Given the professional "look" and general "sound" of the article, I am surprised at the quantity of typos that made it past the editors. I'm still in college--not in big business yet--but is this the norm out there? Was I taught all this spelling and grammar for nothing?
Some examples from the article:
"The well know [sic] energy crisis of the past . . . "
"Production stands at 9 Mb/d giving a low depletion rate of 1.9%,, [sic] which itself is reason to doubt the higher official reserve estimates [sic] The country is endeavouring [this, I think is a Britishism, not a mistake] to offset the natural decline of its aging fields . . . " Two errors very close together! In case you didn't catch; the second mark is for the lack of a period between sentences. It's "the new grammar."
"Sweet Oil production in Saudi Arabia has likely peaked leaving the country in some sort of momentarily [sic] difficulties . . . "
"Still this last estimate is used which make [sic] it plausible for Saudi Arabia to continue producing liquid hydrocarbons at rates in excess of 11 Mb/d."
"we tentatively favour an [sic] figure of about 60 Gb . . . "
The list would go on if I continued through the rest of the article.
I'm not saying these errors detract from the informational value of the article (facts remain true whether or not they are spelled correctly), but it does cause the reader to wonder about the sophistication of the author, and therefore the validity of the conclusion. It also causes the reader to doubt the thoroughness of the author's work, and shows that is was not likely peer reviewed, etc.--the implications go on. In other words, although facts remain true whether or not they are spelled correctly, the reader has to wonder if the author's claimed factual premises to his conclusion are facts at all!
Sounds to me like a world without money! We'd have totally free trade, and services would be more diverse... And the economy would be less efficient... And investing in something would be a lot more complicated....
Cats have been doing this for years
on
Self Cleaning Mouse
·
· Score: 1, Funny
It seems like I read a book with this as a basis when I was young. Really. I was in my early teens, so I didn't understand the science of any of this (still don't in fact), but if I recall correctly, people could purchase personal worm-hole creators. The problem came when one got too large. . . .
1. Make a bunch of random crap and file for copyrights 2. ??????? 3. Profit!!
I think this is true until further notice. The article was hardly and article, but what it did say did not mention how the money would be apportioned amongst the copyright holders. If I have copyrights on crap no one would buy, do I still get a cut?
Anyway, I've got to head out and make some stuff to copyright in Spain, and set up a bank account there.
It makes a lot of sense to a French Person, and a German. And it makes a lot of sense to artists and songwriters. But it makes no sense to businessmen. The opposition to your statement would say: "I bought this. The artist no longer own it--he sold it to me. If I can't do whatever I want with it, then he never really sold it to me."
The American tradition is more along the lines that if you own it, you can do what you want with it. Once you've sold something, you no longer have any control over it.
Another area European law (France and Germany especially here, but others too) differs from the US along similar lines is with regard to later sales of art. Fine art in these places earns money for the artist not only on the initial sale, but subsequent sales as well (as long as it is sold at a public auction). So the artist can sell the painting, no longer have any ownership in it (well, there's the whole thing in Germany how you can't really sell a copyright, and in France how you can't "do whatever you want" with it) and when the buyer sells the painting at a later date at an art auction, the artist gets a percentage of the purchase price. This fits perfectly with the concept of moral rights in art which US law doesn't accept but European law does. It would totally go against US law though, because this shows some degree of ownership residing in the painting, but in the US, once a piece of art is sold, it's gone--no residual ownership hiding in there.
I'm actually referring here to a particular case. I could have been more clear. An artist painted murals onto all sides of a refrigerator (several refrigerators, in fact, I think), then sold it at an auction (I think perhaps a fundraiser; I don't remember exactly). One of the buyers then dismantled the refrigerator and sold the panels individually. The artist sued the seller for dismantling his art. France's concept of moral rights contained within its law ruled for the artist. US law's first sale doctrine would have prevented this artist from having any such control over his art after the artist sold it.
