I looked at the contents of the Tor Packet. It looked like random garbage. so I sent it along.

you must be new here.

The micropayments, while limited in scope, are significantly less expensive than full payments:

https://www.paypalobjects.com/IntegrationCenter/ic_micropayments.html

A year and a half here and I'm in the same boat. Yes, a year ago I was selling a lot more of one of my apps. $60-70 a week or so. These days i averages 2 copies a day and its bringing me about 10 bucks a week. Not a lot, no, but it definitely pays for the data plan AT&T makes me have to go along with my iPhone. I haven't spent a dime on advertising and marketing, relying solely on search results for sales. If I ever have a need to update it, then perhaps I'll shell out for some targeted ads, but for now, its paying its own bills, so to speak, and I'm perfectly OK with that because this particular app was more of a teaching exercise for myself than anything. Now, I've got other apps that are much better sellers because they have a larger audience than a calculator for quilters but hey every $0.70 commission I pick up from it still makes me smile.

Costco is irrelevant though. in Costco, the copyright issue was based on items imported into the country by someone other than the copyright holder. Costco pitted 17USC 602(a)(1) against 17 USC 109(a). 602 covers the importation, while 109 codifies the first sale doctrine for "copies made lawfully under this title".

in this hypothetical case, apple, the copyright holder, has already lawfully imported the items into the country, so 602 doesn't apply. Since 602 was what Costco was decided on, it wouldn't apply.

Now, honestly, I really would have liked to see an actual decision in Costco from SCOTUS. Omega was contending that 109 didn't come into play since the logo copies were made overseas so they didn't meet the lawfully made under this title clause. However they were depending on their US copyright registration in enforcing their rights. I would have loved to have been able to read an opinion (regardless of which way it went) in the case, simply because the previous case balancing 109 and 602, Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L'Anza Research International, Inc. 523 U.S. 135 (1998) was tailored specifically to constructing the 109 first sale doctrine to copies made within the US, whereas the Omega logo copies were made in Switzerland.

if you're only using one or two chapters out of a book, i'd recommend you find a different source for that material if its that important to the course. chances are it exists somewhere (checking the chapters' citations can be of use here), and if it doesn't it probably isn't that important.

I'm inclined to agree with you. the patent seems to have a handful of base claims on which the remainder of the claims are built. Logic (which we can all guess as to its existence in the court system) would dictate that in order to infringe one of the derivative claims, the device or method would have to infringe on the parent claim.

If we assume that the commodity in question here is the app itself, the question of whether this one is infringed hinges on whether the upgrade button is considered to be eliciting information about the user's perception of the application. This one is critical since it can easily be argued that as long as the app doesn't store and otherwise process the fact that a user has seen the upgrade option and not used it, there is no perception information gathered. Someone else can figure out the opposite argument if they are so inclined; I'll not be providing the bad guys an argument.

This one an its derivatives ought to be irrelevant, since there isn't fax equipment involved.

This one seems to require that "the user interface being configured to elicit information about (i) steps that a vendor of the commodity could take to improve the user's satisfaction or (ii) training or support provided for users of the commodity". First off, ii seems stupid. How exactly is a user supposed to provide information about training or support for the users of the commodity. Isn't that the commodity vendor's responsibility? As to i), an "upgrade" button doesn't elicit any information about steps the vendor can take to improve user satisfaction. I'd be more worried if i sold apps that had a "have you rated this app" dialog box.

I'd argue that this one can't be infringed by an app; who's going to allow an app direct access into a production database over the insecure network that is the internet.

I'd really like to see what claims lodsys claims are infringed.

Further, assuming a 3/4 second reaction time, it takes 55 feet at 50mph for a driver to even get a foot on the brake pedal, which is 5 feet more than the manufacturer's expert claimed the average distance from sensor to photograph was. so, assuming the .363 second difference occurred after the driver realized the camera had taken his picture, he would actually not have the full .363 seconds to decelerate to meet the mean time theorem criteria for the photograph.

it seems to work pretty well for directv and dish network. of course as anyone who has the slightest modicum of knowledge of accounting knows, this is merely a ruse to keep assets on their books while still charging the same upfront fees for them that they did when the upfront fee was a purchase price.

iptables -a INPUT -j DROP $Bad_Scraper_IP_Address

just because a book is out of print doesn't mean that the author/copyright owner has abandoned it.

you could still buy windows xp based netbooks as late as q4 2010.

Delta MSP->LAS two weeks ago.

Perhaps wrenches won't, but the 6-point sockets that I use work just fine on them, as opposed to the "normal" 12-pointers. open ends of wrenches should work just fine as well.