It does MOST DEFINITELY run afoul of anti-discrimination law.
But it's quite easy to make a convincing argument that the practice of smoking is detrimental to their job performance, even if the the supposition is completely invalid, it just has to sway the opinion of a judge to allow it, and then be defensible enough to survive appeal.
The problem becomes ultimately that it's impossible to convince people by and large that a practice is discriminatory if it doesn't affect them or anyone they can relate to in a way that is apparent to them. So discrimination against smokers will never be equated by most people with a similar practice against people who eat slim jims or who drink nothing but soda or those who simple refuse to eat green vegetables, when they are in fact equivalent practices both logically and under the law.
Not that I wish to continue this as an argument but your retort is left with 2 flaws. 1) you appear to have highlighted breach of contract but fail to see the connection. That contract included licensing intellectual property related to java, and some of that ip would be patent licenses pertaining to the JVM. Furthermore Microsoft had patents of it own in this case that were the core of their argument that since they licensed Java and owned these other ip assets they were entitled to slam them together as they saw fit. Even though that was well beyond the scope of their Java license. So the assertion that patents were not involved would be ignorant to say the least.
2) Microsoft asked the judge upon ruling for clarification of Microsofts ability to develop similar systems and to establish to scope of Suns Java patents. The argument being that if they couldn't merge Java with these other elements could they build a Java-like system to fill that gap. And the judge indeed indicated that their prohibition on Java was just on Java and that they could develop something like it so long as they didn't infringe on Suns ip as they were now barred from using it.
Nope not confused. The Sun vs MS Java fight was a cluster of patents on both sides. Thus why a judge ruled that whilst Microsoft had violated it's license to java, it could develop a similar system, i.e.NET. While I have heard these rumors before, I can't find anything in the.NET framework or how it works to suggest that they licensed Java tech. Oracles patents in these areas are actually pretty Java specific, whilst Microsoft's patents for.NET are very broad. (like every MS patent)
The core of my belief is that Microsoft must only have something "on paper" if you will. It's something they are pretty sure will lead to a protracted legal battle so not even they actually want to go to court to enforce it, but it's enough to make companies pay. That's why I believe it's something abstract and only loosely connected to Microsoft's actual patents. And most other components of Android you could simple replace with other known non-infringing implementations, since Microsoft has also made these kinds of threats about Linux, these components are out there. But rewriting Davik is a much harder task without licensing tech from MS or Oracle.
I would imagine RIM licenses Java. Everyone sues them for anything so if Oracle hasn't filed, they are licensed.
I think the root of the issue is Microsoft's possession of certain Virtual Machine, JIT, and native code generation patents it uses in the.NET runtime. My feeling is they believe Davik infringes on their patents.
I don't think RIM or HP are using that type of technology in their OSes.
I live in Vermont, and I can tell you the $50 million in taxes VT Yankee pays the state every year means it isn't going away any time soon. Sorry environment, we're broke.
What Comcast did isn't throttling. They engaged in willful packet tampering, by replacing seed packets with reset packets, and that IS already illegal.
It would be be illegal if the device cause "undesired" or "unintended" interference. Since interference is the point it's perfectly legal. And there really isn't anything that carriers could do about it short of amending their terms of service to prohibit it's use; they don't own the spectrum, they are licensed to operate inside it. I agree with the post below, the 1 watt or less rule applies here and you would not need a license to operate in the GSM spectrum.
Microsoft is the company telling you why the latest and greatest thing isn't so great?
Weird. You'd think they'd be hyping 3D display support in Windows 8.
Agreed. I think the BSG miniseries was similarly commercial laden. BUT you know the SyFy execs knew that they were going to get a majority of the Stargate fan base all in one place at one time and had to capitalize on it. I'm sure they will loose many of them after this. I am NOT one of them and I will be interested to see where the story goes. Besides I needed something to watch on Friday nights besides Real Time.
B5 is without a doubt the most underrated Sci-Fi show.
And come on what about Zathros? And I really could have done without Sinclair, but the story couldn't have.
In China attempting to find "justice" in it's corrupt and intentionally repressive system. That would give hope to their slaves, I mean people hope, and they can't have that.
I am disgusted that an organization I have trusted to represent me in matters of royalty so blatantly misrepresent my interests. I may have to seriously rethink my membership.
Should you happen upon some of works feel free to use it as a ring tone, I don't mind, I already got paid.
The Reverand
Most licenses aren't compatable with the GPL. The FSF believes it's only "free" if you use their license. I think MS-PL is a very fair license. AND I have to admit I will enjoy tinkering with ASP.NET MVC.
Unfortunately Stallman just devolved to his "Us vs Them" mentality that fails to serve him and his movement. He should have been trying to start a debate on plug-in standards or how web application authors and hosts can build community and extensibility through open standards and free software ideals. But that didn't happen.
I would also argue that proprietary software doesn't destroy innovation, and free software doesn't create it. It's about the products in question and the industries they serve.
OH and It isn't GNU/Linux, it's just Linux.
But it is seriously the simplest thing one can do to alert someone they are being photographed, potentially against their will. And if I am not mistaken isn't a similar law in effect in japan? And besides you can always COVER THE SPEAKER!
Safari on iPhone, much like it's desktop counterpart needs work. The only thing that ever encouraged Apple to innovate is competition. It's uphill battle against Windows has brought many welcome changes to OS X, as well as may new apps to meet customer need (like Safari).
