Cerberus 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (145) comment rss

  • On the post: Defensive Patent License: A Solution To Patent Problems… Or Just A Way To Highlight Them?

    Cerberus ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2012 @ 04:05pm

    I know this sounds twisted, but how about if a few big tech companies formed a league with the following condition: each member vows to start litigating at full force (using any stupid patents they have) against other tech companies that litigate in a trollish way, the way Oracle or Apple or Samsung are trolling competitors now (albeit Samsung may be doing so defensively). That way, any tech company that contemplates suing another must take into account the costs of being sued over random other stupid patents from the League. As a scare tactic, this might make the costs and risks of trolling too high.

    Of course this does little against the real patent trolls that do not actually produce anything, and have nothing to fear from patents being used against them. Against those guys, perhaps the League could create some sort of defensive organization with some money and the best lawyers, who would take the case in case any of the members are attacked by a real troll.

  • On the post: Politicians Grandstand About Leaks, But The Rest Of Us See The Prosecution Of Whistleblowers

    Cerberus ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2012 @ 12:50pm

    Obama has really been a bit of a disappointment. Was he really never as enlightened as people wanted to believe, or does he have too little control over his advisers?

    P.S. This is probably a typo: "...at the NSA tuRned into a malicious prosecution."

  • On the post: The EU Telco Plan To Have The UN 'Tax & Track' Internet Usage Goes Against Fundamental Internet Principles

    Cerberus ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2012 @ 12:39pm

    Re: This would work?

    Sounds like a plan. All this sounds way too excessive (excuse me for the pleonasm) to stand a chance anyway: it would disrupt normal internet access across the world, no company would be able to function normally. Surely this will not happen.

  • On the post: The EU Telco Plan To Have The UN 'Tax & Track' Internet Usage Goes Against Fundamental Internet Principles

    Cerberus ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    Re:

    Agreed. Note, however, that cross-border calls in Europe will *still* be too expensive even after Kroes's laudable move against the telco monopolies, about seven times as expensive as a call with a cheap SIM-only plan here.

  • On the post: What Kind Of Professor Patents A Way To Make It More Expensive & More Difficult For Students To Learn?

    Cerberus ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2012 @ 04:15pm

    Re: Re: So bad it might...

    Excellent idea. This might actually work, to some degree. But you need a fair deal of money and an organization. Perhaps people like the EFF could join forces with other organizations, get donations, and co-ordinate this new trollslayer? I am for it! I would be the first to donate.

  • On the post: Author Using Kickstarter To Offer His Book To The Public Domain, And Help Other Creators To Do The Same

    Cerberus ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2012 @ 07:36am

    Re: Other uses for Kickstarter

    How about these:

    - After one year, you get a nice map displaying with coloured dots all the games that have been organised through the application.

    - Pjerky comes to your game to cheer you on and brings beer afterwards (or scones and tea if it's cricket).

    - A game of Pjerky's favourite sport against/with Pjerky and his friends.

    - Same, but with Pjerky dressed up as a woman.

    - Privileged access to some kind of sports ground/hall where you normally can't get into without paying or waiting, in your area.

    - A choice between a good tennis racket, golf club, bat, helmet, whatever.

    - Some kind of specially themed phone (meh).

  • On the post: Author Using Kickstarter To Offer His Book To The Public Domain, And Help Other Creators To Do The Same

    Cerberus ( profile ), 07 Jun, 2012 @ 07:27am

    Re: Well, there's the sucker factor

    He has just got my pledge, so apparently it works well enough...

  • On the post: Sprint Changes 'Unlimited' Broadband To 5 Gigs… While Still Advertising Unlimited Broadband

    Cerberus ( profile ), 05 Jun, 2012 @ 12:29pm

    1 GB of mobile data costs $ 1 to providers, apparently.

    That is truly frustrating. And that while mobile data are said to cost about $ 1 per GB to mobile providers (I have read that at several places around the internet). It could be a bit more, but not much. I read that it is even $ 0.50 for some Chinese providers. So the main reason why they do this is not because it is too expensive to maintain for them, but because they try to drive you away from mobile data into more costly regular calls, text messages, and possibly even landline internet.

