So in other words you basically just got a pat on the head, told 'The grown-ups are talking, go back to your toys, there's nothing here for you', and shoo'd off.
Always nice when a politician is that open in their contempt for the intelligence of the people who voted them into office, it's a moment of honestly that's more often than not quite rare when dealing with that lot.
They say DRM is here to stay for their products? I can accept that. Of course in return my money will also be staying safely in my wallet, or spent on products put out by companies who don't show such boneheaded contempt for their customers.
They keep their DRM, I keep my money, I'd say that's a win-win all around.
A nice simple list of congresscritters who obviously are just aching to exit out of that boring job and into the exciting world of lobbying, hopefully come next election people will remember this and help them out by voting for someone else.
My first thought was it could make any future 'trade deals'/negotiations difficult, if they get a reputation of refusing to honor the terms in them(the US apparently does so all the time, but few countries are willing to stand up to the US sadly), but considering it's a 'trade deal' that got them into this in the first place...
If I believed for a second that that was intentional, I might agree with you, but I strongly suspect it was just some EA exec moron who basically burst into the Bioware offices with a 'Hey peons, I've just had this great idea for the ending to the trilogy, much better than anything you could have come up with!'
That would be the one where those large businesses make sizable 'donations' to the people pushing corporate sovereignty in 'trade agreements'. When you're getting paid that much, all sorts of otherwise crazy or corrupt stuff starts to make 'sense'.
Funding patent trolls allows them to remain squeeky clean when asked in court whether or not they're going out shaking down their competition with 'dubious' patents, while allowing the troll to do the competition crushing for them.
Not to mention providing funding means the trolls aren't likely to go after them with their massive numbers of incredibly vague patents, so it's a win-win all around for big companies like that, they get to indirectly harass and attack any competition before it can get off the ground, and defend themselves from suffering the same fate.
Might be tin-foil hat territory, but it wouldn't surprise me if the biggest groups against tax simplification were rich people and companies.
With a simple system, they'd pay their taxes, and that would be it, however, with a more complex system, there's all sorts of loopholes they can use to reduce, potentially drastically, the taxes they have to pay out.
Close, but if you suspect you've got a spy/mole in your company, you don't fire them, you just shift them to a job/position where they don't have access to any sensitive information, as if you fire them, then you've got to track down the replacement spy/mole.
Given that telling the NSA about a security vulnerability that they might not know about is pretty much the same as telling a local gang about an unlocked building full of expensive stuff, and for the same reasons, yeah, not telling the NSA anything seems like a good strategy there.
So, say I took a photo of a crowded area, say a public beach, who then, according to your view of copyright law, owns the copyright on the picture? The one who took the picture(me in this case), or the people in the picture?
As far as I'm aware, the only way for the subject to own the copyright over a picture or video would be for the person being photographed/filmed to have made a deal with the photographer/cameraman beforehand, hiring them and explicitly laying out the transfer of copyright, otherwise the copyright goes to the one 'fixing' the picture/video by making it, not the person in it.
It's beyond me why any reputable news agency would want to have anything to do with that scum.
Report on the weather patterns in foreign countries, have a segment about grass and the different shades it grows in, compare migration patterns of various species of birds, anything would be better than asking a torture-happy, law hating sleazebag like that his opinion on anything.
Here is my first problem with this. If AT&T needs to build up it's infrastructure, then CHARGE ME for that cost. Not Netflix. After all, I'm going to have to pay for the network upgrades either way, either directly to AT&T or via Netflix.
Here's where it gets really infuriating, and showcases their greed perfectly: you already have and are paying for network upgrades, whether you use their service or not.
The government has given them massive tax breaks through the years, supposedly to 'incentivize' them to upgrade their networks, and naturally they instead channeled it all straight into exec and CEO bonuses.
So the whining about how their networks just can't handle all the 'new' traffic unless everyone pays out the nose so they can 'upgrade' things is complete and utter rubbish, they just want more money for the same gorram service.
I wouldn't trust them to tell me whether or not the sun was in the sky, compulsive liars like that are unworthy of trust on any topic, and if they just so happen to be right this time around, I believe there's a saying along the lines of 'A stopped clock is still right twice a day'.
You can not rule on something you have no understanding of.
Close, but unfortunately incorrect. Rather...
You should not rule on something you have no understanding of.
Judges can, and in fact do, rule on things they have no gorram idea about all the time, and unfortunately, as becomes clear in case after case, this can lead to some pretty disastrous rulings, where a well-meaning judge will make a call that might seem to them to make sense, but is absolutely insane to anyone familiar with the field/technology in question(treating the master decryption key to a server/service as no different than a house-key being the first example that springs to mind).
Now, if they truly wanted to see justice done as much as it could be, and were willing to show some humility by admitting that they might not know everything about everything, judges would either educate themselves in the basics of what they were ruling on, or recuse themselves and hand the case to a judge more knowledgeable in the field, but unfortunately this is not a requirement as of yet, so well meaning but ultimately bone-headed rulings are likely to stick around for a while.
'...patent enforcement company such as Intellectual Ventures'
'Patent enforcement company', that's certainly a new way to describe patent trolls who don't create anything, and don't offer any service, other than shaking down companies who might have otherwise been successful.
If you really think that such 'patent enforcement companies' are productive parts of the economy, I can't help but hope you get to enjoy the attention of a few of them yourself, so you get to see just what it's like on the receiving end.
...but out company expects to have the revenue to support litigation against infringers in 2015, so we are glad we started filing patents in early 2009. We planted good seed when we could, and harvest starts soon.
So basically you couldn't succeed in making sufficient profits selling your own product/service, so you're going to take to shaking down other companies who you believe infringe on your patents to 'make up the difference'. Brilliant, and sure to spur innovation and creation, which are what patents are originally designed to do, right? /s