Oddly enough, you can name your own SSID anything you want... and among the geek 1337 crowd it isn't uncommon to name the outward facing SSID something like this. Or things like, pussyforhire, GOV_URBAN_SILO_127, FBI_SAFEHOUSE_127, CHURCH_OF_SATAN_WIFI, and so on. Just to troll people that look at SSID names.
Way to much back and forth going on here. However the real clue to this being a very good move are the pending patents and that Microsoft hasn't yet cross-licensed with Motorola.
However, the pending patents are going to be the real killer. For one most of the pending ones are going to be the patents that cover the Original Droid and MotoBlur.
Over the last two years Apple has been forced in adopt many of the same functions that Android was doing in 2008 and the droid was doing in 2009. So many of the features that Apple and Microsoft are implementing on their phones to compete with Android today, are probable covered by some pending patent.
I will give it maybe two years before this really sinks in.
If they wanted to do that they should have all gone behind a paywall and then contacted Google and get an agreement together to index their site with joint advertising. Going to court was probable the wrong first move.
Weather they do or don't have a monopoly isn't what I was driving at. There are those that are trying to paint them as having one and this particular event could give them something to point to.
There has been a lot of push in the political field against Google by their competitors of late trying to basically state that they are a monopoly and need to be regulated. People rightly point out that Google is just a web page much like Bing and Yahoo are web pages. However no one really knows how valuable Google is when it comes to search, Google News, ect.
So my question is, could this court order removing specific newspapers from all their indexes, be used against Google? Showing just how devastating being removed from Google is?
This would seem to be a good example to follow sense they were not removed for abuse, spam, or down listed as irrelevant. So it removes a lot of other factors and gives you a better idea of how much being linked to from Google is worth.
We have a very different system here in Oregon for everything but distilled. It is because of the lax laws here we have a fantastic economy built up around our small brewpubs. It has also pushed many of the small breweries here into mainstream competition with the big national brewers. People don't drink Bud Light... they drink Widmer or Bridgeport brews.
Perhaps the new laws being pushed in places like Wisconsin are because of the example of how local brewpubs can take over a local market like in Portland Oregon and Boston.
Prior art for this must be staggering. I give this patent a snowballs chance in hell of being valid two years from now. Personally, I would have gone to Google and just sold it to them for a cool million. Easy money.
While I agree that for a single work 25 years might seem to be enough I would like to point to one part where this would break down.
Think about book series like Harry Potter, Diskworld, Snoopy, Calvin and Hobbs, Over the Hedge, and BONE. BONE is a very good example where one artist decided to tell the story... more then 12 years later... after serial publication for twelve years, he finally finished the full story.
Under a 25 year plan the concept of his characters would exit copyright only 13 years after he finished his first epic using those characters. Yet the characters wouldn't be worth what they are not without all his continued work.
For myself, as an author, I have always been a fan of a lifetime copyright. Mostly cause I want to retain creative control not just of a single book, but of a character, world, series. What I am a fan of is limiting the length of time that something remains in copyright after an authors death.
Lets say 20 years after the authors death. Meaning that even works made late in life support a family after death... but only for the 'useful' part that copyright gives you.
Not quiet true. They have been pushing cloud based services for awhile now and have been having some serious success in that field as well.
So your saying that the only way to get Cheap Electronics is to pirate the design software from Major EDA companies so that you can make said Cheap Electronics?
There are lots of ways to show that someone is using pirated software.
Lets say your Company A. Your a maker of visual effects for peoples wedding movies. You spent 10k on the latest copy of Video Toaster so that you can do professional work. Then along comes company B doing the same thing as you are, but charging only 1/10th of what you are and still using the same effects.
So you report it to the Video Toaster company and they find look it up and Company B isn't a customer of theirs. So they try to do an Audit. What they find out is that Company B contracts out to some firm in China to do the work and only resells the wedding movies.
Under current law there isn't anything they can do about it.
Under the new law they ask Company B to do due Vigilance and confirm that their overseas suppler is in compliance with Video Toasters License.
If Company B's suppler doesn't get back to them, or just tells them nope... we don't... Company B's choices get a lot more limited. One thing for sure is that they probable can't offer the service for 1/10th the cost of Company A.
The law does call out that it has to be used for the production of the widget.
An example, some guy in India is hired to build a driver for Widget, uses a licensed copy of Windows 7 and a licensed copy of MS Driver Builder software. Those would be the programs used in the production of final good. The Driver for the Widget.
If the guy in India also had a pirated copy of PhotoShop on the computer it wouldn't come under the purview of this law. As it wasn't used in the production of widget.