I see a browser war on iPhone producing a better Safari for both platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
It does MOST DEFINITELY run afoul of anti-discrimination law. But it's quite easy to make a convincing argument that the practice of smoking is detrimental to their job performance, even if the the supposition is completely invalid, it just has to sway the opinion of a judge to allow it, and then be defensible enough to survive appeal. The problem becomes ultimately that it's impossible to convince people by and large that a practice is discriminatory if it doesn't affect them or anyone they can relate to in a way that is apparent to them. So discrimination against smokers will never be equated by most people with a similar practice against people who eat slim jims or who drink nothing but soda or those who simple refuse to eat green vegetables, when they are in fact equivalent practices both logically and under the law.
That's a relief.
Not that I wish to continue this as an argument but your retort is left with 2 flaws. 1) you appear to have highlighted breach of contract but fail to see the connection. That contract included licensing intellectual property related to java, and some of that ip would be patent licenses pertaining to the JVM. Furthermore Microsoft had patents of it own in this case that were the core of their argument that since they licensed Java and owned these other ip assets they were entitled to slam them together as they saw fit. Even though that was well beyond the scope of their Java license. So the assertion that patents were not involved would be ignorant to say the least. 2) Microsoft asked the judge upon ruling for clarification of Microsofts ability to develop similar systems and to establish to scope of Suns Java patents. The argument being that if they couldn't merge Java with these other elements could they build a Java-like system to fill that gap. And the judge indeed indicated that their prohibition on Java was just on Java and that they could develop something like it so long as they didn't infringe on Suns ip as they were now barred from using it.
Nope not confused. The Sun vs MS Java fight was a cluster of patents on both sides. Thus why a judge ruled that whilst Microsoft had violated it's license to java, it could develop a similar system, i.e .NET. While I have heard these rumors before, I can't find anything in the .NET framework or how it works to suggest that they licensed Java tech. Oracles patents in these areas are actually pretty Java specific, whilst Microsoft's patents for .NET are very broad. (like every MS patent)
The core of my belief is that Microsoft must only have something "on paper" if you will. It's something they are pretty sure will lead to a protracted legal battle so not even they actually want to go to court to enforce it, but it's enough to make companies pay. That's why I believe it's something abstract and only loosely connected to Microsoft's actual patents. And most other components of Android you could simple replace with other known non-infringing implementations, since Microsoft has also made these kinds of threats about Linux, these components are out there. But rewriting Davik is a much harder task without licensing tech from MS or Oracle.
I would imagine RIM licenses Java. Everyone sues them for anything so if Oracle hasn't filed, they are licensed.
I think the root of the issue is Microsoft's possession of certain Virtual Machine, JIT, and native code generation patents it uses in the .NET runtime. My feeling is they believe Davik infringes on their patents.
I don't think RIM or HP are using that type of technology in their OSes.
It's a Command and Conquer Reference
prior art, next case.
It has crashed my browser (Chrome) 3 times. Congrats.
And with a QWERTY phone they only beat the record by 23 seconds? Thats like giving a race horse crystal meth and having him win by a nose.
I live in Vermont, and I can tell you the $50 million in taxes VT Yankee pays the state every year means it isn't going away any time soon. Sorry environment, we're broke.
What Comcast did isn't throttling. They engaged in willful packet tampering, by replacing seed packets with reset packets, and that IS already illegal.
It would be be illegal if the device cause "undesired" or "unintended" interference. Since interference is the point it's perfectly legal. And there really isn't anything that carriers could do about it short of amending their terms of service to prohibit it's use; they don't own the spectrum, they are licensed to operate inside it. I agree with the post below, the 1 watt or less rule applies here and you would not need a license to operate in the GSM spectrum.
Microsoft always been the opposite to the voice of reason.
That's what the question mark is for.
Microsoft is the company telling you why the latest and greatest thing isn't so great? Weird. You'd think they'd be hyping 3D display support in Windows 8.
Agreed. I think the BSG miniseries was similarly commercial laden. BUT you know the SyFy execs knew that they were going to get a majority of the Stargate fan base all in one place at one time and had to capitalize on it. I'm sure they will loose many of them after this. I am NOT one of them and I will be interested to see where the story goes. Besides I needed something to watch on Friday nights besides Real Time.
B5 is without a doubt the most underrated Sci-Fi show. And come on what about Zathros? And I really could have done without Sinclair, but the story couldn't have.
In China attempting to find "justice" in it's corrupt and intentionally repressive system. That would give hope to their slaves, I mean people hope, and they can't have that.
I am disgusted that an organization I have trusted to represent me in matters of royalty so blatantly misrepresent my interests. I may have to seriously rethink my membership. Should you happen upon some of works feel free to use it as a ring tone, I don't mind, I already got paid. The Reverand
If your going to vote "NO" the point of staying would be....... What exactly?
Most licenses aren't compatable with the GPL. The FSF believes it's only "free" if you use their license. I think MS-PL is a very fair license. AND I have to admit I will enjoy tinkering with ASP.NET MVC.
Nope. Definitely not.
Truecrypt is my go-to encryption solution.
Unfortunately Stallman just devolved to his "Us vs Them" mentality that fails to serve him and his movement. He should have been trying to start a debate on plug-in standards or how web application authors and hosts can build community and extensibility through open standards and free software ideals. But that didn't happen. I would also argue that proprietary software doesn't destroy innovation, and free software doesn't create it. It's about the products in question and the industries they serve. OH and It isn't GNU/Linux, it's just Linux.
But it is seriously the simplest thing one can do to alert someone they are being photographed, potentially against their will. And if I am not mistaken isn't a similar law in effect in japan? And besides you can always COVER THE SPEAKER!
Safari on iPhone, much like it's desktop counterpart needs work. The only thing that ever encouraged Apple to innovate is competition. It's uphill battle against Windows has brought many welcome changes to OS X, as well as may new apps to meet customer need (like Safari). I see a browser war on iPhone producing a better Safari for both platforms.