Maybe if the cable company itemized the stations' costs or at least listed any particular rate changes, customers would know to whom to directly complain?
Pullleez---I'm speeding along the sidewalk, talking on my cellphone, checking my Palm Pilot, and now you expect me to keep an eye on the power indicator too?
Maybe I don't know very well English, but don't you mean patenter rather than patentee?
If anything, those rewards shouldn't go back to the "inventor", they should go solely to the "invalidator".
When applying, I think that some additional amount of money should be paid by the applicant, with a full refund of the additional if granted, no refund if rejected. Possibly a partial refund if they reapply, but I don't know enough about patent applications to know whether that'd be confusing.
Everyone enjoys comparing hacking to breaking into someone's house or trespassing on private property. It is not. You cannot be 'inside' someone else's server. (It is doubly impossible given the girth of most hackers.) The physical definitions fall apart. And the metaphorical analogies do not mesh physical property and Turing machines so well.
There is one potential analogy that I can't find any holes in - from the sidewalk, yelling to the house owner that the dog guarding their unfenced front lawn will go to sleep if you say the words "Rover, lie down".
What would most likely happen is what happened in the case of Felten vs RIAA. After the RIAA threatened him, Felten tried to get declaratory judgement that what he wanted to do was legal, but the judge dismissed it because the RIAA recanted their threats.
There was a similar case just recently where someone wanted to do something that they thought might be illegal, but the judge dismissed it because it hadn't happened yet... can't remember it, but I'm sure it's under yro.
So they are trying to sell licenses on something they attest in court to be public domain.
No, they are trying to sell licenses on something that they attest to be their trade secret that was combined with something that they attest to be public domain.
Would the prototype be held in escrow, so that the inventor/artist doesn't cheat and take more than a year?
If yes to escrow, what if the escrow fails (lack of money, fire, tornado, robbery)? Maybe the UK(?) system of at least five geographically-distributed copies would work well.
Who tests to make sure that the prototype matches the claims?
I too think that it's a great idea but there'd need to be some additional consideration of how to implement such a monumental change. And I'm guessing that Big Companies would like it because it raises the barrier to entry.
From my reading, adrianbaugh agrees with your POV if it is that simple. What adrianbaugh also points out is that it might not be that simple: the code SCO wants "removed" might not be in the form that SCO "owns" - it might have been modified by some other authors that still might or might not have rights to the modifications of "SCO's" code. SCO would only be able to distribute their stuff as they made it, probably without the other authors' fixes/enhancements.
And of course adrianbaugh also pointed out that, when SCO is claiming that Linus didn't do due diligence on checking sources' ability to contribute their particular contributions, they are probably even guiltier of not keeping a reign on their own employees in a world of transparency. I don't think you disagree with that particular section but I have a fondness for repeating it.
Slashdot Mirror
A simple lookup of ISO 8601should be adequate to explain the logic. The majority of this planet's humans use it.
Maybe if the cable company itemized the stations' costs or at least listed any particular rate changes, customers would know to whom to directly complain?
I guess your mind was elsewhere?
If anything, those rewards shouldn't go back to the "inventor", they should go solely to the "invalidator".
When applying, I think that some additional amount of money should be paid by the applicant, with a full refund of the additional if granted, no refund if rejected. Possibly a partial refund if they reapply, but I don't know enough about patent applications to know whether that'd be confusing.
I hope so too. But, given the reluctance of some companies (e.g. Compaq, Dell) to install reset buttons on their cases, I'm not holding my breath.
A clever person could write a program/script to quickly convert dependencies from boot to shutdown. No, I'm not that clever.
Would a carefully crafted URL allow suit for copyright infringement?
Still, poisoning might not be too bad for spiders that misbehave.
Wow, I really love their background image!
Disclaimer: IANAE (I am not an economist)
An idea that you might already be pursuing: how about finding a friendly sponsor on another ISP to relay for you?
link (with proper &, even)
Better yet, what's wrong with a paper copy?
There was a similar case just recently where someone wanted to do something that they thought might be illegal, but the judge dismissed it because it hadn't happened yet... can't remember it, but I'm sure it's under yro.
Wikipedia lists ANI.
"Palm" is a sexy name?
Did you CC the relevant Attorneys General? IANAL, but I thought that that was what one normally did under such circumstances.
I echo the Anonymous Coward's issue that this opens links up for trolls (same with some other more obvious redirects, like rd.yahoo.com).
But I add that the Correct Response is to "linkify" the URL within a forum that supports linking. All it takes is:
In your posting, this would be:
- Would the prototype be held in escrow, so that the inventor/artist doesn't cheat and take more than a year?
- If yes to escrow, what if the escrow fails (lack of money, fire, tornado, robbery)? Maybe the UK(?) system of at least five geographically-distributed copies would work well.
- Who tests to make sure that the prototype matches the claims?
I too think that it's a great idea but there'd need to be some additional consideration of how to implement such a monumental change. And I'm guessing that Big Companies would like it because it raises the barrier to entry.From my reading, adrianbaugh agrees with your POV if it is that simple. What adrianbaugh also points out is that it might not be that simple: the code SCO wants "removed" might not be in the form that SCO "owns" - it might have been modified by some other authors that still might or might not have rights to the modifications of "SCO's" code. SCO would only be able to distribute their stuff as they made it, probably without the other authors' fixes/enhancements.
And of course adrianbaugh also pointed out that, when SCO is claiming that Linus didn't do due diligence on checking sources' ability to contribute their particular contributions, they are probably even guiltier of not keeping a reign on their own employees in a world of transparency. I don't think you disagree with that particular section but I have a fondness for repeating it.