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:
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.
Followed by: "'We don't let the cash burn a hole in the pocket or make stupid acquisitions,' CEO Jobs said last fall. 'We'd like to continue to keep our powder dry because we think there are one or more strategic opportunities in the future.'"
"Offering Uncle Sam a short-term loan is probably not one of them.""
Link to Original Source
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.
1) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface, which is part of each of the units of the commodity, configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity, and further configured to elicit, from a user, information about the user's perception of the commodity, a memory within each of the units of the commodity capable of storing results of the two-way local interaction, the results including elicited information about user perception of the commodity, a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
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.
54) A system comprising: units of a facsimile equipment that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units and is configured to trigger a two-way interaction to occur on-line between the unit of the facsimile equipment and a vendor of the facsimile equipment, the user interface being configured to generate information about use of the unit by the user, a communication element associated with each of the units capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collecting the results of the interactions at the central location.
This one an its derivatives ought to be irrelevant, since there isn't fax equipment involved.
60) A system comprising: units of a commodity that can be used by respective users in different locations, a user interface which is part of each of the units of the commodity and is configured to provide a medium for two-way local interaction between one of the users and the corresponding unit of the commodity for generating information about use of the unit of the commodity by the user, 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; a communication element associated with each of the units of the commodity capable of carrying results of the two-way local interaction from each of the units of the commodity to a central location, and a component capable of managing the interactions of the users in different locations and collection of the results of the interactions at the central location and provides access to the collection of results to a third party.
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.
69) A method for gathering information from units of a commodity in different locations, each unit of the commodity being coupled to a remote database on a network, the method comprising: eliciting user perceptions of respective units of the commodity through interactions at a user-interface of the respective unit; generating perception information based on inputs of the users at the respective user-interfaces; transmitting the perception information to the remote database; receiving the transmitted perception information from different units of the commodity; and collecting and storing the received information at the remote database.
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
Why would the BBC lease you a radio to access their service? What would be in it for them to hold all that hardware in inventory?
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.
Metric wrenches won't work on imperial bolts.
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.