Mr. Magnate: "Isn't monopoly power wonderful? The d****d courts might keep ruling against us, but we can still make them do what we want!"
Fawning lapdog: "You're right, sir. The only thing I don't understand is: Why only 7 days? Why not 39,104,709,231,087,094,382,098,340,293,890,249 days?"
1. Let the creator of the patent, who won standard status, pick and choose who gets to benefit from the patent--even for a fee. ("We don't like you because you're our number one competitor: No license for you.")
2. Tell the creator of the patent, "Thank you for all your good work. We're taking it from you and giving it away now."
3. Find a way to allow the creator to be paid fairly while ensuring the creator can't pick and choose winners.
There'll always be one more reason to hold up the report. Don't hold your breath that we'll see the report soon. Frankly, I haven't seen a reason to bet on anything other than, "Never!"
I agree that fees should be permitted, to benefit the holder of the patent.
But to prevent groundless refusal of licenses (as seems to be the case here) the patent should be conferred upon the standards organization, which collects the fee on behalf of the original owner.
The theory is that the standards organization has a primary goal of promoting the standard, not of promoting their proprietary supremacy.
(Miquetoast) We aren't sure our merger (slavering) will utterly crush our competitors heads and leave us as the reigning totalitarian monopoly...(Milquetoast)...*ahem*...negatively affect our competitors...(slavering) but we certainly hope so!!
Demand for non-disclosure As part of the demand, requires the recipient to enter into a non-disclosure agreement. Patents are explicitly public, for good reason; a company that insists on a non-disclosure before identifying the patents involved in the claim, is evidence of a vexatious patent litigator.
Demand for contractual recognition As part of the demand, requiring the recipient to contractually recognize the validity of the patent in addition to paying, is evidence of a vexatious patent litigator.
Demands against users but not manufacturers Demands made against the users of a device, in the absence of claims against the company that manufactures it, are evidence of a vexatious patent litigator. This is particularly true when manufacturer has the resources to litigate effectively and users do not, indicating that the goal is not enforcement but simply money.
This is an amazing accusation. I don't know which is worse: That Neflix is being accused of paying an extortionate demand from those who did create the fast lanes; or that Netflix is being accused of competing vigorously in a business environment that the FCC commissioner allowed to exist and even encouraged.
The only reason for the "enthusiasm" was a temporary ruckus in the press. Now that the ruckus has died down a bit: Why would we be surprised to find the enthusiasm was faked?
Of course it would have to be faked: If lawmakers kept showing real enthusiasm, all those law enforcement types would show up waving terrorist attack and dead kiddie flags and make a loud ruckus. That will scare the populace and lead to an even louder ruckus.
Must not take away law enforcement toys if we will have to brave terrorist attack/dead kiddie flags.
It looks to me like the decision is intended to deny the benefit of FOIA to the requestor. FOIA is formal: If you obtain a document via FOIA, they can't stop you from publishing it or any portion of it.
Our government has threatened to prosecute even in cases of information that was long public--in some cases that was published formally by the government itself. Comes to mind a threat to prosecute someone if they dared to quote a public Supreme Court decision.
So, what if you publish a copy of that "illegally published" leak?
Based on other sources I've read, you can pretty much defend yourself against any libertarian attack by judiciously using the words "free market". My experience is that those two words turn their brains to mush and make it impossible for them to consider any argument or product critically.
Years ago, my father told me about the "Sure-fire cockroach killer," (sold when he was a child) which you ordered by mail. What you got for your hard-earned money was two blocks of wood, labelled "A" and "B", and instructions: "Place cockroach on block 'A', hit cockroach with block 'B'."
Now obviously this works, but it is also a colossal rip-off. But call it "created by the free market," and my experience is that pretty much any libertarian would say it was the greatest product ever.
Just killing a kid won't do the job. These are the conditions they have to meet for a valid proof:
Subject has to be known and in hand The phone ostensibly to be searched is almost always in the possession of the bad guy (the "subject"). To get the phone, you have to be able to capture, arrest, hold, or even just talk with the subject. If you don't know who the subject is, then the whole line of argument is moot: you can't get the phone from an unknown subject.
Phone must be in hand Not only that, but you have to be able to get the phone from the subject, which needs an excuse, warrant, or force. The problem with this is that the subject may destroy the phone, or may kill the kid immediately on your confiscation of the phone.
Even assuming best case, taking the phone certainly alerts the subject to the investigation.
Required proof is on the phone You have to be able to get the needed information from the phone. Just because you have the phone doesn't mean it will help you find the kid. Encryption is beside the point; even assuming an unencrypted phone, what if the subject turned the GPS off? Or didn't take a picture of the kid? Or turned the phone off when visiting the kid?
It is reaching to assume any subject will have incriminating data on the phone.
