|
Authored by wol on Jan 28, 2019 18:08:31 GMT
There's a whole bunch of problems here, not least the American modern belief that everything has to have an owner :-(
As far as "Amazing Grace" goes, the problem here with copyright law is that *minor* changes trigger a new copyright. So Amazing Grace - provided you sing Newton's version - is Public Domain. However, there's a whole bunch of editorial changes, that trigger editorial copyright, which is what this American bunch are probably relying on. If you applied Copyright Law strictly, you'd probably completely kill the music scene because - especially with multiple works by the same composer - each one is a derivative of his previous work, and as such an infringement on any copyright he may have sold.
That GPL attack has been going on for ages - it's been pretty well debunked - the problem is that there are too many people who are unable to understand logic. If that ever gets through it's going to destroy more than just the computer industry - it'll take out the underpinnings of contract law so I can't see a successful attack surviving very long before other cases gut it.
WSL I'm not too worried about provided it's not then used to attempt to stop linux running on bare metal ...
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Sept 8, 2018 8:43:50 GMT
I used to like PC World. Great for browsing in if nothing else. Now when my wife is in Poundland or Hobbycraft or B&Ms next door, I'll probably nip in for 5mins, decide there's nothing worth looking at, and leave.
That said, their prices aren't too bad if you're careful. I was looking at a Full-HD monitor, and they had a couple of decent ones around the £100/£120 mark. My big bug-bear is finding decent LCD stuff - tv OR monitor - that is of decent quality and doesn't confuse you with all the tech terms that you don't understand.
I was looking for a tv to upgrade our old 32" panasonic - I wanted another panasonic because all our gear is that - and could I find a full-hd drop-in? We ended up going for a shop-soiled 40" which was a real steal (it was advertised as shop soiled, then they discounted it again because it was shop soiled!) But the old one had been advertised as "optimised for sport", and my wife says the difference is actually noticeable - the ancient 32" hd-ready is in some ways better than the 40" "brand new" full-hd one!
I'll happily buy from PC World if they're price competitive (which they often are), but you have to watch it. My next acquisition is likely to be a Nikon D5300 and they're way out of line.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Sept 7, 2018 18:43:38 GMT
Certainly in the early days, I thought HP were an OEM for Canon-made kit. Maybe someone realised that the drivers were there thanks to HP, and they might as well ship them ...
Common sense usually prevails eventually.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on May 19, 2018 9:05:18 GMT
St Georges Chapel, Windsor, 12pm GMT+1 19 May 2018.
I think most of the tvs in our house are watching it :-)
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 31, 2018 13:09:55 GMT
The other nice ending to this bit of the mess would be for SCOTUS to rule that, absent any surviving patent issues, the CAFC should have recused themselves, vacate all their decisions, and kick it back to the District Court for the next round :-)
I'm not sure they can do that, sadly, seeing as the current situation clearly lends itself to gaming the system and forum shopping.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 30, 2018 11:33:53 GMT
I just hope IBM takes Oracle's argument, quotes it verbatim with acknowledgements, and sues Oracle for violating the SQL API.
Cue fireworks and popcorn - the Nazgul will have a field day :-)
What a shame PJ isn't around to commentate on this mess ...
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Nov 26, 2017 20:56:54 GMT
Unfortunately, this seems typical of the American system :-(
Judges are elected (a fair few of them, at least), and others the appointment is a political hot potato.
Okay, our British system isn't that much better, but we don't seem to get blatant abuse like this, not least because the threat of "awarding attorney fees" is a real danger in our system, and almost unheard of in the American system.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Aug 28, 2017 19:54:10 GMT
Actually, some of us (not Americans) have never even heard of Scientology ... Okay, I exaggerate :-) but I know almost nothing about this peculiarly American phenomenon. (Yes, I do understand your concerns, having read the linked article, but it merely confirms my worries about this mentally deranged nation claiming leadership of the free world ...)
