I am against universities holding patents period. How much of that patent was obtained using public funds? How much should go back to the public when the settlement comes in? How much of their licensing fees they gain from other patents are returned to the public from which it came?
Universities have seen the patent system as the cash cow it is and haven't thought this through.
It's all well and good to protest in this fashion and I applaud you for it. The problem is your protest is a drop in the bucket. Boycotts always have been since it would take a mass boycott with everyone on the planet participating for a very long time to be effective. Even if you were able to achieve that, any loss would simply be blamed on the "big bad pirates".
I'm not saying that your boycott isn't doing any good since obviously you feel better for it. Just don't expect Sony to come knocking on your door begging for you to stop your boycott because it is so hurting their bottom line...
Further, nothing prevents Microsoft from implementing ODF like everyone else has. Unlike OOXML, ODF *IS* an ISO standard. It is far easier for Microsoft to implement ODF in a native manner than for everyone else to have to bend over backwards to implement the OOXML one. That is what is missing from every debate on the ODF vs OOXML front. The path of least resistance is for Microsoft to implement ODF. There is no reason they can't. Plain and simple.
It doesn't take digging to find out what the violated statute is. It is fraud. Wire fraud if done over the phone like it usually is. The thing I don't get is how the phone companies can justify giving phone records for one phone number to someone calling from another. The reply should be, "Call us back from the phone you want the records to." It won't stop all the fraud but it will make it that much harder.
It has little to do with the user's protection. Let's face it, they don't give a crap about users that break their phones. After all, they are there to sell new phones to the one that breaks their old phone.
It has everything to do with protecting the phone network which *IS* their responsibility to repair when trashed. Users be damned when it comes to breaking the phone but break the network, we can't have that!
Well, it is that kind of legal test the GPL needs to face. Someone above mentioned a similar case involving AOL but also that no further news of it surfaced. It is possible it was settled out of court meaning the GPL hasn't been tested for this issue. Exactly what recourse does a rights holder have within the GPL when this occurs? It almost makes me wish SCO had a case just to test what would happen in court with this instance.
What your whole argument ignores is the question of the person releasing a program under a license that they had no rights to release. In the closed source world that person would be sued off the face of the planet and the program goes with him. In the case of the GPL, the person is sued off the face of the planet and the true rights holder is screwed. Again, it goes back to the question of what do you do when the genie can't be put back into the bottle?
You mean to tell me there is no way for a network admin to tell when a computer on their network is an infected botnet drone? I claim poppycock on that. Comcast and others for example detect BT networks enough to disrupt them why can't they do the same for the botnets? Oh, their isn't a threat of lawsuit in botnets....I see...
But none of the teens took any of the CDs, even though they were free. "That was the moment we realized the game was completely up," an EMI exec told the magazine.
Maybe they should have saved those Perry Como, The Early Years CDs for someone a little more mature than teen girls?!?!
The morons that put critical data / control on outward facing servers deserve the hosing they get. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to put a power station's control on a server that is even connected to the Internet? That is just the stupidest thing I have ever read.
I am more concerned about who they give physical access to the data / hardware are. All it takes is one vengeful employee and a thumb drive to lose very sensitive data. Worse, many companies that do lose data won't report the breach unless it involves a threat of lawsuit by irate customers. Then they will report it grudgingly and then only after days or even weeks and months have passed. Plenty of time for massive damage to be done.
[1] In practice things are different. Malware people target windows because it's more common. I've said before that Mac users were like people living in a house in a small village that's nice and safe. Whereas Windows users are like people living in a ghetto apartment with boarded up windows, steel grilles and padlocks - then they voluntarily let strangers in regularly and get robbed of everything;).
I guess the Mac village is still relatively safe, but if the market share keeps increasing it's not going to be such a safe small village anymore.
It has very little to do with "market share" and everything to do with monopolistic practices. In integrating the web browser into the OS, Microsoft has created their mess. Flaws that affect the browser would have less impact if the browser was walled off from the OS. Only in Windows do you see a browser flaw trash the entire system. This in addition to the monoculture that is Windows programming techniques allows mass infections to proliferate. Why is it that C:\windows & C:\windows\system are the dumping grounds for just about every Windows program out there? Those two directories should be sacrosanct, read only, Microsoft OS only but they aren't. To top it off, Microsoft is the biggest violator when it comes to abusing those directories. Add in the abortion known as the registry and it is little wonder Windows users are walking targets.
No, market share has very little to do with infection vulnerabilities. It doesn't matter if you have 1 user or 1 trillion users. If the vulnerability still exists, then ALL users of that system are at risk.