Here's a quick summary of the case that I found using google: in the 1962 Buffet v Fersing case in France artist Bernard Buffet (1928-1999) gained damages from a buyer who had disassembled one of his works. Buffet executed a painting on six panels of a single refrigerator, signing only one panel. The court held that the single signature was evidence of his intention that the work be understood as a whole; he was thus able to recover damages for violation of his integrity right when the owner of the refrigerator sold each panel separately.
The US gets a lot of blame here for forcing out IP ideals on other countries. The thing is, the US is not traditionally strong on copyright laws. Patent laws, yes; copyright no. The US had copyright terms of 25 years, and you had to perform formalities to keep it. Then the Europe didn't want to be friendly with us on an IP basis. So we legnthened our term to fit in with them. To this day, nearly all of Europe's copyright laws go far beyond US law. In Germany it is not possible to sell your copyright--the concept just doesn't exist in their law. In France, you can't buy a painted refrigerator, and then sell the painted panels. Now the US has long copyright terms, but only at the pressure of European nations. Still, performances and phonograms don't have nearly the protection offered in Europe (we didn't join the Rome Convention). And, with regard to some protections required in treaties the US did sign, US law isn't even in compliance, so the law is looser here, even though it shouldn't be (the US comes short on the protection of Moral rights in copyrighted material. This is because we don't really believe in moral rights).
So hey, yeah, the US is enforcing laws that it made that are pretty strict, but it made these laws in order to stay friendly in matters of commerce with Europe. The IP laws that you hate most--read them, they all mention treaties in them. And when it comes to copyright, it's Europe, not the US that made the treaties so strict.
I don't mind the ability to surf the internet on flights. Phone calls, however, I hope will always be prohibitively expensive. That way people will only use them if they really have to. Please don't make me have to sit next to people talking on their phones!
So, do you think the airline will choose to filter the internet to make it harder for people to look up porn on flights? Then again, airports always have tons of porn mags. I've never seen anyone buy one though.
If there were ways to allow students to go a vocational route for secondary school without it being a stigma and provisions to re-train them as the economy changed around them, I'd love to see it in the US.
My younger brother graduated from high school with a vocational degree. Now he is attending UNLV. So maybe we've kind of got that here. However, maybe what you're getting at is the stigma. I'm not really sure whether or not there is a stigma associated with going to a vocational high school here in the US. I guess I thought it was fitting for him, and then he got a pretty decent job right out of high school, making much more than I ever have (currently I am working for a federal judge making (are you ready for this)-- $0). But then he deciding to change his track in life. He's not female either though, so maybe such a scenario would be more normal in Germany than the one you proposed.
Oh? I never use SMS, and one thing that really bothers me is when I get a spam SMS message and have to pay for it because someone sent it to me.
Show me a phone that a major carrier is selling that doesn't have SMS capabilities.
Here's sprint PCS's cheapest available phone (I'm not sure that link will work). It has SMS. That's my current carrier. I bought the cheapest phone available from them three years ago, and even it does text messaging. (No, color screens don't bother me. The stupid ring tones do though. Why can't phones have normal ringers anymore?)
You're probably right about all of this--in fact I remember her mentioning some of those things, but I figured pretty much all Germans did the same. But, at the same time, the American students had a huge advantage over her here--they spoke English right from the beginning of the school year--and yet she wasn't merely top 25% in her class here, she was the top of the class.
I'm sure that there are lots of German kids that don't fit that mold, but I'm thinking the average German kid is more likely to be there than the average American. She wasn't the only valedictorian; there were a couple Americans (and the Brasilian, and several other exchange students staying with other families) in there as well. It just stikes me as counterintuitive that so many exchange students would do so much better than the Americans they go to school with.
I do have a question though. I think that education is more ubiquitus in America now than it has ever been--nearly everyone graduates high school, and a very high percentage move on to college. But I think that education is less valued on the whole now than it ever has been. It's sort of like all of the kids that are forced to be there bring the majority of the other kids down. My question for you (ot other Germans reading this)--is there a similar phenomenon in Germany?
