Not copyright, but trade secret misappropriation. The Uniform Trade Secrets Act is where to start. In California, its codified under Section 3426 to 3426.11 of the California Civil Code. What may trip up Blizz in this case is Misappropriation - "Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means." And that includes "Derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use". The UTSA expressly defines "improper means" to include "theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy". The plain language of the statute and the Comments emphasize that both reverse engineering and independent development are not misappropriation, which means Blizz (and interestingly enough, the bot authors) are free to reverse engineer each other operationally - but trying to acquire the source code is probably breaking the law, at least on the face of things. The law plainly says that anyone who obtains by subterfuge or outright taking any information he has reason to know is confidential, is guilty of misappropriation. If a person obtains information directly or indirectly from someone who does not have authority to disseminate it, that person (or corporation in this case) may be liable for misappropriation by wrongful acquisition. The fact that the person under an obligation of nondisclosure (the bot emplouee or subcontractor) willingly or accidentally disclosed the information (source code) does not protect the recipient (Blizz). Thats the law. This paints Blizz in a pretty bad legal light *if* whats is alleged (attempts to buy or coerce source code containing trade secret information, i.e. the the protected information of the bot company whcih was derived from the legal reverse engineering of the Blizz functionality). Where this might bite Blizz is the penalties set forth in the law: At a minimum the bot company/author may recover attorneysâ(TM) fees for bad faith tactics in trade secret litigation or willful and malicious misappropriation (Cal. Civ. Code  3426.4), recover compensatory damages for loss (Cal. Civ. Code  3426.3(a)), and this is the kicker: they have the right for recovery of "exemplary" (punitive) damage award if the misappropriation is "willful and malicious" (Cal. Civ. Code  3426.3(c)). On top of that, the California Business and Professions Code  17200 prohibits "any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice." This statute is extremely broad in its coverage of prohibited acts and practices, and it creates a private right of action for redress of any practice forbidden by any other law (civil, criminal, federal, state, municipal, statutory, regulatory or court made). So further sources of actions may be contained there - but thats so broad that I'm not going to speculate on what creative use of that law the parties may use against each other. So that's the civil side. Here's where the real fun comes in: Criminal code. As in someone might become a felon, and/or go to state/federal prison. Federal and California laws address this - California first: Cal. Penal Code  499c "Theft of Trade Secrets". It subjects trade secret misappropriators (and persons conspiring with them) to criminal penalties if they appropriate trade secrets by wrongful or dishonest means, or if they offer anyone a bribe to do so. [emphasis added] . A violation is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.00, imprisonment of up to one year, or both. The violation can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the value of the trade secret stolen.

Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics

Table 1: the total number of live births, spontaneous terminations (miscarriages), and induced terminations (abortions) for women in different age brackets between 15 and 49 years of age. The table also breaks that data down by race â" Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black â" and also by borough of residence: Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island.

The numbers show that in 2012, there were 31,328 induced terminations (abortions) among non-Hispanic black women in New York City. That same year, there were 24,758 live births for non-Hispanic black women in New York City. There were 6,570 more abortions than live births of black children.

Fact are stubborn things. You're wrong. Admit it.

The beta was released in 1989. 25 years ago.

Which makes a perfect farce of the notion that many eyes make all bugs shallow.

1) We don't know when the bug was introduced, although it's clear that it was quite some time ago.

2) I defy you to name any version of any reasonably complex software that is guaranteed to be free of exploitable bugs. It's been shown by people much smarter than me that it's mathmatically impossible to do so. (Just one example thread discussing the problem.)

The difference is that with OSS, they all will eventually get found and fixed. The same can't be said of closed source software.

Nokia had some issues but was still profitable as Tomi Ahonen clearly documents in this long post. tl;dr? A couple of short quotes and links to graphs:

This is how bad it was under previous CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo. Nokia had seen revenues decline from its peak in 2008. Nokia had seen profits decline severely from its peak also in 2008. Nokia had reported its first quarterly loss (although the full year was still profitable) - that loss was driven by Nokia's troubled Networking division, not its handsets units which were both highly profitable. ...

So to be clear, Nokia had reported one QUARTER of a loss, but in annual terms, Nokia was a profitable company. Its big revenue growth had turned into decline but that decline was actually halted around the time the Nokia Board decided to seek a replacement to Kallasvuo, and Nokia revenues had returned to growth by the time Elop joined Nokia.

Let me repeat. Nokia did NOT have a problem in its handsets business. Its issues were in its Networking business line.

Now the graphs:

Nokia profits by business line Note: Elop took over Sept. 21, 2010.

Which company had the strongest handset business?

Which company saw their handset business tank and when?

Smartphone marketshare

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Yep, those damn plutocrats sure did their best that the rest of us would never have a leg up. /sarcasm

I suggest that you take some time to read the Federalist Papers. I think you'll discover things aren't quite as black and white as you believe.

