No, but park it in my parking space, don't remove it after I have you served with a notice to either do so or that I will go to court and get title of it, and guess what - I *can* go to court and get title transferred.
Uhhhh...what?? What law is this? IAAL and I've never heard of this legal maneuver.
He's talking about adverse possession.
It wouldn't directly apply here (it's not real estate, so he'd have to look at the more general doctrine of laches), but if you can't spot it, you should brush up on your property law. IANAL, but I've got a J.D.
Shouldn't the patent obligation been handled between the licensor and the media company? Aren't we in fact, entity "C?"
We are, in so much as we are not liable for patent infringement for owning or transferring media on which resides the patented subject matter, i.e., the encoded data.
Most apple products already have hardware decoding support. All the iPods use decoding chips, and most of the computers have GPUs that can accelerate decoding. As for a "DRM chip", they've already tried putting TPMs in some of their computers. It didn't go over well.
It they own the chip manufacturer, they could add TPM modules to the decoding chips they're using. I don't think Microsoft has this option yet with their media hardware.
Here's a thought: Special purpose coprocessors for media appliances. Increased battery efficiency for video playback on iPhone, lower processor overhead for AppleTV, longer battery life on the iPod, etc. Maybe a standardized, dedicated, and proprietary AppleDRM chip, embedded across the entire line of Apple media products.
WooHoo!
Knowing you need to type "DIR/S/AH/ON" without having to DIR/? first. Get directory listing, include sub-directories, show hidden files, sort output by filename
...was once the height of scientific enlightenment. Then along came fundamentalist Christianism, extreme patriotism, and since then very little has progressed (without outside influence).
Good point. I hadn't thought the issue all the way through from that perspective.
I'm going to have to let this one bounce around for a while. Part of my reasoning stems from the fact that violent threats and intimidation have existed since the beginning, and consequently should have already been addressed by the anglo-saxon common law (Magna Carta, et. seq.) and as our judicial history has not given us a clear classification of hate crimes, the past 800 years have not shown that extra punishment is necessary for an offense motivated by a desire to intimidate.
IANAL, but I am in my last semester of law school. I'd look into it in depth, but my senior paper is already quite neglected...
A threat is a warning that something will happen in the future. If the warning is in the form of a crime, the severity of the crime is irrelevant. If I lynch somebody suspected of being a homosexual because I think he's a homosexual, other homosexuals would be threatened that I would lynch them next -UNLESS- I am apprehended and appropriately punished for the lynching.
If instead of lynching, I merely physically assaulted (committed a battery, for you IAAL's or IAALS's out there) the victim, the threat is the same - other people of that specific demographic will feel threatened that they will be my next victim. Just as in the murder example supra, that threat will not have affect if I am apprehended and appropriately punished.
In either case, if I am punished for the physical offense (lynching, battery), the "hate" factor of the crime is irrelevant.
The intimidation factor that you credit the effectiveness of hate crimes to can only exsist if the underlying law against murder is not properly enforced. A "hate crime" can't serve as a warning if the perpetrator can't repeat the offence.
I think grades are less important that you make them out to be. I have no grades - zero educational history* before I was 20 - and I got into Law School solely on the basis of three CLEP tests.
Oh, and I'm second-born male.
(* I was home schooled - the state didn't require records)
You've got an interesting point. It does seem to benefit the corporate entities more because, well, they use the system.
The point the author was making was that the existence of patents on the components of his "dream phone" would prevent it from ever being built, and arguing tangentially against patents in the process. Patents might hinder the building of the device, not because of patent issues, but because of licensing issues.
The patent system is a trade-off. The patent holder gets exclusive rights to his device in exchange for full and complete specs being made part of the public record. After the patent expire (20 years), the public has a full and unencumbered invention. The kicker is the intervening 20 years while the patent holder sues everybody else for infringing on his patent - which frequently shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
The memory card issue is moot - should we all be PCMCIA flash cards because it was the mandated standard? I prefer a freer market. There are memory card standards which any manufacturer is free to use, and the consumer can select which card he wants in which product. CF? we got it. SD? Check. Mini-SD? yep, and an adaptor. Micro-SD? Yep, and an adaptor. XD? Can do! We've even got an adaptor!
All that aside, how is a slew of competing products bad for the consumer? If they're not sharp enough to understand interoperability of memory cards, well, they'll learn. It's better than being able to choose any camera you like, so long as it's a Fuji Finepix.
Side note- I recently got a CF-to-IDE44 adaptor so I could replace the hard drive in an old laptop with a CF card - then my brother got an SD-to-CF adapter so he could SD cards in his camera, then we realized that we could put a MicroSD card in a Micro-to-Mini SD adapter, in a MiniSD-to-SD adapter, in a SD-to-CF adapter, in a CF-to-IDE44 adapter, in an external 2.5" hdd usb enclosure. It was pretty wacky.
The intent of the patent system is to foster innovation by protecting new inventions.
