HideLast chance! Campaign ends at midnight! Get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »
HideLast chance! Campaign ends at midnight! Get your copy of the CIA's declassified training game by backing CIA: Collect It All on Kickstarter »

Ehud Gavron’s Techdirt Profile

gavron

About Ehud GavronTechdirt Insider




Ehud Gavron’s Comments comment rss

  • May 15th, 2018 @ 3:44pm

    Reward the shareholders

    Wikipedia says "Personal Audio LLC is a Beaumont, Texas-based company that enforces and earns licensing revenue from five patents."

    It takes money to get a patent approved, somtimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, or to buy a patent from someone who already had it approved.

    Then comes the business - shaking down those "using" the patent who haven't "licensed" its use.

    The PURPOSE of patents was to allow people to SHARE their cool invention so others could MAKE USE of it, paying some NOMINAL fee, and not have to re-invent the wheel, so to speak.

    The result of decades of pandering to the "Intellectual Property" barons (including the copyright ones, the 'anti-piracy' ones, the 'trademark infringement' kind) is that now we have a government provided monopoly on EXTORTING THE ECONOMY.

    You've said before there are so many laws on the books, we're all guilty of something at some time. I suspect that there are so many patents that we are all in violation of one or more of them at one time.

    Last time I do anything off of Lifehacker... don't want to be in violation!

    Ehud Gavron
    Tucson AZ
    ob nit: its, not it's.

  • May 11th, 2018 @ 3:58am

    "We"

    > We have asked

    Who is "we"?

    What organization or group(s) of people do you claim to represent? Are you certain you're not schizophrenic?

    > Take care

    Yeah, you do the same. Professional care that is.

    Also I'm sure Roger appreciates how you misspelled his name.

    E

  • May 9th, 2018 @ 8:48pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: US Corporations and their objectives

    1. There is no law requiring any corporation to make a profit, seek to make a profit, or seek to improve the value of their securities.

    2. If a corporation has told its shareholders (through either their Articles or their annual 10K filings or the quarterly 10Q filings or other SEC filings) that it intends to do so THEN and ONLY THEN is it the fiduciary duty of management to adhere to those goals... that THEY THEMSELVES SET OUT in order to encourage investors. If they fail, CIVIL lawsuits ensue. (No pun intended).

    3. "[w]hy should we not impose"... because YOU are NOT someone who gets to impose ANYTHING on ANYONE and neither am I. Corporations have specific goals and so long as they are operating within the law we don't get to tell them what to do.

    Arguendo you may say "But they have to follow laws and we can pass laws that make them do these other things" and then they'll go incorporate in other countries that don't have your absurd ideas of forcing businesses to do what YOU want vs what THEY want.

    Banks are not required to have community investment. I don't know where your ideas are coming from, but they are not United States corporate law. That's for sure.

    Ehud
    CEO - several US corporations
    CTO - several US corporations (formerly one public)
    Manager - several US LLCs
    Helicopter Pilot Extraordinaire (FAA CPL-H)

  • May 9th, 2018 @ 7:22am

    Re: Re: US Corporations and their objectives

    In my initial comment I addressed that.

    THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.

    Perhaps I was too subtle and the point was missed.

    THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.

    Public corporations exist to further outside investors, and as I explained they do this via growth or profit. It has nothing to do wiht a law, nor greed, nor anti-communism, nor anything else you've espoused. It's simply to attract investment money over the next security.

    E

  • May 8th, 2018 @ 10:23am

    US Corporations and their objectives

    I had a lengthy reply but it's been "awaiting moderation" for a day now with no release. I'll try and recap the salient points.

    There are no laws requiring profit or growth. Corporations that want outside investment on the open market CHOOSE to emphasize those in their Articles of Incorporation (AOI), to go have an initial public offering (IPO), and to publicly trade. When they do that, they provide incentives for investors to buy and hold the shares ("long position") through continued growth (share value goes up) or profit and distribution (dividends).

