Comment Re:Technology is no panacea (Score 1) 319
Re: Your signature. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Wd-Q3F8KM
Great example of transformative use and a wonderful classroom example.
Comment Re:Using what works is what matters (Score 1) 319
1) That is why you use a panel system in larger classes.
2) I have used the socratic method just fine in tandem with group projects, etc, at the undergraduate level.
Comment Re:Settlement (Score 1) 229
mmmm unguided erie guesses. Did you know that the Illinois Supreme Court will only take certified questions from the Supreme court OR the 7th circuit? (talk about ridic...)
Comment Re:Let's play this out to the end, shall we? (Score 1) 229
What does that have to do with what the LAW is. Bad facts make bad law, sometimes, but there is a question of law here.
Comment Re:Not settling (Score 1) 229
New York: Supreme Court (Trial) => Appellate Division (App Div) => Court of Appeals(Highest Court in State). Also you are not entirely correct, in some circumstances, Appellate decisions are binding to ALL lower courts, and in some jurisdictions, they are binding on only those lower courts over which they have direct review. (So the Nassau County Supreme court wouldn't be bound by 1st Department Decisions, but New York County Supreme would. N.b. In New York, this is not the case -- Appellate Decisions from any department are binding provided that the department with direct review does not have conflicting precedent)
Comment Re:Not settling (Score 4, Informative) 229
This is not criminal. It's civil. All of the things you cite (except one) go to damages, not liability. Going to law school has made me hate slashdot so much more.
Comment Re:Settlement (Score 4, Interesting) 229
IAAL. I am assuming you meant to write "IANAL." A trial court ruling, while not binding on other courts (but certainly persuasive) may in some instances be binding on that same trial court, and as a practical matter, often is even when it need not be. Also, there may be an estoppel issue for the RIAA lurking here.
Comment Re:Did you read & understand the article? (Score 1) 464
Rather than enter a special appearance to move to quash, they just waived personal jurisdiction. Nothing to see here. .....
Comment Re:I don't think so... (Score 4, Interesting) 237
IAAL. 17 U.S.C. 501(b) authorizes an exclusive licensee to sue for inringement. he has granted an exclusive license. thus he might not want to sue you, but his publisher can. Look through the Silvers v. Sony Pictures case -- unless his contract specifically deals with the right to sue for infringement....his publisher can.
Turkish Assembly Votes For Censoring of Web Sites 247
unity100 writes "CNN has some news about a recent development in Turkey where the Turkish assembly, totally out of line with Turkey's commitment to EU membership, has voted to have sites that 'insult to the founder of modern Turkey' censored from entire Turkish population. This, just about a month after the decision to censor YouTube was reached by the Turkish courts. 'On Thursday, lawmakers in the commission also debated whether the proposal should be widened to allow the Turkish Telecommunications Board to block access to any sites that question the principles of the Turkish secular system or the unity of the Turkish state -- a reference to Web sites with information on Kurdish rebels in Turkey.'"
Submission + - EFF: Patent Busting -- Prior Art Needed for VOIP
JumperCable writes: The Electronic Frontier Foundation is seeking to bust an overly broad patent by a company called Acceris. Acceris claims patents on processes that implement voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) using analog phones as endpoints. These patents cover telephone calls over the Internet.
Specifically, the claims describe a system that connects two parties where the receiving party does not need to have a computer or an Internet connection, but the call is routed in part through the Internet or any other "public computer network". The calls must also be "full duplex", meaning that both parties can listen and talk at the same time, like in an ordinary phone call.
To bust these overly broad claims, we need "prior art" — any publication, article, patent or other public writing that describes the same or similar ideas being implemented before September 20, 1995.
Specifically, the claims describe a system that connects two parties where the receiving party does not need to have a computer or an Internet connection, but the call is routed in part through the Internet or any other "public computer network". The calls must also be "full duplex", meaning that both parties can listen and talk at the same time, like in an ordinary phone call.
To bust these overly broad claims, we need "prior art" — any publication, article, patent or other public writing that describes the same or similar ideas being implemented before September 20, 1995.
Submission + - Current owner of BeOS Code: Zeta is Illegal
Hank Powers writes: The legal status of the Zeta operating system that was derived from the source code Be Inc. left shortly before going bankcrupt has been unclear for several years. Now, the current owner of the source code, ACCESS, claims "if Herr Korz feels that he holds a legitimate license to the BeOS code he's been using, we're completely unaware of it, and I'd be fascinated to see him produce any substantiation for that claim". The sales of Zeta have been suspended and so has the development been halted as well. OSNews has an article about the recent developments.
