* Posts by Seamless

19 posts • joined 1 Aug 2009

Ad man: Mozilla 'radicals' and 'extremists' want to wreck internet economy

Seamless
Devil

Yeah, how dare they? Let's apply the logic--

How insensitive to the needs of capitalists: Mozilla, parents and others are being simply evil. Just think for a moment about all that cash waiting to be scooped up by advertisers, and the more refined purveyers of all sorts of rather lucrative enterprises. Since commerce is to be more highly valued, we should stop discouraging Internet commerce in children, slaves, sex workers, and illegal substances.

Just think about all those children...

Spooked spooks made Symantec end Huawei fling - new claim

Seamless
Holmes

No need to steal high tech when chocolate is on offer

"The manufacturer has sought to build closer ties with US industry, ploughing $6bn into the faltering economy last month in the form of contracts with OEMs Qualcomm, Broadcom and Avago in California."

It's well-established psychology that relatively minor offers easily identify people willing to turn over big secrets--

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/17/chocolate_password_survey/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/26/security_breach_attitudes_survey/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/16/password_security/

$6bn can buy a lot of chocolate.

Apple slams hard-up Proview for conning the courts

Seamless

Re: Seems simple enough

Re: "The problem is that both the Taiwan and Chinese operations are run by the same guy, Yang Rongshan, and he signed the contract authorising the sale. So it's disingenuous in the extreme for him to now claim that the Taiwan affiliate did not have the authority to sell the trademark."

Ian, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the basic business law concept and consequences of corporate legal existence, so that although Bill Gates or Donald Trump (or Google, or Samsung, or Engulf and Devour, for that matter) may own or manage multiple entities, the bare fact that a common CEO enters into an agreement on behalf of one entity would not in general impose those obligations upon other but legally-distinct child or sibling entities (even if organized as subsidiaries of the seller)?

It's not that extreme of a situation, at least under most western-tradition legal systems which offer many advantages to corporate entities.

But here's a case even more extreme, but true (and I don't know if it applies with respect to Proview): From personal involvement with litigation brought in the US by a very well known large digital content corp., it can be so confusing that an attorney in one branch office of the very large and highly-respected law firm representing the selling entity--who was explicitly charged with the responsibility to handle the firm's client's intellectual property assets as well as those of the client's subsidiaries--did not know that another branch office of the same law firm had separately arranged to sell the client's subsidiary's IP assets.

The former attorney testified it was inconceivable that such discussions and transaction would not have been brought to the first office's attention, and thus no sale of the subsidiary's IP assets had occurred; yet testimony by attorneys at the latter office established that corporate documents in the second law office branch's files showed (in their opinion) that the subsidiary's IP assets had been sold by the parent corp.

The federal district court judge did not end up deciding the issue; the case settled short of trial.

Former Microsoft exec barred from taking job at Salesforce

Seamless

@David Kelly 2

"All this guy has to do is move out of the state of Washington."

Before you rendered your legal opinion above (and this guy thereafter relied on your advice), your lawyer should have also pointed out standard clauses in the employment contract where this guy very likely agreed that proper place for MS to bring suit was in Washington, and that the contract would be interpreted under Washington state law, so moving probably would make no difference.

Microsoft sues ex-general manager over Salesforce.com exodus

Seamless

Neither jursidction nor venue available in Calif court (yet, at least)

"It's understood that MS decided to file the suit in Washington rather than in California, as restraining orders are harder to stick in courts in that part of the US."

@AC "The reason for this not being filed in California, is that the anti compete stipulations in am employment contract are in fact non binding. California is a work at will state, i.e. Either party can walk at anytime with out cause and work for whoever."

Both speculations above are likely unfounded:

--MS is a Washington corp. per complaint;

--contract entered into in WA (so Calif has no interest in enforcing it);

--former employee resides in WA per complaint (and therefore, MS via WA courts may obtain personal jurisdiction over him);

--contract per complaint (originally attached, but not included in PDF download) provided that both MS and employee agreed venue shall be in WA courts (federal or state courts).

