Darryl, you're completely misreading EVERYTHING in the article. When Falstrom says that "Nobody would invent anything if they couldn't patent it", he is saying that this is a myth and gives reasons why. Let me clarify:
Falstrom says: people will invent things even if you can't patent them... patent-supporters state the opposite and that is the myth.
Same thing with myth#2... Falstrom believes that patents stifle innovation... again, supports state that patents promote innovation and Falstom is stating that this belief is wrong.
"The issue is not whether they are legal in some other country. The issue is whether they are legal in this country. Someone can abuse the US legal system and be answerable to it despite the fact that their actions are legal elsewhere."
So you're saying the whole world should adopt US laws? If I am a legal citizen in another country that allows the ownership of slaves, and I own a slave, I should be punishable under US law because US law forbids slavery? What about a Japanese man having sex with a 14 year old girl? It’s legal in his country for his citizens... should we drag him over here and try him for statutory rape?
The US needs to realize that our laws STOP at our borders. How can a company in another country be held accountable to our laws? You're going to say "if they do business here, they should be held accountable to our laws"... and there you're right. But you’re talking about “blocking the other incarnations of Rojadirecta”… what other incarnations? We already ‘stopped’ their way into America… are we going to ‘defend the world’ against them next and just shut down a company that IS LEGAL IN THIER OWN COUNTRY?
All of this will just make business not want to do business with us. That 30% drop in Rojadirecta's could represent the loss of US 'customers' and maybe they're OK with that. Hell, maybe they redirected their business plan to cut of the US from their model and move on in the world. Way to create isolationism! No wonder so much of the rest of the world thinks our government is imperialistic.
"Chris, the question is the right for someone to have a funeral ceremony in peace."
Gonna have to disagree with you there. While there is protection for individuals and groups to peacefully gather (to do things like bury their loved ones), there's no explicit protection thereof... except protection that the government won't try to stop you. There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right that you can have an assembly for whatever reason and not be bothered by someone you dislike.
The laws that may come into play would be trespassing (on the part of the owner of the cemetery... not usually public land); noise ordinance (the WBC unfortunately is smart enough to make sure they stay on the safe side of those) and public gathering regulations by local municipality (many have rules that you have to have a permit and/or stay w/i designated spaces)... none of which have anything to do with freedom of speech.
SCOTUS didn't agree that there's some basic right to bury the dead in peace because it's not up to the government to regulate such things... that should be a matter of common human decency, but there's always going be a group who disagree on what is decent.
"The assumption is that the companies got together and agreed, which is far from the truth."
I assume you have proof of that 'truth'.
And if they all did agree to do it, wouldn't it make sense to stagger the announcements to hide the agreement? But that's a bit tin-foiley, don't you think?
But I never said that those three companies agreed to do it... I'm saying that's what WL & DataCell are claiming. I have no more proof that they did than you have proof they didn't.
And it doesn't have to be clandestine meetings in dark, smoke-filled rooms over snifters of brandy to be "agreeing". If Visa says "we don't want to do business with you", and after they announce that, MC says "you know what, neither do we"... and later still, PayPal says "we're with them!"... well, that's a new kind of issue that the legislative body must decide upon, isn’t it? It presents a kind of grey area... where does the line get drawn between agreeing with an idea and hurting the market. I don't envy any legislative body on having to make that call.
"There is no sign that these companies conspired to deny anything, just three payment processors each making independent decisions that happened over a period of time."
Again, you're stating something as fact when you provide no evidence... altho, in your defense on this one, it's harder to provide proof that something didn't happen than proof that it did. But hey, that's not your job... that's for WL, DataCell and the EU to worry about. So how about we just stop saying this is a publicity stunt for WL until after the case is heard… or provide some proof that the companies all acted independently from each other… whichever is easier for you.
"The most important is that wikileaks is not dependant on any of these sources as their exclusive way of getting money. The mail still works, fedex still runs, the banks still cash checks, etc. Yes, Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal are more convenient, but they do not control the money movement market."
You're missing the point here. Wikileaks (and thier processor) is not saying "we can't get our money"... they're saying that these major companies violated local laws (sound familiar?) in agreeing to block commerce with a single company... which is what they claim the law is supposed to prevent. Are they wrong? That's for the judicial body to decide.
Here in good ol' Merica, we say that you have the right to deny business to anyone as long as it's not for reasons of discrimination based on a protected group... but even here, the majority of the Big Steel Companies (do those even exist anymore?) can't all agree to stop selling steel to General Motors because they have a fundamental disagreement with that company's methods or philosophies. Doing so would mean that they are working together to adversely influence the market... which is what the Anti-trust laws were made to stop (more or less). And this is (again, more or less) what WL is claiming happened.
Is it the same in the EU? I don't know that for sure... but I bet the ruling body will let us (and everyone else) know.
I have little understanding of the EU law, so of course I have an opinion on it... ;)
I don't think they're suing the vendors... just bringing a complaint to the government. If 'found guilty', the groups would likely face penalties and (even more) bad press. I don't think WL will get anything out of this other than satisfaction.
"lolz your wrong"
"give it up freetard"
"start pouring the koolaid Masnick"
[Some opinion-stated-as-fact followed by something like "wassamatta... take away your binky? lol".]
Which is still inaccurate since the subject being modified by "bases" is "a portrait of plaintiff which..." which indicates singular. Proper structure would have been something like
"Through selective omission, innuendo and malicious sarcasm which all have no bases in reality, the article paints a portrait of plaintiff...".