Actually, given how shopping carts are treated (banged around the parking lot, slammed around by the cart-pushers, left in the rain, cleaned with a high-pressure hose), I suspect quite a few of these will be broken shortly after introduction.
Well, at least the homeless will get to see what they can't afford as they pass by the store with the stolen cart.
There are extremes to every argument including copyright. Many feel copyright is evil and shouldn't exist while others think copyright should exist forever. There are people out there like myself who are more moderate. Take copyright back to the 17 years originally contemplated and I wouldn't have any sympathy when you hunt down those infringing it. Restore the registration requirement so we know when to start that 17 year clock.
The article is correct in pointing out that to have draconian copyright enforcement it requires a draconian police state to monitor their own citizens. It is human nature as well as cultural norms. Kids are taught early in life to share their things especially with other family members. We are taught that greed is a bad thing. Now we want them to NOT share all of a sudden not because of any real need to keep private but because of someones greed.
Maybe so, but that doesn't make a scam like this any less of a crime. Even stupid, greedy people have rights. I'm really tired of the attitude a lot of people seem to have on slashdot that anything "stupid" people do is deserving of no sympathy, no protection of the law, etc.
They do deserve protection of law, it's the sympathy part they don't get from me. It was their greed that got them into the scam to begin with. Nobody held a gun to their head and said, "Unless you give us your money, the two neurons get it!" It is a greed driven crime plain and simple.
What about the legitimate investors in this company? Do they deserve to have the stock do a roller coaster just because some two bit hood can send out a lot of email? There's more people affected by this sort of scam than a few greedy people trying to make a quick buck off an anonymous stock tip.
Anyone investing (read gambling) money in the stock market that they can't afford to lose is asking to be put in the poor house. Again, no sympathy from this corner there.
The real victim in this isn't the investors. It is the company that the scam is being operated on. The investors lose money but the company being pumped and dumped can go out of business real fast because of it. They have a little sympathy from me on this... Just a little.
Disney Corporation's copyrights. In other words, the Congress-critters didn't really care about Chastity, they wanted to protect Mickey Mouse (f/k/a Steamboat Willie).
Steamboat Willie was a satire of the Buster Keaton movie "Steamboat Bill Jr.". Steamboat Willy was the Disney production not "aka".
It's a little sad to see MS whining like this. Google actually could be a real monopoly (as opposed to MS, who cannot be due to free alternatives) because they could conceivably get to a point where someone looking to advertise on the Internet must go through Google. Microsoft, on the other hand, will never be a single point of supply for OS's. Ergo, MS cannot be a monopoly.
Regardless, Google isn't a monopoly and won't be one anytime soon so MS should shut up and quit whining like their own competitors whine.
What determines a monopoly status is a combination of market dominance and marginalization of competition because of that dominance.
Monopolies aren't illegal. Abuse of monopoly is. It's an abuse of monopoly to use one product to leverage another. It can be argued that Google is using their search monopoly (see definition above) to leverage its advertising monopoly. If that can be proven then it is an abuse of monopoly of the same variety that Microsoft was convicted of.
I think it is an interesting twist in the Google saga and one that needs to be looked into. The only thing I find distasteful is that it is a convicted monopolist that is calling foul on another monopoly so that the convicted monopolist can gain dominance in that market too.
Prior art doesn't matter in copyright. You are thinking of patents. If I preform Hamlet on stage, my performance is copyrighted the moment I do it. If I don't want you to video tape it, then copyright would be on my side. Nothing stops you from performing it yourself though because Shakespeare's copyright on the play has expired. Of course it wouldn't be expired in Egypt if this law passes.
Sure they will. They will do it the same way they do other products. Ever try to buy a blank reel-to-reel tape? How about a betamax blank tape? Heck, it's even getting hard to find blank cassette tapes these days. In short, they will make supply so low that demand will push them out of the market with way higher prices.
Personally, I hate the CF lights. They ALWAYS give me big pounding headaches. Thank god I have my own office at work where I can turn off the fluorescent lights and turn on my circa 1940 lamp.
I never said it would be "better" just "interesting to watch". Actually, I was thinking more of the moral laws (think of the children) and social programs than financial ones. On the Federal level the Constitution clearly spells out that Congress controls the purse strings and I wouldn't mess with that. It however doesn't say anything about the moral laws. I would put to referendum any new social programs and still leave funding up to Congress to wrangle out. I would take away corporate personhood if given the vote so maybe you are right...
That means once the people are in office, they can do pretty much what they want regardless of what 'the people' want. So after the public election, it's all up to the elected as to what happens next. There is no ability for 'the people' to vote for an individual law or any such thing.