MS would not be able to bring suit in CA (federal court at least, lacking federal subject matter jurisdiction for a private contract enforcement matter where diversity jurisdiction is defeated--federal court diversity action can't have both plaintiff and defendant as residents of the same state).

Google sued for scanning emails of non-Gmail users

Seamless

Reading is not copyright violation (+ more!)

@ Lewis Mettler 1:

re: "Generally both the sender and receiver of a letter is priviledged to do with the content as they desire.

Simply put that means that when you receive a letter or email you can republish the contents if you so desire. Or, to put it another way, the sender does not have exclusive control over the contents of the letter. If you do not trust the other person then do not share your thoughts with them. It is pretty simply."

In the US, at least, that's simply not correct.

Copyright does not prohibit reading (where the extent of "use" is reading the content); COPY right is a bundle of rights which do prohibit COPYing and a large swath of republication uses (fair use exceptions might apply, such as libraries and academic research).

The author of a work (a letter is a work under copyright law) does not lose ownership of the copyright to that work merely by sending it to somebody else. While ownership of the work passes to the recipient upon delivery, copyright (unless explicitly assigned to another) stays with the original content author (and, upon death, the estate/spouse/children).

Don't confuse ownership of the object with copyright to the content.

Nor does publication by the author (e.g., on the Web) result in the loss of copyright (the faulty premise behind the recent cooking website owner who claimed it was okay to publish articles found on the internet because she honestly believes anything found on the Web is public domain).

And don't confuse privacy with copyright.

Many in this thread fail to recognize a right to privacy or secure communications (one can engage in private communications, if protective measures are used or sometimes merely claimed, such as proper notices of confidentiality) is not the same right as copyright.

Privacy raises an entirely different set of issues.

Besides the requirement that measures to employed to maintain privacy, another requirement is that there be a reasonable expectation of privacy. It's unlikely a court would find a reasonable expectation that a mail service would not read email (but for specific prohibition of electronic communications legislation or privacy laws, or possibly terms of service or contract restrictions). So then the privacy claim analysis heads in those directions--but does not follow a copyright analysis.

Copyright does not prohibit reading the content. It violates no copyright for Google to scan (or even read) the content, and then to use the content (without publishing the content) to do other stuff. Copyright restricts some uses of a protected work, but not reading. Copyright is not a simple concept with common knowledge application.

Feds want backdoors built into VoIP and email

Seamless
Big Brother

The other, buried, provision of the introduced bill

Also, carrier pigeons will now be required to first land at the nearest FBI intercept roost. If there are wiretap or search warrants in force, messages can be read before the carriers are allowed to continue delivery of messages to their intended recipients.

US forces drop dead drug-poison killer mice from helicopters

Seamless
Black Helicopters

Stop!

Guam is in a precarious situation already. The extra added weight of those rodents will cause it to tip over and capsize. (Somebody ought to alert the House Armed Services Committee.)

LucasFilm sets lawyers on Jedi nameswipers

Seamless

@DrunkenMessiah

>>Did Lucas sue Motorolla?

Motorolla's ads have a notice that Droid is used by license from Lucasfilm.

Trojan-ridden warning system implicated in Spanair crash

Seamless

Not that mad

@Henry Wertz 1

Your presumed second cause is misplaced. Nothing in the article summary ("RTFA please") suggests that there was any fault (much less trojan) in the _jet's_ on-board computer systems. Rereading carefully, the fault is placed with the _airline's_ central computer system that logs jet incidents:

"The airline's central computer which registered technical problems on planes was infected by Trojans at the time of the fatal crash and this resulted in a failure to raise an alarm over multiple problems with the plane"

The excerpt contains no reference to any possible infection scenario via plug-ins from maintenance diagnostic boxes. (Not that it's impossible--a speculated concern with latest on-board flight control systems entirely dependent upon computer controls--but it's not the infection mechanism described.)

Deadline for Germans to hide from Street View

Seamless

Unworkable scheme

As suggested by other readers, what happens when people move in after the deadline?

And how does somebody remove blurring at an address, after the deadline (e.g., a new family moves in).

For a rental situation: is it decided by the property owner/management, or resident?