I'd be interested to read an explanation on how the government is the problem, in your opinion. Especially since "it's the government's fault" doesn't really answer the points that Nicedoggy brought up.
and as soon as posted that, I experienced my facepalm... the person should have said "bid with numbers that were not even"... Or "bid with odd numbers"... or "bid with numbers that were not rounded to the nearest Nth".
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only the web!
On the post: Major US ISPs Agree To Five Strikes Plan, Rather Than Three
Re: Re: Re: Anonymous Coward
On the post: Debunking Some Big Myths About Patents
Re: Patents PROMOTE innovation - it always has !
Falstrom says: people will invent things even if you can't patent them... patent-supporters state the opposite and that is the myth.
Same thing with myth#2... Falstrom believes that patents stifle innovation... again, supports state that patents promote innovation and Falstom is stating that this belief is wrong.
Better?
On the post: Law Professors Come Out Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The US needs to realize that our laws STOP at our borders. How can a company in another country be held accountable to our laws? You're going to say "if they do business here, they should be held accountable to our laws"... and there you're right. But you’re talking about “blocking the other incarnations of Rojadirecta”… what other incarnations? We already ‘stopped’ their way into America… are we going to ‘defend the world’ against them next and just shut down a company that IS LEGAL IN THIER OWN COUNTRY?
All of this will just make business not want to do business with us. That 30% drop in Rojadirecta's could represent the loss of US 'customers' and maybe they're OK with that. Hell, maybe they redirected their business plan to cut of the US from their model and move on in the world. Way to create isolationism! No wonder so much of the rest of the world thinks our government is imperialistic.
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The laws that may come into play would be trespassing (on the part of the owner of the cemetery... not usually public land); noise ordinance (the WBC unfortunately is smart enough to make sure they stay on the safe side of those) and public gathering regulations by local municipality (many have rules that you have to have a permit and/or stay w/i designated spaces)... none of which have anything to do with freedom of speech.
SCOTUS didn't agree that there's some basic right to bury the dead in peace because it's not up to the government to regulate such things... that should be a matter of common human decency, but there's always going be a group who disagree on what is decent.
On the post: WikiLeaks Planning Legal Action Against PayPal, MasterCard & Visa
Re: Re: Re:
And if they all did agree to do it, wouldn't it make sense to stagger the announcements to hide the agreement? But that's a bit tin-foiley, don't you think?
But I never said that those three companies agreed to do it... I'm saying that's what WL & DataCell are claiming. I have no more proof that they did than you have proof they didn't.
And it doesn't have to be clandestine meetings in dark, smoke-filled rooms over snifters of brandy to be "agreeing". If Visa says "we don't want to do business with you", and after they announce that, MC says "you know what, neither do we"... and later still, PayPal says "we're with them!"... well, that's a new kind of issue that the legislative body must decide upon, isn’t it? It presents a kind of grey area... where does the line get drawn between agreeing with an idea and hurting the market. I don't envy any legislative body on having to make that call.
Again, you're stating something as fact when you provide no evidence... altho, in your defense on this one, it's harder to provide proof that something didn't happen than proof that it did. But hey, that's not your job... that's for WL, DataCell and the EU to worry about. So how about we just stop saying this is a publicity stunt for WL until after the case is heard… or provide some proof that the companies all acted independently from each other… whichever is easier for you.
On the post: WikiLeaks Planning Legal Action Against PayPal, MasterCard & Visa
Re:
You're missing the point here. Wikileaks (and thier processor) is not saying "we can't get our money"... they're saying that these major companies violated local laws (sound familiar?) in agreeing to block commerce with a single company... which is what they claim the law is supposed to prevent. Are they wrong? That's for the judicial body to decide.
Here in good ol' Merica, we say that you have the right to deny business to anyone as long as it's not for reasons of discrimination based on a protected group... but even here, the majority of the Big Steel Companies (do those even exist anymore?) can't all agree to stop selling steel to General Motors because they have a fundamental disagreement with that company's methods or philosophies. Doing so would mean that they are working together to adversely influence the market... which is what the Anti-trust laws were made to stop (more or less). And this is (again, more or less) what WL is claiming happened.
Is it the same in the EU? I don't know that for sure... but I bet the ruling body will let us (and everyone else) know.
On the post: WikiLeaks Planning Legal Action Against PayPal, MasterCard & Visa
Re: Ok.. But...
I don't think they're suing the vendors... just bringing a complaint to the government. If 'found guilty', the groups would likely face penalties and (even more) bad press. I don't think WL will get anything out of this other than satisfaction.
On the post: Law Professors Come Out Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: What will they say?
-Dredd
On the post: Law Professors Come Out Against PROTECT IP
Re: Re: What will they say?
On the post: Law Professors Come Out Against PROTECT IP
What will they say?
There. Did I miss anything?
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Permission Society
On the post: Art Authenticator Sues The New Yorker, Claiming Profile Defamed Him
Re: Re: Defamation
On the post: Art Authenticator Sues The New Yorker, Claiming Profile Defamed Him
Re: Re: All your bases are...
On the post: Priced Out Of Your Medication? Must Be All That 'Expensive' Big Pharma R&D
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re: Re: Re: Freedom
On the post: Google Tried Bidding Geeky Numbers For Nortel Patents; How About $3.14159 Billion?
Re: Sources?
At least, that's what I hope they meant.
On the post: Google Tried Bidding Geeky Numbers For Nortel Patents; How About $3.14159 Billion?
Sources?
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re: Freedom
Next >>