That may be true for the Federal level but not the State or Local levels where laws are more likely to affect the electorate more directly. Voter referendums happen all the time. I'd love to see a national voter referendum for various laws myself especially on long term ones that will affect whole generations. That would be interesting.
A) MS will make some drastic changes to boost Vista. Like remove DRM
That won't happen because of the contracts they signed with the MAFIAA. Nothing like being in breech of contract to piss off the MAFIAA enough for them to send Vinny around to break some kneecaps. In fact, Microsoft is tightening up DRM in Vista.
B) MS will go back to XP and continue selling that until they try yet again at a new OS.
First of all, you have to define who is a "creator". It seem simple for a single author of a book, but even that poses problems as books are edited and is an editor shuffling content and re-writing parts to make it better also a "creator"? And what share should they get for that effort?
Not just creator but "original creator". An editor isn't creating it so he isn't the original creator. In short, the editor would need a license from the author to edit that work and it becomes a derivative work. The same holds true in today's world. An edited copy is still a copy. As for what "share" that would be negotiated before a license is granted to the work.
It also becomes much more complex when more people are involved. Say you and I write a book together, 50/50. Now I die in 10 years time and you live for another 50 years. During those 40 years after my death, do you get 100% of the royalties, or only 50% with my share going to my next of kin or whoever I nominate in my will until you also pass away and royalties stop completely. (not a very nice deal for your next of kin!)
Again, original author would mean both in a collaborative work. As for next of kin, I'll pose a hypothetical to you:
If you worked for McDonalds and happened to die in your home, would McDonalds be obligated to continue paying your next of kin your salary for the next 90 years? Why should copyright be considered any differently than a salary from McDonalds? See how silly that argument is for copyright?
Now imagine the dozen writers on your average TV show. And the set designers, and the director, and the graphics artists, the list goes on and on. Where do you draw the line between work for hire and creator?
Just like all the programmers in the Linux kernel would have to agree to change the license of the kernel, all those authors would have to agree to license the work and how to construct that license. Again, no big show stopper here.
I have no problem with "life of the author". It is the "+70-90" and registration requirement loss I have problems with. It is corporate person-hood I have problems with.
I'll tell you what I proposed in the past and continue to advocate:
1. Only the original creator can "own" the copyright / patent. And before some poor slob comes along and screams this is against "work for hire", it isn't. Corporate interests can license whatever they want from the original creator. In fact, this alone would give creators a place at the bargaining table they lack today.
2. The author dies, so does the copyright. Any term based on time for copyright is doomed because there will always be someone who thinks it isn't long enough.
3. Copyright MUST be registered if you do have time based terms. There is no other way to determine when the clocks start and more importantly, when the clock stops.
4. If it is protected by one area of "IP" law such as patents, it loses its ability to be covered by another area of "IP" law such as copyright. The choice is yours but it can't be both. The best solution would be to eliminate method patents all together but that is unlikely to happen because of the very powerful lobbies mostly from big proprietary software vendors.
5. Congress needs to ask the question, "What effect does this have on the public domain" and if the result is negative, then trash whatever they were trying to do. After all, it is the public domain that copyright and patent laws exist for in the first place. Too often politicians are too worried about the corporate well being and forget they are supposed to represent the public good in this. It is not in the public good to have perpetual monopolies.
6. Prosecute the RIAA / MPAA for the price fixing cartels they are. Enforce the RICO laws for once.
Lastly, this goes to patents. The assumption of validity of patents needs to be reversed especially since patent offices are incapable of determining validity as shown by the multitude of frivolous ones that are granted daily.
Slashdot Mirror
I am against universities holding patents period. How much of that patent was obtained using public funds? How much should go back to the public when the settlement comes in? How much of their licensing fees they gain from other patents are returned to the public from which it came?
Universities have seen the patent system as the cash cow it is and haven't thought this through.
Price fixing
That is the "settlement" that isn't worth a shit...So much for abiding by the law.
It's all well and good to protest in this fashion and I applaud you for it. The problem is your protest is a drop in the bucket. Boycotts always have been since it would take a mass boycott with everyone on the planet participating for a very long time to be effective. Even if you were able to achieve that, any loss would simply be blamed on the "big bad pirates".
I'm not saying that your boycott isn't doing any good since obviously you feel better for it. Just don't expect Sony to come knocking on your door begging for you to stop your boycott because it is so hurting their bottom line...
Further, nothing prevents Microsoft from implementing ODF like everyone else has. Unlike OOXML, ODF *IS* an ISO standard. It is far easier for Microsoft to implement ODF in a native manner than for everyone else to have to bend over backwards to implement the OOXML one. That is what is missing from every debate on the ODF vs OOXML front. The path of least resistance is for Microsoft to implement ODF. There is no reason they can't. Plain and simple.
