Given that it's the Milky Way, they should've figured that square bars would come into it somewhere. I'm anticipating white fluffy stuff and/or nougat in the core depending on where the discoveries are made.
Not if the router's set up in such a way that you have to log in/purchase time on a web form before it'll actually let your IP address talk to the internet as a whole, which is the problem in question.
Right, that should only cost a few billion dollars in administration costs and tie up the entire population of the United States in assessing and voting on lawsuits. There will be no time to sue anybody and no money to sue anyone with. Great idea.
Trade secrets. If someone brings a secret, non-obvious idea to you, in confidence, and you then exploit that idea to their detrement, then you've done something illegal. It's like a patent, except you lose your protection when the idea goes public. From that point it's open season.
There's too many valuable ideas being pitched without NDAs for that to fly. It's not worth the time and money, in attorney's fees to review the NDA, on the part of the recipient.
The test for a cause of action for breach of confidence in the common law world is set out in the case of Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd, (1969) R.P.C. 41 at 47:
* the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it;
* that information must have been imparted in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence;
* there must be an unauthorized use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.
Frankly I'd rather the "ideas economy" worked on trade secrets than on patents.
The promoter's claiming that he invested in fundimentally devising the project and how it could be pulled off, though. If Red Bull believed in this project so badly they could've launched it legitimately, instead of (allegedly) rejecting it and then doing it anyway.
It's more like, someone comes to you with detailed plans on how to make a lot of money jumping off a bridge, you tell them to fuck off, and then you take the plans and try to do it anyway. And then they come along and point out that you've essentially performed corporate espionage by stealing their trade secret.
He's actually saying that his specific plans for executing the jump were used by Red Bull after they reviewed and rejected the project. Those plans wouldn't be protectable if they were open knowledge, but given that he was shopping the plans around privately, looking for a partnership, the plans constitute a trade secret.
Trade secrets are the antithesis of most IP law. Once an idea's "out there", the protection disappears, as it should.
That's exactly the case. He claims he planned and devised the project, brought it to Red Bull, and they rejected it. They then took those plans and implimented them anyway.
The edges of the iPhone glass are actually surrounded by a small plastic bezel, so I guess they noticed that. Although obviously if that bezel chips, you'll want to shell out to get it fixed ASAP before your screen implodes.
Interestingly, Cell was tolerant of losing SPUs in manufacture. A lot of "bad" chips would've been used as lower-end Cells for cheaper devices, while being essentially the same platform as far as developers were concerned. I don't think much came of that though. One laptop with a 4-SPU Cell, talk of a 2-SPU Cell as a video processor in a high-end HDTV. A shame, really, as they had a lot of half-dead Cells rolling off the line when they were trying to crank them out for the PS3 launch. Wonder what happened to them.
My understanding was that it was a non-standard protocol over bluetooth. I'm not sure how one is meant to implement a "hardware lock", whatever that is, over radio. It has to be software. Similarly there's nothing but licensing stopping you assembling a compliant dock connector accessory.
They don't require a warrant, though, as the courts recently decided. They don't have to give an good reason, or a bad reason, or any reason to do it. That's what worries people.
Unfortunately for Mann the new case hinges on an issue of fact - the statistical validity of the analysis - that lies deep in Mann's territory. He has to demonstrate fraud on Mann's part, as fundimental requisite of the statute this brilliant lawyer somehow forgot when he filed his first case. There's years of evidence and hundreds of researchers, going back to the original peer review, which have viewed it as being made in good will. What's the plan here? Hire some pseuds and try to bullshit the audience into believing Mann's stats were not bad, but deliberately cooked? It's nonsense.
There should be a law against misappropriating funds for political witch-hunts, but somehow I don't think that it's fit relative to the selective pressures that act upon laws.
The development was made at the height of the Cold War. I imagine the secrecy had more to do with not handing a hugely robust encryption method over to perceived enemies at the height of a conflict fought through military intelligence, and that the decision was not made simply to annoy you personally.
That seems to be exactly Cocks' stance, that it's an occupational hazard of doing secret work that other people will independently invent the same thing and you can't claim credit.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that it's the Milky Way, they should've figured that square bars would come into it somewhere. I'm anticipating white fluffy stuff and/or nougat in the core depending on where the discoveries are made.
Not if the router's set up in such a way that you have to log in/purchase time on a web form before it'll actually let your IP address talk to the internet as a whole, which is the problem in question.
