If the server does the encryption, then the server has to see the unencrypted content.
If the client does the encryption, the server doesn't have to see the unencrypted content.
Also, if the server does the work and you have a million clients, then the server has to do a million units of work rather than the clients each doing one unit of work. This can make the server more impacted by traffic spikes and provide a less-consistent and sometimes lower-quality user experience than just offloading that work to the client.
Alternatively, its more expensive (more CPU = more $$) for the server operator, who often owns the app. So there's an incentive to build apps in a way that the work is offloaded.
does this mean an end to passwords, and the beginning of proper identity management in the browser.
Probably not. Encryption-in-the-DOM doesn't really do much for that (and, anyway, SSL client certificates for authentication do more for that, but almost no one uses them.)
The Vatican are a government. Christians in the USA, as in actual church groups need to be on the media talking about this.
The State of Vatican City (or, less formally, "Vatican City") is a government/state. The Vatican -- more formally the Holy See -- is the supreme religious of the Catholic Church. They are distinct authorities (even though they exist in same person, much as is the case with, say, the Canadian and Australian monarchies.)
But since the goalpost has inexplicably now moved from "Christians" to church groups in the USA, I would point out that a number of those have condemned the film as well, including the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles (notable because the believed creator of the film was a Coptic Christian from Southern California.)
All religions are absolutist philosophies, with very specific ideas of good and evil based not on real life but on imaginary properties proscribed by their own scripture.
This is false in several ways.
First of all, while by now probably all existing religions have written descriptions of their principles, many aren't based on scripture (and even more aren't based exclusively on scripture, including, e.g., Christianity outside of the subset of Protestantism that holds to the most extreme version of the doctrine of sola scriptura.)
Second, not all religions are absolutist.
Third, it requires making quasi-religious, non-materialist assumptions to presume that there exists something other than "real life" on which scripture could be based, which is required for the distinction between principles based on "real life" and those based on "scripture" to be valid.
Given that Alibaba emphatically states that their thing is not Android, how does trademark/branding enter the picture?
It enters the picture because: 1. Acer is an Android licensee, 2. One of the promoted features of the Aliyun operating system is the ability to run Android apps.
Acer selling something (e.g., an Aliyun-based device) promoted on the basis of running Android apps would generally not be a problem (while it uses the trademark, the use would generally be nominative fair use), but its quite common for firms taking an actual trademark license (which is part of what Acer's Android license is) to agree to not do things that would otherwise be allowed as nominative fair use of that trademark, and selling non-licensed products using the licensed mark in this way would be a not-unusual thing to be prohibited by such an agreement.
It should be OK for Microsoft to pressure companies to not ship Wine to avoid compatibility issues.
Well, it would be fine for Microsoft to make Windows code open and free for anybody to use however they want, but to make it a condition of a license to sell products with Windows branding that the entity with such a license not also sell product that isn't compatible with Windows that advertises itself as running Windows software.
Surrendering what amounts to nominative fair use rights (which, absent any contractual limitation, everyone has) with regard for the trademark in order to get the right to use the trademark more directly to brand some of your products (which, without the license, no one but the trademark holder has) is fairly common, and is all this is.
I think it would be more than "fine", but actually strongly preferrable to the status quo.
The hypothetical you offer, OTOH, isn't actually analogous to what Google is doing here.
From the legal perspective, yes, you're right - and I doubt that Android could be argued to have monopoly (though they're steadily getting there wrt smartphones). But I don't see why the ethical angle would be different here.
Antitrust rules aren't about ethical principle, they are about the pragmatic effects of leveraging overwhelming market power on the choices on which the practical benefits of free markets depend. The actions prohibited by antitrust regulations are, in general, mala prohibita rather than mala in se.
I think you need to revise this statement into something less ludicrous.
In addition they are one of the most overturned courts around.
You seem to confusing a popular right-wing attack on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as applying to the trial court in this case, which is the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They aren't the same court.
Not to mention that the attack isn't all that valid even when applied to the 9th Circuit.
I don't think the decision of California will hold.
Er, its not the "decision of California".
First, because its not "of California", as it is in a U.S. federal court that happens to be located in California.
But mostly because its not even (yet, and quite possibly ever) even a decision in that court. Its the jury verdict which is still the subject of several post-verdict motions before the court finally (not considering appeals) decides on a judgement in the case.
My old 286 can't run 64-bit apps, or even 32-bit apps. I guess that means PCs are fragmented.
