Tivo and the other PVR's (except the open source ones) are making money by taking content that is paid for through advertising and giving a way to circumvent that to everyone.
So, in a sense, Tivo is almost becoming the content deliverer. It captures the TV show, edits portions of it, and delivers it at a time and space when wanted.
AdBlock is not delivering the content. And it is not a for revenue product being offered to everyone. Also, AdBlock requires customer settings, though they do provide some lists of the usual ad servers.
It's similar...Eventually, if AdBlock usage takes off I would expect the same thing: ad's delivered within an article or whatever. And AdBlock doesn't seem to work on YouTube videos, Google videos, or the iTunes store.
AdBlock is for html pages: which is sooo 1999
Replace Star Trek "computer" with Google or whatever other company's wants their service to become known as a verb.
Google search found Klingon's on the port side! Damn it, we need full power off those Pratt & Whitney's now, Mr. Zulu!
The One Ring for The One by Zales to Rule them All
Look at all the products placed on Seinfeld
I'm sure that Google will love it when you fetch results off their search and then provide it to others after stripping away all the advertisements.
And so will CNN.com and all the other web-sites...
Can't somebody just Tivo this web-site and strip away the tiny ads on top for Thinkgeek, etc?
One way contracts are generally unenforceable, unless you can invoke the right to promissory estoppel. However, that would probably not be the case in a NDA with a doctor & patient.
All legally enforceable contracts are required to be two-ways. In that offer, acceptance, and consideration (something of value) must flow between both parties.
The examples are usually pretty obvious. In a Non-disclosure agreement usually both sides agree not to disclose information about each other. This intangible benefit, of not losing control to outsiders, of information is promised to each party of the contract. Offer is obvious: the offering either explicit or implicit of a contract and acceptance is also usually on its face either going along with it or making it so obvious (ie, signing a writing).
Another obvious contract anaylsis is a car sale. I agree to sell you my car for $4,000 (consideration). Your acceptance of my offer is usually the writing of a check for the consideration amount and the flip side to the contract.
Contracts need to be analyzed through the "mirror" rule of consideration flowing to both parties. IE one party gets the car and the other $4,000.
Simply existing does require identification(s). All states require birth and death certificates a form of identification and registration. Also, most states require marriage licenses and certifications, although a few states still have an alternative form of common law marriage without any of the required paper work.
Ever look at your original copy of your birth certificate, as filed, in your states archives and records administration?
I have...It has a foot print, doctor's signature, and basic identity/biographical information on it.
Immigrants are required to register with, obtain visas, and are subject to other forms of identification and tracking such as the "Green card", but they, too, have birth certificates from their place of origin.
All this does is to strengthen identification requirements and make it better for everyone. The government can easily argue that this does affect interstate commerce and so is a valid area to regulate. Identity theft, interstate crime, and national security are often concerns of the Government of the United States of America.
And since when is the Secretary of Homeland Security a Constitutional officer? Never...The secretary can be dismissed, fired, or powers stripped by his or her boss...The President of the United States Government.
Simply existing does require identifications. All states require birth and death certificates a form of identification and registration. Also, most states require marriage licenses and certifications, although a few states still have an alternative form of common law marriage without any of the required paper work.
FSF is exempt and if this guy is complaining about their purchases then they are fine. If this guy is complaining about their "sales" remember that they are *NOT* in commerce as the act states.
If you go to a community health center or stay at a homeless shelter is a private doctor or Best Western going to say that's unfair competition?? But they're giving it away for free!
Also, this guy has never shown that he has a business. As such, he has no standing to sue. Personal employment and hampering one's career might be a point, but it's not a business. Ask the IRS. Can you as a regular employee take business deductions? The answer is no:)
True, however, what is alleged? That FSF is unpricing items unfairly. What about the community health clinic that only charges $5 or $0. Can a Doctor sue and allege that they are being discriminated against? No, because price discrimination requires that I charge you $10 and then charge $5 to Walmart simply because we want to drive you out of business. The pricing is constant. Yet, FSF is not involved in commerce, just like the health clinic, and unlike Microsoft and the private doctor in my example above, which are involved in commerce.
And importantly there is no mention of how the plaintiff is involved in commerce. Employment is the selling of your personal services, yes, but is not considered a "business". Ask the IRS if you can take business deductions as a regular employee.
FSF is not a business and can't be engaged in commerce. This guy is also not a business and thus not involved in commerce. Not for profits are generally exempt because of their very definition. Lastly, there is no price discrimination. As far as restraint of trade: my above notes apply since there is no trade being conducted.
Now what if he tries to argue that the contract is in restraint of trade under section 1, instead of his citation of sectio 13?
That shouldn't fly either. He first needs to show that he is involved as a business in commerce. Employment is not considered a business, just ask the IRS, about that.