New Inventions, not new concepts An invention is a specific implementation of a concept. If you can't specify how it's built, it's just a concept. (Or rather, that's the way it's supposed to work. Software patents are a slightly different kettle of fish, but the same rules should apply)
The protection garnered by a patent grant is one of an exclusive monopoly. You can prevent anyone else (within the patent office's jurisdiction) from stealing your invention, even if you would be infringing on other people's patents if you tried to make it yourself.
So, Mr. Lim could go ahead and apply for a patent on his ideal phone, and turn around and license it to LG or Samsung or Motorola or Nokia and let them negotiate with the individual patent holders. Meanwhile, the phone doesn't get built due to ongoing negotiations, but it stays patented, and if any manufactures are sufficiently interested to license the design, Mr. Lim collects royalties.
(IANAL - but I am a law student writing my senior paper on patents)
Clear Case of Libel, eh?
Let me go back and check my syllabus outline on this one... Libel = Printed Defamation = Tort = First Year...
"Defamation is a false and defamatory statement which is intentionally or negligently published to third persons, is understood by those third persons as relating to the plaintiff, and is actual and proximate cause of damage to plaintiff's reputation." According to my outline (based on Prossor and Keaton on Torts and Gilbert's Law Summaries), "Damage" is presumed to exist if plaintiff is 1) accused of a crime, 2) of having a loathsome disease, 3) of being sexually promiscuous, or 4) of doing/being something inconsistent with his or her business (something that incline others to not deal with him in his business).
So, yeah, it looks like there might be a valid action for libel.
The amusing fact is that this is nothing more than a capitalist version of taking from the rich (those are willing and able to pay more) and giving to the poor (those aren't willing or able to pay more). No, it's getting the maximum amount of money from each customer. They're not giving anybody anything - they're charging the rich more.
As a side benefit, it can make a product more profitable and promote more development, so I guess the poor benefit from that... Kinda like people who buy version 1 of $NewStuff. (As a Version 3+ guy, thanks!)
Is it? It wasn't so long ago, after all, that it was a search engine company.
Actually, it is and always has been an advertising company. Their revenue comes from advertising - their business plan is advertising, their research is focused around advertising. By knowing more about a person, they can deliver more effective advertisements. If they know when you're making phone calls regularly, they know what your hours are. If they know where you're calling frequently, they know the area you're likely to be in - they could even track where you are by cell node and target locally relevant ads - which they can sell at a premium.
Of course, they could be hideously more effective if they're analyzing all your electronic communications.
Hm. Maybe that's where the dark fiber comes in at. Just a thought.
C'mon, people! Think about this for just a sec...
Cringley's claiming that Google has been buying rights to data lines (future bandwidth) - secretly - for some time now. Cringley hypothesises that Google's motivation for this is their corporate insight concerning the future of a more bandwidth-intensive public.
Assuming that this hypothesis is correct (it's reasonable), how is it sinister? Google sees that users are using more bandwidth, they see that they can position themselves in such a way as to capitalize it in the future.
It's good business sense. Their stock probably is undervalued.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole concept of "obvious to a person skilled in the art" has been ground into the dirt for 20+ years now.
Not entirely.
He's talking about adverse possession.
It wouldn't directly apply here (it's not real estate, so he'd have to look at the more general doctrine of laches), but if you can't spot it, you should brush up on your property law. IANAL, but I've got a J.D.
Shouldn't the patent obligation been handled between the licensor and the media company? Aren't we in fact, entity "C?"
We are, in so much as we are not liable for patent infringement for owning or transferring media on which resides the patented subject matter, i.e., the encoded data.
Here's a thought: Special purpose coprocessors for media appliances. Increased battery efficiency for video playback on iPhone, lower processor overhead for AppleTV, longer battery life on the iPod, etc. Maybe a standardized, dedicated, and proprietary AppleDRM chip, embedded across the entire line of Apple media products.
I dunno. Just a thought.
Do I get a cookie?
?????
Good point. I hadn't thought the issue all the way through from that perspective.
I'm going to have to let this one bounce around for a while. Part of my reasoning stems from the fact that violent threats and intimidation have existed since the beginning, and consequently should have already been addressed by the anglo-saxon common law (Magna Carta, et. seq.) and as our judicial history has not given us a clear classification of hate crimes, the past 800 years have not shown that extra punishment is necessary for an offense motivated by a desire to intimidate.
IANAL, but I am in my last semester of law school. I'd look into it in depth, but my senior paper is already quite neglected...
A threat is a warning that something will happen in the future. If the warning is in the form of a crime, the severity of the crime is irrelevant. If I lynch somebody suspected of being a homosexual because I think he's a homosexual, other homosexuals would be threatened that I would lynch them next -UNLESS- I am apprehended and appropriately punished for the lynching.
If instead of lynching, I merely physically assaulted (committed a battery, for you IAAL's or IAALS's out there) the victim, the threat is the same - other people of that specific demographic will feel threatened that they will be my next victim. Just as in the murder example supra, that threat will not have affect if I am apprehended and appropriately punished.
In either case, if I am punished for the physical offense (lynching, battery), the "hate" factor of the crime is irrelevant.
