Everything about your response represents precisely the delusional thinking that the article is criticizing.
You completely ignore the comment you replied to, which contains a good point that renders your first paragraph meaningless.
You say Mike's claim that the defendants had a paid subscription is not based on evidence, yet you could not possibly know that, and you offer no evidence to the contrary. In fact, some pretty strong evidence is the fact that these crazy plaintiffs didn't attempt to sue the defendants for gaining access to the journals illegally. If they didn't have legitimate access, wouldn't that be under examination in this suit as well?
You say people don't have to file for patents, implying that they should just give up rather than risking the potential of pissing off copyright lawyers. You suggest that they license the copies they send in with their patent applications, when the ridiculousness of that idea is the central theme of this article.
Your contempt for the spirit of the law reveals your interest in squeezing the legal system for all it's worth, rather than simply doing what's right or what makes sense.
It also appears you have no idea what FUD means, as the article does not attempt to inspire fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Please bring evidence the next time you make ridiculous claims.
As someone who worked under the NSA for a while, I can tell you they most certainly do spy. It's even obvious from their mandate in Executive Order 12333: "Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions"
The Washington Post is obviously confused and/or lazy, but I want to point out that everyone in this discussion seems to be operating on their own personal definition of what email is (not to mention what it means to "invent" something).
I'm actually in Shiva's class this semester (Systems Visualization), and based on my limited interaction with him so far, I would guess that his concept of email is very systems-oriented. He would likely say that lumping all "electronic messaging" together is unwarranted, and that he's never claimed to have invented that. I am not defending him, as I'm unaware of all the facts here; I am merely suggesting that there may be different ways of thinking about this.
If you say email is a way to send messages between computers, Shiva did not invent it. If you say email is a system that manages the sending and receiving of electronic letters (as opposed to short messages or public messages), acting as the digital version of a postal service, then it is less clear. As others here have pointed out, invention is quite a vague thing to attribute to a single person.
Anyway, the class meets again on Friday, so if you want me to ask him something directly, reply to this comment.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Daniel Hawkins.
Re:
Came here to post the same thing. This already happened.
http://libraries.mit.edu/sites/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/
Re: Re: Re:
Everything about your response represents precisely the delusional thinking that the article is criticizing.
You completely ignore the comment you replied to, which contains a good point that renders your first paragraph meaningless.
You say Mike's claim that the defendants had a paid subscription is not based on evidence, yet you could not possibly know that, and you offer no evidence to the contrary. In fact, some pretty strong evidence is the fact that these crazy plaintiffs didn't attempt to sue the defendants for gaining access to the journals illegally. If they didn't have legitimate access, wouldn't that be under examination in this suit as well?
You say people don't have to file for patents, implying that they should just give up rather than risking the potential of pissing off copyright lawyers. You suggest that they license the copies they send in with their patent applications, when the ridiculousness of that idea is the central theme of this article.
Your contempt for the spirit of the law reveals your interest in squeezing the legal system for all it's worth, rather than simply doing what's right or what makes sense.
It also appears you have no idea what FUD means, as the article does not attempt to inspire fear, uncertainty, or doubt. Please bring evidence the next time you make ridiculous claims.
Re:
As someone who worked under the NSA for a while, I can tell you they most certainly do spy. It's even obvious from their mandate in Executive Order 12333: "Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions"
And yes, industrial control systems do sometimes get connected to the internet.
Please check your facts next time.
We're working without definitions here...
The Washington Post is obviously confused and/or lazy, but I want to point out that everyone in this discussion seems to be operating on their own personal definition of what email is (not to mention what it means to "invent" something).
I'm actually in Shiva's class this semester (Systems Visualization), and based on my limited interaction with him so far, I would guess that his concept of email is very systems-oriented. He would likely say that lumping all "electronic messaging" together is unwarranted, and that he's never claimed to have invented that. I am not defending him, as I'm unaware of all the facts here; I am merely suggesting that there may be different ways of thinking about this.
If you say email is a way to send messages between computers, Shiva did not invent it. If you say email is a system that manages the sending and receiving of electronic letters (as opposed to short messages or public messages), acting as the digital version of a postal service, then it is less clear. As others here have pointed out, invention is quite a vague thing to attribute to a single person.
Anyway, the class meets again on Friday, so if you want me to ask him something directly, reply to this comment.