Not necessarily, or if it does, it'll take a very long time. Remember, the US states' cultures were all mostly from Britain, and everyone spoke English with a few exceptions (like the Pennsylvania Dutch). Early on, there were settlements by the French, Dutch, Spanish, etc, but the British settlers pushed everyone out (the French only survived in Quebec, which isn't part of the US).

Wow, this is sooo wrong. Just about the only commonality that the U.S. population started out with was that we are all, every single one (including American Indians and Eskimos), immigrants from somewhere else. The U.S. has seen waves of immigration from all over the world.

As a personal example, I'll cite my great-grandfather. He helped settle Chisholm, a small town in northern Minnesota in the first decade of the last century. He was a Serbian peasant whose family had spent about 250 years in Croatia but still considered themselves Serb, not Croatian. Still used the Cyrillic alphabet attended the Serbian Orthodox services at somebody's house rather than attend the local Catholic church. Then he gets to the U.S. and everything changed for him.

His new neighbors were Welsh, Italian, Jewish, Slovenian, Russian, German, Norwegian, Finnish, and FSM knows what else. All of those families were founded by peasants right off the boat who had come to work in the iron mines or in the logging industry.

The Welsh were coal miners who got jobs as mine foremen because they were typically the only ones underground who spoke English, which in turn meant that they were the only ones who could talk to the mine management. The rest just showed up at the mine for their shift and got by with a lot of hand waving.

Eventually, they all learned English, took night classes to earn their citizenships, made sure their kids were brought up speaking English, and generally became members of the American culture. But every last one of those families is still fiercely proud of their own distinct heritage and celebrates their differences as well as our shared commonalities.

In the past several decades, Minnesota has seen large influxes of Hmong, Vietnamese, Somali, Afghani, and a couple of other refugee groups. We've even got Mexicans who have chosen to settle here instead of following the crops. Those families have all followed similar paths. We've got a huge Cinco de Mayo celebration in the state capital every year.

(As an aside, why on earth are so many people from the tropics so happy to move to the nation's icebox? :-D)

(As another aside, the far right's screaming about illegal immigration is one of the dumber things that I've ever seen in my life. After all, compared to the Indians and Eskimos we're all newbies.)

The point to remember is that America has never really been a melting pot. We're more of a stew, where each new immigrant population adds its own distinctive flavor.

When I look at the history of Europe since about 1970, I see the same thing happening. It's slower because the national boundaries tend to contain each distinctive national flavor, but trust me. There is already far more commonality across Europe today than there was 40 years ago. It may be hard to see from the inside, but it's there.

The last Battlefield game that I bought was BF 2. How about you?

Try applying that 100% to RNs. How are you going to predict patients that get worse, that get better, that crach, etc. Impossible to predict workload of an individual patient. So impossible to get that mythical 100%. You need slack to be there when multiple codes hit a single ICU or unit, or when a big motor vehicle accident hits the ER and surgical staff. The article is written by some idiot efficiency expert who apparently has no idea how you need some sort of reserve to draw upon, both staff-wise and personal-wise. Running flat out for a full shift is enough to wreck even the greatest surgeon or nurse if done too often. Same goes for coders, having been both (RN and Sr SW Engr)

You can demand full access when that person sues you for libel. That's what we are talking about here. Its not a random grab by a critic, but a request (subpoena) for information in a suit BROUGHT BY MANN. So save your anger and your wild imagination trips. This is not about opening up your daughter's email, its about the right of a person to subpoena information from a public employee who is suing him.

It wasn't the "critics" or the political commentator who brought this to court. It was Mann who sued them, opening the way for discovery subpoenas against him, not FOIA requests. This blocks the defendant from getting to a public employee's communications that may possibly be used to defend one's self against a suit by that employee. This could be a very bad precedent. And don't confuse this with the FOIA stuff, nor with critics/skeptics using it to harass Mann: Bottom line is that if Mann had not sued in order to silence a political columnist, none of this would ever have been necessary.

That is what worries me more than anything else - if a public employee sues you in a matter of free speech (to silence you from criticizing him, via use of libel laws), this precedent gives that government employee a huge shield to hide behind and resist your attempts to discover information to defend yourself with against his lawsuit. This is a terrible precedent because it will provide for government coverups and denials of FOIA requests in the long run. Imagine this being used by a public employee you do not like politically, for a libel suit for your criticism of him - whether justifiable or not, it limits your ability to defend yourself. These folks are public employees, and their correspondence should as a general rule be available (excluding classified information, or personal privacy redacted info). A blanket limit on discovery when defending against a lawsuit from a public employee is a bad thing

I transitioned from Software Engineer to RN. Med-Surg, then ER. Licensed. Also US Army veteran, so doubly useful. My wife is a pastry chef (baker) - and an amateur brewer -- as well as an Army veteran too (thats where we met) So if the worst happens, we will be well positioned to help.

With that uid you have been around long enough to remember the AOL invasion of Usenet and the massive chaos that imposed on users. However, unlike Usenet back then, we now have plenty of alternatives, and this place will become quickly abandoned if a similar impact happens. I wonder if those pushing this have read Santayana...

Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

Heh.

Same opinion of beta.

Your tax dollars at work