Uh, yeah. PCs are pretty much the poster boy for a fragmented platform, even within the scope of hardware that could run the most recent major operating system version (e.g., not just "286 vs. modern x86-64 system".) Wintel PC fragmentation is certainly far worse than even Android fragmentation.
That's always been one of the selling points for more tightly controlled, homogenous platforms.
Back in the day, Microsoft had a similar arrangement with OEMs. They had a "special relationship", buying Windows licenses at OEM prices, but the requirement was that they only sell PCs with Windows preinstalled, and nothing else. So it was also all about contractual obligations - except that US DoD didn't see it that way when it came to that anti-trust investigation.
the U.S. Department of Defense usually doesn't do anti-trust investigations. The U.S. Department of Justice tends to be more interested in those.
Anyhow, the premise of the US DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was about it using contractual arrangements for Windows in way which illegally leveraged an existing monopoly in the desktop personal computer operating system market to gain market power in other markets.
For Google to be in a parallel position with Android to Microsoft's with Windows with regard to anti-trust law -- ignoring whether the details of the arrangements, other than the fact that they involve contracts, are at all parallel -- it would first have to have established a monopoly on the mobile OS market with Android. Then, if it was leveraging that monopoly in an impermissible manner to gain market power in another market, it would be in a similar position that Microsoft was in, and risk being drawn into a similar long, drawn-out litigation and receiving a similar slap-on-the-wrist at the end of it all.
Amazon and B&N are first and foremost content sellers -- were long before they got into selling first readers and then tablets -- and sell Kindle/Nook as tools for accessing the digital content they sell. For them, Google Apps (and, particularly, Google Play) would be a bad thing -- something that promotes the competition. So, yeah, for them, Android branding would conflict with the whole purpose of them selling devices in the first place.
For companies' whose core competency is selling hardware and who have no interest in trying to compete with the existing digital content store providers as such, Android branding and the things that come with it -- both Google Apps and Google support -- are a major reason for choosing Android.
WHY then are Barnes and Noble and Amazon using the android kernel WITHOUT THE ANDROID BRANDING?
Because Barnes and Noble and Amazon are trying to build their own ecosystem where they sit in the role Google has in the Android-branded ecosystem as the provider (and thus, profit-maker from) the default App/Book/etc. store.
It's the FUNCTIONALITY that makes android appealing.
Its the base functionality that makes Android appealing if, like B&N or Amazon, you are trying to compete with Google, Apple, etc., as a mobile App/Book/etc. store operator.
Its Google Apps -- and the support Google provides for them, and provides for you as a device manufacturer when you take a license that includes them -- that makes Android appealing if you are a device manufacturer that is more interested in making money selling hardware, and don't see selling digital content as your core competency.
Google provides Android code in a way that supports both -- the former through the Android Open Source Project, the latter through Android brand licensing. But you've got to choose whether you want to use Android via AOSP to compete with Google (which they allow, but aren't going to spend extra resources supporting you while you do) or via an Android license which actively promotes Google services (which they enthusiastically support, and will spend extra resources supporting you while you do.)
AOSP -- and the firms using it -- Google sees as good because they increase developer attractiveness of Android technology, because lots of people using non-Android AOSP devices are still going to use the web on those devices and earn Google revenue via advertising (on Google pages and elsewhere), and because Google, presumably, sees the possibility of making more money with a smaller share of a bigger Android-technology-based pie.
But Android licensees provide Google with bigger advantages and a more direct route to revenue, and get, naturally, more direct support.
Android is not free (that is, you actually do have to give something up to be an Android licensee, even if its not a cash payment -- the terms are not, AFAIK, publicly disclosed, though.)
Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code is free (subject to open source license terms, but those generally are restrictions on rights you wouldn't have without the license anyway, so you aren't giving anything up, just not getting everything possible under the sun.) But AOSP is not Android, even though Android is built on top of AOSP code.
Apple isn't an Android licensee and doesn't have the special "technical authorizations" Acer has with regard to Android (as distinct from the public license offers attached to the Android Open Source Project, which isn't the same thing as officially-branded Android.)
So, if there is a conflict between what Amazon did (which is different, but in some ways parallel, to what is at issue with Acer) and the kind of Android licenses that companies like Acer have, it wouldn't matter, because Amazon doesn't have that kind of license, and so Google wouldn't threaten to pull it (since, you know, its hard to take something from someone that they never had in the first place.)