It doesn't take digging to find out what the violated statute is. It is fraud. Wire fraud if done over the phone like it usually is. The thing I don't get is how the phone companies can justify giving phone records for one phone number to someone calling from another. The reply should be, "Call us back from the phone you want the records to." It won't stop all the fraud but it will make it that much harder.
It has little to do with the user's protection. Let's face it, they don't give a crap about users that break their phones. After all, they are there to sell new phones to the one that breaks their old phone.
It has everything to do with protecting the phone network which *IS* their responsibility to repair when trashed. Users be damned when it comes to breaking the phone but break the network, we can't have that!
Well, it is that kind of legal test the GPL needs to face. Someone above mentioned a similar case involving AOL but also that no further news of it surfaced. It is possible it was settled out of court meaning the GPL hasn't been tested for this issue. Exactly what recourse does a rights holder have within the GPL when this occurs? It almost makes me wish SCO had a case just to test what would happen in court with this instance.
What your whole argument ignores is the question of the person releasing a program under a license that they had no rights to release. In the closed source world that person would be sued off the face of the planet and the program goes with him. In the case of the GPL, the person is sued off the face of the planet and the true rights holder is screwed. Again, it goes back to the question of what do you do when the genie can't be put back into the bottle?
You mean to tell me there is no way for a network admin to tell when a computer on their network is an infected botnet drone? I claim poppycock on that. Comcast and others for example detect BT networks enough to disrupt them why can't they do the same for the botnets? Oh, their isn't a threat of lawsuit in botnets....I see...
Maybe they should have saved those Perry Como, The Early Years CDs for someone a little more mature than teen girls?!?!
The morons that put critical data / control on outward facing servers deserve the hosing they get. Who in their right mind thinks it is a good idea to put a power station's control on a server that is even connected to the Internet? That is just the stupidest thing I have ever read.
I am more concerned about who they give physical access to the data / hardware are. All it takes is one vengeful employee and a thumb drive to lose very sensitive data. Worse, many companies that do lose data won't report the breach unless it involves a threat of lawsuit by irate customers. Then they will report it grudgingly and then only after days or even weeks and months have passed. Plenty of time for massive damage to be done.
It has very little to do with "market share" and everything to do with monopolistic practices. In integrating the web browser into the OS, Microsoft has created their mess. Flaws that affect the browser would have less impact if the browser was walled off from the OS. Only in Windows do you see a browser flaw trash the entire system. This in addition to the monoculture that is Windows programming techniques allows mass infections to proliferate. Why is it that C:\windows & C:\windows\system are the dumping grounds for just about every Windows program out there? Those two directories should be sacrosanct, read only, Microsoft OS only but they aren't. To top it off, Microsoft is the biggest violator when it comes to abusing those directories. Add in the abortion known as the registry and it is little wonder Windows users are walking targets.
No, market share has very little to do with infection vulnerabilities. It doesn't matter if you have 1 user or 1 trillion users. If the vulnerability still exists, then ALL users of that system are at risk.
Well, at least the homeless will get to see what they can't afford as they pass by the store with the stolen cart.
My bad... Still, I would gladly give them the three years if they actually did reverse the damage done to culture by the Berne Convention et al.
There are extremes to every argument including copyright. Many feel copyright is evil and shouldn't exist while others think copyright should exist forever. There are people out there like myself who are more moderate. Take copyright back to the 17 years originally contemplated and I wouldn't have any sympathy when you hunt down those infringing it. Restore the registration requirement so we know when to start that 17 year clock.
The article is correct in pointing out that to have draconian copyright enforcement it requires a draconian police state to monitor their own citizens. It is human nature as well as cultural norms. Kids are taught early in life to share their things especially with other family members. We are taught that greed is a bad thing. Now we want them to NOT share all of a sudden not because of any real need to keep private but because of someones greed.
They do deserve protection of law, it's the sympathy part they don't get from me. It was their greed that got them into the scam to begin with. Nobody held a gun to their head and said, "Unless you give us your money, the two neurons get it!" It is a greed driven crime plain and simple.
Anyone investing (read gambling) money in the stock market that they can't afford to lose is asking to be put in the poor house. Again, no sympathy from this corner there.
The real victim in this isn't the investors. It is the company that the scam is being operated on. The investors lose money but the company being pumped and dumped can go out of business real fast because of it. They have a little sympathy from me on this... Just a little.
Steamboat Willie was a satire of the Buster Keaton movie "Steamboat Bill Jr.". Steamboat Willy was the Disney production not "aka".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steamboat_Bill_Jr.
