The Segway, and other small EV's make sense--especially in Northern California.
Small EVs (either NEVs which are more car-like, or electric motorcycles, more traditional electric bicycles or scooters, especially folding ones which allow convenient interface with public transit, etc.) make perfect sense in Northern California.
The Segway is not, as I see it, really among the kind of small EVs that make good sense here, though. An appropriate choice of more traditional small EVs for the particular users will give a lot better utility for the price (and in many cases both better overall utility and lower price) for most users.
The Segway doesn't have an advantage in speed or range of comparably priced (or often, far cheaper) alternatives, its main selling point is its maneuverability which the company says makes it ideal for use in areas designed for pedestrian use like sidewalks. But while it would be great on sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian use, its not all that pedestrian friendly on sidewalks, which is why city governments are often disinclined to make their cities less pedestrian friendly than they already are by allowing them to be used there. And, anyway, many Northern California cities aren't all that pedestrian friendly to start with, but have roads where powered bicycles, motorcycles, and traditional scooters are more easily accomodated.
The machines are expensive, but they cost a lot of money to make.
So? Consumers don't care how much it costs to make a product, they care how much utility you get out of it.
Now they include Li-ion batteries, and have better range.
Comparable to a number of similarly priced, more traditional electric vehicles. The Segway, even with the improvement, offers nothing particularly special in this regard.
In urban areas, Seqways make more sense than cars, parking isn't a problem, insurance is cheap, and you can take store them in your apartment.
Yes, and folding electric scooters or bicycles (though they tend to have less independent range) generally make more sense, since they have all thoseadvantages you describe of a Segway, plus are a lot easier to interface with public transit, plus are often far less expensive. Whereas slighly larger, non-folding electric scooters, bicycles, or motorcycles at or under the Segway's price range also offer similar benefits (though, especially in the latter case, may be more demanding when it comes to storage space), with comparable (or, particularly for electric motorcycles, better) speed, comparable independent range, and often better adaptability to useful accessories, like cargo trailers to allow you to do significant grocery shopping with your electric vehicle.
There are niches in, largely, business and government use where Segways make sense, which is where they've mostly been adopted so far. Aside from that, they are mostly inexpensive toys.
Direct Connect is an astroturfing company; that's what their people are good at.
DCI is a full spectrum political consulting, PR, and telemarketing firm; while some of the work it has done certainly has been "astroturfing", a lot of it seems to be routine political consulting and marketing.
DCI is not an "astroturfing" company, but like most political consulting firms, most of their work doesn't make headlines. Its only when they are caught doing something controversial, like astroturfing, that anyone notices them.
Or could there possibly be a non-evil reason to hire these clowns?"
Given the lobbying firepower being deployed by the anti-net-neutrality side, if Google, usually portrayed as pro-neutrality, is serious about a pro-neutrality stance as something more than a quixotic PR stand, it needs the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the cable and telephone industries.
And that means you need people that are familiar with the broadest possible spectrum of lobbying tactics, capable of advising on how to counter them, and capable of deploying whatever tactics Google is willing to go with in response.
How would you make room in Episode II? You get rid of all the lame romantic scenes between Padme and Anakin, that's how! Padme and Anakin's romance could have been compressed into a couple of scenes. The important bits in Episode II were the revelation of Sifo-Dyas' relationship with the Kamino Corporation and their clone project, the turning of Count Dooku from the Light to Dark Side, the battles on Geonosis, and the beginning of the Clone Wars.
I dunno. Other than Lucas obviously bungled it in both Ep. II and III, the Padme/Anakin romantic development was critical to the story of prequel trilogy. So while deleting much of what was in Episode II wouldn't hurt much since it was already done so poorly (and, in fact, the IMAX edition did delete much of it), I think it would have been better to fix it. OTOH, it could probably be fixed and still be much shorter, so maybe you're right, after all.
I'm still wondering how can the judges let it happen.
The law allows pretty heavy minimum statutory damage awards, even (though lower than otherwise) for innocent infringers. Legally, there is little judges can do.
The problem is with the law, not the judges following the law. That's Congress' job.
I'd make that "commercial or large scale" since making tens of thousands of copies, even if not for profit, does cause damage to the copyright holder unless all of those are archive copies (and who needs that many archive copies?), never mind that that's most likely a commercial operation using a loophole to avoid being counted as such.
Note that I didn't advocate legalizing anything, only narrowing available remedies to actual damages. So even "innocent" large scale infringement, if (as you argue) it causes actual damages, would still allow recovery. My proposal is about reducing lawsuits and milking of innocent infringers as a new kind of revenue stream (either through lawsuits or "amensty" blackmail) its not about allowing infringement that is currently illegal.
