Wasn't there a president impeached for committing perjury? I seem to remember the far right was very upset about this. It had nothing to do with what he was lying about (which wasn't actually illegal), but lying under oath seemed a very big deal at the time.
I don't think P&T ever truly exposed anyone's secrets. I mean, sure they do Cups & Balls with transparent cups (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8osRaFTtgHo), but to say Cups & Balls is really a secret is stretching things.
Why wouldn't he have copyright on his performance?
He may not have copyright on the lyrics or possibly even the video of the performance, but I don't see why he wouldn't have a copyright on his performance itself. If I take video at a concert, the band doesn't suddenly lose their copyright.
Yup, it seems that LS bought spectrum that was specifically licensed for satellite transmissions. That's WHY the spectrum was so cheap. They then ask the FCC if they can use it for terrestrial transmissions. Engineers don't think this is possible, but they offer to let LS prove them wrong. LS develops their tech and, lo and behold, the engineers were right and their tech does interfere.
I mean, even your summary states the facts but adds some weird conclusion: "...green light to launch using their spectrum with one provision - that their network equipment NOT interfere with GPS signals and devices." Later, you say "...not compatible with GPS device use. As such, the FCC has basically rescinded LightSquared's request to launch service..."
They didn't "rescind" the request, the grant was conditional (and they didn't pass the condition). This all sounds very familiar to me. I think the typical conversation goes like this: "No fair, you said I could have dessert!" "But you didn't eat your dinner."
It's not about a "scrappy" player with some amazingly cheap and innovative solution. Their amazing innovation was buying a cheap spectrum. Their problem was that they didn't understand WHY the spectrum was cheap.
We should regret their setbacks the same as we regret the setbacks of a developer who buys swampland in Florida.
The royalty rate is based on the sale (or license) to the retailer (e.g. iTunes). They claim that this is a sale, but it's clearly not. They deliver a single master copy to iTunes who reproduce it on demand for their customers.
But the consumer, however, just downloads a single copy without the same right to duplicate that iTunes had. This looks a lot more like a sale.
Maybe the consumer is just a licensee as well. I think not, but that can at least be reasonably debated. But IF the label is "selling" to iTunes, then there's no way that the consumer is doing anything but buying that same object from iTunes.
I was able to add "A Very Harold & Kumar Christmas" to my saved queue. I thought maybe it's because the article was old, but I found I could even add "Dark Knight Rises" to my queue. That's not even scheduled to be released in theaters until July...
My understanding is that "synchronization rights" are not covered under the standard ASCAP license, so you can't make a video with your ASCAP-licensed music as a soundtrack and then show that video. And that appears to be exactly what they did.
Agreed, and some museums just outright ban photography because too many people don't know how to turn their flash off, so it's just easier ban it entirely. This ban, however, looks like it has nothing to do with that.
That explanation is nonsense. McDonalds has two bathrooms (1 for men, 1 for women) for all their guests, while a large hotel has to provide a bathroom for every room (including the costs of plumbing, showers, supplies, and a large dedicated cleaning staff to maintain them). Despite the enormous differences in costs (including on-going costs, not just the initial setup), both businesses don't have a line-item expense for using the bathroom. There are probably still some exceptions in places around the world, but your more likely to find pay toilets in a McDonalds than at an expensive hotel.
That doesn't mean you don't pay for them (TANSTAAFL), just that they don't have a line item cost associated with their use. And yet, the demand for toilets is pretty inelastic. EVERYONE needs them eventually. So there's no separating consumers that are willing to pay for them from those that aren't, so you simply include it in the price of your goods. That's partly why the $300/night hotel costs $300/night.
There's no way to say that the COST of WiFi is the reason one charges and the other doesn't. But the demand for WiFi at McDonalds, where you aren't likely (or technically even allowed) to stay for more than an hour, isn't nearly as great as the room you will stay in all night. WiFi can even be seen as a loss leader for McDonalds, where they don't mind losing a little money to get you in the door. It's not a necessity, but if it gets you in the door, it will pay for itself. And, again, it's not really "free," it's included in the cost of the Big Mac.
Cheap motels will also use free WiFi as a loss leader. Where there's heavy competition and all the rooms are in the $50/night range, free WiFi suddenly becomes a factor in your decision of where to stay.
At an expensive hotel, however, they're competing on a lot more than the WiFi. Nicer rooms, the restaurants in the hotel, the nearby attractions, conferences, etc. They're also marketed towards a different clientele, namely business versus consumer. And businesses pay more, period. And a business traveler has no problem paying the extra fee for WiFi so they can do their work.
Plus, since demand for WiFi is more elastic (you can usually still use it free in the lobby, use your smart phone, or just live without it for a while), it makes sense for them to charge extra.
Part of the issue here is that there was no quid pro quo in the contract. In other words, Walmart provided nothing and got nothing from this contract. You can't make a contract that says "you give me everything and I don't have to do anything". Even the signature of a legal adult won't make that a valid contract. That's why you sometimes have a contract for $1.
Courts have consistently found that email can create a valid contract, but there has to be SOME sort of affirmative response and not just a "you replied, you agreed".
Let's say Alice and Bob have a rental contract. The contract says that Alice is to pay Bob $100/month. Now let's say Bob uses his master key to enter the apartment and destroys all of Alice's property. How much is Bob liable for? The $100 for that month's rent, or the value of all the damage he caused?
And maybe Bob didn't do the damage himself, he just gave Alice's key to Charlie, her ex-lover. Charlie is responsible as well, but Bob is still clearly responsible for more than just the $100 rent.