A trade secret does have legal status, as illustrated in part by reference to the Supreme Court's decision in Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto.
That may be - but my point was that it should not have such status - given the existence of patents, which are supposed to remove the need to keep such secrets.
What is missing from all the discussion here and elsewhere, and academics are notorious for simply ignoring this, is a clear and concise definition of what a trade secret actually is.
Good point - and one that undermines (to some extent) your earlier point. How can a court give legal status to something for which no clear definition exists.
What clearly does have a defined meaning is a breach of a contract of confidentiality. However I think it is dangerous to invent an ill defined legal construct in order to make it simpler to pursue a certain kind of case.
The world is (unfortunately) populated with people who view such constructs as a means to make money without doing anything useful.
Fact: A huge loss for society and culture is when people don't pay creatives for their labor and thus they are forced to do non-creative things to make money in order to live.
Fact - the first breakthrough work of any artist is NEVER funded by the cconsumer. It is ALWAYS necessary for the artist to have a day job.
Often that first breakthrough work is the best (or even the only work of substance - Harper Lee, JD Salinger). The subsequent works are inferior because copyright royalties take the pressure off. Great art is seldom produced in well funded luxury.
Fact: A huge loss for society and culture is when people don't pay creatives for their labor and thus they are forced to do non-creative things to make money in order to live.
Why doesn't Techdirt or Mike Masnick write about that?
that and a guided access won't stop anything if Whoever is right with the first post. Doesn't matter how the other apps are blocked if the one allowed app is allowed to access everything.
Funny, my moral responsibility says that if I overheard a group planning a bombing in a pub, I would need to clearly hear the entire conversation from start to finish before I would even begin to think of assuming it was anything more than the discussion of some work of fiction or another,
How many sitcom plots have revolved around the idea of such an innocent discussion being misunderstood?
"research will investigate the use of techniques from the field of natural language processing to detect the early indicators of an insider’s threat."
and the people who they are targetting include high level experts in these very fields.
you're assuming the person wanting to commit suicide only will complete the act if it is 'easy' and a gun is available.
No - just that they are more likely to complete the act successfully. If they are unsuccessful that gives the mental health system an opportunity to kick in and resolve the problem.
Because if the police were not routinely armed and/or did not routinely expect to meet armed criminals (as in the UK) then this tragedy couldn't have happened.
Actually there is an even better reason for gun control.
One of the major causes of gun death is suicide - and this is very common even in countries like Switzerland which have lots of guns - but are otherwise much more law abiding than the US.
Suicide by gun is just so much easier, quicker and more certain than any other method.
You can't get around the fact that gun control saves many lives.
Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man.
The original mistake is the second amendment, or at least its interpretation to include modern handguns.
The US does not actually allow an unlimited "right to bear arms". If it did then privately owned tanks, fighter planes and tactical nuclear weapons would be allowed. Clearly the 2nd amendment could be restricted to the kind of armaments that were available when it was written.
Without a plethora of privately owned handguns a police officer would not have felt the need to draw his gun in this situation and in fact would not even have needed a gun. UK police manage fine without them - and have resisted calls for them to be issued.
Not true. The insurance companies are able to negotiate down prices, so they end up paying much less than you or I ever could for the exact same service.
But a comprehensive goverment organised health system like the UK's NHS is able to negotiate down prices much more effectively than even an insurance comapny can. This is why UK healthcare costs us half what US healthcare costs (as a percentage of GDP) AND it covers everyone AND outcomes are better for most people.
On the post: Appeals Court Orders Government To Return Non-Child Porn Files To Convicted Man
They say it costs too much to separate the files
On the post: That Crazy Story About Making 'Hate Speech' A Crime? Yeah, That's Satire
Re: Re: Re: While we are at it, can we ditch hate crimes as well?
Sam: "Could this be a Hate Crime?"
Gene Hunt: "As opposed to one of those "I really like you" murders? "
On the post: That Crazy Story About Making 'Hate Speech' A Crime? Yeah, That's Satire
Re: Re: Clearly ...
If nothing is a problem then nothing should also be banned!
On the post: Global Moves To Give Corporations Yet More Legal Weapons By Strengthening Laws Protecting Trade Secrets
Re: Re: Huh
That may be - but my point was that it should not have such status - given the existence of patents, which are supposed to remove the need to keep such secrets.
What is missing from all the discussion here and elsewhere, and academics are notorious for simply ignoring this, is a clear and concise definition of what a trade secret actually is.
