I'd say open source is secure in that respect, because you can legally make a local copy so you aren't dependent on the repository or availability from an external source for your dependencies. That eliminates the problems entirely.
Trademark law doesn't think it's special, as I noted it specifically allows for different people to own the same mark in different fields. It's trademark lawyers and trademark holders who think that having a mark gives you a monopoly over all uses of it everywhere for anything, and the courts humor them instead of tossing them out on their ear.
One thing to do would be to qualify package names like this with the identity of the owner. Java does this with classes, you're supposed to use your domain name (reversed) to qualify your package names so there can't be any conflicts with anyone else's packages. That'd handle the technical aspects of it.
For the legal aspects, pound it through the skulls of the lawyers that trademark law allows for more than a single instance of a mark. That's why the whole categorization system for trademarks exists, not to mention individual countries having their own independent trademark systems. The phrasing should be along the lines of "It is your job to know this. If you ignore it, the least you can expect is a claim of malpractice against you and being held personally liable for the full legal costs of both the opposing party and your own client.". And the same for trademark holders, make it clear that while they may have a duty to investigate any potential infringement of their mark they don't have a duty to do anything about non-infringing uses and they do have a duty to not ignore relevant parts of trademark law when deciding whether there's infringement. Long and short, certain parties are acting like 5-year-olds involved in a playground squabble and an adult needs to grab them by the collar and tell them to play nice with others or they can sit inside and do homework during recess.
Re: So why don't they go after the iCloud backups?
Because the iCloud authentication isn't just a yes/no flag. It's a challenge/response system, and the servers can't respond properly to the challenge from the phone unless they know the actual password.
Up to a point. If I were designing it, I'd have set it up so that the firmware couldn't be updated until the phone was unlocked by entry of the passcode. That would help close many of the holes exploited to root phones in general, and as a side-effect would prevent what the FBI's trying to do. Normal firmware upgrades would be happening with the phone already unlocked so it wouldn't bother normal users, and a phone couldn't have it's firmware forcibly back-leveled to a version that was vulnerable to rooting or a modified recovery image installed.
Twitter underneath the interface can't be that complex. The two hard parts would seem to be the search function (given keywords, find relevant tweets or accounts to follow) and filtering out the spambots (I'd love to have a big enough unfiltered dataset to see how Bayesian filtering would work on it, and I wonder if just a delay between sign-up and activation (ie. you sign up today, your account will be approved and activated tomorrow) would be enough to discourage them).
Thought: apply an old solution. Force the state governments to fund 2 offices for prosecution and defense. An accused who cannot afford an attorney gets to pick which office will handle his defense, with the other office handling the prosecution (if the accused can afford his own attorney, the state can assign prosecution to whichever office they want). Any crossing-over between the offices during a case would result in a mandatory dismissal with prejudice of all charges. The problem should solve itself after that.
More people need to remember a rule of thumb from the BBS days: leave replies in the drafts folder overnight, don't send them until you've had a chance the next day to edit them for sanity. That saved many people a whole lot of embarrassment over the years.
"Subscriber's name and telephone number, contact list, address book, calendar, date book entries, group list, speed dial list, phone configuration information and settings, incoming and outgoing draft sent, deleted text messages, saved, opened, unopened draft sent and deleted electronic mail messages, mobile instant message chat logs and contact information mobile Internet browser and saved and deleted photographs on an Apple iPhone, silver and black, green soft rubber case.
The warrant did authorize the search of photos, and didn't restrict them to just those attached to text messages. As far as the photo showing the suspect with the gun and jacket, if you had a warrant to search someone's home and found a gun and that same jacket they'd certainly be admissible as evidence. They aren't conclusive proof that it was the suspect, but they're certainly evidence that he did in fact have the items needed to be the right person. The attempt here seems to be that not even a warrant is enough to search a smartphone, which I disagree with.
I'd be more interested in a point that's glossed over or ignored: the details of the evidence the police submitted in support of the warrant application pointing to it being the defendant who sent the text messages as opposed to someone else.
Because putting it into the public domain would've allowed any record label to pick them up and lock them away behind a compilation copyright on an album, and no copyright holder can change the length of the copyright term written into the law. Oddly, the only way to do this is the way open-source software does it: retain the copyright but with very generous license terms.
Their controllers say Zigbee Light link protocol 1.0 certified. If the firmware update renders the controllers incompatible with Zigbee Light link protocol 1.0 (ie. will not interoperate with bulbs using that protocol), that's a manufacturing defect. I'd simply return the defective controllers to where you bought them and request a refund (a replacement isn't acceptable since Philips has made it clear all of their controllers are or will be rendered defective). Sorting out the defective merchandise with the manufacturer is the store's problem.
The store will probably balk at refunding your money. Your state Attorney General's office would probably appreciate reports of stores refusing to accept returns of defective merchandise, seeing as various warranty and consumer-protection laws require them to.
You won't be any worse off than you were, and you've caused financial and legal pain for people Philips has a harder time ignoring.
I'm waiting for a box that'll a) scan for drone control signals or the signal of the video feed back to the controller, and b) use a directional antenna to send a higher-powered signal to the drone commanding it to go into a max-power vertical descent.
I'd like to see a ruling saying "Yes mugshots should be publicly available. However, entities providing [i]incorrect[/i] information about persons arrested and charged, even where only implied, are still liable for that information. If an entity publishes the mugshot of a person who was subsequently found not guilty or had the charges dismissed without making that fact at least as prominent on the mugshot as the mugshot itself, that entity has committed libel and has been criminally negligent in allowing the incorrect information to persist.". That should make most of those sites drop the whole thing rather than take on that kind of liability.
Perhaps the FCC should require phone systems to provide the ANI data to the receiving party instead of or in addition to CID. CID may be spoofable, but ANI's used for billing and very few originating phone systems are going to allow forging of billing information.
Random selection. You have a list of arbitrators, each party chooses 5 from the list (presumably based on their decision record and reputation). Then one is chosen at random to handle the case. Arbitrators have as much incentive to favor the individual as the company, and neither side can stack the deck in their favor. Neither side is allowed to reject the arbitrator after they've been chosen. I'd bet that arbitration suddenly becomes a lot less popular with companies.
We see some batshit-insane stuff out of individual plaintiffs and massive footgun maneuvers out of corporate plaintiffs vs. small defendants, but for truly epic-scale stupidity (the kind that makes for tales that could've been written by Doc Smith and that'll still be told an age from now) you need two massive, implacable bureaucracies set on a collision course.
Keep the app up, just have it email the dispute letter to the user and let them mail/FAX it in. Let the city try to argue that people are entitled to dispute the tickets but they aren't entitled to use the city's process for disputing a ticket. Even local judges aren't going to fall for that one.