Truth is, as most of the code on android is apache licenced or GPL (as the kernel) there is no need to ask google's permission to make anything with it.
Sure, assuming you are just a member of the public with no contractual or similar limitations on your behavior, you can do pretty much (within the various F/OSS licenses applicable to the code) whatever you want with Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code.
OTOH, its not at all unlikely that the deal Acer has that involves "technical authorization", trademark licensing, etc., for Android -- not merely AOSP -- code also involves agreements by Acer not do some things it otherwise could do -- either with AOSP code on its own, or (as would be more relevant in this case) in terms of using Android-compatible third-party code, whether or not it is AOSP derived -- in exchange for all the special privileges with regard to Android that they get.
So its not at all hard to see how their flirtation with Alibaba's Aliyun OS may have conflicted with obligations they undertook as an Android -- not AOSP -- licensee, and resulted in a Google threat regarding the Android license.
Even if the Google threat story Alibaba is selling is true in broad outline (which there is nothing, AFAICT, other than Alibaba's claim itself to support), it still sounds like it is quite likely that it was Acer being reminded that they have to chose whether they want to be in the same relationship as the general public with respect to Android, or if they would prefer to keep the special privileges they've enjoined with regard to Android and pay the price that goes with that.
As an LLC, you have to pay 14 percent of all your income to social security. As a Corporation, you can claim a portion of the income as a salary and pay the Social Security tax on it.
Sure, but that was also before tort and the idea of 'full liability' were in place.
Both tort and full liability existed long -- as in many centuries -- before corporate liability shields were created (in 1855); and even longer before the special corporate-like but tax-neutral-and-more-flexible-in-organization US LLCs were created (in 1977).
Prior to the LLC, big businesses could shield their investors and owners but small businesses had a hard time doing so - the LLC was a way to equalize that protection.
No, it isn't. The primary motivation for creating the was to create a low-ceremony (unlike a corporation), liability-shielded, flexible structure for members (often, themselves corporations rather than individuals) with the resources to craft their own management agreements rather than relying on the default rules applicable to corporations. Private corporations are a more common small-business structure, LLCs are more often big business structures (often, subsidiaries of or joint ventures between big corporations) than tools of small business.
You don't have to know a lot about corporate law to realize why it makes sense.
Knowing a lot about corporate law is probably detrimental to finding the argument you make sensible.
The most you risk when you change jobs is your new salary (in the event that your new job sucks, you get laid off, or your employer goes under).
This is false. In addition to reviewing the concept of opportunity cost, I suggest you consider the situation of the risks associated with workplace safety.
From my experience, an LLC is used for partnerships.
LLCs, as such, are not partnerships (though, for federal tax purposes, an LLC with more than one member can be treated either as a partnership or a corporation and an LLC with exactly one member can be treated either as a corporation or a sole proprietorship.) LPs, LLPs, and LLLPs are partnerships.
In some states, only certain professionals can even form LLC's.
Its more common for a narrow range of businesses to be prohibited from being operated as LLCs than the other way around. OTOH, its rather common for LLPs (including LLLPs) to be limited to a certain set of professional corporations. (Its not uncommon for the set of organizations which can be LLPs to be a subset of those that cannot be LLCs, e.g., in California I believe that only certain licensed professions can form LLPs, and those licensed professions are among the businesses that cannot be operated as LLCs.)
Often they are for protecting the partners from each other.. (ie, accountant partner screws up.. Lawsuit can hurt the partner, but they can't go after the assets of the other partners, if they were not involved)
Yeah, again, that's true of LLPs (which have partners, and have generally this effect on shielding non-partnership assets of one partner from liabilities incurred by another partner), rather than LLCs.
Corporations are a way to shield owners (stock holders) from liability.
So are LLCs (for "members" rather than "stock holders"), and LPs, LLPs, and LLLPs (all for "partners" rather than "stock holders"), though which owners are shielded, which liabilities they are shielded from, and the situations in which that shield can be pierced, vary somewhat between the various structures.
Invisible nano QR codes have been proposed as a way to stop forgery of U.S currency by students of Michigan University.
Okay. The big problem with this is that the technology to scan and write nano QR codes will become common, which then allows them to be reproduced even if (assuming the use is cryptographic and the keys are adequately protected) it isn't practical to generate new, legitimate ones.
