What you and everyone else forgets (including the EFF) is that this "preponderance of the evidence" will work both ways. In the end the people with the money will win the patent suits because they can bring more and bigger guns to the table. At least with "clear and convincing" the little guy has a chance--to defend against a criminal monopoly such as Microsoft that has a habit (shown over the past 20 years) that they'll steal anyone else's work and dare you to defend yourself in court.
You can side against patents. Software patents are especially onerous. But Microsoft just finished filing suit against others over patents. And in the i4i case Microsoft did steal and did so knowingly. This process that Microsoft used against i4i is exactly what they have been doing for the past 20 years--taking other companies ideas and incorporating them into their products, normally in hopes of killing the other company.
Sounds like, from the description above, that the issues are not Android based, rather they are about concepts for what everyone, every OS does, to operate on the web with a mobile device.
Microsoft, though, is acting the patent troll.
Microsoft is trying to ensure that everyone that develops Android understands that they can be sued, and that rather than develop an Android phone they should be developing a Win7 Mobile phone.
I think this tactic is pathetic. It shows that they can't compete. I honestly suspect that their Win7 phone will be a failure. Android is just too good, looks too good, and is a cheaply accessible alternative to their expensive phone OS.
Was it required reading? Not sure if your point is valid. Defamation and libel in the US are very hard to prove.
And, your's missed the point. The case of Google being found guilty was with search results always cropping up when you searched for that man's name.
I don't see how his case has anything to do with the equalization of accuracy. It would seem that this proves my point, that ultimately things equalize and we get a real picture, even if the view seems skewed initially. And I don't think this case is over yet.
I don't care much for anything coming from the US Supreme Court. They have been extremely disappointing of late. When a case can be determined due to the professionalism (or rather alleged professionalism) of the police, even after a long history showing police unprofessional conduct in all manner of cases, I loose faith in their abilities.
The failing of your argument about editing out the juicy stuff is that most of the details about what was edited will ultimately be revealed. Your's is a pure hypothetical since it won't really ever happen that way.
Places like Slashdot.org (and the plethora of others) exist to discuss and reveal to others those things they miss. It has been my experience that if you keep reading you will ultimately uncover most of the points of view of others and there are a great many, most of which have merit (in some even tiny way).
We tend to uncover every pimple on every ass so to speak.
Closed door court cases are rarely closed to protect the public servants. Generally, they are closed to protect either the defendant or plaintiff (or a witness such as a child, etc).
She had downloaded some songs when she was very young (14-16 years old). She moved out of the home and left the computer there. While not living there Kazaa was still running any time they turned the computer on. The RIAA downloaded only a few songs, then threatened her with a lawsuit.
She didn't pay claiming that what she all those years ago she didn't realize was wrong, she was a minor after all. Now the Jamie Thomas case comes along and it has a mistrial based on the Judges instructions to the jury that said that just making songs available is a distribution. This was wrong and the case became a mistrial.
Now this woman is trying to say that because this happened while she was no longer there and no one else knew it was happening that it was innocent infringement. The RIAA said they'd accept that but this woman doesn't want that. She wants only the songs that were actually downloaded by the RIAA to be at issue. So, if they downloaded 2 songs then it would be $400. If it was 13 songs, then it would be $2,600. That's much less than the $7,000+ the RIAA wants.
The key is that the RIAA are the only ones that can be proven to have downloaded the songs. Therefore under the innocent infringement she claimed the RIAA can only ask for the money as it relates to the songs the RIAA actually downloaded.
You are at risk using IE. I agree with that. There's more to just patching the browser. If you understand how it is integrated into the OS and how you can download and run ActiveX controls (along with the other exploits) you'd know that you expose your whole OS to the world just by using the web via IE.
Silverlight absolutely only has the market share it does due to nagging Windows update. In fact, Microsoft has a feature that allows you to turn off the update prompt, but when you do, the next time you check it, it is back on. None of the other updates operate like that. You turn them off indicating that you don't want them and they are off. But Silverlight is different. It will remain as an update prompt forever.
And as far as Silverlight goes there's really no one using it (that I know of) except Netflix--and that implementation is pretty sucky--the video quality is terrible.
As far as IE9 beta goes, no it isn't being pushed out via Windows update, that I know of.
The same with Vista. The demand was overwhelming, or so they say. To even think that people are rushing to a beta of a product and that rush is overwhelming is fallacy. Think about it, the rush to Win7 which is much better than Vista didn't evoke this sort of statement from Microsoft.
