I see your point, many "creative" types are Democratic and support Democratic agendas. I am more concerned that including a provision in this bill which sets forth that a person can not skip over ads in their own seems so relaint on the money ads generate(usually ad execs will only pay for spots where they are promised a certain viewership)...hence...the companies can promise that viewership at the cost of a person's choice which appears partisan to me.
Only George Bush's administration would prevent someone from skipping ads in their own home. Who else will pay the DOJ's expenses for prosecuting infringers? This should be the definition for paradox in Websters.
Only a republican adminstration would prevent people from skipping ads in their own home! Money...money...money...someone has to fund the DOJ's prosecution of infringers...
On 8 February 2004, in Washington D.C., Trade Minister Mark Vaile concluded an agreed text for the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement with his US counterpart, Trade Representative Bob Zoellick.
These means Australia will take on IP standards much like the US.
Thanks for opining. These happen to be from NASA and are really high quality. The 3 dimensional aspect is sharp even to "the most casual observer (wearing 3D glasses)."
If China did join the WTO, the government could not censor information because it would be in violation of the agreement. Here is a resourceful link on this subject:
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/WTO.asp
There are several papers here that argue that China should not be allowed to enter WTO and that support China's entry...you decide....
In order to qualify for the patent you should somehow persuade the examiners that your program is a "new machine." This is the golden key as far as being granted a patent.
As far as protection goes, copyright offers longer protection (life plus 70 years) where as patent last 17 years.
Many techies believe patent is a stronger protection b/c "the code is protected," meaning it is easier to prove infringement if someone creates a program using the same code. Then again, you could argue under copyright that someone infringed your code if you can prove it. It may be harder to prove if your program can be written in different code.
Let me know if this helps.
I imply nothing, I state that registering a (c) is one way to avoid failure b/c by having a registered copyright you can protect the look and feel as well as the code from being used by someone other than yourself. This means you can sue for lost profits and an injunction if it happens. If you don't file one, you pay attorneys fees, if you do and you can prove that someone infringed, they pay them (only if you file). Thanks!
I am an IP lawyer and I rethought my comment, I still think that filing the (c) registration is one way to avoid failure. Idea theft is another. Further, (C) protects look and feel concepts so functionality could be protected, not just code.
Thanks for the compliment about being a woman with a brain. There are several of us out there. I get touchy when someone puts down good FREE legal advice. It's not the first time though and it will not keep me from sharing to help people benefit from their creations.
Hmmm...do you know that software programs are protected mostly by copyright? Also, do you know you must register the copyright with the Library of Congress to protect your creation to the level of getting lost profits from an infringer. Most importantly, software is covered by Title 17 of the US Code. There are certainly more copyrights than patents on software. Next time you want to challenge me, get your facts right!
With Charity,
Jax (a girl, not a "he")
Enforcing jurisdiction clauses is a really hot topic in International contracts- a draft treaty was put together at the Hague Conference on International Law this past December stating that the choice of law provisions are enforcable and are to be treated as a separate agreement in and of itself.
Under this treaty, a signatory could not have it's court invalidate the contract provision addressing jurisdiction.
I wonder if MS has a different license for foreign customers?
I understand that when a company holds itself out by practicing business in a foreign country, the foreign country may have jurisdiction over that company (long-arm statutes). However, I just looked at the draft treaty put together by at the Hague Conference this past December and it states that choice of law clauses in private contracts will be enforced. Wonder if the license would be deemed a private contract under this treaty?
Y
How is the EU going to get around Microsoft's jurisdiction provision in its licensing agreements? Most users of MS agreed to the license, right? In Private International disputes, the EU and US have honored these choice of law provisions. I am not certain, but aren't any legal disputes regarding Microsoft's product to be decided according to the laws of the State of Washington? Eventhough the EU is claiming that MS violated their competition laws, doesn't the license have influence over which laws apply. Surely, MS is not in compliance with most countries' competition laws.
There is a conference coming up called the Hague Conference on Private International Law Jurisdiction which is aiming to resolve jurisdictional issues among foreign private parties. Most contries involved support enforcement of jurisdictional clauses in licenses.
I didn't know Microsoft is sooooooooo powerful that it can change the rules of federal statutes to accomodate it's interests WITHOUT going to court.