I'm sure that for events like F1, preserving the sponsorship messages is part of the exclusive licencing agreement the broadcaster has to sign up to.
Right, that should only cost a few billion dollars in administration costs and tie up the entire population of the United States in assessing and voting on lawsuits. There will be no time to sue anybody and no money to sue anyone with. Great idea.
Trade secrets. If someone brings a secret, non-obvious idea to you, in confidence, and you then exploit that idea to their detrement, then you've done something illegal. It's like a patent, except you lose your protection when the idea goes public. From that point it's open season.
There's too many valuable ideas being pitched without NDAs for that to fly. It's not worth the time and money, in attorney's fees to review the NDA, on the part of the recipient.
The test for a cause of action for breach of confidence in the common law world is set out in the case of Coco v. A.N. Clark (Engineers) Ltd, (1969) R.P.C. 41 at 47:
* the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it;
* that information must have been imparted in circumstances imparting an obligation of confidence;
* there must be an unauthorized use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.
Frankly I'd rather the "ideas economy" worked on trade secrets than on patents.
The promoter's claiming that he invested in fundimentally devising the project and how it could be pulled off, though. If Red Bull believed in this project so badly they could've launched it legitimately, instead of (allegedly) rejecting it and then doing it anyway.
It's more like, someone comes to you with detailed plans on how to make a lot of money jumping off a bridge, you tell them to fuck off, and then you take the plans and try to do it anyway. And then they come along and point out that you've essentially performed corporate espionage by stealing their trade secret.
He's actually saying that his specific plans for executing the jump were used by Red Bull after they reviewed and rejected the project. Those plans wouldn't be protectable if they were open knowledge, but given that he was shopping the plans around privately, looking for a partnership, the plans constitute a trade secret.
Trade secrets are the antithesis of most IP law. Once an idea's "out there", the protection disappears, as it should.
That's exactly the case. He claims he planned and devised the project, brought it to Red Bull, and they rejected it. They then took those plans and implimented them anyway.
The edges of the iPhone glass are actually surrounded by a small plastic bezel, so I guess they noticed that. Although obviously if that bezel chips, you'll want to shell out to get it fixed ASAP before your screen implodes.
Interestingly, Cell was tolerant of losing SPUs in manufacture. A lot of "bad" chips would've been used as lower-end Cells for cheaper devices, while being essentially the same platform as far as developers were concerned. I don't think much came of that though. One laptop with a 4-SPU Cell, talk of a 2-SPU Cell as a video processor in a high-end HDTV. A shame, really, as they had a lot of half-dead Cells rolling off the line when they were trying to crank them out for the PS3 launch. Wonder what happened to them.
Devs have been able to directly address the graphics hardware for some time now. You've seen Google Earth running on Android, no?
You mean, the "authentication chip" from the headphones that turned out to just be the controller for the remote and mic?
My understanding was that it was a non-standard protocol over bluetooth. I'm not sure how one is meant to implement a "hardware lock", whatever that is, over radio. It has to be software. Similarly there's nothing but licensing stopping you assembling a compliant dock connector accessory.
They don't require a warrant, though, as the courts recently decided. They don't have to give an good reason, or a bad reason, or any reason to do it. That's what worries people.
Unfortunately for Cuccinelli, I should say.
Unfortunately for Mann the new case hinges on an issue of fact - the statistical validity of the analysis - that lies deep in Mann's territory. He has to demonstrate fraud on Mann's part, as fundimental requisite of the statute this brilliant lawyer somehow forgot when he filed his first case. There's years of evidence and hundreds of researchers, going back to the original peer review, which have viewed it as being made in good will. What's the plan here? Hire some pseuds and try to bullshit the audience into believing Mann's stats were not bad, but deliberately cooked? It's nonsense.
There should be a law against misappropriating funds for political witch-hunts, but somehow I don't think that it's fit relative to the selective pressures that act upon laws.
The development was made at the height of the Cold War. I imagine the secrecy had more to do with not handing a hugely robust encryption method over to perceived enemies at the height of a conflict fought through military intelligence, and that the decision was not made simply to annoy you personally.
That seems to be exactly Cocks' stance, that it's an occupational hazard of doing secret work that other people will independently invent the same thing and you can't claim credit.
Their "long-running battles" extend only to voiding the warranties of jailbroken devices.
Chrome OS. Not the Chrome Browser.
The US accounts for 80% of the current supply. If they're running out, the rest of the world has a problem.