Nothing wrong with a little enhancement to increase public appeal, I suppose, but there ought to be a notice or something for those interested in more than a pretty picture.
Why is it that when scientists need a medium-large object to compare with the size of a rock, it is always "the size of a Volkswagen"? It's even worse than using football-fields to measure distance.
Actually, the deadline actually is midnight (or, actually, 11:59 pm, since midnight is the next day). Federal courts are moving to an online-based filing and docket system where filing is done by submitting pdf-formatted documents. The bankruptcy courts are already all set up on this system and the district courts are gradually getting there.
If you want more information, check out the PACER website
So that means the clerk can be home snug in bed when SCO files its response. I know from personal experience that the timestamp on the document is what matters, not office hours.
Point of view - that is primary thing most people forget when looking at things like that jump in share price. If you are working as a stockbroker, or even just an average joe that dabbles in the market, and you see this tech company (that has been around a while) claiming billions of dollars worth of licensing fees for its intellectual property, don't you think it'd be worth throwing a few dollars at them just in case they're right? Especially considering the magic words: 'intellectual property,' 'licensing fees,' and 'tech.'
It doesn't mean anybody has 'missed' anything, just that the people that invest in SCO are not doing so based on the technical or legal merits of its lawsuit.
I have to agree. Totally leaving aside the strong Christian allegory of the books, I don't have high hopes that a director of an animated movie that relied on low and/or mean-spirited humor can do these books justice? Aslan != Shrek
Nope. They settled, so they lost all right to complain. Not only that, but the fact that they were "already snagged" means that this decision is meaningless as to them. This only covers subpoena-ing names from ISPs, not liability of downloaders.
First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.
Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.
Well, there currently are suits against gun manufacturers for making a "dangerous" product (although I think most of them have gone nowhere); car manufacturers are routinely sued whenever there is an automobile accident (because they did not make their vehicle absolutely safe); and, although I don't know of any direct suits against alcohol manufacturers, "dram-shops" (bars) can be held liable if a drunk they served later hurts someone. Not to mention suing McDonalds because its food makes you fat.
Although I don't think the RIAA will be able to make Kazaa (etc.) liable for the downloading (hopefully), it's probably only a matter of time before the downloaders themselves start suing: "They made it easy for me! It's not my fault! Personal responsibility, what's that?"
Microsoft is back in court, and this time I'm rooting for them? I tell ya, people, the world is seriously coming to an end.
Between this, the world going dark and those smart helicopters, this has turned out to be a very, very frightening day. I'm definitely switching to the 2-ply tinfoil for my hat.
Wait a minute. We just found out that we've already started scorching the sky, and now they make an intelligent helicopter that can see? I'm getting a little nervous here.
If they start making these things in black, I'm going to add another layer to my tinfoil hat!
Anyone know any more details than are in the article? As much as the idea of DRM makes me cringe, I know it's here to stay and therefore a unified standard would be a good thing ( iTunes on my MD player?). But the article has exactly zero info on the "RM" part of the DRM, specifically the most important question of how many copies can be made (i.e., one onto your computer, one to archive, and one to your media player?).
Most criminal laws are enacted/enforced at the state level. The federal government influences state law by bribing/blackmailing states into doing what it wants (such as withholding highway money if the drinking age isn't raised to 21). The federal government can directly legislate, though, for matters affecting "interstate commerce" pursuant to the commerce clause of the Constitution. Although the relationship to commerce of some of the laws passed on this basis is a bit tenuous, this one seems to have a pretty secure footing.
As far as preemption goes, federal laws don't preempt state laws unless they specifically say so (like this one) or else they regulate a specific area of the law so completely that there isn't any room left for contrary state laws (like copyright).
The question, of course, is whether the claim is true or not -- it is coming from SCO, after all. There's a good chance it could be true, though, because a big part of SCO's claim is for trade secret violations -- which require the alleged secret to, well, remain secret (disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets). It only makes sense for them to seek a protective order, and it does not really effect the case from the judge's and lawyers' standpoint. But that doesn't make it suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing wrong with a little enhancement to increase public appeal, I suppose, but there ought to be a notice or something for those interested in more than a pretty picture.
Where this story was posted yesterday, of course.
Why is it that when scientists need a medium-large object to compare with the size of a rock, it is always "the size of a Volkswagen"? It's even worse than using football-fields to measure distance.
If you want more information, check out the PACER website
So that means the clerk can be home snug in bed when SCO files its response. I know from personal experience that the timestamp on the document is what matters, not office hours.
It doesn't mean anybody has 'missed' anything, just that the people that invest in SCO are not doing so based on the technical or legal merits of its lawsuit.
I'm off to the liquor store, then -- in the name of science, of course!
They didn't want their site to get /.ed!
I have to agree. Totally leaving aside the strong Christian allegory of the books, I don't have high hopes that a director of an animated movie that relied on low and/or mean-spirited humor can do these books justice? Aslan != Shrek
Nope. They settled, so they lost all right to complain. Not only that, but the fact that they were "already snagged" means that this decision is meaningless as to them. This only covers subpoena-ing names from ISPs, not liability of downloaders.
First, this is good news but not great. The RIAA can't get subpoenas under these circumstances, but the court did not rule that provision of the DMCA unconstitutional, so the door is not completely shut.
Second, before you ask, this only covers one federal circuit (& the smallest one at that), not the entire nation, but in intellectual property matters what the DC Circuit says usually goes.
Although I don't think the RIAA will be able to make Kazaa (etc.) liable for the downloading (hopefully), it's probably only a matter of time before the downloaders themselves start suing: "They made it easy for me! It's not my fault! Personal responsibility, what's that?"
Between this, the world going dark and those smart helicopters, this has turned out to be a very, very frightening day. I'm definitely switching to the 2-ply tinfoil for my hat.
If they start making these things in black, I'm going to add another layer to my tinfoil hat!
Somebody's watched to many Cold-War-era action movies.
Anyone know any more details than are in the article? As much as the idea of DRM makes me cringe, I know it's here to stay and therefore a unified standard would be a good thing ( iTunes on my MD player?). But the article has exactly zero info on the "RM" part of the DRM, specifically the most important question of how many copies can be made (i.e., one onto your computer, one to archive, and one to your media player?).
As far as preemption goes, federal laws don't preempt state laws unless they specifically say so (like this one) or else they regulate a specific area of the law so completely that there isn't any room left for contrary state laws (like copyright).
The question, of course, is whether the claim is true or not -- it is coming from SCO, after all. There's a good chance it could be true, though, because a big part of SCO's claim is for trade secret violations -- which require the alleged secret to, well, remain secret (disclosure does not effect copyright, but it does trade secrets). It only makes sense for them to seek a protective order, and it does not really effect the case from the judge's and lawyers' standpoint. But that doesn't make it suck any less for the rest of us who want to see the code for ourselves.
As long as they don't make me wear a goofy uniform.
I always wanted to be a demographic! Yay!!
YMMV? That's a new one one me. "Your mileage may vary"? (Acronymfinder)