The intimidation factor that you credit the effectiveness of hate crimes to can only exsist if the underlying law against murder is not properly enforced. A "hate crime" can't serve as a warning if the perpetrator can't repeat the offence.
The line of succession is determined by statute - 3 U.S.C. 19.
e ntial_line_of_succession
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presid
This isn't advertisement - it's an announcement of a really cool computer.
I'm fascinated.
I think grades are less important that you make them out to be. I have no grades - zero educational history* before I was 20 - and I got into Law School solely on the basis of three CLEP tests.
Oh, and I'm second-born male.
(* I was home schooled - the state didn't require records)
You've got an interesting point. It does seem to benefit the corporate entities more because, well, they use the system.
The point the author was making was that the existence of patents on the components of his "dream phone" would prevent it from ever being built, and arguing tangentially against patents in the process. Patents might hinder the building of the device, not because of patent issues, but because of licensing issues.
The patent system is a trade-off. The patent holder gets exclusive rights to his device in exchange for full and complete specs being made part of the public record. After the patent expire (20 years), the public has a full and unencumbered invention. The kicker is the intervening 20 years while the patent holder sues everybody else for infringing on his patent - which frequently shouldn't have been granted in the first place.
The memory card issue is moot - should we all be PCMCIA flash cards because it was the mandated standard? I prefer a freer market. There are memory card standards which any manufacturer is free to use, and the consumer can select which card he wants in which product. CF? we got it. SD? Check. Mini-SD? yep, and an adaptor. Micro-SD? Yep, and an adaptor. XD? Can do! We've even got an adaptor!
All that aside, how is a slew of competing products bad for the consumer? If they're not sharp enough to understand interoperability of memory cards, well, they'll learn. It's better than being able to choose any camera you like, so long as it's a Fuji Finepix.
Side note- I recently got a CF-to-IDE44 adaptor so I could replace the hard drive in an old laptop with a CF card - then my brother got an SD-to-CF adapter so he could SD cards in his camera, then we realized that we could put a MicroSD card in a Micro-to-Mini SD adapter, in a MiniSD-to-SD adapter, in a SD-to-CF adapter, in a CF-to-IDE44 adapter, in an external 2.5" hdd usb enclosure. It was pretty wacky.
The intent of the patent system is to foster innovation by protecting new inventions.
New Inventions, not new concepts An invention is a specific implementation of a concept. If you can't specify how it's built, it's just a concept. (Or rather, that's the way it's supposed to work. Software patents are a slightly different kettle of fish, but the same rules should apply)
The protection garnered by a patent grant is one of an exclusive monopoly. You can prevent anyone else (within the patent office's jurisdiction) from stealing your invention, even if you would be infringing on other people's patents if you tried to make it yourself.
So, Mr. Lim could go ahead and apply for a patent on his ideal phone, and turn around and license it to LG or Samsung or Motorola or Nokia and let them negotiate with the individual patent holders. Meanwhile, the phone doesn't get built due to ongoing negotiations, but it stays patented, and if any manufactures are sufficiently interested to license the design, Mr. Lim collects royalties.
(IANAL - but I am a law student writing my senior paper on patents)
"Defamation is a false and defamatory statement which is intentionally or negligently published to third persons, is understood by those third persons as relating to the plaintiff, and is actual and proximate cause of damage to plaintiff's reputation." According to my outline (based on Prossor and Keaton on Torts and Gilbert's Law Summaries), "Damage" is presumed to exist if plaintiff is 1) accused of a crime, 2) of having a loathsome disease, 3) of being sexually promiscuous, or 4) of doing/being something inconsistent with his or her business (something that incline others to not deal with him in his business).
So, yeah, it looks like there might be a valid action for libel.
As a side benefit, it can make a product more profitable and promote more development, so I guess the poor benefit from that... Kinda like people who buy version 1 of $NewStuff. (As a Version 3+ guy, thanks!)
This strategy is clearly outlined in the Halloween Documents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents)
Docs 1 and 2 in pdf available at http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/0 11607/6000/PX06501.pdf
Well worth the read.
Actually, it is and always has been an advertising company. Their revenue comes from advertising - their business plan is advertising, their research is focused around advertising. By knowing more about a person, they can deliver more effective advertisements. If they know when you're making phone calls regularly, they know what your hours are. If they know where you're calling frequently, they know the area you're likely to be in - they could even track where you are by cell node and target locally relevant ads - which they can sell at a premium.
Of course, they could be hideously more effective if they're analyzing all your electronic communications.
Hm. Maybe that's where the dark fiber comes in at. Just a thought.
Should it be a problem that the software is 36% of the total price?
C'mon, people! Think about this for just a sec... Cringley's claiming that Google has been buying rights to data lines (future bandwidth) - secretly - for some time now. Cringley hypothesises that Google's motivation for this is their corporate insight concerning the future of a more bandwidth-intensive public. Assuming that this hypothesis is correct (it's reasonable), how is it sinister? Google sees that users are using more bandwidth, they see that they can position themselves in such a way as to capitalize it in the future. It's good business sense. Their stock probably is undervalued.