It's very unlikely that it was installed and used on all half million systems.
The count of system is likely where it was made available to install or use.
I predict that this part of their case will fail. While the case law isn't fully developed, 'Making Available' isn't what counts. Only the copies used count. Yes, immediate availability has value, and in common usage "copies" were made, but software has its own set of copyright quirks. Incidental copies (e.g. copying from disk to memory, from memory to cache, from cache to registers) aren't counted individually.
From my government experience, it's likely that the Navy did wrong. And that this company was screwed over. Almost certainly it wasn't as bad as they claim, but without big numbers they haven't a chance. They should be paid a generous fair value. Especially since they may not be getting future contracts, and they won't be treated fairly in future dealings.
The language of the ruling is unusually blunt, but Prenda still benefited from the appeal. Part of the sanctions were reversed, and Smith has to pay his own legal fees.
Smith will risk have to pay more legal costs and fees for the remand. It's unlikely that much effort will be devoted to the hearing.
And the delay worked -- neither Duffy nor Hansmeier will have to worry about a criminal sanction impacting their law careers. It's not clear, but Hansmeier was apparently considered dropped from the appeal. He'll claim that allows him to avoid any criminal sanction hearing, along with any new civil sanctions.
Steele is the only one still part of the appeal. He still has his law license, so it's only time, not money, to continue the strategy of delay. And this time he has learned to hide his money a bit more carefully.
How can Oracle's lawyers argue that 'non-commercial' is the only area where fair use applies?
A layman might confuse the broader educational use exceptions (which do have the requirement of being non-commercial) with common fair use. But not a legal professional. Especially not a lawyer with an IP specialty. And most especially not a legal team that just spent years on a high profile, high dollar case.
This point is a bit of a hot button for me. Many years ago I was on a conference call with Sun (pre-Oracle) lawyers. They had used my code without permission / in violation of the license. One Sun lawyer tried to claim that their use fell under educational fair use, since they distributed my source code (modified for SolarisOS) and therefore it was used to educate people. They quickly backtracked when I pointedly asked if they wanted to stand on that claim with a commercial product. They were counting on a technical person not knowing the law and being able to bluff.
Yes, we are certainly building systems where no one understands the criteria.
That's considered one of the major advantages of Machine Learning ('ML'), Deep Neural Networks (DNN), etc. You don't have to pay programmers and experts for years to develop and test a system. You just train the network, do some automatic refinement of the structure, train a big more, and you magically can solve problems.
It does work quite well, but the essence really is that no one understands what the structure is doing.
If you know how FFTs work, think of one of the intermediate results. This is a very well understood network for calculating a result, yet most people couldn't explain what the intermediate result represents.
Only a crackpot would believe that the Orlando shooting was a hoax.
But it does appear that the efforts of the brave first arrivals at the scene were undone about 15 minutes later by the order to withdraw, hours of inaction, followed by an assault that resulted in police killing hostages.
It's hard to see blocking the release of emergency response information, such as 911 recordings, as anything but a cover-up for mistakes.
It was widely reported at the time that it was a motorcycle gang battle.
Subsequent modifications to the story make it clear that it was a regular gathering, and that most of the shots were fired by police, rather than being from a fight inside the restaurant.
Even a year later, public records requests are being refused. No reports about how many of the 9 people killed or 20 wounded were shot by police. The little that has leaked out suggests that most of the wounds were from rifle rounds, which only the police were shooting.
Instead of a open competitive market for cable boxes, Comcast is bring Netflix inside the walled garden.
You'll still need to lease a cable box. Progress and 'competition' will still be controlled by Comcast. Innovation will remain a marketing word, rather than reality.
The TSA spokesperson claimed that calling ahead would have some benefit.
A good reporter would test out this claim, rather than blindly repeating the "party line".
The wording was "to learn more about". Would it include any actionable information? Would it include information that could be relied upon?
I don't believe that it would. It's been widely reported that that the TSA screeners repudiate the information on the TSA website, even after being shown the printed output. "That's not the way we do it here." For years after the imposition of the 100ml (3.38 fluid ounces) limit on liquids, screeners were still rejecting any container over 3 ounces because they believed that was the limit. The training has improved so that specific issue is no longer common, but "medically necessary liquids" are still widely blocked by screeners that apply made-up limits.
Hmmm, the only reasonable way to handle that was to leave open the possibility that it was a spoofed/hacked message.
Threatening to sue is pretty much saying "we confirm that message came from us and we confirm that it is really damaging".
You have to have really powerful high-level connections to kill a story (like being a Vegas big-wig that can just buy the newspaper) and even then it doesn't work if a competing outlet has the story as well (viz Las Vegas newspapers).
The issue is that San Francisco would burn down the world (destroy the protection that section 230, and the first amendment, provide) to accomplish their narrow goal.
It doesn't matter if you agree with the new business that AirBnB enables, you should see how dangerous this approach is.
The "anyone with a penis" part appears to be factually accurate.
If the ISP subscriber is a middle aged woman, and there are young adult females and one male in the household, who gets "blamed" for the following movies:
A. Woman-on-woman porn B. Man-on-man porn C. Straight (male-female) porn
The answer is always "the male". Until proven otherwise.