One thing I'd like to note about the German that wrote the post this post replies to--your English is perfect; no spelling errors. I just don't think most american students even want that ability in reverse, and certainly not the entire top 25% of them.
I don't know if the group that posts on/. is biased or if this is a good representation of our population as a whole. But I am noticing that--by far--Slashdot posters want a simple phone. Myself included. What's up with these companies then? It's like the employees don't use phones.
I didn't RTFA, but I read a similar article on Wired this morning. That one mentioned that the reason cell phone companies started making it so you have no choice but to buy a phone with all of this crap is because the companies are hoping that you'll use it. The problem with a simple phone is that you can't possibly use these extra services that cost extra money. So they don't make that simple phone available to you. Instead they sell you a phone that has all these stupid features. So maybe you won't use the features--but you have them, so you might. If you don't have the features then you won't. It's no loss to them if they sell you a fancier phone than you need. But it would be bad for them to allow you to buy a phone that boxes you into a position where you can't use the extra features.
However--I think they've got it all wrong. And these Slashdot comments show that. There really is a market out there for simple basic phones! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE FILL THAT HOLE?!?!
The article doesn't say that the study relied on the falacy of the pirated copy=lost sale argument. It also doesn't say that it didn't rely on that argument. I just don't like how many are jumping to the conclusion that the falacy is being used. I recently read an article about a study funded by the MPAA that specifically accounted for that falacy--in the survey they asked people if they would have purchased a copy of a given song if they did not have a pirated copy of it. I do have somewhat of a problem with this too, however, and I think a study should make sure to take hindsight into account as well (I'm not sure whether or not the study I mentioned took hindsight into account). What I mean by this is, after I've illegally downloaded a song that I'd never hearn of--say, perhaps, by some band named "Quarashi" or something--and decide that it is awesome, if someone asked "would you buy this CD if you didn't have it illegally?" I would say "yes" because I think it's awesome. But in reality the answer should be "no" because I would not know this band exists, and I wouldn't have experimented with it if it wasn't free.
But anyway, I'm off topic now. My point is that you people should not be saying "this study's terrible because a pirated copy does not equal a lost sale." Instead you should be realizing that these research companies have the ability to figure this out, and this study might have taken that into account.
I quite agree. And I have an interesting example to share with regard to some foreign exchange students at my parents' house. I'm a college student, recently graduated from undergrad. I graduated in December and lived with my parents for 8 months between the time I graduated and moved on to graduate school. My parents had two foreign exchange students during that time--one from Germany and one from Brasil. Both of these girls arrived in America the summer before the school year began barely able to speak English, but I watched them walk as Valedictorians in their high school graduation 9 months later. These are girls that were popular and went out on weekends, but right after school they did homework, and that was more important to them than whatever was going to happen that weekend. I helped them with their math homework, and I'll tell you--these girls were not inherantly smarter than most Americans. But on their own free will they worked hard to do well. So, it has always amazed me that, they were able to do better in classes that were tought in English--while they were just learning English themselves--than kids that have been speaking english from a young age.
I think this says a lot more about Americans than it does about these girls. Americans are so darn lazy!
"Though the news may appear to be a blow to Microsoft, Rob Enderle, analyst with the Enderle Group, said it actually could serve the company well in the near term as it continues to battle antitrust charges in the European Union."
I don't know--I think the statute of frauds would not make binding the verbal contract alleged by the lawyers. The matter is one of over $500 and will last (probably) for more than 1 year. So, since the supposedly breaching party does not admit to the existance of a contract, the statute of frauds will not allow recognition of the contract.
I do note one thing missing from the letter, though:
"The senior partner of David P. Meyer & Associates and one of his representatives called me during the afternoon of October 21, 2005 to urgently request my signature on an attorney-client agreement - two days after the Class Action suit was filed; two days after they began their action against Apple; two days after the press had begun running the story. They then warned me that my family, friends, clients and I should expect to hear from the media and others interested in the iPod Nano Class Action suit.
During that phone call to me, David P. Meyer and his associate blamed the faulty Nano filing on Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro."
