Posts by WeeDom 14 publicly visible posts • joined 7 Jun 2007
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/16/picsel_technologies_sues_apple_626_patent/
So - Apple are now suing HTC for (give or take) the same infringement which Picsel was accusing Apple of?
While I'm agog... Apple are going to sue over the implementation of an object waiting for a notification of an event? Surely this will break every operating system in the world!
What on earth is going on over there???
Is that the US shouldn't be allowed to dictate how someone in a foreign country operates their business. If the US government doesn't want non-US gambling sites being accessed from their country, then it is up to the US to bear the costs of preventing that access. They can't put the onus on non-US citizens to enforce US laws!
US law != Global law.
Just checked through dnsstuff.com.
absolutepoker.com belongs to :
Domain Discreet
ATTN: absolutepoker.com
Avenida do Infante 50
Funchal, Madeira 9004-521
PT
highrollerslounge.com belongs to:
Commonwealth of Kentucky Justice Cabinet
Eric Lycan *******************@ky.gov)
+1.8592540000
Fax: -
125 Holmes Street
Frankfort, KY 40601
US
===========================================
Now, I'm under no illusions as to the "nice"ness of absolutepoker.com - weren't they the ones giving out win-every-time-passes to their friends? - but this sets such a huge precedent that, well, something must be done! I shall write a strongly-worded letter to my district council. Anyone else?
Seriously - this really needs followed up, El Reg!
Good catch on the mis-quote.
For the rest of your post, I call "bollocks".
An individual state in America should not be able to reach out and take property, on the whim of a judge, outside of the state (ianal, so not 100% sure on that) and certainly not outside of the US. And as for the "you should try to block its users from your domain"... BOLLOCKS!! If an individual state wants to censor the internet access of it's citizens, then that is for the STATE to do - they can't pass that responsibility onto a company operating in a country far, far away and then steal their things if they don't comply!!!
"These things should be contested through political action, not technological": BOLLOCKS!!! How do you suggest that works? The whois information shouldn't be under the control of any one country, and certainly should not be subject to the whims of any one legal system - who says which legal system is correct? Yes, there has to be some sort of dispute resolution system and I don't claim to have a solution for that problem - but I do know the answer is not "put America in charge of it all, then"!
@ Robert A. Rosenberg
that'll never work, the "download a full copy" idea. The offending user might not HAVE a full copy, if we're talking torrents. And, if we're talking torrents, you'd never (ok, rarely) download a full copy from one location anyway.
Can BT impose a financial penalty (held to term for up to 17 months? That'll be £500 +) upon someone for having a few seconds of a song? Eh - no. I believe I can use a sample of an existing song in an original work, so long as the sample isn't longer than 30 seconds (I'd have to check the exact time somewhere), without infringing copyright. Was it "The Time Lords" who made a no.1 single doing exactly that? That lot who burnt a million quid for a laugh, anyway.
@PH : same old, same old.
@ Mycho - oh, absolutely. I could spew any heap of crap at a customer, and the illegal wire-tappers calling themselves "Customer service experts" would give me full marks so long as I got a timely apology in somewhere. Absolutely mental
@ Lee - you're wrong. They have the power to terminate your contract and you'll be held to term for any remaining months. As above, that could easily be in excess of £500. That's a pretty hefty financial penalty, in my book.
A number of people have asked about the burden of proof - there is no proof. A couple of IP addresses and the word of the BPI that something bad has happened. I don't know, either, when the BPI gained legal powers. I think it was about the time they started acting more important than they really are, and nobody pulled them up on it.
I can only imagine that the "visitor" usage will be metered separately from the "owner" usage by marking all the up/down traffic from the visitor with details from their voucher.
If that's not the case, how can they possibly tell the difference between owner/visitor traffic? After all, having it on a SSID at the owners router (if indeed that's how they do it) surely won't appear in server logs, normally.
What is not clear is how abuse issues are going to be dealt with. Abusive traffic is generally reported as in "this IP address did something bad to my IP address". Voucher information certainly won't be transmitted along with, say, a portscan attack... so how is their abuse team going to know if it was the owner of the hub who was responsible, or some passerby?
Why change it? It works fine the way it is.
If it must be changed, I'd be looking at redirecting everything to www.theregister.co.uk. You're a UK based operation, which is part of your USP. Be proud of that.
If you change it to uk.theregister.com, then you're almost hiding that USP. A mistake, I think
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