Frankly, at this point IE9 is just another browser in the mix of browsers. Others are better, much better. From the advantage point that Microsoft has the hardware acceleration is a good feature but won't long last in the category by itself.
So, though the initial rush may be high, generally the tech crowd wanting to see it in action, when the others release theirs the march toward lower market share IE9 will make.
Zone Alarm is freaking annoying, constantly asking you to upgrade to the full version.
AVG is annoying too. They constantly warn you that if you don't get the paid version that you won't be fully protected.
Comodo is a pretty decent firewall and it has the side benefit of staying out of the way. I generally only see it when it asks me if I want the latest upgrade.
Microsoft's Security Essentials is fine for those individuals that need protection. If you get infected (with just about any malware protection) you won't be able to remove it with those products. You need a cadre of products and your best off cleaning it using a different computer with the drive set as a secondary drive non-boot.
The Library of Congress. That's their role as part of the DMCA. Every 4 years they review and make a ruling on exemptions to the DMCA.
You could already unlock your phone.
And, in Apple's case the encryption on the phone wasn't to protect them from copyright abuse. Apple was using it to control access to their product. That's not the purpose of the DMCA.
In F/OSS you don't need an alternative for every marketed software. You need only a solid alternative for that category of software. Feature parity with the market is inevitable.
Your analogy is faulty. As with copying software, movies, and music they'd copy the windows, not physically remove them. You need to differentiate that fact. In the later case you don't deny anyone their window.
I don't steal nor copy software. I use Linux. People should use Linux instead of copying software that they haven't purchased.
There's no guarantee that those companies that ceased copying would spend more money on licenses of those products. There's no guarantee that they wouldn't over time migrate to lower cost or free software once they realized that if they had been paying for all that software that it would have cost them a fortune and that they could have saved greater amounts by using free and open software.
I agree with you. My point was that you guys know he's a creep. You are certainly aware of how he operates. You'll take that to heart in your judgement of his competence.
Slashdot Mirror
What you and everyone else forgets (including the EFF) is that this "preponderance of the evidence" will work both ways. In the end the people with the money will win the patent suits because they can bring more and bigger guns to the table. At least with "clear and convincing" the little guy has a chance--to defend against a criminal monopoly such as Microsoft that has a habit (shown over the past 20 years) that they'll steal anyone else's work and dare you to defend yourself in court.
You can side against patents. Software patents are especially onerous. But Microsoft just finished filing suit against others over patents. And in the i4i case Microsoft did steal and did so knowingly. This process that Microsoft used against i4i is exactly what they have been doing for the past 20 years--taking other companies ideas and incorporating them into their products, normally in hopes of killing the other company.
Sounds like, from the description above, that the issues are not Android based, rather they are about concepts for what everyone, every OS does, to operate on the web with a mobile device.
Microsoft, though, is acting the patent troll.
Microsoft is trying to ensure that everyone that develops Android understands that they can be sued, and that rather than develop an Android phone they should be developing a Win7 Mobile phone.
I think this tactic is pathetic. It shows that they can't compete. I honestly suspect that their Win7 phone will be a failure. Android is just too good, looks too good, and is a cheaply accessible alternative to their expensive phone OS.
Was it required reading? Not sure if your point is valid. Defamation and libel in the US are very hard to prove.
And, your's missed the point. The case of Google being found guilty was with search results always cropping up when you searched for that man's name.
I don't see how his case has anything to do with the equalization of accuracy. It would seem that this proves my point, that ultimately things equalize and we get a real picture, even if the view seems skewed initially. And I don't think this case is over yet.
Any part of the US can have that. The point isn't that all have it, but that it has been ruled legal.
I don't care much for anything coming from the US Supreme Court. They have been extremely disappointing of late. When a case can be determined due to the professionalism (or rather alleged professionalism) of the police, even after a long history showing police unprofessional conduct in all manner of cases, I loose faith in their abilities.
Hammer hits nail squarely on the head.
The failing of your argument about editing out the juicy stuff is that most of the details about what was edited will ultimately be revealed. Your's is a pure hypothetical since it won't really ever happen that way.
Places like Slashdot.org (and the plethora of others) exist to discuss and reveal to others those things they miss. It has been my experience that if you keep reading you will ultimately uncover most of the points of view of others and there are a great many, most of which have merit (in some even tiny way).
We tend to uncover every pimple on every ass so to speak.
Closed door court cases are rarely closed to protect the public servants. Generally, they are closed to protect either the defendant or plaintiff (or a witness such as a child, etc).
Department stores, clothing stores, etc already have cameras in the restrooms and changing rooms. Do you not expect privacy there as a customer?
