In the case of my broadband provider, I have no choice. I must turn over to my provider information usable in obtaining a FICO credit score to my broadband provider so my provider can actually come out to my house, activate my connection, and bill me on a regular basis.
I've been a Comcast internet customer (no choice; they're the only game in town) ever since I moved into my current apartment. At no time has a Comcast technician ever had to come over for any reason.
When considering the use of a mark as a source identifier, the idea that someone might think that a Manchester United jersey emblazoned with that team's coach's name might instead have come from a team he'd first coached over a decade ago is plainly ludicrous.
The same file can change from being legal to infringing without changes to the file itself.
The same telephone number can change from being a sleazy robocaller to a legitimate citizen or business. (And if you're running a sleazy business based on making illicit phone calls, wouldn't you be more likely to change numbers quickly than the average person?)
Secondly, if it's so magically impossible, why is only one company not doing it? AT&T seem to be saying that it's either impossible or they refuse to implement a system with less than 100% accuracy.
...which is precisely Techdirt's position WRT copyright infringement detection algorithms: the fact that we see so many examples of false positives (even if the accuracy rate may be high overall) demonstrates that it doesn't work well enough to be worth using.
Does this mean that the other companies are randomly blocking or allowing calls that shouldn't be?
Quite possibly. And if a legitimate company tried to call you on legitimate business and it never got through... how would you know?
Far be it from me to defend AT&T for anti-consumer practices, but replace "phone company algorithm that magically detects robocalls" with "video hosting company algorightm that magically detects copyright infringement" and re-read the article, and AT&T sure sounds like they're taking Techdirt's usual position...
Maybe you kind of have to assemble a panel of people who write API implementations for a living to talk through what is reasonable or not, but it's important to get clear that what Google copied was declaring code, not the API implementations.
This is the sort of domain knowledge that lawyers try to specifically remove from a jury of can-you-even-call-them-peers-anymore.
The tech industry is very biased against Oracle.
As I've said before, the more informed a person is on a certain topic, the more likely they are to form a pro-truth bias. Being unbiased on almost any topic is not a sign of virtue or open-mindedness; it's a sign of ignorance.
Alsop: "I know the witness is a busy man, but the jurors have things to do in the afternoon; they're busy people as well, and right now their time counts more than his."
Throughout my career, I have worked very hard to preserve my independence and creative control, thus it came as a shock to hear my work used and exploited without permission.
And there's the problem: Casey Dienel has a poor understanding of the English language, as she seems to be under the impression that "creative control" somehow applies to stuff that happens after the creating has already occurred.
This is advice I frequently end up giving people who talk about thinking of getting into computer programming: don't do it unless you actually love it. Yes, there can be good money in it, but it's also a lot of hard work and it can be really stressful at times, and you need a mind that's structured a certain way in order to be able to do anything beyond beginner-level and not be a total screwup.
If it's something you already have a passion for, then go for it. You'll probably even make good money. But it's not worth doing otherwise.
Also calling shenanigans here. When I was in Drivers' Ed they said the exact opposite: driving/racing games cannot prepare you for the experience of real driving, and in fact the things you'd "learn" from them are counterproductive.
For example, in a video game, you have one screen, directly in front of you. While driving, you have six focus points you need to be aware of: in front of you, straight behind you, your two rear view mirrors, and your two blind spots that can only be seen reliably by looking over your shoulders. Checking all of these points except the first two (with your rearview mirror) requires some degree of head movement.
The only way to make a "realistic driving simulator" would be to put it in a car-shaped arcade chassis. But even that still wouldn't provide the experience of the force of acceleration that's often your first clue that you're turning or braking too hard. (The term "gut feeling" applies very literally here. If you feel movement on the outside of your body moving against the seats, you're probably fine. Skin is very sensitive, afterall. But if you feel a g-force tugging at your guts, you're getting into dangerous territory.)
The first Industrial Revolution was kicked off by two major inventions: Eli Whitney's cotton gin, and Benjamin Huntsman's steelmaking process. Huntsman declined to patent it, preferring to go the old-fashioned route of keeping it a secret, until a rival managed to copy the technique through what we would call "corporate espionage" today. (Fat lot of good trade secrets did for him!) Huntsman's process turned steel from an expensive luxury to an expensive commodity, and people started using it for expensive stuff.
The second Industrial Revolution, the one which, as I stated above, gave us the modern world, was fueled by the Bessemer Converter, which was far more efficient than the Huntsman process and turned steel from an expensive commodity into a cheap commodity, allowing people to use it for everyday stuff, and the rest is history.
It's not a coincidence that almost immediately after Bessemer's patent expired, placing the Bessemer Converter technology in the public domain, a mechanical engineer by the name of Karl Benz got the wild idea of making a steam engine significantly smaller by taking out the boiler and putting the combustion chamber inside the piston, then mounting the whole thing on a carriage. (If the name Benz sounds familiar, it's because his idea was wildly successful, and the company he founded to produce and market his invention eventually merged with its competitor, Daimler, whose most popular model was called Mercedes.) This would never have happened without easy access to cheap steel.
As for the Coca-Cola "secret recipe", it hasn't been secret for a long time. (Just Google it if you don't believe me.) Its supposed secrecy, like that of KFC's "the Colonel's original recipe", is a joke. The secret ingredient that gives it its subtly unique taste comes from coca leaf with the cocaine processed out. For obvious reasons, the US government doesn't want people importing and making consumer products out of coca leaf, but Coca-Cola is such a massive and wealthy company that they're able to get the laws bent in their favor for this one specific exception, and that's why no one copies their "secret" recipe.