I would suggest that now we can rid ourselves of Citizens United but, thanks to Citizens United, the global corporatist elite will make sure that doesn't happen and fix the election of hillary.
What, no patent issues here ? Oh wait, I get it, greater "interoperability" leads to more targets for bogus patent claims like the ones my poor firm (a datacenter/hosting business) received a few days ago.
Here is the letter we received as a follow-up to an in-person meeting with a lame patent enforcement goon regarding claims to the effect that all the "linux" servers in our datacenter somehow violate yet-unspecified patents
- - - - -
From: XXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:26 PM
To: XXXXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXXXXX
Subject: XXXXXXXX - XXXXX NDA
XXXX,
It was a pleasure to meet with you Tuesday. I appreciate your interest and concern regarding the patent matters we discussed. As requested, I am sending (attached) a mutual, two-way Non-Disclosure Agreement. I believe that you will find this agreement fair and reasonable for both of our companies. Please sign and date, then scan (or FAX) a copy to me â" and also forward the original document via mail. My contact info is below.
Once I receive this document, I can work with you to make arrangements to meet with you again to show XXXXXXXXâ(TM)s patents and how they are infringed. If you wish, I can also forward licensing terms.
I look forward to working with you to amicably resolve this important matter.
---------
[NDA available upon request]
If Congress wants to grant them immunity from prosecution under federal law then let the states (and state law) do the punishing.
(AFAIK, Congress and the federal executive lack power to grant immunity for violation of [otherwise applicable and enforceable] state laws.)
A recent study found that a data center running at 5 kilowatts per server cabinet may experience a thermal shutdown in as little as three minutes during a power outage. See, now that's interesting. At least, I [erroneously] believed that a power 'outage' might actually prevent a thermal shutdown.
"it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent"
If so, shouldn't it expire in 2008 (a long-long time before the subect suit concludes) ?
I don't think the community at large has much to be concerned about here.
Continued beating of the dead horse that is SCO reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live bit about Francisco Franco. I move that all future SCO articles bear the same title: "SCO Is Still Ded".
There's a reason why the case mentioned above is not RIAA v. Lindor, but UMG v. Lindor.
The reason is that "The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right . .." protected by the copyright laws has standing to sue an alleged infringer. The individual members of the RIAA who are the copyright owners don't want to assign their rights to the RIAA (or grant exclusive licenses) just for the purpose of these lawsuits. So, ultimately, it is these companies that have to be the parties plaintiff.
[See 17 U.S.C. s 501(b)]
heh. Groklaw is no way to get educated, son. That lightweight site doesn't contain anything sufficient to refute what I've said. (Stallman's wishful thinking and a few rogue jurisdictions notwithstanding.)
Btw, one of the implications of licenses being interpreted and enforced as a matter of contract law is that they are governed by the substantive law of the forum (e.g., State) which is subject to some variation.
Too much has been made over perceived distinction between 'license' and 'contract'. A 'license' is simply a promise (by the licensor) not to sue (or use self-help against) the licensee for doing the thing(s) covered by the license. That promise only becomes binding when supported by consideration (or consideration substitute) on the part of the licensee (possible exceptions in the case of real property n/a here). Of course, when a promise is given in exchange for consideration, the result is an agreement enforceable at law, i,e., A CONTRACT.
sorry if redundant esp in view of TFA or pleadings/briefs that I haven't read but,
I think the making available thing is easy to argue as contributory infringement.
Slashdot Mirror
. . . get an axe.
You spelled it wrong.
I would suggest that now we can rid ourselves of Citizens United but, thanks to Citizens United, the global corporatist elite will make sure that doesn't happen and fix the election of hillary.
Does spamhaus still exists? Does spam still exist? (Its been years since I've seen any spam in _my_ inbox.)
. . . now they'll fix things so that it can't.
What, no patent issues here ? Oh wait, I get it, greater "interoperability" leads to more targets for bogus patent claims like the ones my poor firm (a datacenter/hosting business) received a few days ago.
Here is the letter we received as a follow-up to an in-person meeting with a lame patent enforcement goon regarding claims to the effect that all the "linux" servers in our datacenter somehow violate yet-unspecified patents
- - - - -
From: XXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 12:26 PM
To: XXXXXXXXX
Cc: XXXXXXXXXX
Subject: XXXXXXXX - XXXXX NDA
XXXX,
It was a pleasure to meet with you Tuesday. I appreciate your interest and concern regarding the patent matters we discussed. As requested, I am sending (attached) a mutual, two-way Non-Disclosure Agreement. I believe that you will find this agreement fair and reasonable for both of our companies. Please sign and date, then scan (or FAX) a copy to me â" and also forward the original document via mail. My contact info is below.
Once I receive this document, I can work with you to make arrangements to meet with you again to show XXXXXXXXâ(TM)s patents and how they are infringed. If you wish, I can also forward licensing terms.
I look forward to working with you to amicably resolve this important matter.
--------- [NDA available upon request]
This ordinance likely only applies to physical articles and also is likely pre-empted by federal copyright law. Duh.
[[killer filesystem joke]]
I think you confuse the [independent] requirements of non-obviousness (35USC103) and novelty (35USC102).
If Congress wants to grant them immunity from prosecution under federal law then let the states (and state law) do the punishing. (AFAIK, Congress and the federal executive lack power to grant immunity for violation of [otherwise applicable and enforceable] state laws.)
Can't the Chinese just shoot it down for us? http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html
I always resolve to not start smoking crack. (So far I'm batting 1000.)
Yup. Just charge more for existing bw and problem solved. (Isn't scarcity the mother of economics or something like that?)
"it's a 1991 Xerox PARC patent" If so, shouldn't it expire in 2008 (a long-long time before the subect suit concludes) ? I don't think the community at large has much to be concerned about here.
Yup. One of my physics professors once told me: "If you can't observe it, it isn't physics."
Continued beating of the dead horse that is SCO reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live bit about Francisco Franco. I move that all future SCO articles bear the same title: "SCO Is Still Ded".
Not to worry about earthlink? I think they're on their way out. (E.g., http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2007/09/08/EarthLink_0909.html)
Give your theory a test: tell your [next] employer to take a hike when it asks for your SSN.
heh. Groklaw is no way to get educated, son. That lightweight site doesn't contain anything sufficient to refute what I've said. (Stallman's wishful thinking and a few rogue jurisdictions notwithstanding.) Btw, one of the implications of licenses being interpreted and enforced as a matter of contract law is that they are governed by the substantive law of the forum (e.g., State) which is subject to some variation.
Too much has been made over perceived distinction between 'license' and 'contract'. A 'license' is simply a promise (by the licensor) not to sue (or use self-help against) the licensee for doing the thing(s) covered by the license. That promise only becomes binding when supported by consideration (or consideration substitute) on the part of the licensee (possible exceptions in the case of real property n/a here). Of course, when a promise is given in exchange for consideration, the result is an agreement enforceable at law, i,e., A CONTRACT.
We can fake them out by using misleading subject lines such as "New size for Men especially for new feelings of women at once!"
right. nothing. please. public sharing is clearly contributory infringement at least. still, fuck the RIAA.
sorry if redundant esp in view of TFA or pleadings/briefs that I haven't read but, I think the making available thing is easy to argue as contributory infringement.