There's something missing from that paragraph... This should be the paragraph where Jason says something along the lines of, "but I refused his request for a signature and would agree to nothing of the sort." Instead this paragraph is mysteriously silent on the point.
Though later Jason says:
"neither David P. Meyer & Associates nor Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro ever received a single document or written communication from me agreeing to be any part of the iPod Nano Class Action law suit."
Obviously Jason did not sign a contract like the lawyer requested, or the lawyer would have that contract. However, Jason's statements in his letter sound suspiciously to me like he may have entered into an oral agreement with the lawyer who called him. However, even if the agreement can be proven, I think the statute of frauds would still require this contract to go unrecognized since the allegedly breaching party won't admit to its existance, and the contract is for something that is over $500.
It's just been renamed. It's also a bit more complicated to get there now. If you go to Winamp.com, click on the basic player (as opposed to the "Pro" player which costs. Has anyone ever actually bought that anyway?). This gives you four options (it would be three options, but they still give you the "pro option"). Choose the "Lite" option. This gives you the old player.
It's actually good to get this "lite" version instead of old versions because there are a few security flaws in the old one. This "Lite" version is up-to-date with regard to the security flaws, but it has none of the bloated frills of the full version. It's just the good ole 2.0.
Obliterate the entire patent system because Linix and Windows don't interoperate smoothly?! Wow--that's pretty extreme!
How about if we slow down a bit here--software patents have a relatively shaky foundation. I could imagine trying to make software patents harder to get, or even do away with them maybe. Walking into Congress and saying "we can't have patents anymore"--that won't fly. Not to mention we would have lots of trade sanctions placed on us if we did try that.
I managed to find the bill number for those interested: H.R. 5273 (A bill to promote open broadband networks and innovation, foster electronic commerce, and safeguard consumer access to online content and services). I was also going to include the text here, but neither Thomas, nor LexisNexis has it yet.
I think it's great these things get posted early. You're absolutely correct that tons of bills are proposed and go nowhere, but this gives me a chance to write my Congresspeople and Senators. There's a better chance a bill will get through if our elected officials hear about it from us. These people are our representatives, let's tell them what we want.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the professional "look" and general "sound" of the article, I am surprised at the quantity of typos that made it past the editors. I'm still in college--not in big business yet--but is this the norm out there? Was I taught all this spelling and grammar for nothing?
Some examples from the article:
"The well know [sic] energy crisis of the past . . . "
"Production stands at 9 Mb/d giving a low depletion rate of 1.9%,, [sic] which itself is reason to doubt the higher official reserve estimates [sic] The country is endeavouring [this, I think is a Britishism, not a mistake] to offset the natural decline of its aging fields . . . " Two errors very close together! In case you didn't catch; the second mark is for the lack of a period between sentences. It's "the new grammar."
"Sweet Oil production in Saudi Arabia has likely peaked leaving the country in some sort of momentarily [sic] difficulties . . . "
"Still this last estimate is used which make [sic] it plausible for Saudi Arabia to continue producing liquid hydrocarbons at rates in excess of 11 Mb/d."
"we tentatively favour an [sic] figure of about 60 Gb . . . "
The list would go on if I continued through the rest of the article.
I'm not saying these errors detract from the informational value of the article (facts remain true whether or not they are spelled correctly), but it does cause the reader to wonder about the sophistication of the author, and therefore the validity of the conclusion. It also causes the reader to doubt the thoroughness of the author's work, and shows that is was not likely peer reviewed, etc.--the implications go on. In other words, although facts remain true whether or not they are spelled correctly, the reader has to wonder if the author's claimed factual premises to his conclusion are facts at all!
Sounds to me like a world without money! We'd have totally free trade, and services would be more diverse...
And the economy would be less efficient... And investing in something would be a lot more complicated....
My cat has been doing this for years.
