Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Law not sufficient (Score 5, Insightful) 247

by schabot (#19836315) Attached to: Bogus Company Obtains Nuclear License

The GAO's investigation shows that the security measures put in place after 911 are not sufficient for protecting the American people.

When are people going to get this. The laws existing before (insert grand public hysteria event here) were sufficient. There is a difference between needing to increase the strength of the laws, thereby weakening civil liberties, and properly and thoroughly enforcing the laws which are already in place.

Microsoft

Supreme Court Sides With Microsoft Over AT&T 122

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the fluent-in-loopholeanese dept.
The Supreme Court today sided with Microsoft in another important patent case filed by AT&T. The case centered around whether selling Windows overseas infringed on AT&T's patents that are in Windows. Microsoft argued [PDF] that the copies being sold in Asia were "...not technically supplied from the United States because overseas manufacturers of its computers made copies of the software from a master disk and installed those copies into the operating system. Microsoft said it could not be considered a supplier since the copies, not the original software, were in the computers built abroad." Now, while I support the weakening of software patents in general, by this logic, would that mean that MS's patents don't apply to those that use pirated copies of Windows?
Google

Google Shareholder Proposal to Resist Censorship 100

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the vote-if-you-got-em dept.
buxton2k writes "Slashdot has had plenty of stories about technology companies like Google kowtowing to repressive political regimes such as China's. I'm an (extremely) small shareholder in Google, and I looked at their proxy statement today. Most of the time, shareholders' meetings don't deal with anything other than rubber-stamping the board of directors, but Google's upcoming meeting has a interesting shareholder proposal dealing with free speech and censorship to be voted on at the May 10 meeting."
Music

Court Rules Playlist Customization Is Not Interactive 54

Posted by Zonk
from the licensing-makes-so-much-sense dept.
prostoalex writes "Is music played via customized playlist delivered interactively (i.e., via user participation) or non-interactive (i.e., decisions are made on the server side)? The question does seem metaphysical, but it took Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Yahoo! six years to figure it out via a protracted legal battle. User-driven playlists are bucketed with on-demand music services, while server-driven playlists are equaled to broadcasts, thereby causing different licensing mechanisms to take place. Yahoo! inherited the legal wrangle when it purchased a music startup Launch, which built a music recommendation feature. The court decision determined that recommendation algorithms that rely on usage data to build playlists server-side are still eligible for broadcast license, thereby substantially lowering the costs of operating a music recommendation site."

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...