No other path to proof It's idiotic to assert an attempt to overcome the above difficulties will be made if there is an easier path to the data. Assuming a kid kidnapping, exigent circumstances would apply. If you're looking for back proof, a warrant would apply. Either exigent circumstance or a warrant would get all the cloud data from the phone provider which, it might be pointed out, doesn't require you to have the subject and his phone and evidence on the phone, in hand.
But who cares?! They'll make the argument anyway because, frankly, like a baby throwing a tantrum over lost candy. They can't see data without wanting it. They don't care if it's a phone, personal computer, cloud, private Facebook account, or your scientific calculator: if it holds data they want it! want it! want it! and will throw a tantrum to get it.
It doesn't have to make sense: so what if your calculator can't contain incriminating evidence? If it contains data, "Want it!!!"
Because: The world will end if we (royal "we") don't have access.
It's really not surprising. Satirists generally pay close attention to editorial independence, because their satire is all they have to sell. As a result, they retain the freedom to satirize what they want and are generally topical.
On the other hand, the news media can sell ads and pablum, so they gave up all editorial independence long ago.
"If that passes, government agencies will no longer be able to exploit the law to bury embarrassing or incriminating documents."
Never underestimate the power of the force (quid pro quo). I predict the archivist will be swimming in money (eliminating the "Archivist neither has the funding" problem) and we still won't get to see anything.
Because, Dr. Evil will soliloquize: "Gentlemen, I have a plan. It's called blackmail."
It's bad enough that Judge Arnold thinks that seizing data is only illegal if the intelligence agencies get caught.
His construction of the Fourth Amendment is even worse. Suppose we leave out the warrants clause, which he undoubtedly thinks is completely unneeded, since he says, "[...]there's nothing in there that really says that a warrant is usually required."
That leaves just the first part of the Fourth Amendment, which is, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated."
Emphasis on, "[...] shall not be violated." That means that, without a warrant, every search and seizure by the government is a violation of the citizen's rights. Without that "warrants" clause, there is no justification for the government to search or seize anything.
I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! I can't believe they would pick someone for intelligence boss who would toe the party line! Whatever is this country coming to, that the new intelligence boss thinks the intelligence community can do no wrong?
On the post: Negotiating Away Innovation: Dish Agrees To Kill Autohop To End TV Blackouts
Gotta love Monopoly
Fawning lapdog: "You're right, sir. The only thing I don't understand is: Why only 7 days? Why not 39,104,709,231,087,094,382,098,340,293,890,249 days?"
On the post: Another Batch Of Baggage Handlers Accused Of Stealing From Luggage; Because Airport 'Security' Isn't
Passengers haz stuff
Oh, wait. The government did. So let's open all the bags--because: forfeiture. That stuff that is "obviously illegal" makes a lovely revenue flood.
Only problem now is all the d****d agents stealing from the government's forfeiture flood...
On the post: How Should Standard-Essential Patents Be Licensed?
Re: Re: Good Suggestions
1. Let the creator of the patent, who won standard status, pick and choose who gets to benefit from the patent--even for a fee. ("We don't like you because you're our number one competitor: No license for you.")
2. Tell the creator of the patent, "Thank you for all your good work. We're taking it from you and giving it away now."
3. Find a way to allow the creator to be paid fairly while ensuring the creator can't pick and choose winners.
Basically, you can pick just one.
On the post: Ridiculous: John Kerry Asks Dianne Feinstein Not To Release CIA Torture Report After Agreement Was Reached To Release On Monday
Serial negotiation
On the post: How Should Standard-Essential Patents Be Licensed?
Standard fee to the standards organization
But to prevent groundless refusal of licenses (as seems to be the case here) the patent should be conferred upon the standards organization, which collects the fee on behalf of the original owner.
The theory is that the standards organization has a primary goal of promoting the standard, not of promoting their proprietary supremacy.
On the post: Comcast Accidentally Admits It's Unsure Of The Competitive Impact Of Its Own Merger
Duhhh!
On the post: Defining The Patent Troll
As part of the demand, requires the recipient to enter into a non-disclosure agreement. Patents are explicitly public, for good reason; a company that insists on a non-disclosure before identifying the patents involved in the claim, is evidence of a vexatious patent litigator.
Demand for contractual recognition
As part of the demand, requiring the recipient to contractually recognize the validity of the patent in addition to paying, is evidence of a vexatious patent litigator.
Demands against users but not manufacturers
Demands made against the users of a device, in the absence of claims against the company that manufactures it, are evidence of a vexatious patent litigator. This is particularly true when manufacturer has the resources to litigate effectively and users do not, indicating that the goal is not enforcement but simply money.
On the post: Defining The Patent Troll
Re: Patent Troll is too offensive a term
On the post: FCC Commissioner Spearheads Flimsy Attempt To Shame And Discredit Netflix For Its Title II Support
Breathless
On the post: After A Temporary Show Of Enthusiasm, Government Lapses Back Into Not Caring About The Militarization Of The Nation's Police
It was fake enthusiasm
Of course it would have to be faked: If lawmakers kept showing real enthusiasm, all those law enforcement types would show up waving terrorist attack and dead kiddie flags and make a loud ruckus. That will scare the populace and lead to an even louder ruckus.
