There is no smoking gun because "no hire agreements are not per se illegal". You have to prove the agreement resulted in a "naked restraint of trade". The likelyhood of this case being won in court was nil. Courts have rarely if ever made such findings without evidence that employees where prevented from leaving or initiating contact with other companies. All we have here is a no poach agreement which has no chance of being viewed as restraint of trade. All in all, this is just a nuisance suit that was cheaper to settle then defend and that caused so amount poor publicity.
If only HR managers understood this or knew that computer science has nothing to do with computers. The entire computer industry was built by college dropouts and is ruled by technology that changes faster then a 4 year degree. Hire people that understand technology and can learn new tech on the run. Degrees are meaningless in tech and are becoming more so in all areas.
Unethical is being under contract with a company and colluding with another one to violate it. If a NFL team talks to a contracted player without getting the other teams permission they are acting illegally.
No one at being recruited is at will. These aren't tech support jobs they're design and engineering teams. These folks have very detailed contracts. Your not working a new products without one.
Recruiting a contracted employee is tortious interference and illegal. I doubt that agreeing not to break the law is against the law anywhere. That's what poaching is. If it goes beyond that it's something else all together.
Hasn't been any proof of any wrong doing so far. Anti-poach agreements aren't illegal or even unethical. Agreeing not to break the law by going after other companies employees is not a problem. If there was a no hire agreement it would be an issue but we've seen no evidence of that.
Because kindles would actually cost more and have less software. And computer labs are useless. Having worked in K-12 anything that is not 1-1 is useless. To really utilize a technology teachers have to know every student has full access.
Any device can be reset to defaults that's not much of a hack and if the kids do it, the school will know the second it hits the school network. (If their IT people have any skills at all) Bypassing the lockdown on a device is only an issue if you can do it without being detected.
Quit using the term DRONES. To quote Mr Montoya ' it does not mean what you think it means'. Drones mostly do not exist outside the lab and are illegal to fly in the US. UAV's are just planes where the pilot isn't inside it. However the pilot is in control and as such a UAV should be legally considered an extension of the user. If the UAV trespasses the user trespasses. Flying over your neighbors house is illegal for the most part. Flying above your house to get a good view of his...well its no different then standing on a ladder, your roof or some other platform. Should we ban windows more the 20ft above the ground.
Cruise missiles are more of a robot then a drone is. Fact is drones are just remotely piloted planes. The problem isn't their existence but there misuse.
nope android users aren't dumb at all. Hey clueless they're your wireless carrier. If your phone is on they are tracking you! Do you think when you make calls they have no idea what phone is connecting to there network? It doesn't matter what phone or what carrier if you connect they know where you are. It's part of the connection protocol and can never be turned off. And unless your VPNing they know every site you visit.
No valid copyrights involved here. My question is where and what authentication happened. It sounds to me (maybe wrong) that the fraud was to access the local network and once there access to JSTOR was open. Is it wire fraud to lie to get into a club and use their free WiFi?
Such things can be used as evidence that not only did Swatz break the law, but that he did so intentionally. Also the first two bits, the changing of the MAC address and providing a false email address might become supporting evidence for the argument asserting wire fraud.
Can't convict on wire fraud for access to the network as it did not cross state lines. An element of the crime.
Actually no it's not a crime. There are other required elements under the current law. I'm not sure that in this we are even talking about a "protected computer" as defined by the law. If this was a local copy of the archive I don't think he broke any laws at all and the Feds have no jurisdiction. If the MIT computer has connected to and retrieving info from a JSTOR server it much more complex. Is accessing a system that gets info from another the same as connecting to it directly?
Wire fraud requires that it cross state lines. It seems he only accessed from withing the building. Beyond that I'm not sure they can make the case that his false statements are material as the service was provided for free to anyone.
Actual this is correct. Simply using someone else's property is not theft. It only becomes theft or more accurately conversion if the owner is denied his use of the property. That's why with IP it's civil infringement and not criminal theft. Copying something does not deprive the owner of the original of its use.