A contract in restraint of trade usually has to have certain "features" that make it illegal such as tying. But then again Section 1 is a criminal law and then you can't sue someone in civil court, privately, over such a matter. Only the United States Attorney can do that:)
Oh guess what...Not only is baseball exempt from antitrust laws (See Section 26b), but so are not-for-profits.
Just like the good Free Software Foundation, a non-profit Maine corporation.
Section 13c
Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
No chance.
The law doesn't even want to consider it. The law he's suing under says this:
Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
Guess what? The Free Software Foundation is not for profit!
Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
Guess what? The Free Software Foundation is not for profit!
15 USC 13c
Exemption:
Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
Free Software Foundation is a Maine not-for-profit corporation.
His case must be based on Section 13, nothing else makes sense. Yet Section 13 is limited. This will be summarily dismissed with extreme prejedice.
you wouldnt need to. all a jury does is weigh matters of fact. the judge's instructions usually go like..."do you find that X did Y?" all legal questions are answered by judges and on appeal. that's the whole point of instructions.
The only benefits I see are avoiding payroll taxes and when staff go on-shore to LA or SD they can come over as a short-term visitor. Many people can visit this country with just a passport for a short stay or with an easy to get visitor visa, which I think is good for 90 days each time you come over. Obviously, it makes it easier for the off-shore contracting company to visit employees, too. Rather than go to India it's just a short trip to see the actual production facility. I think it's a really good idea!
When you signed up for a grocery store discount plan with the card and, of course the tracking of what you buy, you gave up any privacy right. It says so right there that from time to time they will make offers based on what you buy and send you good old advertising, too.
You have no lawsuit against that.
Imagine without the technology....I see a guy walk in who always buys condoms. I can announce on the PA "Sale on Condoms!" And I can even use his name, if I wanted, too. That may be bad business practice to actually say "Condoms and KY Jelly with Ass Cream 25% off, Mr. Johnson!" But there isn't any law against it. And there isn't any store policy against it: in fact the policy whether stated (with a price discount card) or implied (just by observing repeat customers) is obvious to all...The policy of the business is to maximimze sales.
Show me where you think you have medical privacy for over the counter purchases in a retail estabslishment when you have (1) already waived privacy rights with a price discount card and (2) find the basis of the lawsuit: what actual tort or contract was breached?
Good luck!
Are you afraid that someone is going to track down your Super-Private online goings-on and share your secret with others? For example... is Safeway (grocery chain) going to track down all your online purchases of ass ailment treatments, and then, in their store, announce over the loud speaker, John Doe, We're currently featuring 10 cents off Assinol Plus with the purchase of Roidwipes2000? No. Could they? Perhaps. Would they? No. Their legal department would forbid it, for fear of frivolous lawsuits such as the one you'd hit them with 10 minutes later.
Nit #1. I wouldn't call that lawsuit frivilous. I think people have a pretty good expectation of not being made a spectacle of in the middle of a store due to medical conditions.
Here's another really nice geo-centric model:
http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2004spring/ISP205/se c-3/images/geocentric_paths.GIF
it did a great job of explaining everything we saw from the earth. but we know it's false, today, but one of the earliest indicators that it wrong idea based on the complications of explaining all the movements of comets, stars, astroids, and new planets that were discovered.
complicated models, i believe, reflect on their weakeness.
Whenever, over the ages, science seems to get too complicated, the usual answer is that it has gone off in a tangent. Most of the best theories have been elegantly simple at explaining our observations. These "discoveries" when proposed were considered revolutionary ideas. Later, when they were developed they usually were over-complicated by trying to explain everything. That's when a revolution in simplification happened and the process began from nearly scratch. Think of what happened to Keplerians' formulas and Newton's idea of gravity. They are still used today, even though they are wrong, and have been supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Gravity, because the models of Newton & Kepler are very accurate.
Better yet: look at the models offered by geo-centric solar system projections. Here is one really nice animation:
http://catholicoutlook.com/images/movingsolar7.gif
The idea is that once it gets too complicated all of the evolutionary ideas that get developed are probably causing more harm to the original thesis. Although the original work did a great job of explaining a certain observation when new data was added the theory had to expanded to a level of undue complexity to have weight. Then a competing and revolutionary idea was developed, seemed to match the data, and the process began anew.
I guess it's getting time for a powerful new theory. One that will get ruined in the future, since we really know so little.
Slashdot Mirror
Tivo and the other PVR's (except the open source ones) are making money by taking content that is paid for through advertising and giving a way to circumvent that to everyone. So, in a sense, Tivo is almost becoming the content deliverer. It captures the TV show, edits portions of it, and delivers it at a time and space when wanted. AdBlock is not delivering the content. And it is not a for revenue product being offered to everyone. Also, AdBlock requires customer settings, though they do provide some lists of the usual ad servers. It's similar...Eventually, if AdBlock usage takes off I would expect the same thing: ad's delivered within an article or whatever. And AdBlock doesn't seem to work on YouTube videos, Google videos, or the iTunes store. AdBlock is for html pages: which is sooo 1999
Replace Star Trek "computer" with Google or whatever other company's wants their service to become known as a verb.
