"The technology works by bisecting video into two layers. First is a base layer, which streams during viewing, then there would be a higher layer, which the user would pre-download from some high-bandwidth location like the home or office. While the higher layer would be useless on its own, and thus in compliance with intellectual property laws whose aim is to prevent free sharing, it would nonetheless comprise about 3/4ths of the total data."
Hmm, let's take this a bit further. How about we reduce that 1/4 required to work to, say, 2048 bits, an encryption key? How is this different?
And what's to keep a jailbroken device from saving that 1/4 live stream anyway, so the entire video could be viewed as desired, off-line?
Popvox has the bill here:
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/s1130
Ah yes, that's what happened after Monsanto bought out Sony and Genentech.
Sadly, there's 11 people speaking against it -- and until I clicked, NONE for it.
https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/hr2024
"The rationale is that LDCs need maximum flexibility to develop a viable technological base and address their constraints, and that the standard of TRIPS IP protection may be an obstacle in achieving those objectives."
Doesn't this itself shoot a big hole in the claim that IP protection is essential to economic growth? If patents and copyright are necessary for growth, it seems like the LDCs would be clamoring to immediately implement the most restrictive laws possible.
Why does changing the delivery method result in a patent extension? It's the same drug.
Just because it's now in a tamper-proof form, or has extended/sustained delivery, or packaged with another drug, should not result in a new patent, nor an extension of the old one. Same drug!
"He's gonna Bloomberg your constitutional rights!"
Having worked at a couple, they've long (ten years or more) blocked access to personal e-mail accounts like Yahoo or Gmail. This is perhaps new-ish in the law firm field, but not in banks or brokerages.
I believe this was originally driven by regulatory requirements to preserve all written communications for possible audit and legal discovery purposes, and perhaps also to show that the firm had made all reasonable efforts to prevent inside information from leaking out to be traded on.
Apparently Yahoo had a contract of some sort with these companies, more here:
http://www.businessinsider.com/yahoo-worldwide-directories-mexico-appeal-2012-12
Doesn't most software for a global market include all languages, then ask you which one to use when you install it?
"lowering prices to an affordable level in the market being entered"
And then what happens when an enterprising young person buys up thousands of copies of this discounted software to ship over to the U.S.?
Interesting juxtaposition:
"In speech after speech, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced large funds to be made available for online dissidents, resulting in projects such as the Digital Defenders Partnership."
Meanwhile, in California, the governor vetoes a bill that would prohibit government agencies from suspending cell phone service without a court order:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/03/jerry-browns-veto-of-cell_n_1937579.html
Maybe the TSA agents are stealing the terrorists' boxcutters and explosive shoes.
What's the point of putting a subject line on a discussion thread COMMENT, which is usually only a few words or at most a few sentences long? The "subject" is the discussion thread being commented on!
"I'd consider having the breakaway trigger the alarm, too."
Have you patented this yet? :-)
It seems to me like our politicians have learned this lesson very well, offering up a scarce resource (their time and vote), and giving the lobbyists a reason to buy!
Really, who still has a record player? They could've just sent out 8-track cartridges, but I suppose they'd be too heavy for a balloon, and less bio-degradable.
WHY are they settling for pennies on the dollar that is clearly owed them? Surely the proper royalties are FAR larger than any possible legal costs, and the outcome is almost assured.
Young children need regular bedtimes?
The study does not establish cause and effect -- only correlation. They didn't split kids into two different groups and have one go to bed at a regular time, and the other at varying times.
It's quite possible that the less intelligent kids (for lack of a better term) have varying bedtimes because of less rigorous parenting, different demographics, a common underlying biological cause, etc.
The last paragraph of the article sort of alludes to this, but only after going on at length about how kids need their sleep.
Correlation is NOT cause and effect.