It's not an IP case as there is no IP. The originals are not copyrighted and a scan of a page is a mechanical copy of industrial information. There is no artistic content therefore there can be no copyright.
Do the Feds even have jurisdiction here. He accessed only from within the network at the physical location from what I can see. Therefore he accessed no telecommunication infrastructure and did not operate across state lines. Does the federal government have any authority here. Seems to me that this should be a state case as I don't see this as a copyright case but as a theft of service case. JSTOR has no valid copyright claim here. The originals are not copyrighted and by definition a scan of a page can not be copyrighted. There is no "art" here. Anyone could scan the same page and get pretty much the same result thus any copyright claim is invalid.
Well let's see. Nether company creates there own games. EA buys them and Zynga steals them. Both companies steal from their users it's just that EA does it $50 at a time while Zynga does it $.50 at a time. Both companies treat gamers like crap. EA abuses the hell out of professional developers while Zynga abuses the hell out of people that think they are developers. (sorry Zynga workers but my dog writes better code) EA uses huge expensive marketing campaigns of BS while Zynga just spams you until you give in. EA often ruins good games after taking them over. Zynga often ruins good games after copying them and flooding the market with their version. EA actions makes you hate them. Zynga's actions make you hate yourself. All in all the world would be better off if neither existed. But the tie breaker goes to EA as we would actually miss their games.
He holds no trademark for a book title as book titles do not fall under trademark. He has a trademark for a series name and is suing about a book title. The two are not the same and he has no case. Let's look at it this way. Could you trademark the album title "greatest hits" I have at least 20 albums by that name in my iTunes library. Albums and books are referenced by both their title and author/artist.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no smoking gun because "no hire agreements are not per se illegal". You have to prove the agreement resulted in a "naked restraint of trade". The likelyhood of this case being won in court was nil. Courts have rarely if ever made such findings without evidence that employees where prevented from leaving or initiating contact with other companies. All we have here is a no poach agreement which has no chance of being viewed as restraint of trade. All in all, this is just a nuisance suit that was cheaper to settle then defend and that caused so amount poor publicity.
If only HR managers understood this or knew that computer science has nothing to do with computers. The entire computer industry was built by college dropouts and is ruled by technology that changes faster then a 4 year degree. Hire people that understand technology and can learn new tech on the run. Degrees are meaningless in tech and are becoming more so in all areas.
Unethical is being under contract with a company and colluding with another one to violate it. If a NFL team talks to a contracted player without getting the other teams permission they are acting illegally.
No one at being recruited is at will. These aren't tech support jobs they're design and engineering teams. These folks have very detailed contracts. Your not working a new products without one.
Recruiting a contracted employee is tortious interference and illegal. I doubt that agreeing not to break the law is against the law anywhere. That's what poaching is. If it goes beyond that it's something else all together.
Hasn't been any proof of any wrong doing so far. Anti-poach agreements aren't illegal or even unethical. Agreeing not to break the law by going after other companies employees is not a problem. If there was a no hire agreement it would be an issue but we've seen no evidence of that.
Because kindles would actually cost more and have less software. And computer labs are useless. Having worked in K-12 anything that is not 1-1 is useless. To really utilize a technology teachers have to know every student has full access.
Any device can be reset to defaults that's not much of a hack and if the kids do it, the school will know the second it hits the school network. (If their IT people have any skills at all) Bypassing the lockdown on a device is only an issue if you can do it without being detected.
Quit using the term DRONES. To quote Mr Montoya ' it does not mean what you think it means'. Drones mostly do not exist outside the lab and are illegal to fly in the US. UAV's are just planes where the pilot isn't inside it. However the pilot is in control and as such a UAV should be legally considered an extension of the user. If the UAV trespasses the user trespasses. Flying over your neighbors house is illegal for the most part. Flying above your house to get a good view of his...well its no different then standing on a ladder, your roof or some other platform. Should we ban windows more the 20ft above the ground.
