I stand corrected; I did not remember that. He's a regular bag of dicks (sac de bites?), that guy.

I can't find anything about how the existing tax on media, USB sticks, and MP3 players is disbursed, but I doubt it's going to Microsoft. I think they're just trying to add 'tablets' to that list of things get a levy on behalf of whatever copyright think-tank writes their laws, because everyone is, apparently, assumed to be a criminal.

Consider their viewpoint. They would tax every single means of data storage if they could. People would (rightfully) balk at the idea of taxing any hard drive, or their laptop, but they presently pay a bs tax on MP3 players. So there is a clear line there. So they're thinking "What if they just bought an iPad instead? We can't tax those!" and trying to move tablets and 'mobile devices' to the taxable, 'MP3 player' side of that line.

Ask yourself: Why would they intentionally exclude tablets running Win7 from their potential pool of revenue? Microsoft does not have the legislative influence in France that they do in the states, I really doubt that this is a case of MS massaging their laws and not (poor wording)/((poor/sensational) interpretation) by the press.

Sarkozy isn't an MS shill, he's a shill for the french equivalent of the RIAA. This seems like an extension of the tax they put on mp3 players, as it is based on the internal storage capacity of the device.

Article linked from TFA

Thus I suspect 'mobile/clean operating system' is meant to refer to any operating system that can run on a mobile device, and then be used to play music that you probably stole. We all know how the copyright cartels think, why would they intentionally exclude windows users?

The 9th's decision is based on their interpretation that they were not. However, upon a third reading, I think I'm angry again. You are correct in that court allows that these are legit watches. Copyright language is confusing as fuck. I read it as copy cannot be sold in a region it cannot be otherwise purchased. As in, if they aren't selling it in the States yet, you can't either; but if they are: it's fair game. I then assumed that since they were available here, via Omega, all that language about 'grey market' and 'undisclosed 3rd party' was meant to infer counterfeiting.

Since the only thing protected by copyright here is the little picture on the watch, the 9th's opinion seems to be that art cannot be resold in a country that it was not originally intended for. That's ludicrous.

Costco bought the watches from a company who can't say where they got them. I believe Omega is using the US copyright on their 'Omega Globe' engraving to try and stop what they believe to be the resale of counterfeit/stolen watches. This would not work for your ASUS example because those motherboards were legally imported.

Since my view of the case hinges on the chain of custody between the rights holder and the distributor getting murky and Omega claiming they were unlawful copies; I'm curious how they would have ruled if Costco bought the watches overseas themselves, and resold them here. If I am understanding them, this should be permissible.

IANAL, but I've read the 9th circuit's opinion, and I think it's a fair argument; once you realize this is not about the watch (which I'll get to). This comes down to Omega never authorizing the importation of these copyrighted materials. 9th states that

The watches found their way to Costco via "unidentified third parties,"

I am inferring from this that Costco could not prove that these were authorized replications of Omega's copyrighted material. By ruling in favor of Costco they set a precident which could allow me to sell pirate CDs I bought from 'an unspecified 3rd party' wholesaler in China and claiming 'First sale doctrine, bro; I'm just a reseller.' I get that, kind of, if were were talking about CDs, books, or movies.

Here is the part that is fucking retarded: Omega isn't talking about the watch, the watch isn't copyrighted. They are claiming infringement on their logo, the "Omega Globe Design," which just happens engraved on the watch, and which they hold a US copyright on. So by my read, Costco is free to file off the logo and sell them however they want.

In this version, the Titanic is kept afloat by prayer.

Well that is far more difficult. Consider what you are asking, rather than giving a person a service they cannot afford; provide them the means to afford it. Help build their financial infrastructure so that it become more self sufficient.

Sounds great, but how do you do that? You could expand their disposable income so they can provide for themselves. If you set up your fund, lets say it makes 50m a year. Housing is a major drain on everyone's disposable income, do you take 4,000 people and buy them a house/pay off their mortgage each year? This would help me, certainly, but what's to prevent them from taking out a second mortgage on it and winding up in debt all over again? Does the foundation retain ownership of the house? Do you have to apply to them if you really need that second mortgage (ie: medical bills)? What happens when they want to sell it? How does the foundation ensure the house is maintained to not get hit with laws against being a bad landlord? Do they have to?

I think you could work out a system like that, but I think it could wind up feeling a little invasive because to ensure that it was actually effective, you would have to ensure people were being responsible. This could turn the program into a PR nightmare as the foundation starts getting painted as a corporate fiefdom by a few unhappy recipients and a journalist trying to make a name for themselves.

Under that model the value of the work is defined by their profit from a lawsuit. So if they win and get a settlement, the value is increased; thus, on appeal, they will lose. But now they expended all these legal fees, and have taken a loss. Their license on the article now has a negative value; thus, on a second appeal, they will win.

The question we need to ask is how many appeals will land this in the Supreme Court? If it's an odd number, Righthaven will spiral into bankruptcy. If it is an even number, Righthaven's business model will make them an unstoppable profit machine.

According to that chart, Nokia is suing eight companies

They give up their scruples so we can have more.

Great plan if you can manage; but I think that, in an effort to save us both, my subconscious would chew my mouse hand off while I slept.

20,000 hours over 5 years is 80 hours a week. Impressive. If we assume time and a half for overtime, that's 3 million for 25000 hours, or $120 an hour or ~$250,000 a year as a base salary. I don't know if that would be close to enough to make me put in hours like that, for 5 years straight.