IANAL but this is how I understand how its writen.
Now thats the thing, when Microsoft puts out a request for quote one of things they require is that the service provider used all licensed software. It's not always 100% effective, but the policies are there, and they do get a list of all licensed software used during production.
So they already do a lot of due vigilance when it comes to this. So its very unlikely that anything they sell will ever be stopped under this law. Even if you sued them they would just turn around and demand their their suppliers license the software that they were contractually required to buy in the first place.
Don't normally comment but I got to thinking about how the NYTs paywall might make sense if you make a couple of assumptions.
One: They have left so many holes in their paywall that a casual user like myself would never even see it. (I get my news by reading blogs like Techdirt, or aggragators like Slashdot, ect.)
Two: This is a big assumption, consider that they have been looking at their traffic and realize that most of it comes from direct links from blogs, twitter, facebook, and others. Their heaviest users might be just the kind of people that would pay for the news from the NYTs. Be they from wall street, or blog writers who make their living writing about the news.
Three: The last assumption would be thinking that they are not dumb. 98% of the people that come to their site wouldn't pay for a subscription. But 2% would. So how would you setup a paywall that lets in most of that 98%, while charging the people that find your site the most useful? Something like they have done.
So the big question is how would this work for them and I think I have an idea. A blog writer is looking for stories to write about when they go to the NYT. Adds are wasted on them. How would they view the content if they were paying for it? It would have more value to them. And they would still be able to link it in their blog without worry for their readers.
So it might actually work them them.
The Technological singularity will not be as fantastic as people dream.... it will happen... but it will not change all that much in day to day life.
There will still be a buggy whip industry and I predict that industries like this will actually grow as they supply a growing demand for 'retro' style services. (Buggy rides through a nature park, feel what it was like to live in 1900!)
3D printing will destroy the cheep useless crud market. (A good example would be to see how home publishing works today and carry that over to 3D printing.)
Gender will no longer be an issue. (It isn't for me, and far less so for younger generations. I don't see this trend reversing anytime soon.)
Marriage will still exist but will not have the same meaning as before. (Turns out that people are kind of serially monogamous. To make that work marriage would have to be allowed to have an expiration date.)
Artificial womb's are going to change the role women play.
There will be human cloning. (Once the science works there isn't any reason for it to not happen, despite the din those playing a moral card would make.)
English (loosely defined) will become the primary language of the world despite the french and Chinese.
Society will be more open. (Less a prediction and more of a reality.)
Blue laws in the US will be relaxed. (The people themselves are already relaxing them. At least where I am in Portland OR.)
There will be no all inclusive 'social' network as they will fragment into smaller but more focused communities. (Think linkedin for your professional page. Facebook for friends, Goggle for your gaming group, and Myscape for family.)
I can do more but lunch is over!
What really worries me about this case is the ease that they just up and 'sued' over the photo's. It would be understandable if they thought that the guy was a troll, but once it was known this is the fellow that took the pictures, it should never have made it before a judge. There simply should have been a settlement offered and then the AFP could go after the guy that 'sold' them the photo's in the first place for the money they had to pay out.
Not making cameras? Was reading in the tech news that apple was finally going to bump up the camra in the iphone from 3MP to 5MP as phones like the droid and such are already running with a 5MP camra that is better then the point and shoot ones you could get 8 years ago.
So how again are they not making cameras?
Its can and does. Motorola, Nokia, Sony, ect all license the technology.
Actually, Kodak is a highly innovative company and are well within their rights to sue apple and rim. If you actually read things over, motorola... nokia... ect.. all pay Kodak for their digital imaging patents that they use on their phones handsets.
Kodak has transformed itself to a purely digital imaging company now for some time and a lot of their technology has made it into movies and the like. Their consumer presence isn't there as much, but their print paper for doing photoprints are some of the best out there.
This isn't a case of someone suing because they couldn't innovate, this is a case of a company suing others for 'not' paying up when they have innovated.
Everyone else out there got a license to technology for digital imagining held by a company that does digital imaging. Odd... that doesn't sound bad at all.
Wyden has been an oregon senator for a very long time. No term limits here, and has been doing a good job. So he probable feels very safe in going after the ATCA treaty as even if some of the content industry doesn't like it, there is little that they can do.
Most people in Oregon are impressed that he supported our states assisted suicide law even though he didn't personally support it. Most of the reason we still have it is because of his opposition to both of the previous administrations attempts to destroy Oregon law.
Long story short, the guy has a lot of political capital to spend in his home state.