Cruise missiles are more of a robot then a drone is. Fact is drones are just remotely piloted planes. The problem isn't their existence but there misuse.
The Slashdot is bad. It tracks users just like about every other site on the web.
OMG location based features know our location!!!!! Who would have thunk it.
nope android users aren't dumb at all. Hey clueless they're your wireless carrier. If your phone is on they are tracking you! Do you think when you make calls they have no idea what phone is connecting to there network? It doesn't matter what phone or what carrier if you connect they know where you are. It's part of the connection protocol and can never be turned off. And unless your VPNing they know every site you visit.
No valid copyrights involved here.
My question is where and what authentication happened. It sounds to me (maybe wrong) that the fraud was to access the local network and once there access to JSTOR was open. Is it wire fraud to lie to get into a club and use their free WiFi?
Nope the communication has to cross state lines.
The law actually differentiates between the two. Finacial data crime. Random data not neccasarly.
It is if you're doing it to gain access to a computer that otherwise doesn't want you accessing it.
Nope still not illegal. Has to be a government or "protected computer" used for commerce.
Such things can be used as evidence that not only did Swatz break the law, but that he did so intentionally. Also the first two bits, the changing of the MAC address and providing a false email address might become supporting evidence for the argument asserting wire fraud.
Can't convict on wire fraud for access to the network as it did not cross state lines. An element of the crime.
Actually no it's not a crime. There are other required elements under the current law. I'm not sure that in this we are even talking about a "protected computer" as defined by the law.
If this was a local copy of the archive I don't think he broke any laws at all and the Feds have no jurisdiction. If the MIT computer has connected to and retrieving info from a JSTOR server it much more complex. Is accessing a system that gets info from another the same as connecting to it directly?
Wire fraud requires that it cross state lines. It seems he only accessed from withing the building.
Beyond that I'm not sure they can make the case that his false statements are material as the service was provided for free to anyone.
Actual this is correct. Simply using someone else's property is not theft. It only becomes theft or more accurately conversion if the owner is denied his use of the property. That's why with IP it's civil infringement and not criminal theft. Copying something does not deprive the owner of the original of its use.
It's not an IP case as there is no IP. The originals are not copyrighted and a scan of a page is a mechanical copy of industrial information. There is no artistic content therefore there can be no copyright.
Do the Feds even have jurisdiction here. He accessed only from within the network at the physical location from what I can see. Therefore he accessed no telecommunication infrastructure and did not operate across state lines. Does the federal government have any authority here. Seems to me that this should be a state case as I don't see this as a copyright case but as a theft of service case. JSTOR has no valid copyright claim here. The originals are not copyrighted and by definition a scan of a page can not be copyrighted. There is no "art" here. Anyone could scan the same page and get pretty much the same result thus any copyright claim is invalid.
Well let's see.
Nether company creates there own games. EA buys them and Zynga steals them.
Both companies steal from their users it's just that EA does it $50 at a time while Zynga does it $.50 at a time.
Both companies treat gamers like crap.
EA abuses the hell out of professional developers while Zynga abuses the hell out of people that think they are developers.
(sorry Zynga workers but my dog writes better code)
EA uses huge expensive marketing campaigns of BS while Zynga just spams you until you give in.
EA often ruins good games after taking them over. Zynga often ruins good games after copying them and flooding the market with their version.
EA actions makes you hate them. Zynga's actions make you hate yourself.
All in all the world would be better off if neither existed. But the tie breaker goes to EA as we would actually miss their games.
He holds no trademark for a book title as book titles do not fall under trademark. He has a trademark for a series name and is suing about a book title. The two are not the same and he has no case.
Let's look at it this way. Could you trademark the album title "greatest hits" I have at least 20 albums by that name in my iTunes library. Albums and books are referenced by both their title and author/artist.