Sorry if this is totally off, but aren't patents supposed to prevent the manufacturing and distribution and/or selling of the patented items, and have nothing to do with the usage? That means this statement is at least misleading, if not down right lying: “When the government grants you the right to a patent, they grant you the right to exclude others from using it.” To clarify: If I use SSL on my website, I don't think this patent applies to me. I didn't make SSL, and I'm not providing SSL for download. Go sue the OpenSSL guys, or sue Debian, Red Hat and Canonical for distributing your patented thingy, and hope the EFF doesn't chime in. The big guys who settled are making and selling products that ship SSL within. Except Exxon Mobil - I have no idea what they could sell me with SSL in it, and appear to have settled just because the inconvenience of a lawsuit wasn't worth it. If he isn't asking for crazy amounts, the big guys may not even twitch and just pay up. As in "hey, I see your patent, it doesn't look like it could hold in court, but... you're asking for peanuts, so here you go, please go away". Because in that case the lawyers would cost a lot more just to throw the case out of court, and this guy's company doesn't have any assets that can be reposessed to cover the costs. Conclusion: he's not going to sue anyone small, and he'll stop when all the big cows have been milked - unless he meets the wrong kind of cow before then.
Actually patent infringment include use. Patent holders can choose to sue users as well. Its true that users are not often sued, but in situations where the patented invention is used privately without distribution, the user can be sued.
I found the article incredibly repetative and wishy washy and I think the author needs to go back to critical thinking class. It seems boil down to anybody who wants NC,ND is mistaken and doesn't understand creative commons. Other than pointing out the ambiguities on NC, it really doesn't justify the point of view other than "I'm right, you are wrong" with vague references to "outdated business models". More importantly, the author of the articl never attempts to address the uses cases intended by these clauses. One use case is that an owner of copyright wants to make it available to others, but does not want it modified (ND). If I put a photo up of my nephew and I want my family and friends (and family friends) to be able to share it amonst themselves, including with friends I don't know, CC makes a lot of sense. ND means that you don't get to use my nephews photo in your latest LOLimage and NC means some company doesn't get to use it in the ad campaign. And if you follow some of the groups on flickr, you find that photos are being routinely appriated for advertising use.
In the end, if the ND and NC clauses are struck from CCv4.0, people like me will simply stay with CCv3.0, or fork a new CC2v4.0
As a pilot, I really really really hope this never happens! Most people are BARELY able to keep in control of their vehicles in 2D, and are entirely unsuited for 3D. Keep them away from the skies, so that those of us who passed the difficult tests and demonstrated our ability to handle an aircraft safely can continue to be safe and remain not in danger of idiots cutting us off, not following rules, etc...
Yet the difficult tests and demonstrated ability to handle an aircraft safely doesn't stop one from cell phones and texting while flying: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/14/plane-crash-caused-by-cellphone-report
If you're too scared of using the phone number auth, just use the Android or iPhone authenticator app. Setup is quick, it's not too invasive and it just works.
Myth #7 - The google authenticator app does not require your phone number and SMS messages.
Fact - You cannot set up the authenticator app unless you ahve given your phone number to Google and first authenticated using SMS
My cell phone number is known only to 10 of my friends and 2 companies (one of which is the provider). I have no intention of giving it to Google. Also, I only use gmail for personal non-financial/business mail. I have an email account that is protected by stronger privacy laws than exist in the US for my regular business.
I have a close friend who is a retired reporter and does not own a cell phone. But she does own a 4th Gen iPod Touch. Surely she should be able to use google authenticator? The short answer is no she can't.
I can't arrest someone with the same leeway given to cops
In the state whose laws I know best (Utah) the only additional arrest power given to police is the authority to use deadly force to stop a fleeing felony suspect. Other than that, it's identical.
The main difference is that you had better be right if you arrest someone. The police enjoy limited immunity when making an arrest. You have no such protection.
Happiness is twin floppies.