The actual treaty (or law) won't be secret, just the debate leading up to it. They'll try to keep it secret for as long as possible, then slip the ratification into another bill that no politician can vote against. ("Think of the Children" type bills)
Default judgments are intended to allow worthy plaintiffs to recover when a defendant refuses to participate in the legal process.
so if they don't participate, how are you supposed to get the money from them?
This happens all the time. A Sheriff goes down the the company headquarters (or main branch in that state/city) and starts auctioning off items owned by the company.
In one case, when I was living in Austin TX, the sheriff came into a restaurant and took all the money out of the register. Then he waited as people paid their bills, and took that money too. When he had collected enough money to pay the debt, he chased everyone out, and sealed the doors.
During the first gulf war, the Iraqis used French missiles against French planes. After that, the head of the French company that built the missiles publicly declared that it would be a bad idea to sell missiles in the future that didn't have a kill switch. Same thing for landmines. Modern landmines either have a timer or a resonant destruct switch.
Unfortunately, an investigation/trial might reveal more secrets than the good it would do.
The first rule when you see classified information splash across the front page of the New York Times, it to keep your mouth shut. Running around, arresting people, only confirms that the information is true.
You start a secret investigation and covertly limit the information that the people suspected of the leaks have access to. Then, when the brouhaha dies down, use special rendition to disappear the perp in the middle of the night.
Usually when someone's clearance is revoked publicly, it's because they broke a rule, not because real secrets were reveled.
Yup. What people really want is a DVD that takes less space and is less fragile, not a Blu-Ray disk that looks better. The industry really has no idea how real people use their product or want. Years ago an interview with Jack Valenti was posted to Slashdot. In it he called DVD's indestructible. Obviously he had never given a bunch of disks to a 4 year old, then tried to play them later.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented without permission.
If they really want to appease the anal lawyers, they could include a grooved topside that could play in a record player.
From wikipedia:
The Record Rental Amendment of 1984 and the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 both amended Section 109 to prevent all owners of software copies or phonorecords to distribute said copies through the acts of rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending unless authorized by the owners of the copyright, with an exemption for non-profit educational institutions and non-profit libraries.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented without permission.
If they really want to appease the anal lawyers, they could include a grooved topside that could play in a record player.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented.
If they really want to appease the anal lawyers, they could include a grooved topside that could play in a record player.
The shoe bomber didn't actually get his shoes to explode, yet they make people remove their shoes for inspection.
AFAIK, no one actually exploded a liquid bomb, but they limit bottles of water.
If you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang! The battery in your laptop is several times more dangerous than my shoes or my water bottle, and there have been (accidental) fires. A ban on lithium batteries makes a small amount of sense, banning water bottles, doesn't.
Any tool's usefulness as a tool, is directly proportional to its usefulness as a weapon. (I thought that was one of Niven's laws, but I can't find a reference)
It's not just lithium batteries. I've seen a CB handheld with 8 alkaline AA cells catch on fire when it shorted out. Modern battery technology has stuffed enough power density into batteries that they are very dangerous if you can make all that energy come out at once.
The thing is, manufacturers are besoming smart, and putting fusable links between cells, and special vents so that the batteries don't explode. However, if you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang!
I'd like to see how long someone can remain alive on the Net after they are dead. Multiple bank accounts that automatically move money between them, bots that keep social network and email accounts alive, that sort of thing.
It's not a win, because he filed his first patent in 1964, but wasn't paid for it until after 1990. Most people can't live on nothing for 26 years waiting for a payoff.
The divorce and cancer are relevant because both are related to stress.
I can't find a source, because it's probably secret, but most sources say he spent most of the $40 million in legal fees, even though he represented himself a lot.
Americans have come to expect that approved prescription drugs will be safe and effective in the major of cases.
I'd settle for safe, let the market decide if a treatment is effective. The FDA should simply gather trusted, non-biased information, and let people compare treatments. There are conditions where the best treament is 40% effective at best. We'd be better served by having many more safe drugs available, and much more data.
No, he sued them and was awarded significant damages. Then he had to sue them again to collect those damages. He eventually won $10 million from Ford and $30 million from Chrysler, but spent much of it on legal bills. He was divorced. He died of brain cancer in 2005. This is not a win for the patent system.
Well, not exactly. If you have an infinite supply of money, then you can always win in the long run, but you can only win a small amount. The strategy for doing this is to double your bet every time, and eventually you make a profit of your initial stake. Then you stop playing.
Casinos won't let you bet an infinite amount of money. There are table limits and house limits. Sometimes they'll let you exceed the limit for a bet or two, but they won't let you double your bet in that case, because there's a non-zero chance you could win back your losings.