Unfortunately QR codes are easy to forge and can send you to a site that infects your system.
They can't "send you" anywhere unless (1) the QR code is used to contain a URL -- which isn't the original or exclusive use, though its the most popular one in advertising, and (2) the reader expects it to contain a URL and is programmed to navigate to the URL it contains. If, instead, it contains a cryptographic signature of some data on the "visible" part of the bill (such as the serial number, date, value, etc.) then it provides an additional check against certain forms of forgery.
Banks would most likely need to scan currency that have QR codes to ensure the authenticity of the bill. If the QR code was forged it could infect the bank with a virus.
If the bank system was designed not only to scan the QR code, but to also treat the content of the QR code as something more involved than a digital signature like executable code or a URL to navigate to, sure. But since there'd be no reason to do that in this application, and it would take extra work directed at an end with no conceivable relationship to the purpose the QR code was being used for, its pretty hard to see this as a likely problem.
Slashdot Mirror
If the server does the encryption, then the server has to see the unencrypted content.
If the client does the encryption, the server doesn't have to see the unencrypted content.
Also, if the server does the work and you have a million clients, then the server has to do a million units of work rather than the clients each doing one unit of work. This can make the server more impacted by traffic spikes and provide a less-consistent and sometimes lower-quality user experience than just offloading that work to the client.
Alternatively, its more expensive (more CPU = more $$) for the server operator, who often owns the app. So there's an incentive to build apps in a way that the work is offloaded.
Probably not. Encryption-in-the-DOM doesn't really do much for that (and, anyway, SSL client certificates for authentication do more for that, but almost no one uses them.)
The State of Vatican City (or, less formally, "Vatican City") is a government/state. The Vatican -- more formally the Holy See -- is the supreme religious of the Catholic Church. They are distinct authorities (even though they exist in same person, much as is the case with, say, the Canadian and Australian monarchies.)
But since the goalpost has inexplicably now moved from "Christians" to church groups in the USA, I would point out that a number of those have condemned the film as well, including the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles (notable because the believed creator of the film was a Coptic Christian from Southern California.)
Uh, they are. I mean, unless the Vatican isn't "Christian" enough for you.
This is false in several ways.
First of all, while by now probably all existing religions have written descriptions of their principles, many aren't based on scripture (and even more aren't based exclusively on scripture, including, e.g., Christianity outside of the subset of Protestantism that holds to the most extreme version of the doctrine of sola scriptura.)
Second, not all religions are absolutist.
Third, it requires making quasi-religious, non-materialist assumptions to presume that there exists something other than "real life" on which scripture could be based, which is required for the distinction between principles based on "real life" and those based on "scripture" to be valid.
It enters the picture because:
1. Acer is an Android licensee,
2. One of the promoted features of the Aliyun operating system is the ability to run Android apps.
Acer selling something (e.g., an Aliyun-based device) promoted on the basis of running Android apps would generally not be a problem (while it uses the trademark, the use would generally be nominative fair use), but its quite common for firms taking an actual trademark license (which is part of what Acer's Android license is) to agree to not do things that would otherwise be allowed as nominative fair use of that trademark, and selling non-licensed products using the licensed mark in this way would be a not-unusual thing to be prohibited by such an agreement.
Well, it would be fine for Microsoft to make Windows code open and free for anybody to use however they want, but to make it a condition of a license to sell products with Windows branding that the entity with such a license not also sell product that isn't compatible with Windows that advertises itself as running Windows software.
Surrendering what amounts to nominative fair use rights (which, absent any contractual limitation, everyone has) with regard for the trademark in order to get the right to use the trademark more directly to brand some of your products (which, without the license, no one but the trademark holder has) is fairly common, and is all this is.
I think it would be more than "fine", but actually strongly preferrable to the status quo.
The hypothetical you offer, OTOH, isn't actually analogous to what Google is doing here.
Antitrust rules aren't about ethical principle, they are about the pragmatic effects of leveraging overwhelming market power on the choices on which the practical benefits of free markets depend. The actions prohibited by antitrust regulations are, in general, mala prohibita rather than mala in se.
It seems like you mistake Wozniak's inaccurate description for the actual name of something.
And, again, no decision has actually been made, and even though the jury phase is done, its still an active trial.
Its also possible that the jury verdict will be thrown out by the trial court before there is any decision to appeal.
I think you need to revise this statement into something less ludicrous.
