I think that being able to recover "trivially" is the issue here. If you fire all the employees one moment, arguing that once you've paid their entitlements the company will have zero operating capital left, then it's going to be difficult to "trivially" recover and start operating as before. Anyone who's hired people knows that the upfront cost of hiring is much higher than the incremental cost of paying an ongoing employee's salary. It's much more likely that the company would be sold off to new owners while the employees are still emplyed, as the owners can inject more operating capital, and the upfront costs of hiring everyone don't apply.

In any case, this has little to do with unions, whose purpose is rather different.

12 billion users is not that hard to get. For example, the Mormon church has at least 12 billion members by now too.

In truth, these numbers of users are really quite small. The current upper bound seems to be about 108 billion, so there's still a ways to go.

So what you're saying is that when I bring a physical print into the digital world by taking a photo and displaying it on my website with a pink frame and blinking title text, my work is transformative because I am messing with random surfers' state of mind?

Sounds weak.

I think he's arguing that US laws should apply in France. Because of something FIFA related, perhaps?

Sounds like he'd have happily left them with nothing if he'd had the chance. I can't see any reason why the former employees would have done anything but fight for their severance.

If he had done that he might have gone to prison so he should be happy. I'm gonna say this in capitals because it's true. A COMPANY DIRECTOR IS NOT ALLOWED TO OPERATE A BUSINESS WHICH IS UNABLE TO PAY ITS BILLS AT ANY MOMENT. That's a nono in any modern country.

As soon as a company is unable to pay a single bill, even if it's just for $5, the directors must shut it down and stop operating it. In other words, if you're a company dierctor and you intend to fire anyone, you MUST fire them before the company funds dip below the employee's entitlements. Period.

It's a bit creepy to see all the photos that Google still has on tap, including many that I've since deleted on my phone

That's what spy agencies do. They keep your photos for 20 years after you've already forgotten about them, and then POW. When you step out of line and vote for the wrong person or support the wrong cause, they'll dredge them back up, and blackmail you on the basis that you were sitting together in the same bar as a known bad guy one day while you were both in college.

TANSTAAFL.

So the question before the Supreme Court was in the case of induced infringement, what if the defendant had a good faith reason to believe the patent to be invalid? I tend to agree with the majority here: if the patent wasn't declared invalid by a court, the usage of product would be infringing,

Trivially wrong. And I'm surprised you haven't thought about this. There are criteria for a patent to be valid. Some criteria are hard to judge, and need a court to decide. Some are easy. For example, actual prior art can be trivial to prove, so trivial that no court would be required at all, except as a time waster.

The point is that, *sometimes*, a patent beind invalid can be obvious, therefore it is by no means *always* nececessary for a court to make a determination, therefore it is not always true that a product would be infringing unless a court specifically stated otherwise.

I disagree. Good faith that a patent is invalid should be the default position of all legal systems. The fact is that the world is full of scientists who can duplicate each other's work. The fact that some guy from company A invented X only means that at the time, other companies didn't have the same priority, not that they didn't have employees Y capable of inventing the same thing X did.

We have to get off this stupid idea that inventors are unique snowflakes who invent unique stuff that nobody else could ever discover and we therefore owe them. The default position should be that a patent is probably invalid, and it should be up to the patent holder to prove otherwise, or pay costs trying. Also, examiners who grant invalid patents should be penalized. The chilling effect of patents and the amount of money being wasted and the lost opportunity costs on the economy are stifling.

+1 for dissing the British on behalf of all the French slashdotters in the thread.

Yes, those earlier customs are repugnant to the modern mind, and should not be accepted on the basis of worship. Next question.

The repeat offenders are the leaders who call for suiciders to terrorise the world.

Don't hold your breath. I've been waiting for some hot grits from Natalie Portman on here for 10 years now, and got nothing, let alone hot pics of Natalie leaking :-/

That's incorrect. Stealing (or not) depends on whether you are given permission to take something from the owner. The key issue is permission, not quantity nor offering something in exchange.

if i have a modified version of a standard codebase that i use as a template on many jobs, if someone used then modified that template for a client, by your logic that template itself would be the company's copyright, because it was used

Is the standard codebase yours? (ie, have you got the copyright for all of it?)

If the codebase is yours, and you've written the template yourself, then the terms of your contract with the client specify if they own the code or not. It's up to you to be careful what you sign.

If the codebase is not yours, only the template is your work, then the terms of the codebase's license determine if the template you wrote belongs to you or not. If it does belong to you, then the terms of your contract with the client determine if they own your work or you keep ownership of it. If you also deliver the codebase that you do not own as part of the contract with your client, then your contract must not be in contradiction with the codebase's license. If it is, then by delivering the codebase to your client you have broken the contract.

In short, it is your responsibility to follow all the licenses which apply to you, and you should not unknowingly give away rights to your work to others, unless you want to.

It's not stealing [ethically]. It's exactly what the GPL intends.

Goldman in this case are an end-user. As an end-user, they have certain rights to run the code, and modify it as they wish for their own purposes.

The GPL philosophy has always been to skew the copy rights towards users and away from distributors. If you're purely a user, there are practically no restrictions for you. If you're also a distributor, then some restrictions apply to you.