If a cop goes into the restroom and takes drugs or beats up a civilian in the restroom, do you think they should be covered by privacy laws?
The point I'm making isn't to substantiate against your premise, it's just to point out that your premise fails on its face.
She had downloaded some songs when she was very young (14-16 years old). She moved out of the home and left the computer there. While not living there Kazaa was still running any time they turned the computer on. The RIAA downloaded only a few songs, then threatened her with a lawsuit.
She didn't pay claiming that what she all those years ago she didn't realize was wrong, she was a minor after all. Now the Jamie Thomas case comes along and it has a mistrial based on the Judges instructions to the jury that said that just making songs available is a distribution. This was wrong and the case became a mistrial.
Now this woman is trying to say that because this happened while she was no longer there and no one else knew it was happening that it was innocent infringement. The RIAA said they'd accept that but this woman doesn't want that. She wants only the songs that were actually downloaded by the RIAA to be at issue. So, if they downloaded 2 songs then it would be $400. If it was 13 songs, then it would be $2,600. That's much less than the $7,000+ the RIAA wants.
The key is that the RIAA are the only ones that can be proven to have downloaded the songs. Therefore under the innocent infringement she claimed the RIAA can only ask for the money as it relates to the songs the RIAA actually downloaded.
Yeah, when we see all platforms with hardware acceleration then we can question again why anyone would want IE (any version).
That community should know when it is being played.
IE updates have always been optional but they have always been checked by default.
You are at risk using IE. I agree with that. There's more to just patching the browser. If you understand how it is integrated into the OS and how you can download and run ActiveX controls (along with the other exploits) you'd know that you expose your whole OS to the world just by using the web via IE.
Silverlight absolutely only has the market share it does due to nagging Windows update. In fact, Microsoft has a feature that allows you to turn off the update prompt, but when you do, the next time you check it, it is back on. None of the other updates operate like that. You turn them off indicating that you don't want them and they are off. But Silverlight is different. It will remain as an update prompt forever.
And as far as Silverlight goes there's really no one using it (that I know of) except Netflix--and that implementation is pretty sucky--the video quality is terrible.
As far as IE9 beta goes, no it isn't being pushed out via Windows update, that I know of.
The same with Vista. The demand was overwhelming, or so they say. To even think that people are rushing to a beta of a product and that rush is overwhelming is fallacy. Think about it, the rush to Win7 which is much better than Vista didn't evoke this sort of statement from Microsoft.
Frankly, at this point IE9 is just another browser in the mix of browsers. Others are better, much better. From the advantage point that Microsoft has the hardware acceleration is a good feature but won't long last in the category by itself.
So, though the initial rush may be high, generally the tech crowd wanting to see it in action, when the others release theirs the march toward lower market share IE9 will make.
I would dispute the "faster" part of your statement, though I would say that it is competent.
Zone Alarm is freaking annoying, constantly asking you to upgrade to the full version.
AVG is annoying too. They constantly warn you that if you don't get the paid version that you won't be fully protected.
Comodo is a pretty decent firewall and it has the side benefit of staying out of the way. I generally only see it when it asks me if I want the latest upgrade.
Microsoft's Security Essentials is fine for those individuals that need protection. If you get infected (with just about any malware protection) you won't be able to remove it with those products. You need a cadre of products and your best off cleaning it using a different computer with the drive set as a secondary drive non-boot.
The Library of Congress. That's their role as part of the DMCA. Every 4 years they review and make a ruling on exemptions to the DMCA.
You could already unlock your phone.
And, in Apple's case the encryption on the phone wasn't to protect them from copyright abuse. Apple was using it to control access to their product. That's not the purpose of the DMCA.
In F/OSS you don't need an alternative for every marketed software. You need only a solid alternative for that category of software. Feature parity with the market is inevitable.
Your analogy is faulty. As with copying software, movies, and music they'd copy the windows, not physically remove them. You need to differentiate that fact. In the later case you don't deny anyone their window.
I don't steal nor copy software. I use Linux. People should use Linux instead of copying software that they haven't purchased.
There's no guarantee that those companies that ceased copying would spend more money on licenses of those products. There's no guarantee that they wouldn't over time migrate to lower cost or free software once they realized that if they had been paying for all that software that it would have cost them a fortune and that they could have saved greater amounts by using free and open software.
I agree with you. My point was that you guys know he's a creep. You are certainly aware of how he operates. You'll take that to heart in your judgement of his competence.
Damn, that site is lame. They released 20,000 lines of code because if they didn't they'd have been sued.