This is not copyright infringement.
I understand your point about potential ambiguities if it simply referred to license without a reference to something eles (such as code, not copyright). Still, I have looked at thousands of licenses and none use the term copyright license, which sets forth each contributor can add his or her own copyright notice to the derivative or REPRODUCTION (which could be exact). A copyright is transferred or assigned via contract, that's why I wonder if this license is valid. You can't license a copyright and claim rights in it at the same time. You can license a work and certain rights while retaining the (c). Maybe they could file a joint work notice listing Apache 2.0 Licensees (who do not violate the license) and Apachee)- that way everyone might have a better chance at protecting the work from bad faith licensees. If a dispute arose, would a court find that Apache gave up the (c) by licensing all rights protected by (c) or would they look at it, as you say, a license to recreate and add to it? Also, if Apache gives away all of the rights of copyright to licensees, how could it prove it had a (c) in terms of federal law? It would have to register the original (c). It is property and many people can share in it but in order for them to be protected they would have to be on record (that is for the highest level of protection). Apache is allowing contributors to include their name and (c) notice on a reproduction of the work. What if someone recreates it and files a (c) notice without mentioning the license and then the license is deemed unenforceable- Apache could lose all rights.
Yes, they would have to amend the former license and both parties would have to sign the new amendment. Organizations and companies do this all of the time. They tend to persuade the former parties to accept the amendments because if they do not, they will not be able to benefit from the "new developments."
I know that a lot of CS people have really suffered over the last few years, from the economy, but I think that maybe it's your location. Why don't you get recertified and consider relocating to a state where the certification is in high demand? If that isn't an option, I would weigh the costs and benefits in CO- are there solid companies who will appreciate your recertification? I can't believe that the CS need is so low that the Professors were let go-sad! Good luck in making your decision.
Slashdot Mirror
I see your point, many "creative" types are Democratic and support Democratic agendas. I am more concerned that including a provision in this bill which sets forth that a person can not skip over ads in their own seems so relaint on the money ads generate(usually ad execs will only pay for spots where they are promised a certain viewership)...hence...the companies can promise that viewership at the cost of a person's choice which appears partisan to me.
Only George Bush's administration would prevent someone from skipping ads in their own home. Who else will pay the DOJ's expenses for prosecuting infringers? This should be the definition for paradox in Websters.
Only a republican adminstration would prevent people from skipping ads in their own home! Money...money...money...someone has to fund the DOJ's prosecution of infringers...
On 8 February 2004, in Washington D.C., Trade Minister Mark Vaile concluded an agreed text for the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement with his US counterpart, Trade Representative Bob Zoellick. These means Australia will take on IP standards much like the US.
Does anyone know if Australia is referencing TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property) in their case?
Are you always this negative(????)...you might want to look inside of yourself for your Zen.
Thanks for opining. These happen to be from NASA and are really high quality. The 3 dimensional aspect is sharp even to "the most casual observer (wearing 3D glasses)."
Here it is: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/features/mars/slides how/mars3dslide.html
Hi, if you have 3D glasses you can see the Mars Rover Images in 3D at http://science.discovery.com/convergence/mars/mars .html
If China did join the WTO, the government could not censor information because it would be in violation of the agreement. Here is a resourceful link on this subject: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade /WTO.asp
There are several papers here that argue that China should not be allowed to enter WTO and that support China's entry...you decide....
Hi. We should talk more about this in confidence. You can im me. My aol screenname is alppy. Thanks, Jax
What does "get of of your highhorse" mean?
In order to qualify for the patent you should somehow persuade the examiners that your program is a "new machine." This is the golden key as far as being granted a patent. As far as protection goes, copyright offers longer protection (life plus 70 years) where as patent last 17 years. Many techies believe patent is a stronger protection b/c "the code is protected," meaning it is easier to prove infringement if someone creates a program using the same code. Then again, you could argue under copyright that someone infringed your code if you can prove it. It may be harder to prove if your program can be written in different code. Let me know if this helps.
I imply nothing, I state that registering a (c) is one way to avoid failure b/c by having a registered copyright you can protect the look and feel as well as the code from being used by someone other than yourself. This means you can sue for lost profits and an injunction if it happens. If you don't file one, you pay attorneys fees, if you do and you can prove that someone infringed, they pay them (only if you file). Thanks!