    Nothing in the law requires this. Corporations exist that do not emphasize this. Typically they are non-public. Some are for profit and some are not for profit. (Not for profit doesn't mean they don't make a profit... merely that they reinvest it back into the corporation).

    Amazon and Google are public corporations. If you don't like their corporate goals or their data sharing models, find private corporations (Open Whisper Systems? Lavabit? etc.) and use their services.

    Ehud

  • May 7th, 2018 @ 5:05pm

    US Corporations and their objectives

    United States incorporated entities ("corporations") have documents that detail their purpose, their scope, their organizational details, and management and oversight. Typically in a typical US corporation you'd find these in the Articles of Incorporation (AOI) which are -- in many states -- even found online.

    A US Corporation isn't required to focus on GROWTH, PROFIT, REVENUE, or even HELPING THE WORLD. It is whatever its incorporators decided when they created it. Similarly, INVESTORS are not required to invest in any instrument (stocks, bonds, etc.) unless they feel the instrument will reward them in some way.

    Put together, corporations that seek outside funding and stockholders often provide revenue forecasts and share revenue (dividends) or provide growth forecasts so that the market will drive share value (and price) up. Either way the investors are rewarded and they will invest.

    Some corporations don't want these investors. They are typically also not going to go for an initial public offering (IPO) or list themselves on a major exchange (e.g. NASDAQ, AMSE, FOREX, etc.) because the traffic in their securities will be miniscule compared to the high-moving stocks with great dividends or growth.

    So to say that this is a problem with US law is wrong. To say that this is a requirement of nonsocialism is wrong. It's merely looking a a microcosm (PUBLIC corporations and their investors) and analogize the rest to it.

    Now back to the original question... we know both Google and Amazon are publicly traded, and yes, their investors want growth and profit. If you want to use services of companies that aren't thus limited my I recommend you check out Whisper Systems (they make Signal), and of course the now-defunct Lavabit. There are PLENTY of non-public corporations whose goals are NOT profit and growth but rather providing a service and not screwing their customers.

    Ehud

  • May 4th, 2018 @ 3:44am

    Re: Silly people

    You sure cover a lot of area there!

    ;)

    E

  • May 3rd, 2018 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Clickbait headline?

    Signal did not "set" their IP address to be Google's, nor did they form TCP connections using Google addresses or any addreses other than their own.

    When trying to explain things, analogies help take something we don't understand and put it in terms we do understand. In this case it took things you didn't understand and put it in terms that were not correct.

    Ehud

  • May 3rd, 2018 @ 11:54am

    Re: Re: Analogies

    When you sign your name on the research grant I'll do research for you. Until then learn how to use google.

    E

  • May 2nd, 2018 @ 6:48pm

    Analogies

    It's not like finding an undocumented API. Nothing here was undocumented and they weren't taking advantage of someone's having left open something that should have been closed.

    Here's a more apt analogy:
    They discovered they can use the heavily discounted smart TV for a PC monitor and all that resolution and high refresh rate is a lot cheaper than a normal "monitor only" solution! In response the smart TV vendor says "No no no, we sold you this set at a discount so we can track your viewng behavior and make money on you in other ways. No more using it as a dumb monitor."

    There's no violation of terms or of using undocumented features, and nobody "piggy back on a hack" as there's no hack. I think it's disingenuous to suggest it's disingenuous to call out Amazon as that is EXACTLY the right thing to do.

    Best regards to JB,

    Ehud

  • May 2nd, 2018 @ 4:39pm

    Circumvention of national blocks

    There are two major ways to block unwanted traffic in authoritarian countries that control their infrastructure:
    1. Block IPv4 address(es) or ranges of addresses and disallow your users to reach those "unwanted" servers providing those "harmful" services.
    2. Enable deep packet inspection (DPI), forged certificates, decrypt everything having performed a man in the middle (MITM) attack, and remove traffic you don't like.

    The former is easy and is why it's the preferred option. Domain fronting doesn't making this difficult... it makes it impossible to identify "harmful" traffic from "all of e.g. google cloud" in real time if at all.