  • On the post: Dutch Appeals Court Says eBay Subsidiary Not Liable For Infringement By Users

    Cerberus ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2012 @ 04:48pm

    Re:

    If you were a bit politer, you might be taken more seriously.

    One does wonder about the Pirate Bay in this regard. On the one hand, it is just as neutral a party, at least theoretically, in the exchange of files between its users. It does not exercise control over what files people link to on its site.

    On the other hand, the website as a whole seems to get substantial revenue from pirated files (even if they don't make any actual profit at all: they say that their costs are high enough to make their profits negligible or negative).

    So it might be interesting to see what the Hoge Raad has to say about this.

  • On the post: Three Key EU Parliament Committees Vote 'Just Say No' To ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 04 Jun, 2012 @ 01:06pm

    Re: Re: Rejoice! ACTA has already been permanently vetoed for the entire EU by the Netherlands.

    Read this link:
    http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1122
    While the EC might come up with some way to circumvent this, countries technically have veto power by not ratifying.

  • On the post: Three Key EU Parliament Committees Vote 'Just Say No' To ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 08:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Rejoice! ACTA has already been permanently vetoed for the entire EU by the Netherlands.

    Hmm which legislation do you mean exactly? I believe IPRED is already in force; the proposal for IPRED-II seems to have been withdrawn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_directive_on_criminal_measures_aimed_at_ensuring_the_enforcement_of_intellectual_property_rights
    I seem to recall there was something about revising/amending the first IPRED? Wouldn't the member states need to vote on that?

  • On the post: Three Key EU Parliament Committees Vote 'Just Say No' To ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 08:18am

    Re: Re: Rejoice! ACTA has already been permanently vetoed for the entire EU by the Netherlands.

    I see, so you think the EC might try to push ACTA through by changing their (stated) take on competency in the proposal for ACTA?

    Of course we should kill ACTA in the EP, whether or not it still has a real chance. It would also give a clear sign to the rest of the world that this treaty is bad, bad.

  • On the post: Three Key EU Parliament Committees Vote 'Just Say No' To ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 01 Jun, 2012 @ 08:09am

    Re: Re: Rejoice! ACTA has already been permanently vetoed for the entire EU by the Netherlands.

    I don't think that's how it works. It is not a mere recommendation: it is a binding motion ("motie"). The formula "verzoekt" does mean "request" literally, but it is the standard polite way of commanding the government and future members of parliament (see "vertrouwensbeginsel") not to ratify it. It is not possible for the government to ignore a motion like this, or it would be a coup d'?tat of sorts (Dutch parliament can disband cabinet with a "motie van wantrouwen", a "motion of distrust"). Moreover, whatever the government does doesn't matter, because parliament itself has to ratify the treaty for it come into effect. It has voted unanimously to reject ACTA, so this will not happen. You think there is a flaw in this reasoning?

    You may be right about other reasons (I don't know what they will come up with); I'd be interested to hear them. Perhaps, if the EP should vote for ACTA, the European Commission would stage some sort of "enhanced cooperation" (a coalition of the willing) with a new version of the treaty? In any case it is good to continue to fight against ACTA.

  • On the post: Three Key EU Parliament Committees Vote 'Just Say No' To ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:43pm

    Re: But piracy!

    It seems to be dead in the EU already (see my comment above). Do you think other countries will still ratify it if the EU rejects it? I doubt it. In any case, there's still the similarly bad treaty that the EU is trying to force on Canada for some reason:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement

    And there are CISPA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the latter of which is as bad as ACTA.

  • On the post: Three Key EU Parliament Committees Vote 'Just Say No' To ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 10:22pm

    Rejoice! ACTA has already been permanently vetoed for the entire EU by the Netherlands.