What determines a monopoly status is a combination of market dominance and marginalization of competition because of that dominance.
Monopolies aren't illegal. Abuse of monopoly is. It's an abuse of monopoly to use one product to leverage another. It can be argued that Google is using their search monopoly (see definition above) to leverage its advertising monopoly. If that can be proven then it is an abuse of monopoly of the same variety that Microsoft was convicted of.
I think it is an interesting twist in the Google saga and one that needs to be looked into. The only thing I find distasteful is that it is a convicted monopolist that is calling foul on another monopoly so that the convicted monopolist can gain dominance in that market too.
Prior art doesn't matter in copyright. You are thinking of patents. If I preform Hamlet on stage, my performance is copyrighted the moment I do it. If I don't want you to video tape it, then copyright would be on my side. Nothing stops you from performing it yourself though because Shakespeare's copyright on the play has expired. Of course it wouldn't be expired in Egypt if this law passes.
Sure they will. They will do it the same way they do other products. Ever try to buy a blank reel-to-reel tape? How about a betamax blank tape? Heck, it's even getting hard to find blank cassette tapes these days. In short, they will make supply so low that demand will push them out of the market with way higher prices.
Personally, I hate the CF lights. They ALWAYS give me big pounding headaches. Thank god I have my own office at work where I can turn off the fluorescent lights and turn on my circa 1940 lamp.
I never said it would be "better" just "interesting to watch". Actually, I was thinking more of the moral laws (think of the children) and social programs than financial ones. On the Federal level the Constitution clearly spells out that Congress controls the purse strings and I wouldn't mess with that. It however doesn't say anything about the moral laws. I would put to referendum any new social programs and still leave funding up to Congress to wrangle out. I would take away corporate personhood if given the vote so maybe you are right...
That may be true for the Federal level but not the State or Local levels where laws are more likely to affect the electorate more directly. Voter referendums happen all the time. I'd love to see a national voter referendum for various laws myself especially on long term ones that will affect whole generations. That would be interesting.
That won't happen because of the contracts they signed with the MAFIAA. Nothing like being in breech of contract to piss off the MAFIAA enough for them to send Vinny around to break some kneecaps. In fact, Microsoft is tightening up DRM in Vista.
You must have missed the memo that Microsoft is running out of XP Product Keys.
Not just creator but "original creator". An editor isn't creating it so he isn't the original creator. In short, the editor would need a license from the author to edit that work and it becomes a derivative work. The same holds true in today's world. An edited copy is still a copy. As for what "share" that would be negotiated before a license is granted to the work.
Again, original author would mean both in a collaborative work. As for next of kin, I'll pose a hypothetical to you:
If you worked for McDonalds and happened to die in your home, would McDonalds be obligated to continue paying your next of kin your salary for the next 90 years? Why should copyright be considered any differently than a salary from McDonalds? See how silly that argument is for copyright?
Just like all the programmers in the Linux kernel would have to agree to change the license of the kernel, all those authors would have to agree to license the work and how to construct that license. Again, no big show stopper here.
I have no problem with "life of the author". It is the "+70-90" and registration requirement loss I have problems with. It is corporate person-hood I have problems with.
I'll tell you what I proposed in the past and continue to advocate:
1. Only the original creator can "own" the copyright / patent. And before some poor slob comes along and screams this is against "work for hire", it isn't. Corporate interests can license whatever they want from the original creator. In fact, this alone would give creators a place at the bargaining table they lack today.
2. The author dies, so does the copyright. Any term based on time for copyright is doomed because there will always be someone who thinks it isn't long enough.
3. Copyright MUST be registered if you do have time based terms. There is no other way to determine when the clocks start and more importantly, when the clock stops.
4. If it is protected by one area of "IP" law such as patents, it loses its ability to be covered by another area of "IP" law such as copyright. The choice is yours but it can't be both. The best solution would be to eliminate method patents all together but that is unlikely to happen because of the very powerful lobbies mostly from big proprietary software vendors.
5. Congress needs to ask the question, "What effect does this have on the public domain" and if the result is negative, then trash whatever they were trying to do. After all, it is the public domain that copyright and patent laws exist for in the first place. Too often politicians are too worried about the corporate well being and forget they are supposed to represent the public good in this. It is not in the public good to have perpetual monopolies.
6. Prosecute the RIAA / MPAA for the price fixing cartels they are. Enforce the RICO laws for once.
Lastly, this goes to patents. The assumption of validity of patents needs to be reversed especially since patent offices are incapable of determining validity as shown by the multitude of frivolous ones that are granted daily.