You seem to confusing a popular right-wing attack on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as applying to the trial court in this case, which is the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They aren't the same court.
Not to mention that the attack isn't all that valid even when applied to the 9th Circuit.
Er, its not the "decision of California".
First, because its not "of California", as it is in a U.S. federal court that happens to be located in California.
But mostly because its not even (yet, and quite possibly ever) even a decision in that court. Its the jury verdict which is still the subject of several post-verdict motions before the court finally (not considering appeals) decides on a judgement in the case.
Uh, yeah. PCs are pretty much the poster boy for a fragmented platform, even within the scope of hardware that could run the most recent major operating system version (e.g., not just "286 vs. modern x86-64 system".) Wintel PC fragmentation is certainly far worse than even Android fragmentation.
That's always been one of the selling points for more tightly controlled, homogenous platforms.
the U.S. Department of Defense usually doesn't do anti-trust investigations. The U.S. Department of Justice tends to be more interested in those.
Anyhow, the premise of the US DoJ antitrust case against Microsoft was about it using contractual arrangements for Windows in way which illegally leveraged an existing monopoly in the desktop personal computer operating system market to gain market power in other markets.
For Google to be in a parallel position with Android to Microsoft's with Windows with regard to anti-trust law -- ignoring whether the details of the arrangements, other than the fact that they involve contracts, are at all parallel -- it would first have to have established a monopoly on the mobile OS market with Android. Then, if it was leveraging that monopoly in an impermissible manner to gain market power in another market, it would be in a similar position that Microsoft was in, and risk being drawn into a similar long, drawn-out litigation and receiving a similar slap-on-the-wrist at the end of it all.
You can sue just about anyone for just about anything.
Whether you can win such a lawsuit -- rather than losing and being ordered to pay the other guys costs on top of it -- is a different story.
AFAIK, with regard to most federal IP law, U.S. states are no different than private entities. The federal government is a different story, though.
Amazon and B&N are first and foremost content sellers -- were long before they got into selling first readers and then tablets -- and sell Kindle/Nook as tools for accessing the digital content they sell. For them, Google Apps (and, particularly, Google Play) would be a bad thing -- something that promotes the competition. So, yeah, for them, Android branding would conflict with the whole purpose of them selling devices in the first place.
For companies' whose core competency is selling hardware and who have no interest in trying to compete with the existing digital content store providers as such, Android branding and the things that come with it -- both Google Apps and Google support -- are a major reason for choosing Android.
Because Barnes and Noble and Amazon are trying to build their own ecosystem where they sit in the role Google has in the Android-branded ecosystem as the provider (and thus, profit-maker from) the default App/Book/etc. store.
Its the base functionality that makes Android appealing if, like B&N or Amazon, you are trying to compete with Google, Apple, etc., as a mobile App/Book/etc. store operator.
Its Google Apps -- and the support Google provides for them, and provides for you as a device manufacturer when you take a license that includes them -- that makes Android appealing if you are a device manufacturer that is more interested in making money selling hardware, and don't see selling digital content as your core competency.
Google provides Android code in a way that supports both -- the former through the Android Open Source Project, the latter through Android brand licensing. But you've got to choose whether you want to use Android via AOSP to compete with Google (which they allow, but aren't going to spend extra resources supporting you while you do) or via an Android license which actively promotes Google services (which they enthusiastically support, and will spend extra resources supporting you while you do.)
AOSP -- and the firms using it -- Google sees as good because they increase developer attractiveness of Android technology, because lots of people using non-Android AOSP devices are still going to use the web on those devices and earn Google revenue via advertising (on Google pages and elsewhere), and because Google, presumably, sees the possibility of making more money with a smaller share of a bigger Android-technology-based pie.
But Android licensees provide Google with bigger advantages and a more direct route to revenue, and get, naturally, more direct support.
Android is not free (that is, you actually do have to give something up to be an Android licensee, even if its not a cash payment -- the terms are not, AFAIK, publicly disclosed, though.)
Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code is free (subject to open source license terms, but those generally are restrictions on rights you wouldn't have without the license anyway, so you aren't giving anything up, just not getting everything possible under the sun.) But AOSP is not Android, even though Android is built on top of AOSP code.
Apple isn't an Android licensee and doesn't have the special "technical authorizations" Acer has with regard to Android (as distinct from the public license offers attached to the Android Open Source Project, which isn't the same thing as officially-branded Android.)