No, I'd rather just have a blanket exception: if you're a natural person, and you're acting noncommercially, you're not infringing, whatever you're doing, and whatever your mental state is.
Well, sure, that would create the broadest license, but that would also greatly reduce the commercial viability of many products that are sold for noncommercial use, and discourage their production. While the law may be practically unenforceable, the risk that brazen enough violations could bring action exerts some control, and keeps a lot markets viable that otherwise wouldn't be. Now, sure, you may be happy to kill all but the biggest creative industries that aren't centered around personal performance, but I'd rather let them live.
I'm ambivalent about adding mens rea to copyright, since it would seem to encourage people to be deliberately ignorant of the copyright status of works, so that they could get away with things.
Mens rea is already a factor in copyright, as it effects the remedies. But valid notice on the copies to which an infringer defeats any claims of innocence based on ignorance of copyright status. I wouldn't suggest changing that if innocence were a complete defense rather than a mitigation.
Also your third exception is all tangled up. Commercial fair use is possible, commonplace, and still entirely fair, so why treat it differently?
I disagree that its tangled up: commercial actual fair use would remain protected, but innocent erroneous intended fair use in a commercial context would not be protected from statutory damages because those using other works in a commercial setting ought, IMO, have more responsibility for assuring that their use is proper.
And why only invoke fair use, when there are a whole panoply of exceptions to copyright other than fair use?
Because the fair use exception is particularly important, particularly in noncommercial contexts, because of its connection to 1st Amendment rights.
First sale is an entirely different creature than fair use, so why wouldn't it protect people who think they're sheltered by that doctrine?
Because first sale is an entirely different creature without the kind of fundamental importance that fair use has. Which is why already certain noncommercial infringers are already protected this way for innocent infringement that is reasonably, though wrongly, believed to be fair use; I simply would expand that protection to be more general than it currently is.
No, because unlike atmospheric greenhouse gases, people aren't fungible.
I would think most people, even ACs, would realize the difference without asking.
Its not a normal unilateral contract because there is no consideration from the non-Microsoft party; which is why promissory estoppel (which substitutes for consideration) is a key issue.
No, a license agreement (a contract) would need to be accepted, a license (which is not a contract, but a unilateral grant) would only need to be endorsed by the party giving the license, not returned by those receiving it. (And even license agreements, don't need to be "signed and returned" to be accepted.)
I'm trying to think of circumstances where reliance on a promise would be found to be unreasonable. Do you have a case that shows this?
I can think of a few, but none that are really illuminating to this particular context off the top of my head.
I suspect that if reliance was unreasonable then it wasn't a real promise in the first place, such as when the person has "promised" something over which they have no control or has used the word in circumstances where it should not be expected to be taken seriously.
I'd include a promise revoked in the same forum it was made in that category, but, sure, its reasonable in common language to characterize a "promise" on which reliance is not reasonable as a not a "real" promise, but that's mostly semantics.
Hey, I wonder who comes up with these crazy patent laws?
Lobbyists for big industries that want to create additional barriers to entries for the small guys. Lawyers (at least, both the law professors and those that practice law; people with law degrees working as politicians, lobbyists, political staffers, corporate execs, etc. don't count) are often in favor of streamlining and simplifying the law.
An innocent buyer would no doubt have a claim against the fraudulent seller for at least the amount paid, and possibly for the fair market value of the product the seller agreed to sell but failed to legally provide (and, depending on the jurisdiction, possible some damage multiplier for the deliberate fraud, as well.)
Would be: 1) Eliminate statutory damages for innocent infringers, and 2) Disallow court costs and attorney's fees against innocent infringers, and 3) Expand the definition of innocent infringers to, in addition to its current scope, include all people who had a reasonable belief that their use was "fair use" under the law who were acting without commercial intent when infringing.
This would eliminate all incentive to pursue charges against innocent infringers who aren't causing substantial actual damages; instead, companies that became aware of such infringement would send "cease and desist" notices, and the infringer would either cease further infringement or stop being an "innocent" infringer.
17 USC 504(c)(2) spells out how innocent infringement acts as a mitigation of statutory damages (which, in the types of cases being discussed, are likely to be the issue; actual damages are almost certainly negligible in most cases); further, an innocent infringer is likely relying on deliberate representations of a willful (likely commercial) infringer, who almost certainly can be impleaded by the innocent infringer in any action for the violation.
For most copyright actions, registration is an absolute prerequisite (see 17 USC 411).
In addition, if you register before filing suit but after the actual infringement occurred, you can't, even if you do win the suit, recover attorney's fees or statutory damages. So that means you won't get any more money back, in most cases, than you can prove either you lost or the infringer made because of the infringement, and a big chunk of that is going to attorney's fees, so net you are likely to lose money on such actions, not turn a profit. Your only chance of profitting is if you can "prove" that you lost money that you actually didn't. You can't even get the benefit of the extra recovery for proven willful violations, since that is just an enhancement of the statutory damages, which you can't recover.
