Humble Bundle got my attention with this one. Might buy two copies so my brother can read some PA while overseas on mission. Amazing how they have taken products that are essentially given away for free over the internet by the creators, and found another way to somehow make money off it. Humble Bundle must be using witchcraft.
Your example actually works the opposite way. Cars past the early 90s are all required to use the same code diagnostic software (OBD-II). You generally need to buy a scanner, but it allows you to read the codes your onboard diagnostic system is storing. Your repair manual will have a section of codes listed to decipher them.
Where the car example does mirror Campos' is that the codes and diagnostics are designed for trained technicians (doctors in his case) and can still be pretty cryptic to decipher.
I feel it would be great to have data like this freely available. As long as it is not being used for marketting, i think the person who owns it should have free use. As long as it doesn't contain personal identifiers, it could be used to build apps to monitor your health in real time, and the data it collects over time could be used by researchers to study and make advancements in their field.
Multiplied by the amount of discs produced, the number of average views per disc, and the number of average viewers in the audience of each viewing. Maybe they could cut the number of views down, except my dvds all seem to be locked so i can't skip to the menu.
If you are watching a movie, do you get charged for each song in the soundtrack? What about if you are watching a music video for a song and it shows clips of the movie? Seems only fair to charge a fee on top of a fee for those privileges.
Maybe the chip can be programmed to cause you to go blind or deaf whenever music or movies are playing that you aren't willing to pay for. That way we only have to reject one or two of our senses temporarily to avoid infringing.
What i got from the article was that if the cult could show sufficient damages under Dendrite, then discovery would still be allowed. I find it disingenuous that the cult copyrighted the manual shortly before pursuing legal action. It seems like it was just legal maneuvering specifically to identify the people speaking out against them. If you don't think anonymity is important, especially when you are speaking out against religious groups, i challenge you to join a scientology chapter and then proceed to shed light on your experiences there.
If Apple wants to control the reveal of their product, then why was an Apple engineer bar hopping with a prototype? It's not Gizmodo's responsibility to sit on that story, and Apple got A LOT of great, free coverage of the iPhone4. Too bad they lumped in all the negative publicity for being vindictive.
Hmmm...Lindows claims Windows trademark is invalid because it is too generic for trademark validation, despite it being the most used OS in the world. Shagbook claims Facebook is too generic for trademark validation despite it being the most popular social media site in the work...Has your brain stopped working that you can't draw the parallel?
No, i think Facebook refers to Facebook, and that Shagbook does NOT refer to Facebook. The whole point of the article is: Facebook is overzealous with trademark lawsuits, someone is finally hitting back.
There must be some loophole for surveillance footage. I think it is completely wrong that he showed it to a group of teachers in some private screening. If he was going to show it to anyone, it should have been the police. But I don't think seeing something like this while watching surveillance footage should be an indictable offense. That would be the same to me as if the video was entered into evidence and played for the judge and both parties (and possibly jury). Once again, completely wrong and possibly illegal to host a private screening of this.