Google search found Klingon's on the port side! Damn it, we need full power off those Pratt & Whitney's now, Mr. Zulu!
The One Ring for The One by Zales to Rule them All
Look at all the products placed on Seinfeld
I'm sure that Google will love it when you fetch results off their search and then provide it to others after stripping away all the advertisements.
And so will CNN.com and all the other web-sites...
Can't somebody just Tivo this web-site and strip away the tiny ads on top for Thinkgeek, etc?
Yup, sounds right to me. Not that I was saying it's unwaivable, just that it's a 2-way contract like all contracts.
One way contracts are generally unenforceable, unless you can invoke the right to promissory estoppel. However, that would probably not be the case in a NDA with a doctor & patient.
All legally enforceable contracts are required to be two-ways. In that offer, acceptance, and consideration (something of value) must flow between both parties.
The examples are usually pretty obvious. In a Non-disclosure agreement usually both sides agree not to disclose information about each other. This intangible benefit, of not losing control to outsiders, of information is promised to each party of the contract. Offer is obvious: the offering either explicit or implicit of a contract and acceptance is also usually on its face either going along with it or making it so obvious (ie, signing a writing).
Another obvious contract anaylsis is a car sale. I agree to sell you my car for $4,000 (consideration). Your acceptance of my offer is usually the writing of a check for the consideration amount and the flip side to the contract. Contracts need to be analyzed through the "mirror" rule of consideration flowing to both parties. IE one party gets the car and the other $4,000.
Already:
Simply existing does require identification(s). All states require birth and death certificates a form of identification and registration. Also, most states require marriage licenses and certifications, although a few states still have an alternative form of common law marriage without any of the required paper work.
Ever look at your original copy of your birth certificate, as filed, in your states archives and records administration?
I have...It has a foot print, doctor's signature, and basic identity/biographical information on it.
Immigrants are required to register with, obtain visas, and are subject to other forms of identification and tracking such as the "Green card", but they, too, have birth certificates from their place of origin.
All this does is to strengthen identification requirements and make it better for everyone. The government can easily argue that this does affect interstate commerce and so is a valid area to regulate. Identity theft, interstate crime, and national security are often concerns of the Government of the United States of America.
And since when is the Secretary of Homeland Security a Constitutional officer? Never...The secretary can be dismissed, fired, or powers stripped by his or her boss...The President of the United States Government.
Simply existing does require identifications. All states require birth and death certificates a form of identification and registration. Also, most states require marriage licenses and certifications, although a few states still have an alternative form of common law marriage without any of the required paper work.
Bribes...criminal conspiracies...It's always "possible", but the law usual prevails on appeal, unless there's politics involved =)
FSF is exempt and if this guy is complaining about their purchases then they are fine. If this guy is complaining about their "sales" remember that they are *NOT* in commerce as the act states.
:)
If you go to a community health center or stay at a homeless shelter is a private doctor or Best Western going to say that's unfair competition?? But they're giving it away for free!
Also, this guy has never shown that he has a business. As such, he has no standing to sue. Personal employment and hampering one's career might be a point, but it's not a business. Ask the IRS. Can you as a regular employee take business deductions? The answer is no
Sorry here's the link: Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property by the US Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission An interesting read.
Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property by the US Department of Justice & Federal Trade Commission An interesting read.
True, however, what is alleged? That FSF is unpricing items unfairly. What about the community health clinic that only charges $5 or $0. Can a Doctor sue and allege that they are being discriminated against? No, because price discrimination requires that I charge you $10 and then charge $5 to Walmart simply because we want to drive you out of business. The pricing is constant. Yet, FSF is not involved in commerce, just like the health clinic, and unlike Microsoft and the private doctor in my example above, which are involved in commerce. And importantly there is no mention of how the plaintiff is involved in commerce. Employment is the selling of your personal services, yes, but is not considered a "business". Ask the IRS if you can take business deductions as a regular employee. FSF is not a business and can't be engaged in commerce. This guy is also not a business and thus not involved in commerce. Not for profits are generally exempt because of their very definition. Lastly, there is no price discrimination. As far as restraint of trade: my above notes apply since there is no trade being conducted.
Now what if he tries to argue that the contract is in restraint of trade under section 1, instead of his citation of sectio 13?
:)
That shouldn't fly either. He first needs to show that he is involved as a business in commerce. Employment is not considered a business, just ask the IRS, about that.