For those to whom the parent is not clear, the California Highway Patrol has, for quite some time, subsumed the function of the formerly-separate California State Police, and also has a function with regard to the Governor (and, IIRC, certain other state officers) parallel to the protective role of the federal Secret Service.
So its not all that odd that the CHP is running the investigation, other than the fact that there is obviously nothing illegal about accessing publicly-served pages from someone's webserver, so there shouldn't be an "investigation" at all.
Registration is still required before you can actually do much to enforce copyrights, even though copyright itself is automatic on creation of any copyrightable work.
I would not assume that the self-serving FUD of an industry group accurately reflects US law. In US law, innocent infringement is not a complete defense to civil infringement, but does mitigate damages. Furthermore, if the innocent offender was sold or given the material b someone who represented it as legitimate, they likely have a claim against that third party for any damages they would be liable for for the infringment, and more, either on a theory of fraud or some other related basis—and could likely drag them into any suit over the infringement.
HP is going to be roiled hard over this when the state and feds get done. there will be new law, and pretexting is going to be outlawed.
"Pretexting" is already a violation of state identity theft and false personation laws, criminal and civil, and possibly (depending on the context) federal laws of the same kind as well.
It isn't going to be made illegal, it is already illegal.
IANAL. I'm not even sure I spelled either word right. But the thing is, legally, if you make a promise, and I act on that promise, you can't turn around and sue me for acting on your promise.
OK, it's a bit muddier than that. You can still sue me. Anybody can pretty much sue anybody for anything. But you can't win the lawsuit, and losing can be painful enough that most people don't play such games.
Its actually quite a bit muddier than that. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the promise is only enforceable where reliance on it is reasonable, and where no other means to avoid injustice is available; exactly how that works out in any particular case can be murky. Here, I can see Microsoft not being allowed to recover damages in a patent, and maybe being unable to prevent continued distribution or use of existing product using the patented technology, but being allowed to forbid development of additional technology.
Further, once the promise was publicly revoked, further reliance on it would no longer be reasonable. The claim that the promise is "irrevocable" probably has no weight, since it is completely gratuitous.
Slashdot Mirror
Small EVs (either NEVs which are more car-like, or electric motorcycles, more traditional electric bicycles or scooters, especially folding ones which allow convenient interface with public transit, etc.) make perfect sense in Northern California.
The Segway is not, as I see it, really among the kind of small EVs that make good sense here, though. An appropriate choice of more traditional small EVs for the particular users will give a lot better utility for the price (and in many cases both better overall utility and lower price) for most users.
The Segway doesn't have an advantage in speed or range of comparably priced (or often, far cheaper) alternatives, its main selling point is its maneuverability which the company says makes it ideal for use in areas designed for pedestrian use like sidewalks. But while it would be great on sidewalks dedicated to pedestrian use, its not all that pedestrian friendly on sidewalks, which is why city governments are often disinclined to make their cities less pedestrian friendly than they already are by allowing them to be used there. And, anyway, many Northern California cities aren't all that pedestrian friendly to start with, but have roads where powered bicycles, motorcycles, and traditional scooters are more easily accomodated.
So? Consumers don't care how much it costs to make a product, they care how much utility you get out of it.
Comparable to a number of similarly priced, more traditional electric vehicles. The Segway, even with the improvement, offers nothing particularly special in this regard.
Yes, and folding electric scooters or bicycles (though they tend to have less independent range) generally make more sense, since they have all thoseadvantages you describe of a Segway, plus are a lot easier to interface with public transit, plus are often far less expensive. Whereas slighly larger, non-folding electric scooters, bicycles, or motorcycles at or under the Segway's price range also offer similar benefits (though, especially in the latter case, may be more demanding when it comes to storage space), with comparable (or, particularly for electric motorcycles, better) speed, comparable independent range, and often better adaptability to useful accessories, like cargo trailers to allow you to do significant grocery shopping with your electric vehicle.
There are niches in, largely, business and government use where Segways make sense, which is where they've mostly been adopted so far. Aside from that, they are mostly inexpensive toys.
Especially with 2 complete recalls in 3 years. That can't be cheap...
DCI is a full spectrum political consulting, PR, and telemarketing firm; while some of the work it has done certainly has been "astroturfing", a lot of it seems to be routine political consulting and marketing.
DCI is not an "astroturfing" company, but like most political consulting firms, most of their work doesn't make headlines. Its only when they are caught doing something controversial, like astroturfing, that anyone notices them.