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Jun 29, 2017 14:14:15 GMT
And as usual, they (Gene Quin and most patent attorneys) are wrong and are mainly thinking of their own self-interest and not much else. Not quite. Gene really believes that the prior system was right, and that the newer system damages the rights of inventors. Problem is, the evidence is against him. Edison did not invent the light bulb. The Wright brothers did not invent powered flight. Watson and Crick did not discover DNA. Alexander Graham Bell did not invent the telephone. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story ... Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 4, 2017 10:23:21 GMT
nsomos - in THIS PARTICULAR CASE - I pretty much agree with you.
But the precedent could be extremely damaging. To innocent people. Do you really want a precedent - set by trampling over the rights of a probably guilty person - to be used to trample over the rights of hundreds of innocent people?
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 3, 2017 10:07:20 GMT
The warrant suspends AMAZON'S rights, because it's against Amazon. But it violates Amaon's CUSTOMER'S rights. So due process demands that he has an input, because it's his rights that are being violated. An excellent point. But do we know enough about the warrant to say that it's not made out against the accused? If it's against the accused then I would expect Amazon to make the subpoenaed information available, according to the terms of the warrant. And I can't imagine that the Echo EULA doesn't advise end users that Amazon will comply with legal requests (although I can't check that, I'm definitely not an Echo user...). But that means either (a) they can't comply without the accused's permission, or (b) they are fighting it upon request by the accused, who has invoked his first amendment rights. Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 3, 2017 10:02:51 GMT
The Miranda warning is probably copied from the British because you might have had a similar case. It didn't exist at independence - it came into being in the Victorian era.
We recently dropped the second half of the traditional warning, and there was a massive outcry which I found pretty awful, given that I knew the historical context.
It used to be "You have the right to remain silent AND THIS FACT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST YOU TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS". In the historical context, this made sense - if a prosecutor twisted your words you had no right of reply, therefore even if you were innocent it was safer to keep schtumm. Now that the accused does have the right of reply, it's perfectly reasonable to use the silence to draw conclusions - and I feel the people objecting to the change were simply saying "no change is the best change", rather than actually having any serious interest in justice, or why the right was introduced in the first place.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 2, 2017 15:17:10 GMT
Just thought up another quick point about that search warrant - due process!
The warrant suspends AMAZON'S rights, because it's against Amazon. But it violates Amaon's CUSTOMER'S rights. So due process demands that he has an input, because it's his rights that are being violated.
Reminds me of a case mentioned on Groklaw, where a bankruptcy judge sold a lot of copyrights. Except what he sold was NOT what the author had sold to the bankrupt. And the Judge's deal was very damaging to the author - the judge gave the author a share of net profits (ie effectively nothing), while the author's contract gave him a share of gross proceeds, ie a guaranteed income.
And the author was denied any opportunity to make his case, by the judge. Dunno whether he did, but to me that's a clear constitutional violation about the state seizing property.
Due process says the accused MUST have a say, because it's HIS rights that are being violated. That is probably Amazon's point.
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 2, 2017 15:03:58 GMT
bubba, may I suggest you look up where the "right to remain silent" came from. An innocent girl got hanged.
At the time, the accused was not allowed to speak in court, because they had an obvious incentive to lie. A prosecutor took this girl's words, changed solely the *emphasis*, and changed a denial into an admission.
As I say, she got hanged for it. And I get the impression the American justice system would not give a damn about it ... :-(
Cheers, Wol
|
|
|
Authored by wol on Mar 1, 2017 14:36:05 GMT
Hmmm...
Okay, I may simply be repeating Amazon's argument, but I thought they were saying it would chill free speech, as in people would not be able to speak freely *at* *home* if there was one of these devices around.
My worry would be being able to speak freely at a friend's house if they had one, and I might not even know it!
As I said before, I don't know whether I agree with the claim (and, as a European, I seem to have a very different view on a lot of these American constitutional hang-ups :-) but I totally get where Amazon are coming from. I think you're too close to the issue to see the overhead view.
But I don't have a pony in the race ... :-)
Cheers, Wol
|
|