    I read on ZDnet.co.uk, whose David Meyer had been informed of this by an e-mail from the European Commission, that the EU can only ratify ACTA if all member states have ratified. Given the Dutch total rejection, this means that the EU cannot ratify ACTA at all, even if the European Parliament should vote for ACTA. The e-mail also says that no individual member states will ratify ACTA if the EU will not ratify it; that would mean that the Dutch rejection prevents all other member states from individually ratifying ACTA as well. So the battle seems over.

    That really is what the European Commission is telling me. To give a precise quote: if a member state turns down the agreement, "ACTA will stay a valid international agreement but the EU and its member states will not deposit their instrument of ratification until all member states and the European Parliament have ratified it". If you don't deposit your instrument of ratification, the rules say, you don't play." ? David Meyer 6 February, 2012 08:08 http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/03/actas-eu-future-in-doubt-after-polish-pause-40094978/#comments


    Add to that the background and the actual articles given on the following page, and it seems ACTA is really, truly dead in the EU. Rejoice!

    The Commission proposal says: "... For this reason, the Commission proposes that ACTA be signed and concluded both by the EU and by all the Member States.
    (...)
    So ACTA is presented as a mixed agreement. The rules for that can be found in the Nice Treaty. Under (Nice) Treaty establishing the European Community art 133.6 ?the negotiation of such agreements shall require the common accord of the Member States?. Common accord: the EU member states do have a veto. ? http://acta.ffii.org/?p=1122

  • On the post: Netherlands Pre-Warns EU Parliament That It Will Not Accept ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 31 May, 2012 @ 04:13pm

    Re:

    See my comment below: 1.) it will then only come into force for those six countries that have ratified it; 2.) a single country can veto the EU's ratification (according to the quoted e-mail from the European Commission). So the EU will definitely not ratify ACTA any more in the foreseeable future.

  • On the post: Netherlands Pre-Warns EU Parliament That It Will Not Accept ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 03:04pm

    Re: Re: ACTA is now dead in the EU.

    The blockquote. Arg, it actually parsed my blockquote as a blockquote instead of raw characters (of course).

  • On the post: Netherlands Pre-Warns EU Parliament That It Will Not Accept ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 03:03pm

    Re: ACTA is now dead in the EU.

    Oh shit, I forgot the after the link.

  • On the post: Netherlands Pre-Warns EU Parliament That It Will Not Accept ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 03:02pm

    ACTA is now dead in the EU.

    If six countries should ratify the treaty, it will only come into force for those countries that have ratified it. See Wikipedia on ACTA:

    No signatory has ratified (formally approved) the agreement, which would come into force after ratification by 6 countries. After entry into force, the treaty would only apply in those countries that ratified it.

    The only sliver of doubt is the fact that the EU is not a country. However, the European Commission told ZDnet:

    [I]f a member state turns down the agreement, "ACTA will stay a valid international agreement but the EU and its member states will not deposit their instrument of ratification until all member states and the European Parliament have ratified it". If you don't deposit your instrument of ratification, the rules say, you don't play. ? http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2012/02/03/actas-eu-future-in-doubt-after-polish-pause-40094978/#comments

    So I think it is safe to assume that a single country can block ACTA's ratification by the EU. I am not sure whether it is theoretically possible that ACTA should come into force in individual EU countries if the EU rejects it; however, I don't think any EU country would consider ratifying it if the EU cannot ratify it.

    So ACTA has no future in Europe, it seems, unless a new Dutch parliament gets elected containing entirely new parties that will revert the decision of the current parliament. Since the decision not to ratify was made unanimously, this seems extremely unlikely. ACTA is dead in Europe; rejoice!

    Frankly I consider the chance that it will be ratified by six non-EU countries small: would Japan, New Zealand, Morocco and such countries really ratify a treaty that was widely criticised and rejected by the EU?

  • On the post: Netherlands Pre-Warns EU Parliament That It Will Not Accept ACTA

    Cerberus ( profile ), 30 May, 2012 @ 06:30am

    Re:

    *of a key player

Next >>