Arrrrr-genius. (talk like a pirate)
It seems like I read a book with this as a basis when I was young. Really. I was in my early teens, so I didn't understand the science of any of this (still don't in fact), but if I recall correctly, people could purchase personal worm-hole creators. The problem came when one got too large. . . .
1. Make a bunch of random crap and file for copyrights
2. ???????
3. Profit!!
I think this is true until further notice. The article was hardly and article, but what it did say did not mention how the money would be apportioned amongst the copyright holders. If I have copyrights on crap no one would buy, do I still get a cut?
Anyway, I've got to head out and make some stuff to copyright in Spain, and set up a bank account there.
It makes a lot of sense to a French Person, and a German. And it makes a lot of sense to artists and songwriters. But it makes no sense to businessmen. The opposition to your statement would say: "I bought this. The artist no longer own it--he sold it to me. If I can't do whatever I want with it, then he never really sold it to me."
The American tradition is more along the lines that if you own it, you can do what you want with it. Once you've sold something, you no longer have any control over it.
Another area European law (France and Germany especially here, but others too) differs from the US along similar lines is with regard to later sales of art. Fine art in these places earns money for the artist not only on the initial sale, but subsequent sales as well (as long as it is sold at a public auction). So the artist can sell the painting, no longer have any ownership in it (well, there's the whole thing in Germany how you can't really sell a copyright, and in France how you can't "do whatever you want" with it) and when the buyer sells the painting at a later date at an art auction, the artist gets a percentage of the purchase price. This fits perfectly with the concept of moral rights in art which US law doesn't accept but European law does. It would totally go against US law though, because this shows some degree of ownership residing in the painting, but in the US, once a piece of art is sold, it's gone--no residual ownership hiding in there.
I'm actually referring here to a particular case. I could have been more clear. An artist painted murals onto all sides of a refrigerator (several refrigerators, in fact, I think), then sold it at an auction (I think perhaps a fundraiser; I don't remember exactly). One of the buyers then dismantled the refrigerator and sold the panels individually. The artist sued the seller for dismantling his art. France's concept of moral rights contained within its law ruled for the artist. US law's first sale doctrine would have prevented this artist from having any such control over his art after the artist sold it.
Here's a quick summary of the case that I found using google:
in the 1962 Buffet v Fersing case in France artist Bernard Buffet (1928-1999) gained damages from a buyer who had disassembled one of his works. Buffet executed a painting on six panels of a single refrigerator, signing only one panel. The court held that the single signature was evidence of his intention that the work be understood as a whole; he was thus able to recover damages for violation of his integrity right when the owner of the refrigerator sold each panel separately.
It was at this web address: http://www.caslon.com.au/mrcasesnote.htm
The US gets a lot of blame here for forcing out IP ideals on other countries. The thing is, the US is not traditionally strong on copyright laws. Patent laws, yes; copyright no. The US had copyright terms of 25 years, and you had to perform formalities to keep it. Then the Europe didn't want to be friendly with us on an IP basis. So we legnthened our term to fit in with them. To this day, nearly all of Europe's copyright laws go far beyond US law. In Germany it is not possible to sell your copyright--the concept just doesn't exist in their law. In France, you can't buy a painted refrigerator, and then sell the painted panels. Now the US has long copyright terms, but only at the pressure of European nations. Still, performances and phonograms don't have nearly the protection offered in Europe (we didn't join the Rome Convention). And, with regard to some protections required in treaties the US did sign, US law isn't even in compliance, so the law is looser here, even though it shouldn't be (the US comes short on the protection of Moral rights in copyrighted material. This is because we don't really believe in moral rights).
So hey, yeah, the US is enforcing laws that it made that are pretty strict, but it made these laws in order to stay friendly in matters of commerce with Europe. The IP laws that you hate most--read them, they all mention treaties in them. And when it comes to copyright, it's Europe, not the US that made the treaties so strict.
I don't mind the ability to surf the internet on flights. Phone calls, however, I hope will always be prohibitively expensive. That way people will only use them if they really have to. Please don't make me have to sit next to people talking on their phones!