Good point - and one that undermines (to some extent) your earlier point. How can a court give legal status to something for which no clear definition exists.
What clearly does have a defined meaning is a breach of a contract of confidentiality. However I think it is dangerous to invent an ill defined legal construct in order to make it simpler to pursue a certain kind of case.
The world is (unfortunately) populated with people who view such constructs as a means to make money without doing anything useful.
On the post: Global Moves To Give Corporations Yet More Legal Weapons By Strengthening Laws Protecting Trade Secrets
Huh
If you don't do that and someonw manages to get howld of your secret then tough luck! At least that is what it should be.
This is yet more nonsense from the have your cake and eat it too brigade!
On the post: Help Create Some Neil deGrasse Tysonisms: Tautologically Meaningless Solutions To All The World's Problems
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He's pretty smart with that kind of thing.
or maybe not -after all if he applies the same careless logic to his day job he'll make a lot of mistakes there too.
On the post: Our Reply To A Totally Bogus Monkey Selfie Cease & Desist
The only worse person to mess with
On the post: How Copyright Makes Culture Disappear
Re:
Fact - the first breakthrough work of any artist is NEVER funded by the cconsumer. It is ALWAYS necessary for the artist to have a day job.
Often that first breakthrough work is the best (or even the only work of substance - Harper Lee, JD Salinger). The subsequent works are inferior because copyright royalties take the pressure off. Great art is seldom produced in well funded luxury.
On the post: How Copyright Makes Culture Disappear
Re:
Why doesn't Techdirt or Mike Masnick write about that?
Because it is NOT a fact.
On the post: Iowa Dept. Of Transportation Announces Plan To Give Police Officers, Security Personnel Full Access To Your Smartphone
Re: Re: Re: Is a warrant still needed?
Unless the app is installed into a virtual OS.
On the post: IRS Drops Its Asset Forfeiture Case Against Owner Of Small, Cash-Only Restaurant
Re: Re: Let me see if I got this right:
On the post: Search Something, Say Something: David Cameron Asks Google, Yahoo To Be 'Good Citizens' And Report Users Searching For 'Terrorist' Subject Matter
Re: Re:
How many sitcom plots have revolved around the idea of such an innocent discussion being misunderstood?
The latest episode of "Not going out" on the BBC was an example
Funny - I thought David Cameron took his policy ideas from fictional sources - and would have been aware of that problem.
On the post: GCHQ Follows NSA Into Paranoia -- Just As Julian Assange Predicted
GCHQ employees
and the people who they are targetting include high level experts in these very fields.
Good luck with that!
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No - just that they are more likely to complete the act successfully. If they are unsuccessful that gives the mental health system an opportunity to kick in and resolve the problem.
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Re:
Because if the police were not routinely armed and/or did not routinely expect to meet armed criminals (as in the UK) then this tragedy couldn't have happened.
Actually there is an even better reason for gun control.
One of the major causes of gun death is suicide - and this is very common even in countries like Switzerland which have lots of guns - but are otherwise much more law abiding than the US.
Suicide by gun is just so much easier, quicker and more certain than any other method.
You can't get around the fact that gun control saves many lives.
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Re: Re: Error
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Re: Re: Error
Just look at the gun death statistics for UK and US.
Figures don't lie.
Fewer legal guns does inevitably mean fewer in the hands of criminals. Almost every criminal's gun starts life as a legal gun.
On the post: Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep
Error
The original mistake is the second amendment, or at least its interpretation to include modern handguns.
The US does not actually allow an unlimited "right to bear arms". If it did then privately owned tanks, fighter planes and tactical nuclear weapons would be allowed. Clearly the 2nd amendment could be restricted to the kind of armaments that were available when it was written.
Without a plethora of privately owned handguns a police officer would not have felt the need to draw his gun in this situation and in fact would not even have needed a gun. UK police manage fine without them - and have resisted calls for them to be issued.
On the post: DailyDirt: How Much Is That MRI In The Window?
Re: Re:
But a comprehensive goverment organised health system like the UK's NHS is able to negotiate down prices much more effectively than even an insurance comapny can. This is why UK healthcare costs us half what US healthcare costs (as a percentage of GDP) AND it covers everyone AND outcomes are better for most people.
On the post: DailyDirt: How Much Is That MRI In The Window?
Re: Re:
This is what happens within the EU.
Travel insurance would then only be covering things like emergency transport (which would not have been needed in this case).
Next >>