How is that equal treatment? Is it reasonable to expect that man to mount a defense, when the presumption is solely based on him being the nearest male?
The film industry is like any other internal industry.
They want the flexibility to produce in low cost regions, taking advantage of lower wages, but then want the government to enforce different pricing based on the local ability to pay.
I'm pretty sure that Netflix does engage in mind control.
Because I think of them in a very positive way. They charge a tiny fraction what I pay my effectively-a-monopoly cable ISP, yet deliver a big chunk of the value I get from the Internet.
They don't come right out and state it, but there is a suggestion that she was a virgin.
It might not matter to you, but in some cultures it's extremely important that a woman is "intact" when she marries. Look at this incident from that perspective.
This was a horrible crime perpetrated by the government, and every official involved claims that they have the power to repeat this any time they like.
For anyone not paying attention, Kirtsaeng was a very important case. It reaffirmed the first sale doctrine, specifically including items made abroad.
This should have been obvious from the outset. In the pursuit of controlling the resale of books, the publisher wanted to completely gut the first sale doctrine. They wanted to take advantage of global low-cost manufacturing, yet use government enforcement to block cross-market sales and resale that bypassed their wildly different pricing for different markets.
Destroying the first sale doctrine certainly qualified as a novel legal theory. Novel theories shouldn't be made excessively difficult, but those pursing them should be at risk of paying all of the legal costs.
On the good front, it's an indication that the TPP is recognized as becoming unpopular. And that in a few years it will be much the same as having been a supporter of the KKK.
I don't agree with Trump's view on this (or pretty much anything). But he is correct that WaPo has been overtly anti-Trump. I'm a regular reader ("daily skimmer"?) of the online version and have been surprised at the low blows.
Steele and Hansmeier are both still practicing law. They are currently involved in ADA shake-downs, where they send 'settlement' letters over trivial (sometimes false) violations.
Like their previous scam, the victims find it cheaper to pay the settlement than to fight in court.
The system is deeply corrupt when, years after engaging in clearly illegal activities to perpetuate their shakedowns, they are still practicing law.
On the post: German Software Company Sues US Gov't For Copyright Infringement
The count of system is likely where it was made available to install or use.
I predict that this part of their case will fail. While the case law isn't fully developed, 'Making Available' isn't what counts. Only the copies used count. Yes, immediate availability has value, and in common usage "copies" were made, but software has its own set of copyright quirks. Incidental copies (e.g. copying from disk to memory, from memory to cache, from cache to registers) aren't counted individually.
From my government experience, it's likely that the Navy did wrong. And that this company was screwed over. Almost certainly it wasn't as bad as they claim, but without big numbers they haven't a chance. They should be paid a generous fair value. Especially since they may not be getting future contracts, and they won't be treated fairly in future dealings.
On the post: Prenda (Mostly) Loses Again; Court Says 'We Warned You To Stop Digging, But You Still Did'
Smith will risk have to pay more legal costs and fees for the remand. It's unlikely that much effort will be devoted to the hearing.
And the delay worked -- neither Duffy nor Hansmeier will have to worry about a criminal sanction impacting their law careers. It's not clear, but Hansmeier was apparently considered dropped from the appeal. He'll claim that allows him to avoid any criminal sanction hearing, along with any new civil sanctions.
Steele is the only one still part of the appeal. He still has his law license, so it's only time, not money, to continue the strategy of delay. And this time he has learned to hide his money a bit more carefully.
On the post: NBC's 'Most Live Olympics Ever' Will Have A One Hour Broadcast Delay For The Opening Ceremony
The abuse of that word is rife. It it is 'so 2012'.
'Curate' now means "We picked out some stuff. It is stuff we make money from."
On the post: Oracle v. Google Not Over Yet: Oracle Seeks Another New Trial While Google Seeks Sanctions On Oracle's Lawyers
A layman might confuse the broader educational use exceptions (which do have the requirement of being non-commercial) with common fair use. But not a legal professional. Especially not a lawyer with an IP specialty. And most especially not a legal team that just spent years on a high profile, high dollar case.
This point is a bit of a hot button for me. Many years ago I was on a conference call with Sun (pre-Oracle) lawyers. They had used my code without permission / in violation of the license. One Sun lawyer tried to claim that their use fell under educational fair use, since they distributed my source code (modified for SolarisOS) and therefore it was used to educate people. They quickly backtracked when I pointedly asked if they wanted to stand on that claim with a commercial product. They were counting on a technical person not knowing the law and being able to bluff.
On the post: USOC Demands That Company Take Down Twitter Posts Of Olympic Athlete It Sponsors
It appears that "Rio 2016" is trademarked, along with other phrases. But claiming that "Rio" (or "RIO") is trademarked looks more like a bluff.
On the post: Activists Cheer On EU's 'Right To An Explanation' For Algorithmic Decisions, But How Will It Work When There's Nothing To Explain?
That's considered one of the major advantages of Machine Learning ('ML'), Deep Neural Networks (DNN), etc. You don't have to pay programmers and experts for years to develop and test a system. You just train the network, do some automatic refinement of the structure, train a big more, and you magically can solve problems.
