I'm not a lawyer, so I could be totally making this up, but I thought setting up a dummy company just to shield yourself from illegal activity was a way bigger deal than stealing someone's intellectual property.
Oh, you're right, I didn't read carefully enough. But my point remains - the liability should be on those who stole the trade secrets, not those who purchased the resulting code.
The fact that the code was compiled vs not compiled shouldn't even enter the discussion.
It's not really about the coders - if we allow software patents, then coders are responsible for not violating them.
But this is about software that someone purchased, not that they wrote. The liability needs to stay with the person who wrote it, regardless of whether it's compiled pre-purchase.
Does the ruling really hinge on compiled code vs source? Because that doesn't seem like the right distinction to make. Do we really want to put the liability on purchasers of software to make sure that the software they buy doesn't violate any patents?
Did Microsoft subsidize part of HTC's research/development/whatever with the understanding that the phones would run a Microsoft OS? If so, then I can see why HTC should pay Microsoft. But that's totally unrelated to any patent issues, as far as I can tell.
Interesting. Does that mean I can make an unauthorized copy of the latest Lady Gaga single and release it under an Apache 2.0 license, leaving all the liability on whoever downloads it?
Seriously, there is a big difference between "implementing" and "installing". Is there a base Android that you can just install with no modifications, leaving the liability with Google? And does this really stand up in court, this "we're not responsible for jack, you take all liability by agreeing to the license"?
I have no idea whether or not Android violates Microsoft patents. I don't really care. But, for the sake of argument, let's say it does.
What does this have to do with HTC? It seems that Microsoft has two options here. They can go after Google over the patents, and either kill Android or clear Android. Or they can shut up and try to make a useful product.
Since Microsoft hasn't stopped Google from distributing Android, doesn't it make sense that HTC is in the clear for using it? How could HTC possibly be found liable in any way for using a product from another company in good faith? Why does Microsoft even have the right to license the abuse of their patents this way?
Yeah, look at the DC plastic bag tax. For five cents per bag added on to your bill at the grocery store, bag usage dropped from 22 million to 3 million in a month. And there was no signing up for a micro-transaction provider or anything like that.
But why should I pay for the gated community? If the content is good, communities will form elsewhere. There will be Facebook groups or Twitter hashtags or whatever your social media of choice is.
You're still talking about technology-based protection. You may be right that they're harder to copy, but it's still just a bunch of bits. If the stuff is really desirable, someone will figure out a technological solution to make it easy to get.
At a glance, Flatter looks interesting, but I suspect they're going to have a hard time getting people to put up a monthly fee.
Most of the things you're listing as "up-sells" are still non-scarce. You say that we have to sell what can't be copied, but footnotes, context, enhanced versions, sharing playlists - all of that can still be copied.
And micro-transactions - they might as well be perpetual motion machines. Everyone thinks it would be cool if we had them, and tons of people have claimed to have done it, but no one has ever actually seen one work.
Couldn't an artist sympathetic to sampling sue with the intent of changing the law? I'm sure someone like the EFF or Public Knowledge would be happy to help out.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the details on what happens when the person bringing the suit actually wants to lose, but surely someone with standing to sue Girl Talk actually thinks it's awesome that his/her music was used this way.
I installed Linux on my washing machine last week. It's great! It's no longer compatible with my dryer, and I have to make the soap myself, but it's all worth it for the freedom to wash my whites in cold water.
The best part of my job is getting to leave in the middle of the day to pick my daughter up from daycare, then finishing work in the evening after my wife gets home. Sure, I could be making more money if she spent more time in daycare, and I'm probably missing out on some career opportunities, but spending quality time with my family is the main reason I'm working in the first place.
If copyright infringement really makes "it impossible to make a living from what you do", then certainly all artists will starve to death. Then their families who depend on them will starve to death. This is a real tragedy, all because of all you mass murders with your torrents and whatnot.
If she will publicly admit that she has questionable morals, a substance abuse problem, and difficulty comprehending English, I think she deserves to get paid.
On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code
Re: Re: Re: Re: A little troubling
The fact that the code was compiled vs not compiled shouldn't even enter the discussion.
On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code
Re: Re: A little troubling
But this is about software that someone purchased, not that they wrote. The liability needs to stay with the person who wrote it, regardless of whether it's compiled pre-purchase.
On the post: Software Buyers Not Liable For Trade Secrets In Compiled Source Code
A little troubling
On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License
Re: Update?
On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License
Re: Re: This is completely insane
Seriously, there is a big difference between "implementing" and "installing". Is there a base Android that you can just install with no modifications, leaving the liability with Google? And does this really stand up in court, this "we're not responsible for jack, you take all liability by agreeing to the license"?
On the post: Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License
This is completely insane
What does this have to do with HTC? It seems that Microsoft has two options here. They can go after Google over the patents, and either kill Android or clear Android. Or they can shut up and try to make a useful product.
Since Microsoft hasn't stopped Google from distributing Android, doesn't it make sense that HTC is in the clear for using it? How could HTC possibly be found liable in any way for using a product from another company in good faith? Why does Microsoft even have the right to license the abuse of their patents this way?
This is all just absurd.
On the post: New Ransomware Targets Porn Pirates, Makes Copyright Threats
What a good idea
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: Re: You're not quite there
Yeah, look at the DC plastic bag tax. For five cents per bag added on to your bill at the grocery store, bag usage dropped from 22 million to 3 million in a month. And there was no signing up for a micro-transaction provider or anything like that.
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: Re: You're not quite there
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
Re: your comments (above)
At a glance, Flatter looks interesting, but I suspect they're going to have a hard time getting people to put up a monthly fee.
On the post: The Future Of Content: Protection Is In The Business Model -- Not In Technology
You're not quite there
And micro-transactions - they might as well be perpetual motion machines. Everyone thinks it would be cool if we had them, and tons of people have claimed to have done it, but no one has ever actually seen one work.
On the post: Why Copyright Criminals Filmmakers Won't Get Sued? Because They'd Win
Sue on purpose
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know all the details on what happens when the person bringing the suit actually wants to lose, but surely someone with standing to sue Girl Talk actually thinks it's awesome that his/her music was used this way.
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Re:
On the post: Sony Deletes Feature On PS3's; You Don't Own What You Thought You Bought
Where's the FTC?
On the post: Wealth Is Defined By More Than Just Money
Time is sometimes better than money
On the post: Woman Spends $17,000 Of Her Own Money To Stop SEO From Being Trademarked
Kickstarter
On the post: Apparently The Word 'Piracy' No Longer Sufficiently Derogatory For Entertainment Industry
Let's call it what it is
If copyright infringement really makes "it impossible to make a living from what you do", then certainly all artists will starve to death. Then their families who depend on them will starve to death. This is a real tragedy, all because of all you mass murders with your torrents and whatnot.
On the post: Lindsay Lohan Sues E*Trade For $100 Million; Says Baby Was Based On Her
If she admits it . . .
Next >>