As to families, who at that address controls blurring? Can a parent (even within the limited decision period) overrule a child's previous decision (including adult child living at home)? How about a shared-custody parent with respect to the often changing place where a child lives but both parents do not?

For multiple unit buildings, is it the common area owner (real estate trust? management company? owners association?), or individual unit owner or occupant who decides? Will Google selectively blur some but not other units at the same building address?

Can an incarcerated resident make a decision?

Or students in residence halls?

A person who later moves to a new home pursuant to an identity protection program? Or simply trying to evade a stalker (with or without benefit of court order)?

Can somebody invoke on behalf of another (e.g., 1060 West Addison Street, Chicago, IL) without being court-appointed? How does Google verify that the person claiming to live at that address is truthful? (Are they cross-checking property ownership or tax records? Other public records such as voting registration? Vehicle registration?)

Does it apply to actual addresses, or rather what Google uses as the "approximate" address it displays? Satellite/drone views as well?

Turkish groom accidentally sprays wedding guests with bullets

Seamless
Dead Vulture

Might knock you dead or worse

Re: tom 24 (" '...and will still generally hit with lethal force when they do.' Really? I've heard that bullets falling at terminal velocity might knock you unconscious, but that's about it. Assuming, of course, you fire them upwards in the first place")--

But that's not about it. A bullet falling to earth can strike with force sufficient to put a hole in body plates of automobiles, so it probably can do worse to soft human bodies. Somebody dim enough to shoot up is probably not smart enough (nor skilled enough) to calculate and fire with the least-dangerous reentry angle and velocity.

My Acura roof was penetrated by a bullet (fired skyward on US Independence Day), creating a hole in the roof surrounded by a blistered crater. It sounded like a bowling ball had dropped from a great height as I waited for the light to change at an intersection. Arkasha (above) reported a similar personal experience in Mexico.

Gay teen mag closure sparks privacy fears

Seamless
Coffee/keyboard

Gay youth struggling with identity disclosure at home

Re: "Wouldn't the regular delivery of a "gay teens" magazine give hints to the parents of a home-dwelling teenager that he/she might be gay?"

Presumably those readers would have obtained print copies by picking them up (among many other publications) freely distributed at dance bars, gay bars, book stores, youth centers, and the like, rather than delivery to their parents' addresses (or even to a PO Box), or for those slightly older than the average age, might have received copies at a college dorm address rather than at home. It's not that difficult to remain hidden particularly when parents aren't keen on looking too closely.

Russian spies dumped in Vienna after swap

Seamless
Alert

Plausible reasons

The Russian operation accomplished US dedicating some of its intelligence-gathering assets (agents, other resources) which otherwise might have found more serious threats (Russian or otherwise), providing cover through misdirection. The operation also provided results from which Russia can evaluate US methods and achieve better success with remaining and new implants.

Apple Mac Mini 2010

Seamless

Fan

Small correction Re: "There’s no internal fan either, so the only noticeable noise comes from the occasional whirring of the on-board DVD drive."

There is a fan, elegant integration with the design, can be seen in access cover removal photos.

From Apple's mac mini design web page:

"once you’re inside, you’ll see how clean and organized Mac mini is. With attention paid to the tiniest detail. Like the air intake and vents. They’re practically invisible. And when the fan is running, you’ll barely hear it."

Asteroids the source of Earth's water, NASA suggests

Seamless

Not just Earth, then

No particular reason why all that water would land only on Earth; the same objects must have carried water to other bodies as well, along with organic molecules, so pre-life chemistry might be discovered on other planets (or moons) where water was present. And those other bodies have had about the same amount of time to evolve life as on Earth, possibly under favorable conditions at some period.

It seems likely that given their need to retain funding and promote future missions, NASA probably shared these findings with the White House before released to the general public, which could explain Obama's thinking to shift the next target from our moon.

Guardian in hot water over activist face flash

Seamless
Big Brother

Could have same impact if pixellated

It wasn't necessary for the story's impact that the faces be unobscured. Guardian didn't write a story about people who attended public events, and the cards' existence does not establish that any of the people depicted had attended any public demonstrations, so it's not logical to claim publication was justified since people out in public view realize they will be observed. The context clearly is that the subjects were wanted by the police, which necessarily clouds their reputations. Guardian should have pixellated to protect the identities, much as they might in other contexts involving potential uncharged subjects of police interest.