It does work quite well, but the essence really is that no one understands what the structure is doing.
If you know how FFTs work, think of one of the intermediate results. This is a very well understood network for calculating a result, yet most people couldn't explain what the intermediate result represents.
On the post: FBI Vacuums Up Local Law Enforcement Documents To Block Open Records Requests About Orlando Shooting
But it does appear that the efforts of the brave first arrivals at the scene were undone about 15 minutes later by the order to withdraw, hours of inaction, followed by an assault that resulted in police killing hostages.
It's hard to see blocking the release of emergency response information, such as 911 recordings, as anything but a cover-up for mistakes.
On the post: FBI Vacuums Up Local Law Enforcement Documents To Block Open Records Requests About Orlando Shooting
Remember the 2015 Waco shootout?
Subsequent modifications to the story make it clear that it was a regular gathering, and that most of the shots were fired by police, rather than being from a fight inside the restaurant.
Even a year later, public records requests are being refused. No reports about how many of the 9 people killed or 20 wounded were shot by police. The little that has leaked out suggests that most of the wounds were from rifle rounds, which only the police were shooting.
On the post: FCC Pressure Helps Bring Netflix To Comcast Cable Boxes
This is the opposite of open and competitive!
Instead of a open competitive market for cable boxes, Comcast is bring Netflix inside the walled garden.
You'll still need to lease a cable box. Progress and 'competition' will still be controlled by Comcast. Innovation will remain a marketing word, rather than reality.
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
A good reporter would test out this claim, rather than blindly repeating the "party line".
The wording was "to learn more about". Would it include any actionable information? Would it include information that could be relied upon?
I don't believe that it would. It's been widely reported that that the TSA screeners repudiate the information on the TSA website, even after being shown the printed output. "That's not the way we do it here." For years after the imposition of the 100ml (3.38 fluid ounces) limit on liquids, screeners were still rejecting any container over 3 ounces because they believed that was the limit. The training has improved so that specific issue is no longer common, but "medically necessary liquids" are still widely blocked by screeners that apply made-up limits.
On the post: Johnny Manziel's Lawyer Accidentally Texts The AP And Then Threatens To Sue Them If They Report On It
Threatening to sue is pretty much saying "we confirm that message came from us and we confirm that it is really damaging".
You have to have really powerful high-level connections to kill a story (like being a Vegas big-wig that can just buy the newspaper) and even then it doesn't work if a competing outlet has the story as well (viz Las Vegas newspapers).
On the post: Airbnb Goes To Court To Stop San Francisco's New Anti-Airbnb Law
It doesn't matter if you agree with the new business that AirBnB enables, you should see how dangerous this approach is.
On the post: Two Judges Punch Holes In Copyright Trolls' Claims That An IP Address Is The Same Thing As A Person
If the ISP subscriber is a middle aged woman, and there are young adult females and one male in the household, who gets "blamed" for the following movies:
A. Woman-on-woman porn
B. Man-on-man porn
C. Straight (male-female) porn
The answer is always "the male".
Until proven otherwise.
How is that equal treatment?
Is it reasonable to expect that man to mount a defense, when the presumption is solely based on him being the nearest male?
On the post: MPAA Boss: Actually Being Good To Consumers Would Be Horrible For Hollywood
They want the flexibility to produce in low cost regions, taking advantage of lower wages, but then want the government to enforce different pricing based on the local ability to pay.
On the post: Russian Culture Minister Claims Netflix A U.S. Mind Control Effort
Because I think of them in a very positive way. They charge a tiny fraction what I pay my effectively-a-monopoly cable ISP, yet deliver a big chunk of the value I get from the Internet.
On the post: Customs Agents, Local Doctor Subject 18-Year-Old To Vaginal, Rectal Probing In Search Of Nonexistent Drugs
It might not matter to you, but in some cultures it's extremely important that a woman is "intact" when she marries. Look at this incident from that perspective.
This was a horrible crime perpetrated by the government, and every official involved claims that they have the power to repeat this any time they like.
On the post: Supreme Court Makes It (Slightly) Easier To Award Attorneys' Fees For Bogus Copyright Lawsuits
This should have been obvious from the outset. In the pursuit of controlling the resale of books, the publisher wanted to completely gut the first sale doctrine. They wanted to take advantage of global low-cost manufacturing, yet use government enforcement to block cross-market sales and resale that bypassed their wildly different pricing for different markets.
Destroying the first sale doctrine certainly qualified as a novel legal theory. Novel theories shouldn't be made excessively difficult, but those pursing them should be at risk of paying all of the legal costs.
On the post: Hillary Clinton's Paperback Memoir Deletes Inconvenient Support Of TPP That Was In The Hard Cover Version
On the post: Trump Implicitly Suggests That His DOJ Would Take Down Amazon For Antitrust
The Washington Post has changed.
On the post: Appeals Court Trashes Prenda's Appeal, Affirms Sanctions
Like their previous scam, the victims find it cheaper to pay the settlement than to fight in court.
The system is deeply corrupt when, years after engaging in clearly illegal activities to perpetuate their shakedowns, they are still practicing law.
Next >>