    Google and Amazon are wrong to do this, and it is their right to do so, but it shows short-sightedness to do so absent any overarching reason for it.

    Signal, WhatsApp, etc. should re-engineer their protocols to not be dependent on ONE provider, ONE cloud, or even ONE identifiable communication "stream". They can learn a lot from TOR, from spread spectrum, from anycast IP addresses, and lastly from thepiratebay.org and remain vibrant, reachable, and well from all countries.

    E

  • May 1st, 2018 @ 3:14am

    Re: So, entrapment again.

    Gin: I said this is called entrapment.

    Mac: No, actually it's called blackmail. Entrapment is what cops do to thieves.

  • Apr 30th, 2018 @ 7:51pm

    Re:

    Not at all. We're not discussing the EULA because no licenses were sold, transferred, etc.

    Simply put, if you can download an ISO and burn it to a CD that in and of itself is not a violation of US copyright law (yet!). If, however, you attempt to use it you require a license, and THAT is where an EULA would possibly come into effect given a lot of other (not relevant to this discussion) factors.

    1. Download an ISO available to anyone without an EULA or an "I agree".
    2. Burn said ISO to hard media.
    3. You're not a pirate. Have a Coke and a smile.

    E

  • Apr 30th, 2018 @ 7:28pm

    Sarcasm?

    I hope you're being sarcastic, because nothing you said* is true as per US law.

    E

    * Technically your sentence start "...don't forget..." can be true because you're just telling someone to remember something... but the thing you tell them to remember is, again, not in accordance with US law.

    Note: I am not a lawyer, but I have been investigated for UPL. I'm not an idiot, but nobody's investigated me for that. The FBI wanted to know about my techdirt posts, so now I have to watch what I saw. All this is true, unlike the comments in the above post.

  • Apr 30th, 2018 @ 5:06pm

    "Steady income"

    His illiterate letter talks about a "steady income", something I'm sure anyone who spent $84,000 to stamp some CDs would love to have.

    It doesn't say "profit", "massive profit", "arrrr ya maties" or anything of that nature.

    Lots of people choose to convert a fixed asset into an income. In the business world we call it "moving from the balance sheet to the P&L." You might think of it as "buying a house and renting it out."

    He bought an $84,000 house and hoped to collect rent for a long long time. Perhaps in time there would be profit, but certainly at this point not so.

    Microsoft is dissembling and prevaricating when they "suggest" that they lost any revenue, as they give the contents of these CDs for free. All he did was go from .ISO file to stamped CDs. His "crime" appears to be that he duplicated labels on the CDs that were not honest.

    For that he will spend over a year in jail.

    I sure am glad the last time I put a family portrait on the DVD label of the family reunion pics the guy who took the pics didn't Naruto me for copyright infringement. I'd be in prison now.

    Justice. The wheels grind. They grind slowly. Sometimes they turn good people into ground beef. (h/t KW for the original comment, although I broke it up.)

    E

  • Apr 23rd, 2018 @ 11:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Thank you for discussing me.

    Oh... didn't answer your question," but come to think of it, yeah, me did?

    E

  • Apr 23rd, 2018 @ 10:39am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    >...do you not understand...

    Are you unable to express yourself other than by asking me about me?

    Tell me about yourself.

    Please elucidate.

    E

  • Apr 23rd, 2018 @ 9:47am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You don't speak for "everyone else".

    Never have. Never will.

    I agree in principle though. Two of us agree. You've got a few billion people on this planet and five up on the ISS to go.

    E

  • Apr 22nd, 2018 @ 12:41pm

    Apocryphal stories

    We all love stories about the little guy standing up to the system, the David vs Goliath, etc.

    There was no British guy... hauled into court... duchess... pig... etc.

    E

  • Apr 20th, 2018 @ 12:40pm

    If only...

    I bought his book, downvoted him on Amazon, and beat his claiming I wasn't a legitimate voter.

    If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful would we be kissing asses.

    E

More comments from Ehud Gavron >>