It says now:
Scientist Makes Sure That No One Uses His Patent On Malaria Drug To Gouge The Poor
Which I read as:
Scientist makes sure no one uses his patent on malaria drug in order to gouge the poor.
It's ambiguous at best. I suggest you change it to:
Scientist makes sure that non one can use his patent to gouge the poor.
That's very clear.
At 22,000 miles a year that's only $55.00 - why not just increase registration fees by a similar amount.
The GPS units and collection infrastructure can't be paid for with this amount.
Of course taxes always increase. At .01 a mile it would be 220.00 - even that is less than California vehicle registration tax.
I'm considering a move out to a more country location and it looks like I'll have to acquire a T1. Why? Not because there is no service - I have 2 options. It's FAP and CAPs. I could go with Satellite service or with Verizon Wireless broadband. However, I use the internet for consulting. We also use it personally for iTunes etc.
Consider the last Mac leopard update. It was 365 Meg. I have 2 macs. I also run VM's - several XP versions - these all hit with SP3 around the same time as the Mac update. Not to mention we downloaded a movie from I tunes 1.2 gig. I hit 5 gig in about 3 days. That's all perfectly legal and expected downloading.
The Verizon wireless would charge me for overage - and the Satellite? Ugh.
Hughes - Cut off for 24 hours.
Wild Blue - Bandwidth limited (better than being cut off!) for 30 days.
So I'm pricing T1's.
QUERY - are these people really out of bandwidth? Fine. Raise prices and expand your network.
If I have two people in the room I'll just turn on a second radio to the same station. The radio manufacturers will love it.
This is absurd.
If I make a nifty new device and start selling it - and some company buys one and then copies it exactly - and sells it cheaper - because they don't have to pay the R&D costs for the invention - then they are living large of my work.
Patent law was designed to prevent this sort of thing so that R&D money would be spent and the resulting invention protected for a time.
This is all well and good and explains how the patent system "promotes" innovation by preventing copying.
The CURRENT patent system, however, is a mockery of this ideal in that partial "inventions" that are really obvious are used to hijack someone who DID create a nifty device via their own R&D and sweat and blood.
Why pick on Ipod? There has to be another motive here. Any headset with magnets would cause this and I bet the bigger ones with bigger magnets cause bigger problems.
Don't oil platforms have electricity? Internet connectivity? Lease space on an offshore oil platform!
You might want to correct this spelling error.
Even if this makes it far enough to be considered the law of the land, the "review" and "consideration of fair use" is still in the hands of the copyright holder and the issuer of the DMCA take down notice. Therefore - all they have to say is "we considered it and decided it wasn't fair use". Even if it is - and there is still no appeal of the takedown notice and still no way to get the content back online.
There was a story (here I think) sometime back about a url you could visit that would check to see if what you were being served was what was really being served or if something was being inserted into the stream.
Does anyone have that link?
Also - wouldn't ssl defeat this?
Of course - if these companies are shipping the banned products to India that is something completely different and they are directly liable.
Still - the law is about advertising and if they cannot restrict where their ads appear then they should have no liability.
Once more - these products are legal in a range of countries.
The companies advertise on Google.
When advertising on Google can one restrict the countries in which one's ads appear? If SO then I can agree with you. If NOT then I think it's up to Google/MS/Yahoo to offer some way to restrict where one's ads show up.
Can the advertisers control which countries their ads appear in?