So, do you think the airline will choose to filter the internet to make it harder for people to look up porn on flights? Then again, airports always have tons of porn mags. I've never seen anyone buy one though.
If there were ways to allow students to go a vocational route for secondary school without it being a stigma and provisions to re-train them as the economy changed around them, I'd love to see it in the US.
My younger brother graduated from high school with a vocational degree. Now he is attending UNLV. So maybe we've kind of got that here. However, maybe what you're getting at is the stigma. I'm not really sure whether or not there is a stigma associated with going to a vocational high school here in the US. I guess I thought it was fitting for him, and then he got a pretty decent job right out of high school, making much more than I ever have (currently I am working for a federal judge making (are you ready for this)-- $0). But then he deciding to change his track in life. He's not female either though, so maybe such a scenario would be more normal in Germany than the one you proposed.
Oh? I never use SMS, and one thing that really bothers me is when I get a spam SMS message and have to pay for it because someone sent it to me.
Show me a phone that a major carrier is selling that doesn't have SMS capabilities.
Here's sprint PCS's cheapest available phone (I'm not sure that link will work). It has SMS. That's my current carrier. I bought the cheapest phone available from them three years ago, and even it does text messaging. (No, color screens don't bother me. The stupid ring tones do though. Why can't phones have normal ringers anymore?)
You're probably right about all of this--in fact I remember her mentioning some of those things, but I figured pretty much all Germans did the same. But, at the same time, the American students had a huge advantage over her here--they spoke English right from the beginning of the school year--and yet she wasn't merely top 25% in her class here, she was the top of the class.
I'm sure that there are lots of German kids that don't fit that mold, but I'm thinking the average German kid is more likely to be there than the average American. She wasn't the only valedictorian; there were a couple Americans (and the Brasilian, and several other exchange students staying with other families) in there as well. It just stikes me as counterintuitive that so many exchange students would do so much better than the Americans they go to school with.
I do have a question though. I think that education is more ubiquitus in America now than it has ever been--nearly everyone graduates high school, and a very high percentage move on to college. But I think that education is less valued on the whole now than it ever has been. It's sort of like all of the kids that are forced to be there bring the majority of the other kids down. My question for you (ot other Germans reading this)--is there a similar phenomenon in Germany?
One thing I'd like to note about the German that wrote the post this post replies to--your English is perfect; no spelling errors. I just don't think most american students even want that ability in reverse, and certainly not the entire top 25% of them.
I don't know if the group that posts on /. is biased or if this is a good representation of our population as a whole. But I am noticing that--by far--Slashdot posters want a simple phone. Myself included. What's up with these companies then? It's like the employees don't use phones.
I didn't RTFA, but I read a similar article on Wired this morning. That one mentioned that the reason cell phone companies started making it so you have no choice but to buy a phone with all of this crap is because the companies are hoping that you'll use it. The problem with a simple phone is that you can't possibly use these extra services that cost extra money. So they don't make that simple phone available to you. Instead they sell you a phone that has all these stupid features. So maybe you won't use the features--but you have them, so you might. If you don't have the features then you won't. It's no loss to them if they sell you a fancier phone than you need. But it would be bad for them to allow you to buy a phone that boxes you into a position where you can't use the extra features.
However--I think they've got it all wrong. And these Slashdot comments show that. There really is a market out there for simple basic phones! WILL SOMEONE PLEASE FILL THAT HOLE?!?!
The article doesn't say that the study relied on the falacy of the pirated copy=lost sale argument. It also doesn't say that it didn't rely on that argument. I just don't like how many are jumping to the conclusion that the falacy is being used. I recently read an article about a study funded by the MPAA that specifically accounted for that falacy--in the survey they asked people if they would have purchased a copy of a given song if they did not have a pirated copy of it. I do have somewhat of a problem with this too, however, and I think a study should make sure to take hindsight into account as well (I'm not sure whether or not the study I mentioned took hindsight into account). What I mean by this is, after I've illegally downloaded a song that I'd never hearn of--say, perhaps, by some band named "Quarashi" or something--and decide that it is awesome, if someone asked "would you buy this CD if you didn't have it illegally?" I would say "yes" because I think it's awesome. But in reality the answer should be "no" because I would not know this band exists, and I wouldn't have experimented with it if it wasn't free.
