JNZ Law Blogs

Personally I'm a huge fan of daisy chaining. Less devices, less cables, less clutter. You just attach each device to the next.

What is it you have an aversion to?

What if I need to pull a drive somewhere in the chain but I'm still accessing a device farther along the chain? Daisy chaining is a *massive* pain for anyone who deals with external devices that aren't permanently, or at least semi-permanently, hooked up to a single machine!

Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.

And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.

You say:

"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."

Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).

But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?

And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:

the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Let's look at these.

1) the purpose and character of your use

This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.

2) the nature of the copyrighted work

Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.

3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and

A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.

4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.

By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.

You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.

Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.

You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
LOL. Please tell us which law firm you work for. That was quite funny. Are you a historian now too? Would the real cmaier please stand up?

So the arbitration system comes from the roman law as well? Do tell.

I'm not interested in what revisionist historians have come up with the justify this perversion of justice that you call "law". The roman empire fell a long time ago and while Roman law may have influenced much of our legal proceedings, including the structure of civil cases, I was talking about how civil disputes are generally dealt with. Lawyers arguing a case are supposed to be the last resort, not the first.

This process is based on Judeo-christian principles on how you settle disputes over land or labour. It has nothing to do with criminal law.

Here is how disputes were supposed to be dealt with.
1. You go to the person in question and try to talk it out.
2. If that does not work, you meet in front a mediator such as as priest, local official, magistrate or arbitrator.
3. If that does not work, you hire an advocate and make your case in front of the community.
4. If that does not work, you take your case before the court which would usually have been a king back in the day.

The bible frames it slightly different but that is the gist of how it appears in the bible.

To put in a modern context:
1. Go for coffee.
2. Arbitration.
3. Public Hearing.
4. Court case.

The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.

OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.

Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.

Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.

My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.

Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.

It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.

Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?

It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.

Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.

For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.

I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.

However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)

So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.

Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.

What's hard in the U.S. is that most people make a modest or poor salary--yet the culture is very materialistic and there is a lot of pressure to buy so many luxury goods and services. At least in third world countries, your friends aren't pressuring you to take extravagant vacations you can't afford or go out to expensive restaurants.

I had an app rejected because the icon was a cartoon of the presidential seal where the eagle, in one claw, was holding an iphone-looking phone, which I drew myself, and which was probably 12 pixels x 6 pixels or so in size (in an overall icon that was 57px x 57px.)

But apparently including a 3/4 scale photo of an iphone is fine.

Whatever.

...Eh, shoot back? But not in the head... A head shot, geez... That wasn't meant to stop him, that was meant to kill him...

What is your firearms experience? How many times have you been shot at? Do you think the security guard make a Hollywood head shot?

screen prices are cheap and creative types would eat them up
:):apple::cool:

time to do research?

if you are not doing anything wrong, what is there to worry about?

Because the definition of "wrong" can be changed and stretched by the government. Think "Red scare".

But since you're so open, why don't you go ahead and give me the password to your Email account?

Unless, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that 3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware. In that case, all customers will be required to install a mandatory "security" bug fix which installs support for a new private key, and everything proceeds as normal.

Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from, and also preprogrammed support for all of those keys into every properly licensed accessory. Maybe they just planned to use the first key up until it was compromised, and then move on to another.

Now, they might just push a new iTunes upgrade that blacklists the compromised key and moves on to another one -- and at the same time, instruct all licensed equipment to also add that key to their own blacklist (while continuing to maintain seamless support for all the remainder of the preprogrammed keys) the next time the licensed equipment connects to an authorized audio source.

(Unless, maybe the reverse engineer in this case already anticipated such an eventuality, and actually extracted all of the keys -- assuming, of course, that there really are multiple keys. If that were the case, then the reverse engineer hypothetically might have defeated the entire benefit that Apple might have derived from hypothetically having multiple keys to choose from in the first place...)

What's a little crazy with that is you start to believe your own hypothetical, made-up engineering. Now, no one here knows anything for sure, but, I think we can say with some certainty that Apple won't be changing the key in iTunes.

