The pro-linux group exists to buy patents so that they can be freely shared. They did not buy them from MS but rather from another non-practicing entity that bought them from MS. And MS apparently was so kind when marketing these patents to document exactly how they could be used against Linux.
BTW, these weren't even MS "innovations." They were picked up when MS acquired SGI.
Do you even know what that means? It means that, even if one trespasses by accident, they are LIABLE for any damages. But, and here's the important part, there were NO damages.
Courts don't like you crying to them to solve your petty disputes anymore than your mother does. If there was any "damage," it was the presence of the photo. The only "litigious solution" the court can offer (other than to pay damages, which were nil) would be to issue an injunction requiring google to take down the photo. But google will do that without the court's involvement. Therefore, the court is--rightly so--telling Boring to take a hike.
> Without the underlying picture (copyright to AP) would that poster have ever been created?
So what? If Obama didn't run for office, the picture would never have been created. This isn't a question of the core inspiration.
If Toyota didn't build cars, you wouldn't be able to take a photo of them. That doesn't change the court decisions which have found that Toyota doesn't hold a copyright of every picture of all Toyota cars.
Well, actually it was "The Dilbert Future" (1998). And in it, he predicted that the cable companies would deliver cable broadband as poorly as the Bells delivered ISDN and that, in the meantime, the Bells would make ISDN easier to install and configure and we'd all be using ISDN while the cable companies tried to catch up. So not exactly a perfect prediction.
> ...I hate this "lets block all the ads" mentality...< P>The "block them all" attitude is a result of the excessively obtrusive nature online advertising has taken.
Others have mentioned that newspaper ads don't jump out at them. Well, newspaper ads also don't report back to the advertiser everytime you view them or keep track of which other ads you read or track you in any other way.
If advertisers had behaved respectfully from the beginning (never used popups, never track individuals, no flash/sound, etc) most people would have never felt compelled to block ads and developers wouldn't have made "block by default" as a selling point.
They brought this on themselves. If they want out, they should try creating standards for advertising that is respectable and subdued. Attempting to "guilt" people into unblocking is never going to work. Why should I behave "morally" towards advertisers if they won't behave "morally" towards me?
I already have SpeakEasy and am considering switching to naked DSL with them. Speakeasy offered to lower my montly rate by $20 for two months to help offset the installation charge. Since I'm paying $30/month to Verizon for a phone I don't use, this will pay for itself quickly.
Although only four counties had used un-certified machines, if you read the article you will see that the Secretary of State went beyond the recommendations and de-certified ALL touch screen machines. Those other 10 counties may be able to get their machines re-certified, but they have in fact been banned:
The decision goes beyond the recommendations that an advisory panel made earlier this week. It means four California counties that use a specific model of touch-screen machine will definitely have to find another voting system, and 10 other counties that use similar systems will have to do the same, unless the makers of the machines take steps to guarantee every vote gets counted.
There are definitely legitimate uses. DVD players only have RCA and/or S-video outputs. If you have an older TV that doesn't have such inputs, the natural alternative would be to plug it in through a VCR. But you can't do that with MacroVision!
ask my why suddenly my DSL connection - known good hardware that happens to use a Speakeasy service on a Vz switch - is all but unusable where previously it flew on the Qwest switch.
I read an interview with the foreman. The jury did believe that Elcomsoft's software violated the DMCA, but only found them not-guilty because the company didn't violate the DMCA intentionally. The fact that they put it on their website was what convinced the jury.
The jury didn't seem to have any problem with the fact that the software itself should be considered illegal.
In his first interview since he started the "information awareness" program, Poindexter, who figured prominently in the Iran-contra scandal more than a decade ago...
"Figured prominently" is an understatement. He was Ollie's boss and was convicted. His conviction was overturned on the basiss that he was granted immunity for his testimony to Congress (in which he admitted to everything that he had been convicted of).
Ollie's other plans during Iran-Contra were to turn FEMA (who are supposed to help clean up after natural disasters) into an enforcement arm for Martial Law in case anti-Contra protestors got in the way.
If rumor sites are good for Apple, then Apple is doing the 100% correct thing in trying to ban them. You'll get far more publicity if you try to ban these things than if you just ignored them.
As a bonus, Apple becomes immune to allegations of "Vaporware" since all your early product announcements are unofficial.
If Apple went and "embraced" these things, they'd lose their appeal. Which link would you rather follow:
Apple Announces New Stuff.
or
See the new stuff that Apple is trying to keep you from seeing. HURRY before Apple makes us take it down!
RSS
Twitter
Re: I call stinkbait! (as W Klink)
The pro-linux group exists to buy patents so that they can be freely shared. They did not buy them from MS but rather from another non-practicing entity that bought them from MS. And MS apparently was so kind when marketing these patents to document exactly how they could be used against Linux.