But anyway, I'm off topic now. My point is that you people should not be saying "this study's terrible because a pirated copy does not equal a lost sale." Instead you should be realizing that these research companies have the ability to figure this out, and this study might have taken that into account.
I quite agree. And I have an interesting example to share with regard to some foreign exchange students at my parents' house. I'm a college student, recently graduated from undergrad. I graduated in December and lived with my parents for 8 months between the time I graduated and moved on to graduate school. My parents had two foreign exchange students during that time--one from Germany and one from Brasil. Both of these girls arrived in America the summer before the school year began barely able to speak English, but I watched them walk as Valedictorians in their high school graduation 9 months later. These are girls that were popular and went out on weekends, but right after school they did homework, and that was more important to them than whatever was going to happen that weekend. I helped them with their math homework, and I'll tell you--these girls were not inherantly smarter than most Americans. But on their own free will they worked hard to do well. So, it has always amazed me that, they were able to do better in classes that were tought in English--while they were just learning English themselves--than kids that have been speaking english from a young age.
I think this says a lot more about Americans than it does about these girls. Americans are so darn lazy!
From another article on the same thing:
"Though the news may appear to be a blow to Microsoft, Rob Enderle, analyst with the Enderle Group, said it actually could serve the company well in the near term as it continues to battle antitrust charges in the European Union."
I do note one thing missing from the letter, though:
There's something missing from that paragraph... This should be the paragraph where Jason says something along the lines of, "but I refused his request for a signature and would agree to nothing of the sort." Instead this paragraph is mysteriously silent on the point.
Though later Jason says:
Obviously Jason did not sign a contract like the lawyer requested, or the lawyer would have that contract. However, Jason's statements in his letter sound suspiciously to me like he may have entered into an oral agreement with the lawyer who called him. However, even if the agreement can be proven, I think the statute of frauds would still require this contract to go unrecognized since the allegedly breaching party won't admit to its existance, and the contract is for something that is over $500.
It's just been renamed. It's also a bit more complicated to get there now. If you go to Winamp.com, click on the basic player (as opposed to the "Pro" player which costs. Has anyone ever actually bought that anyway?). This gives you four options (it would be three options, but they still give you the "pro option"). Choose the "Lite" option. This gives you the old player.
It's actually good to get this "lite" version instead of old versions because there are a few security flaws in the old one. This "Lite" version is up-to-date with regard to the security flaws, but it has none of the bloated frills of the full version. It's just the good ole 2.0.
Here's the link, by the way: http://www.winamp.com/player/free.php
Obliterate the entire patent system because Linix and Windows don't interoperate smoothly?! Wow--that's pretty extreme!
How about if we slow down a bit here--software patents have a relatively shaky foundation. I could imagine trying to make software patents harder to get, or even do away with them maybe. Walking into Congress and saying "we can't have patents anymore"--that won't fly. Not to mention we would have lots of trade sanctions placed on us if we did try that.
What am I learning in law school then? And it's on our currency!
I can tell any Roman "E pluribus unim" and "res ipsa loquitur." "Caveat emptor" "contra referendum"
Yeah, I'm fluent. I just can't say anything useful.
Oops
Maybe we can use it to slice out a hole in the ozone layer, so I can tan better.
I managed to find the bill number for those interested: H.R. 5273 (A bill to promote open broadband networks and innovation, foster electronic commerce, and safeguard consumer access to online content and services). I was also going to include the text here, but neither Thomas, nor LexisNexis has it yet.
I think it's great these things get posted early. You're absolutely correct that tons of bills are proposed and go nowhere, but this gives me a chance to write my Congresspeople and Senators. There's a better chance a bill will get through if our elected officials hear about it from us. These people are our representatives, let's tell them what we want.