So, if there is a conflict between what Amazon did (which is different, but in some ways parallel, to what is at issue with Acer) and the kind of Android licenses that companies like Acer have, it wouldn't matter, because Amazon doesn't have that kind of license, and so Google wouldn't threaten to pull it (since, you know, its hard to take something from someone that they never had in the first place.)
Sure, assuming you are just a member of the public with no contractual or similar limitations on your behavior, you can do pretty much (within the various F/OSS licenses applicable to the code) whatever you want with Android Open Source Project (AOSP) code.
OTOH, its not at all unlikely that the deal Acer has that involves "technical authorization", trademark licensing, etc., for Android -- not merely AOSP -- code also involves agreements by Acer not do some things it otherwise could do -- either with AOSP code on its own, or (as would be more relevant in this case) in terms of using Android-compatible third-party code, whether or not it is AOSP derived -- in exchange for all the special privileges with regard to Android that they get.
So its not at all hard to see how their flirtation with Alibaba's Aliyun OS may have conflicted with obligations they undertook as an Android -- not AOSP -- licensee, and resulted in a Google threat regarding the Android license.
Even if the Google threat story Alibaba is selling is true in broad outline (which there is nothing, AFAICT, other than Alibaba's claim itself to support), it still sounds like it is quite likely that it was Acer being reminded that they have to chose whether they want to be in the same relationship as the general public with respect to Android, or if they would prefer to keep the special privileges they've enjoined with regard to Android and pay the price that goes with that.
For federal tax purposes, any LLC can elect to be treated as a corporation. What other tax treatment options are available depend on whether the LLC has one or more members.
Both tort and full liability existed long -- as in many centuries -- before corporate liability shields were created (in 1855); and even longer before the special corporate-like but tax-neutral-and-more-flexible-in-organization US LLCs were created (in 1977).
No, it isn't. The primary motivation for creating the was to create a low-ceremony (unlike a corporation), liability-shielded, flexible structure for members (often, themselves corporations rather than individuals) with the resources to craft their own management agreements rather than relying on the default rules applicable to corporations. Private corporations are a more common small-business structure, LLCs are more often big business structures (often, subsidiaries of or joint ventures between big corporations) than tools of small business.
Knowing a lot about corporate law is probably detrimental to finding the argument you make sensible.
This is false. In addition to reviewing the concept of opportunity cost, I suggest you consider the situation of the risks associated with workplace safety.
LLCs, as such, are not partnerships (though, for federal tax purposes, an LLC with more than one member can be treated either as a partnership or a corporation and an LLC with exactly one member can be treated either as a corporation or a sole proprietorship.) LPs, LLPs, and LLLPs are partnerships.
Its more common for a narrow range of businesses to be prohibited from being operated as LLCs than the other way around. OTOH, its rather common for LLPs (including LLLPs) to be limited to a certain set of professional corporations. (Its not uncommon for the set of organizations which can be LLPs to be a subset of those that cannot be LLCs, e.g., in California I believe that only certain licensed professions can form LLPs, and those licensed professions are among the businesses that cannot be operated as LLCs.)
Yeah, again, that's true of LLPs (which have partners, and have generally this effect on shielding non-partnership assets of one partner from liabilities incurred by another partner), rather than LLCs.
So are LLCs (for "members" rather than "stock holders"), and LPs, LLPs, and LLLPs (all for "partners" rather than "stock holders"), though which owners are shielded, which liabilities they are shielded from, and the situations in which that shield can be pierced, vary somewhat between the various structures.
Okay. The big problem with this is that the technology to scan and write nano QR codes will become common, which then allows them to be reproduced even if (assuming the use is cryptographic and the keys are adequately protected) it isn't practical to generate new, legitimate ones.
They can't "send you" anywhere unless (1) the QR code is used to contain a URL -- which isn't the original or exclusive use, though its the most popular one in advertising, and (2) the reader expects it to contain a URL and is programmed to navigate to the URL it contains. If, instead, it contains a cryptographic signature of some data on the "visible" part of the bill (such as the serial number, date, value, etc.) then it provides an additional check against certain forms of forgery.
If the bank system was designed not only to scan the QR code, but to also treat the content of the QR code as something more involved than a digital signature like executable code or a URL to navigate to, sure. But since there'd be no reason to do that in this application, and it would take extra work directed at an end with no conceivable relationship to the purpose the QR code was being used for, its pretty hard to see this as a likely problem.