This is called doubling down, and professional casinos know about it. (Although sometimes charity games don't)
I guess I'm one of those extremist nuts. I heard about Tivo, knew they used Linux and heard they tolerated the hacker community. I purchased a Tivo Series 2.5, then when I went to extend it, found out they had encrypted the kernel and binaries, and it would take a hardware hack to get the thing to do what I wanted it to. Damn, I was pissed off! I had paid for the hardware and a lifetime subscription, and now they wanted to lock me out.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
So, yes, the patent owner *can* exclude you from making his invention, but it's up to the inventor to excude you and the USPTO isn't going to help him.
Most large companies will just ignore the patents of a small inventor and wait to be sued. Most people can use the same technique. Unless you are selling the invention, it's unlikely the inventor will ever find you.
Logically, if piracy damages industry, the _most pirated_ titles should be also the _most unsuccessful_ in sales.
Perhaps, unfortunately when you are small, a small amount of piracy can kill your product, you go our of business, and your product never evolves to where it could if it wasn't pirated.
On the other hand, some piracy serves as advertising for your product and introduces people to it that would never have heard about it. It's just not that simple.
Now, 6 years later, I was able to talk my boss into buying a few extra special toolboxes for the work we do. Something close to $30k a seat a year. Had I never 'pirated' all that software I would have never been able to sell my self to my company, nor sell my company on Matlab toolboxes.
That's makes you part of the problem. If you and everyone like you boycotted Matlab, they would go out of business and someone with less onerous licensing could take over the industry. No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible.
While never released, I worked on a video game that was set in the future, and we planned to have fake ads on billboards to make the game more realistic. If we put ads for future products that might exist, i.e. the Sony PS9, it would have been even better.
However, a popup that distracts from the game would have been right out.
Why do you think you hear about it every time it happens to a politician? The incidence of cheating could be much higher than what is reported.
You don't hear about regular people getting caught, because for the most part unrelated people don't care.
Another thing to consider is that most politicians are narcissistic. Essentially they think they are above being caught, or if caught can get away with it. A normal, private person that cheats will be more careful.
Slashdot Mirror
The actual treaty (or law) won't be secret, just the debate leading up to it. They'll try to keep it secret for as long as possible, then slip the ratification into another bill that no politician can vote against. ("Think of the Children" type bills)
Default judgments are intended to allow worthy plaintiffs to recover when a defendant refuses to participate in the legal process.
so if they don't participate, how are you supposed to get the money from them?
This happens all the time. A Sheriff goes down the the company headquarters (or main branch in that state/city) and starts auctioning off items owned by the company.
In one case, when I was living in Austin TX, the sheriff came into a restaurant and took all the money out of the register. Then he waited as people paid their bills, and took that money too. When he had collected enough money to pay the debt, he chased everyone out, and sealed the doors.
Tivo has an opt-in were you can choose have them see your viewing habits. The data is aggregated so non-Tivo companies can't see individual data.
They don't, but if they are like the Israelis, they replace the avionics package after a purchase.
During the first gulf war, the Iraqis used French missiles against French planes. After that, the head of the French company that built the missiles publicly declared that it would be a bad idea to sell missiles in the future that didn't have a kill switch. Same thing for landmines. Modern landmines either have a timer or a resonant destruct switch.
Unfortunately, an investigation/trial might reveal more secrets than the good it would do.
The first rule when you see classified information splash across the front page of the New York Times, it to keep your mouth shut. Running around, arresting people, only confirms that the information is true. You start a secret investigation and covertly limit the information that the people suspected of the leaks have access to. Then, when the brouhaha dies down, use special rendition to disappear the perp in the middle of the night.
Usually when someone's clearance is revoked publicly, it's because they broke a rule, not because real secrets were reveled.
Yup. What people really want is a DVD that takes less space and is less fragile, not a Blu-Ray disk that looks better. The industry really has no idea how real people use their product or want. Years ago an interview with Jack Valenti was posted to Slashdot. In it he called DVD's indestructible. Obviously he had never given a bunch of disks to a 4 year old, then tried to play them later.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented without permission.
If they really want to appease the anal lawyers, they could include a grooved topside that could play in a record player.
From wikipedia:
The Record Rental Amendment of 1984 and the Computer Software Rental Amendments Act of 1990 both amended Section 109 to prevent all owners of software copies or phonorecords to distribute said copies through the acts of rental, lease, or lending, or by any other act or practice in the nature of rental, lease, or lending unless authorized by the owners of the copyright, with an exemption for non-profit educational institutions and non-profit libraries.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented without permission.
If they really want to appease the anal lawyers, they could include a grooved topside that could play in a record player.
So, why don't the studios include a CD partition on every DVD with at least one song on it. Suddenly, that DVD is a "phonorecord", and can't be rented.
If they really want to appease the anal lawyers, they could include a grooved topside that could play in a record player.
The shoe bomber didn't actually get his shoes to explode, yet they make people remove their shoes for inspection.
AFAIK, no one actually exploded a liquid bomb, but they limit bottles of water.