BTW, these weren't even MS "innovations." They were picked up when MS acquired SGI.
(as W Klink)
When MS sold the patents, they got to keep a perpetual right to use the patent. They're not stupid.
No smiling, but anything else goes (as W Klink)
Yes, Virginia, your photos are completely un-spoofable.
Re: Re: They got it wrong (as w klink)
> Trespass is a strict liability offense.
Do you even know what that means? It means that, even if one trespasses by accident, they are LIABLE for any damages. But, and here's the important part, there were NO damages.
Courts don't like you crying to them to solve your petty disputes anymore than your mother does. If there was any "damage," it was the presence of the photo. The only "litigious solution" the court can offer (other than to pay damages, which were nil) would be to issue an injunction requiring google to take down the photo. But google will do that without the court's involvement. Therefore, the court is--rightly so--telling Boring to take a hike.
Without ... (as W Klink)
> Without the underlying picture (copyright to AP) would that poster have ever been created?
So what? If Obama didn't run for office, the picture would never have been created. This isn't a question of the core inspiration.
If Toyota didn't build cars, you wouldn't be able to take a photo of them. That doesn't change the court decisions which have found that Toyota doesn't hold a copyright of every picture of all Toyota cars.
Re: No Subject Given (as W Klink)
> By the time the GAP took down its site, summer season is ending.< br>
And "Back to School" was in full swing...
Re: Dilbert (as W Klink)
Well, actually it was "The Dilbert Future" (1998). And in it, he predicted that the cable companies would deliver cable broadband as poorly as the Bells delivered ISDN and that, in the meantime, the Bells would make ISDN easier to install and configure and we'd all be using ISDN while the cable companies tried to catch up.
So not exactly a perfect prediction.
Re: No Subject Given (as W Klink)
> ...I hate this "lets block all the ads" mentality...< P>The "block them all" attitude is a result of the excessively obtrusive nature online advertising has taken.
Others have mentioned that newspaper ads don't jump out at them. Well, newspaper ads also don't report back to the advertiser everytime you view them or keep track of which other ads you read or track you in any other way.
If advertisers had behaved respectfully from the beginning (never used popups, never track individuals, no flash/sound, etc) most people would have never felt compelled to block ads and developers wouldn't have made "block by default" as a selling point.
They brought this on themselves. If they want out, they should try creating standards for advertising that is respectable and subdued. Attempting to "guilt" people into unblocking is never going to work. Why should I behave "morally" towards advertisers if they won't behave "morally" towards me?
Re: Speakeasy is a premium provider (as W Klink)
I already have SpeakEasy and am considering switching to naked DSL with them. Speakeasy offered to lower my montly rate by $20 for two months to help offset the installation charge. Since I'm paying $30/month to Verizon for a phone I don't use, this will pay for itself quickly.
RTFA (as Wklink)
Although only four counties had used un-certified machines, if you read the article you will see that the Secretary of State went beyond the recommendations and de-certified ALL touch screen machines. Those other 10 counties may be able to get their machines re-certified, but they have in fact been banned:
Legitimate Uses (as Wklink)
There are definitely legitimate uses. DVD players only have RCA and/or S-video outputs. If you have an older TV that doesn't have such inputs, the natural alternative would be to plug it in through a VCR. But you can't do that with MacroVision!
Re: When will reception improve? (as Wklink)
Since she was drugged... (as Wklink)
...the witnesses might not even have realized that this was a rape.
Google IPO? (as Wklink)
> once it goes public< br>
Is this a foregone conclusion. There's no requirement that a company, even a dot-com, must at some point go public.
When I was in high school... (as Wklink)
...the poor kids always sold their lunch tickets at a 50% discount of the cafeteria prices. They'd use the money to buy something good off campus.
The jury *didn't* get it (as Wklink)
I read an interview with the foreman. The jury did believe that Elcomsoft's software violated the DMCA, but only found them not-guilty because the company didn't violate the DMCA intentionally. The fact that they put it on their website was what convinced the jury.
The jury didn't seem to have any problem with the fact that the software itself should be considered illegal.
Poindexter (as Wklink)
Ollie's other plans during Iran-Contra were to turn FEMA (who are supposed to help clean up after natural disasters) into an enforcement arm for Martial Law in case anti-Contra protestors got in the way.
Exponential growth (as Wklink)
Does no one remember the parables they were taught as a child?
Forbidden fruit (as Wklink)
If rumor sites are good for Apple, then Apple is doing the 100% correct thing in trying to ban them. You'll get far more publicity if you try to ban these things than if you just ignored them. As a bonus, Apple becomes immune to allegations of "Vaporware" since all your early product announcements are unofficial.
If Apple went and "embraced" these things, they'd lose their appeal. Which link would you rather follow:
or
uploading lots of crap... (as Wklink)
How can you distinguish between "lots of crap" and a Hollywood production?