Court filings are protected by copyright, says lawyer

Seamless
Alert

Quaint

Many comments are misinformed about copyright, legal systems, and lawyers, so such expertise gained from films and television is quaint at best.

E.g., "How long has this clown been a lawyer?" by AC ("He "didn't know" that briefs in cases become part of the public record, and as such, ANYONE can republish them just as they can republish ANY PUBLIC RECORD? This clown should be disbarred for incompetence."):

"Public record" is not the same as "public domain." (Applies also to comments by kain preacher & Eddy Ito). Merely introducing a work into the court record does not strip the document's creator of his/her copyright. Try republishing Michael Jackson's songs, or Tolkien's writings (both are in the court record, and exhaustively quoted in briefs, legal expert reports, and other places such as court opinions), and see what happens.

E.g., "really?" by Timothy Wright: " Seriously? This man and his firm must rank up there among the least competent law firms in the US. Not knowing about LexisNexis is like not knowing what google is for the legal world."

He didn't say he did not know about Lexis/Nexis. He did not know that the private (and very large) corporations republished briefs submitted by lawyers (and you will find no disclosure of such use on any of the website pages a lawyer would use in order to research; and it's rather unlikely a court provides warning or disclosure that it facilitates or even allows republication, and no court likely requires a lawyer to provide consent in order to litigate and file papers in that forum).

Re: "@kain preacher" by jake: "The originals are (c) the original author (as always), but they are still freely viewable by anyone who requests to view them."

Fairly close, but not until courts began accepting online filings, and access to filings online, was this practical. Before then, you had to go to the court clerk's office, request a specific case file, and look through the papers (or microfilm). Cases filed before that (i.e., representing the overwhelming majority of published case law) require physical site visits to review such papers. Even now, most courts that provide electronic access (including the federal courts) charge per page to obtain copies online (and require advance establishment of an account to even log in). The largest county court system in the U.S. prohibits files and documents from being taken out of the clerk's office (lawyers need a court order to take the file out of the room), prohibits scanning equipment from being used, and charges $.25/page to use poor-quality photocopiers.

In light of such practical difficulties, Gary Turner's comment ("Another IP whore": "Don't they read common law as defined by the court cases, their pleadings and rulings in their research? Where did they think those books in their libraries, or the online resources came from?") is only fantasy: most reported decisions (trial and appellate) in the federal, state, county and local court systems in the U.S. do not include any of the briefs submitted by the parties. Other than paying for online access (if offered by that court, and including per-page charges just to view a document) you have to go to the clerk's office (or pay somebody to go for you) to see the appellate file, which might (if the court has storage space going back long enough) include the briefs filed (any documents and evidence constituting the trial court record are routinely returned to the trial court clerk). It's not unusual for reported decisions to note that certain facts are unknown about an earlier reported case, and attempt to draw likely or reasonable inferences or analyze alternative scenarios, because judges don't have any better access to papers submitted in other cases than the lawyers, especially outside of their own courthouse.

EU court rules 11-word snippets can violate copyright

Seamless

Fits the tradtional non-controversial clipping service model

This is nothing more than a news clipping service, of the type that has flourished for decades: clients pay the service to review published articles for items of interest--specifying the particular terms, typically the client's name and trademarks--and provide copies of the article (with the copy charged to the client, could be a purchased copy or a photocopy). It's also nothing worse than any search engine does (e.g., Google; or specialized search service such as FindLaw) when it provides a contextual snippet.

@Golodh: "Do they get paid for the use of their news flashed by the news scanning company? No, they do not."

Actually they do obtain the same benefit, under this scheme, because the 11 word snippet by itself is pretty much commercially useless unless the actual article (in contrast to traditional clipping service, in this case the article is deleted by Infopaq and not provided to the client) is read, which ordinarily would require the client to go read the publisher's article (just as would be the case if the client found it directly without Infopaq's alert). The newspaper publishers lose nothing by Infopaq's service, and probably gain more readership than they otherwise would have.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019