Given the lobbying firepower being deployed by the anti-net-neutrality side, if Google, usually portrayed as pro-neutrality, is serious about a pro-neutrality stance as something more than a quixotic PR stand, it needs the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the cable and telephone industries.
And that means you need people that are familiar with the broadest possible spectrum of lobbying tactics, capable of advising on how to counter them, and capable of deploying whatever tactics Google is willing to go with in response.
Anything less is bringing a knife to a gun fight.
Well, if you did that, you wouldn't get to pay as much.
No, because unlike atmospheric greenhouse gases, people aren't fungible. I would think most people, even ACs, would realize the difference without asking.
Its not a normal unilateral contract because there is no consideration from the non-Microsoft party; which is why promissory estoppel (which substitutes for consideration) is a key issue.
No, a license agreement (a contract) would need to be accepted, a license (which is not a contract, but a unilateral grant) would only need to be endorsed by the party giving the license, not returned by those receiving it. (And even license agreements, don't need to be "signed and returned" to be accepted.)
Lobbyists for big industries that want to create additional barriers to entries for the small guys. Lawyers (at least, both the law professors and those that practice law; people with law degrees working as politicians, lobbyists, political staffers, corporate execs, etc. don't count) are often in favor of streamlining and simplifying the law.
An innocent buyer would no doubt have a claim against the fraudulent seller for at least the amount paid, and possibly for the fair market value of the product the seller agreed to sell but failed to legally provide (and, depending on the jurisdiction, possible some damage multiplier for the deliberate fraud, as well.)
Would be:
1) Eliminate statutory damages for innocent infringers, and
2) Disallow court costs and attorney's fees against innocent infringers, and
3) Expand the definition of innocent infringers to, in addition to its current scope, include all people who had a reasonable belief that their use was "fair use" under the law who were acting without commercial intent when infringing.
This would eliminate all incentive to pursue charges against innocent infringers who aren't causing substantial actual damages; instead, companies that became aware of such infringement would send "cease and desist" notices, and the infringer would either cease further infringement or stop being an "innocent" infringer.
17 USC 504(c)(2) spells out how innocent infringement acts as a mitigation of statutory damages (which, in the types of cases being discussed, are likely to be the issue; actual damages are almost certainly negligible in most cases); further, an innocent infringer is likely relying on deliberate representations of a willful (likely commercial) infringer, who almost certainly can be impleaded by the innocent infringer in any action for the violation.
For most copyright actions, registration is an absolute prerequisite (see 17 USC 411).
In addition, if you register before filing suit but after the actual infringement occurred, you can't, even if you do win the suit, recover attorney's fees or statutory damages. So that means you won't get any more money back, in most cases, than you can prove either you lost or the infringer made because of the infringement, and a big chunk of that is going to attorney's fees, so net you are likely to lose money on such actions, not turn a profit. Your only chance of profitting is if you can "prove" that you lost money that you actually didn't. You can't even get the benefit of the extra recovery for proven willful violations, since that is just an enhancement of the statutory damages, which you can't recover.
I stand by my original characterization.
For those to whom the parent is not clear, the California Highway Patrol has, for quite some time, subsumed the function of the formerly-separate California State Police, and also has a function with regard to the Governor (and, IIRC, certain other state officers) parallel to the protective role of the federal Secret Service.
So its not all that odd that the CHP is running the investigation, other than the fact that there is obviously nothing illegal about accessing publicly-served pages from someone's webserver, so there shouldn't be an "investigation" at all.
Registration is still required before you can actually do much to enforce copyrights, even though copyright itself is automatic on creation of any copyrightable work.
I would not assume that the self-serving FUD of an industry group accurately reflects US law. In US law, innocent infringement is not a complete defense to civil infringement, but does mitigate damages. Furthermore, if the innocent offender was sold or given the material b someone who represented it as legitimate, they likely have a claim against that third party for any damages they would be liable for for the infringment, and more, either on a theory of fraud or some other related basis—and could likely drag them into any suit over the infringement.
I know its true of trademarks, but I wasn't thinking of them. I'm pretty sure its true of patents as well.
"Pretexting" is already a violation of state identity theft and false personation laws, criminal and civil, and possibly (depending on the context) federal laws of the same kind as well.
It isn't going to be made illegal, it is already illegal.
Its actually quite a bit muddier than that. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the promise is only enforceable where reliance on it is reasonable, and where no other means to avoid injustice is available; exactly how that works out in any particular case can be murky. Here, I can see Microsoft not being allowed to recover damages in a patent, and maybe being unable to prevent continued distribution or use of existing product using the patented technology, but being allowed to forbid development of additional technology.
Further, once the promise was publicly revoked, further reliance on it would no longer be reasonable. The claim that the promise is "irrevocable" probably has no weight, since it is completely gratuitous.