming methods rely on blocking line-of-sight. And you aren't going to get much power from a transmitter in one of these.
This won't work, for two reasons. First, the journal won't give a hoot that Turnitin has a copy of the paper because the only use to which Turnitin puts the paper, internal comparison with submitted student papers, does not interfere with any interest of the journal's. Second, if the journal has any sense it will consult its attorney, who will advise it that it has no case because Turnitin's holding of a copy of the paper was: (a) licensed by its author when he or she submitted it; and (b) probably constitutes fair use. The journal's attorney will also advise it that even if it could win the case for infringement, it would be unable to establish any damages, and that the statutory damages available would not be worth the trouble.
Sure, news of a case might influence another court, but in law that isn't called precedent. If you tell a court that there is precedent for some point, you'd better be able to cite an appellate decision. And of course judges aren't supposed to be influenced by anything other than the facts before them and the law (including binding precedent). They're only human but they do generally try to hew to this standard.
There's no such word as injuncted. "to issue an injunction" is to "enjoin", so the form needed here is enjoined.
Only the decision of a court superior to the one making the decision is binding on it. That means that the decision of a trial court such as this does not constitute a binding precedent - only decisions of appellate courts constitute binding precedents, and then only on courts inferior to them. Thus, a decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all federal courts, but a decision of the Court of Appeal for the 9th Circuit is only binding within the 9th Circuit.
True. Neither Blackboard nor Amazon is a patent troll. They're both trying to enforce dubious patents, but neither is a troll since by definition a patent troll is an organization trying to profit from a patent that it does not use in any product.
Of course, there is a small problem in no longer subscribing to a paper newspaper: what do you use to absorb the grease when you make greasy food like french fries or bacon? Paper towels seem like such a waste.
We don't have any WIPO obligations. Canada has signed the WIPO treaty but we have not ratified it. See Howard Knopf's discussion of this issue. As he puts it, signing is to dating as ratification is to marriage.
Heh, what a bunch of sissies. Real woodsmen use an axe. :)
This is not so clear. The part that follows what you quoted changes things. Here's the whole sentence:
The verb discover is here used in a sense very similar to invent since the discoveries covered are of processes, machines, and compounds. Discovery of a scientific fact arguably is not included.
I don't think anyone thinks that making high-quality photographs of paintings is easy, but a task that has some degree of technical difficulty does not necessarily involve any originality or artistry, and that is what is required to make a derivative of a public domain work newly copyrightable. If you give me a text in some weird encoding and I have to figure out how to convert it to Unicode and write my own converter, that involves technical knowledge and skill on my part that most people don't have, but the Unicode-encoded version of the text that results from the conversion is not an original work in which I am entitled to copyright.
One other point: the right of publicity is a purely negative right. The holder of the right has the power to prevent certain uses of his or her image. He or she does not have the right to license uses of his or her image that infringe on other IP rights. If a photographer takes a picture of, say, Jennifer Aniston, she can prevent that photograph from being used in an advertising campaign for hairspray or clothing. She cannot, however, unilaterally grant a license to an advertising agency. The photographer owns the copyright to the photograph must grant a license for it to be used for commercial purposes. The permission of both Ms. Aniston and the photographer is necessary. So, in this case, since Obama didn't take the photograph, his approval is not sufficient to allow an infringing use of the photograph if the photographer or AP, whichever owns the copyright, does not approve.
What you're talking about is called "right of publicity". In the US it is a matter of state law, not federal law, and the details vary considerably from state to state. Obama probably has no claim here because the original photograph is a news photograph of a public figure. Obama might well have a claim if the photograph or a derivative work were used for something like advertising soap.
For those who read French, here is the actual text of the law.
Maybe, but the village elder doesn't have any better access to the train schedule than the other villagers, or to information about which nearby market town is currently offering a higher price for millet. This service clearly outclasses him for questions of this type. If he is at all smart, he won't try to compete on this basis. He'll restrict himself to the topics on which he is better than google, say advice about how to approach your girlfriend's parents or what you should plant in which field.
Yes, but I meant, why would the owner of rights want to keep that fact confidential, as the RIAA claims to be the case for some songs? I don't see how that would be of commercial advantage. Are we talking about something like Pat Robertson not wanting to be known as the owner of some raunchy rap song? Or is this just RIAA BS?
Why would ownership of rights be confidential?
You can use a mouse in emacs, but I don't know why you would want to.
How did your sister growing up wake you up in the morning?