Must not take away law enforcement toys if we will have to brave terrorist attack/dead kiddie flags.
On the post: UK Government Brings In Yet More Counter-Terrorism Measures -- Including Internal Exile
Question, from the back:
I've noticed a funny thing: Threats always increase, they never decrease no matter what measures we put in place.
So, just how high are these threats now? Stratosphere? Alpha Centauri? Or are we getting all the way close to the edge of the universe?
On the post: Report On UK Terrorist Murder: MI5 Absolved, Facebook Guilty
Re: Re:
But, while you're doing that, be careful you don't cause any chilling effects on society.
On the post: German Government Refuses FOI Request By Pointing Out Document Already Leaked
Re: Implicit Confirmation
Our government has threatened to prosecute even in cases of information that was long public--in some cases that was published formally by the government itself. Comes to mind a threat to prosecute someone if they dared to quote a public Supreme Court decision.
So, what if you publish a copy of that "illegally published" leak?
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Libertarian wards
Years ago, my father told me about the "Sure-fire cockroach killer," (sold when he was a child) which you ordered by mail. What you got for your hard-earned money was two blocks of wood, labelled "A" and "B", and instructions: "Place cockroach on block 'A', hit cockroach with block 'B'."
Now obviously this works, but it is also a colossal rip-off. But call it "created by the free market," and my experience is that pretty much any libertarian would say it was the greatest product ever.
On the post: So, If Someone Could Just Kill A Child And Let The FBI And DOJ Get Their Anti-Phone Encryption Legislation Going, That Would Be Great
Proof
Subject has to be known and in hand
The phone ostensibly to be searched is almost always in the possession of the bad guy (the "subject"). To get the phone, you have to be able to capture, arrest, hold, or even just talk with the subject. If you don't know who the subject is, then the whole line of argument is moot: you can't get the phone from an unknown subject.
Phone must be in hand
Not only that, but you have to be able to get the phone from the subject, which needs an excuse, warrant, or force. The problem with this is that the subject may destroy the phone, or may kill the kid immediately on your confiscation of the phone.
Even assuming best case, taking the phone certainly alerts the subject to the investigation.
Required proof is on the phone
You have to be able to get the needed information from the phone. Just because you have the phone doesn't mean it will help you find the kid. Encryption is beside the point; even assuming an unencrypted phone, what if the subject turned the GPS off? Or didn't take a picture of the kid? Or turned the phone off when visiting the kid?
It is reaching to assume any subject will have incriminating data on the phone.
No other path to proof
It's idiotic to assert an attempt to overcome the above difficulties will be made if there is an easier path to the data. Assuming a kid kidnapping, exigent circumstances would apply. If you're looking for back proof, a warrant would apply. Either exigent circumstance or a warrant would get all the cloud data from the phone provider which, it might be pointed out, doesn't require you to have the subject and his phone and evidence on the phone, in hand.
But who cares?!
They'll make the argument anyway because, frankly, like a baby throwing a tantrum over lost candy. They can't see data without wanting it. They don't care if it's a phone, personal computer, cloud, private Facebook account, or your scientific calculator: if it holds data they want it! want it! want it! and will throw a tantrum to get it.
It doesn't have to make sense: so what if your calculator can't contain incriminating evidence? If it contains data, "Want it!!!"
Because: The world will end if we (royal "we") don't have access.
On the post: Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets
It's about editorial independence
On the other hand, the news media can sell ads and pablum, so they gave up all editorial independence long ago.
On the post: White House Apparently Doing Everything To Stop Release Of CIA Torture Report
Avoiding blame
On the post: Small Change To National Archivist's Powers May Keep Government Agencies From Destroying Embarrassing Documents
Dr. Archivist
Never underestimate the power of the force (quid pro quo). I predict the archivist will be swimming in money (eliminating the "Archivist neither has the funding" problem) and we still won't get to see anything.
Because, Dr. Evil will soliloquize: "Gentlemen, I have a plan. It's called blackmail."
I mean, Dr. Archivist.
On the post: FISA Judge To Yahoo: If US Citizens Don't Know They're Being Surveilled, There's No Harm
Without warrants, you have nothing!
His construction of the Fourth Amendment is even worse. Suppose we leave out the warrants clause, which he undoubtedly thinks is completely unneeded, since he says, "[...]there's nothing in there that really says that a warrant is usually required."
That leaves just the first part of the Fourth Amendment, which is, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated."
Emphasis on, "[...] shall not be violated." That means that, without a warrant, every search and seizure by the government is a violation of the citizen's rights. Without that "warrants" clause, there is no justification for the government to search or seize anything.
So, Judge Arnold, what about it?
On the post: New House Intelligence Boss Doesn't See The Need For Any Surveillance Reform
Shocked
Next >>