If you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang! The battery in your laptop is several times more dangerous than my shoes or my water bottle, and there have been (accidental) fires. A ban on lithium batteries makes a small amount of sense, banning water bottles, doesn't.
Yep.
Any tool's usefulness as a tool, is directly proportional to its usefulness as a weapon. (I thought that was one of Niven's laws, but I can't find a reference)
It's not just lithium batteries. I've seen a CB handheld with 8 alkaline AA cells catch on fire when it shorted out. Modern battery technology has stuffed enough power density into batteries that they are very dangerous if you can make all that energy come out at once.
The thing is, manufacturers are besoming smart, and putting fusable links between cells, and special vents so that the batteries don't explode. However, if you are a terrorist, it's not too difficult to remove the safe cells from your laptop battery, and replace them with unsafe, less than stable cells, with extra shrapnel in the battery case. Ad relay or switch to short them out on command, and bang!
I'd like to see how long someone can remain alive on the Net after they are dead. Multiple bank accounts that automatically move money between them, bots that keep social network and email accounts alive, that sort of thing.
It's not a win, because he filed his first patent in 1964, but wasn't paid for it until after 1990. Most people can't live on nothing for 26 years waiting for a payoff.
The divorce and cancer are relevant because both are related to stress.
I can't find a source, because it's probably secret, but most sources say he spent most of the $40 million in legal fees, even though he represented himself a lot.
Americans have come to expect that approved prescription drugs will be safe and effective in the major of cases.
I'd settle for safe, let the market decide if a treatment is effective. The FDA should simply gather trusted, non-biased information, and let people compare treatments. There are conditions where the best treament is 40% effective at best. We'd be better served by having many more safe drugs available, and much more data.
He sued them and collected significant damages.
No, he sued them and was awarded significant damages. Then he had to sue them again to collect those damages. He eventually won $10 million from Ford and $30 million from Chrysler, but spent much of it on legal bills. He was divorced. He died of brain cancer in 2005. This is not a win for the patent system.
Like this one: http://www.probotics.com/dispcat.asp?ab=18
..."
"The Karcher RC-3000 automatic vacuum cleaner features a battery powered, self emptying, 11" vacuuming robot and self recharging base station.
I can't find a price, but last time I saw, it was about twice the price of the Roomba.
Well, not exactly. If you have an infinite supply of money, then you can always win in the long run, but you can only win a small amount. The strategy for doing this is to double your bet every time, and eventually you make a profit of your initial stake. Then you stop playing.
Casinos won't let you bet an infinite amount of money. There are table limits and house limits. Sometimes they'll let you exceed the limit for a bet or two, but they won't let you double your bet in that case, because there's a non-zero chance you could win back your losings.
This is called doubling down, and professional casinos know about it. (Although sometimes charity games don't)
I guess I'm one of those extremist nuts. I heard about Tivo, knew they used Linux and heard they tolerated the hacker community. I purchased a Tivo Series 2.5, then when I went to extend it, found out they had encrypted the kernel and binaries, and it would take a hardware hack to get the thing to do what I wanted it to. Damn, I was pissed off! I had paid for the hardware and a lifetime subscription, and now they wanted to lock me out.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States. What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
So, yes, the patent owner *can* exclude you from making his invention, but it's up to the inventor to excude you and the USPTO isn't going to help him.
Most large companies will just ignore the patents of a small inventor and wait to be sued. Most people can use the same technique. Unless you are selling the invention, it's unlikely the inventor will ever find you.
Logically, if piracy damages industry, the _most pirated_ titles should be also the _most unsuccessful_ in sales.
Perhaps, unfortunately when you are small, a small amount of piracy can kill your product, you go our of business, and your product never evolves to where it could if it wasn't pirated.
On the other hand, some piracy serves as advertising for your product and introduces people to it that would never have heard about it. It's just not that simple.
Now, 6 years later, I was able to talk my boss into buying a few extra special toolboxes for the work we do. Something close to $30k a seat a year. Had I never 'pirated' all that software I would have never been able to sell my self to my company, nor sell my company on Matlab toolboxes.
That's makes you part of the problem. If you and everyone like you boycotted Matlab, they would go out of business and someone with less onerous licensing could take over the industry. No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible.
While never released, I worked on a video game that was set in the future, and we planned to have fake ads on billboards to make the game more realistic. If we put ads for future products that might exist, i.e. the Sony PS9, it would have been even better.
However, a popup that distracts from the game would have been right out.
Why do you think you hear about it every time it happens to a politician? The incidence of cheating could be much higher than what is reported.
You don't hear about regular people getting caught, because for the most part unrelated people don't care.
Another thing to consider is that most politicians are narcissistic. Essentially they think they are above being caught, or if caught can get away with it. A normal, private person that cheats will be more careful.
You mean like the small chip of Americium 231 in smoke detectors?
Or the Thorium in Coleman lantern mantels?
Or Radium/ Tritium in watch dials?