A contract in restraint of trade usually has to have certain "features" that make it illegal such as tying. But then again Section 1 is a criminal law and then you can't sue someone in civil court, privately, over such a matter. Only the United States Attorney can do that
Oh guess what...Not only is baseball exempt from antitrust laws (See Section 26b), but so are not-for-profits. Just like the good Free Software Foundation, a non-profit Maine corporation. Section 13c Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
No chance. The law doesn't even want to consider it. The law he's suing under says this: Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit. Guess what? The Free Software Foundation is not for profit!
Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
Guess what? The Free Software Foundation is not for profit!
15 USC 13c Exemption: Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit. Free Software Foundation is a Maine not-for-profit corporation. His case must be based on Section 13, nothing else makes sense. Yet Section 13 is limited. This will be summarily dismissed with extreme prejedice.
you wouldnt need to. all a jury does is weigh matters of fact. the judge's instructions usually go like..."do you find that X did Y?" all legal questions are answered by judges and on appeal. that's the whole point of instructions.
The only benefits I see are avoiding payroll taxes and when staff go on-shore to LA or SD they can come over as a short-term visitor. Many people can visit this country with just a passport for a short stay or with an easy to get visitor visa, which I think is good for 90 days each time you come over. Obviously, it makes it easier for the off-shore contracting company to visit employees, too. Rather than go to India it's just a short trip to see the actual production facility. I think it's a really good idea!
When you signed up for a grocery store discount plan with the card and, of course the tracking of what you buy, you gave up any privacy right. It says so right there that from time to time they will make offers based on what you buy and send you good old advertising, too.
You have no lawsuit against that.
Imagine without the technology....I see a guy walk in who always buys condoms. I can announce on the PA "Sale on Condoms!" And I can even use his name, if I wanted, too. That may be bad business practice to actually say "Condoms and KY Jelly with Ass Cream 25% off, Mr. Johnson!" But there isn't any law against it. And there isn't any store policy against it: in fact the policy whether stated (with a price discount card) or implied (just by observing repeat customers) is obvious to all...The policy of the business is to maximimze sales.
Show me where you think you have medical privacy for over the counter purchases in a retail estabslishment when you have (1) already waived privacy rights with a price discount card and (2) find the basis of the lawsuit: what actual tort or contract was breached?
Good luck!
Are you afraid that someone is going to track down your Super-Private online goings-on and share your secret with others? For example... is Safeway (grocery chain) going to track down all your online purchases of ass ailment treatments, and then, in their store, announce over the loud speaker, John Doe, We're currently featuring 10 cents off Assinol Plus with the purchase of Roidwipes2000? No. Could they? Perhaps. Would they? No. Their legal department would forbid it, for fear of frivolous lawsuits such as the one you'd hit them with 10 minutes later. Nit #1. I wouldn't call that lawsuit frivilous. I think people have a pretty good expectation of not being made a spectacle of in the middle of a store due to medical conditions.
Here's another really nice geo-centric model: http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2004spring/ISP205/se c-3/images/geocentric_paths.GIF
it did a great job of explaining everything we saw from the earth. but we know it's false, today, but one of the earliest indicators that it wrong idea based on the complications of explaining all the movements of comets, stars, astroids, and new planets that were discovered.
complicated models, i believe, reflect on their weakeness.
Whenever, over the ages, science seems to get too complicated, the usual answer is that it has gone off in a tangent. Most of the best theories have been elegantly simple at explaining our observations. These "discoveries" when proposed were considered revolutionary ideas. Later, when they were developed they usually were over-complicated by trying to explain everything. That's when a revolution in simplification happened and the process began from nearly scratch. Think of what happened to Keplerians' formulas and Newton's idea of gravity. They are still used today, even though they are wrong, and have been supplanted by Einstein's Theory of Gravity, because the models of Newton & Kepler are very accurate. Better yet: look at the models offered by geo-centric solar system projections. Here is one really nice animation: http://catholicoutlook.com/images/movingsolar7.gif
The idea is that once it gets too complicated all of the evolutionary ideas that get developed are probably causing more harm to the original thesis. Although the original work did a great job of explaining a certain observation when new data was added the theory had to expanded to a level of undue complexity to have weight. Then a competing and revolutionary idea was developed, seemed to match the data, and the process began anew.
I guess it's getting time for a powerful new theory. One that will get ruined in the future, since we really know so little.
Substitute Apple in place of Chris or is it better to assume Apple is a Peter Griffin? Obviously, a two-button mouse can stand in for frisbee.
Chris: Dad, you should invent the frisbee, that's an awesome toy.
Meg: Chris, the frisbee is already invented.
Chris: Then how come I never heard of it!
Chris: Dad, you should invent the frisbee, that's an awesome toy.
Meg: Chris, the frisbee is already invented.
Chris: Then how come I never heard of it?