I am an IP lawyer and I rethought my comment, I still think that filing the (c) registration is one way to avoid failure. Idea theft is another. Further, (C) protects look and feel concepts so functionality could be protected, not just code. Thanks for the compliment about being a woman with a brain. There are several of us out there. I get touchy when someone puts down good FREE legal advice. It's not the first time though and it will not keep me from sharing to help people benefit from their creations.
Hmmm...do you know that software programs are protected mostly by copyright? Also, do you know you must register the copyright with the Library of Congress to protect your creation to the level of getting lost profits from an infringer. Most importantly, software is covered by Title 17 of the US Code. There are certainly more copyrights than patents on software. Next time you want to challenge me, get your facts right! With Charity, Jax (a girl, not a "he")
That way if someone unleashes a similiar program into the market , you could at least stop them. That's one way to avoid failure!
Enforcing jurisdiction clauses is a really hot topic in International contracts- a draft treaty was put together at the Hague Conference on International Law this past December stating that the choice of law provisions are enforcable and are to be treated as a separate agreement in and of itself. Under this treaty, a signatory could not have it's court invalidate the contract provision addressing jurisdiction. I wonder if MS has a different license for foreign customers?
I understand that when a company holds itself out by practicing business in a foreign country, the foreign country may have jurisdiction over that company (long-arm statutes). However, I just looked at the draft treaty put together by at the Hague Conference this past December and it states that choice of law clauses in private contracts will be enforced. Wonder if the license would be deemed a private contract under this treaty? Y
How is the EU going to get around Microsoft's jurisdiction provision in its licensing agreements? Most users of MS agreed to the license, right? In Private International disputes, the EU and US have honored these choice of law provisions. I am not certain, but aren't any legal disputes regarding Microsoft's product to be decided according to the laws of the State of Washington? Eventhough the EU is claiming that MS violated their competition laws, doesn't the license have influence over which laws apply. Surely, MS is not in compliance with most countries' competition laws. There is a conference coming up called the Hague Conference on Private International Law Jurisdiction which is aiming to resolve jurisdictional issues among foreign private parties. Most contries involved support enforcement of jurisdictional clauses in licenses.
I didn't know Microsoft is sooooooooo powerful that it can change the rules of federal statutes to accomodate it's interests WITHOUT going to court. This is not copyright infringement.
I'd have to check out her media library in Windows Media Player though.
I understand your point about potential ambiguities if it simply referred to license without a reference to something eles (such as code, not copyright). Still, I have looked at thousands of licenses and none use the term copyright license, which sets forth each contributor can add his or her own copyright notice to the derivative or REPRODUCTION (which could be exact). A copyright is transferred or assigned via contract, that's why I wonder if this license is valid. You can't license a copyright and claim rights in it at the same time. You can license a work and certain rights while retaining the (c). Maybe they could file a joint work notice listing Apache 2.0 Licensees (who do not violate the license) and Apachee)- that way everyone might have a better chance at protecting the work from bad faith licensees. If a dispute arose, would a court find that Apache gave up the (c) by licensing all rights protected by (c) or would they look at it, as you say, a license to recreate and add to it? Also, if Apache gives away all of the rights of copyright to licensees, how could it prove it had a (c) in terms of federal law? It would have to register the original (c). It is property and many people can share in it but in order for them to be protected they would have to be on record (that is for the highest level of protection). Apache is allowing contributors to include their name and (c) notice on a reproduction of the work. What if someone recreates it and files a (c) notice without mentioning the license and then the license is deemed unenforceable- Apache could lose all rights.
Yes, they would have to amend the former license and both parties would have to sign the new amendment. Organizations and companies do this all of the time. They tend to persuade the former parties to accept the amendments because if they do not, they will not be able to benefit from the "new developments."
I know that a lot of CS people have really suffered over the last few years, from the economy, but I think that maybe it's your location. Why don't you get recertified and consider relocating to a state where the certification is in high demand? If that isn't an option, I would weigh the costs and benefits in CO- are there solid companies who will appreciate your recertification? I can't believe that the CS need is so low that the Professors were let go-sad! Good luck in making your decision.