3rd party hardware includes the ability to upgrade its firmware
Sweeping generalisation. Those simple iHome AirPlay speakers can be connected to a computer and then firmware upgraded? Very unlikely. Not every AirPlay licensed hardware is an expensive Hi-Fi amp with upgradable firmware.

Heck, it's even possible that Apple might already have planned for this contingency, and instead of just having one private key, they may have come up with a set of many private keys to choose from
Near enough pointless. If someone is able to get hold of one private key, they're in a position to get hold of any others. This guy dumped the ROM after all.

The biggest reason for Apple not to change the key is it would break everything. A "mandatory "security" bug fix" isn't feasible for hardware, it would be like trying to organise a product recall - you could never tell everyone, and everyone would be wondering why their product suddenly broke - the companies behind these products would be swamped with support calls. You simply can't just bring out an update that breaks everything, hoping that customers will somehow update hardware that might not even be up-dateable.

tl;dr - However Apple engineered this, it's almost certainly not like that ^

I'm starting to question the validity of any keynote.There's only one story about it and it's not even on the radio shows webpage.Why are there not more media types getting "invitations" ?

Invites are suppose to go out today or Monday.

It is definately iTunes related. It is suppose to be adding movies to iTunes.

I can't wait to get my hands on an iPhone- I'm getting tired of my SLVR. As soon as the iPhone launches I'm throwing my SLVR in to a river. This is starting to become tradition, there must be a half dozen old cell phones of mine which have been cast in to the briny deep. What a liberating experience.

Then I'll be right back here complaining about how 8 cores isn't enough either.

I'm with you there. Although I don't do video compression but Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign work, I'm sure Adobe will manage to deliver a version of CS3 that still feels sluggish under 8 cores.

I still wish they made them for Apple. Looks like they might! Awesome!!!
New rumor!
Well if they were already make some accessories for the ipod they might actually be tempted to make one or two products sound cards for apple. What I would love to see is Creative licensing their X-FI audo tech to apple to put in the ipod. I have been hearing nothing but good things about X-Fi.

Quote:
"Originally Posted by X5-452
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?"







Ha, it makes me laugh still, 'cause it annoys other people..! :p

You certainly know how to make friends, sir.

Censorship! Don't do it, Apple!

Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.

That doesn't count either. You're looking at it wrong. :D

this is definitely a style over functionality....how da heck do you dial a number with clickwheel?

of course, if this is a slider phone like chocolate, then this is an awesome design.


How do you figure this is an awesome design? This is a brainless design! Designing the nano in the first place might have been awesome. But making a nano a phone is hardly a leap of design genius!

And you mentioned chocolate and awesome design in the same sentence!!!:confused: :confused: :confused:

How does trademarking work in Europe? Here in the use you trademark something, and you don't have to specify what industry its in, or what the trademark is used for.
In the Us, if you want a registered mark, you do have to specify the use. That's why Apple can have a trademark for Mac, and MAC cosmetics can too, and McDonalds can have their Big Macs and so on.

You will find in just the USPTO records that the Apple logo is registered multiple times for different uses, and they seem to add one or two each year.

There is a whole separate issue with "famous" marks that can make the rights more expansive, but that is more the exception than the rule.

in Europe do you have to register it for each unique industry? Otherwise, why would they be reapplying if they already have it?
It's not just for an industry but for particular classes of products and services. In both the US and Europe there is a common classification system for this stuff (Nice Union, yet another WIPO treaty).

I expect to see a speed bump across the entire range (excluding the Mac Pro) within the coming weeks.

Same here in NJ...The local papers always list the upcoming check points...Legally obligated to

Maybe certain municipalities do list them, but NJ does not have a law like that.


And all of you who say "the country is in flames", "unemployment is high", and ask how politicians can focus their time on this is amazing...you people are stupid. Do you understand how being a politician works? What their staff does all day? That you can't fix a nation in a day?

And not that it really matters, but our problem in America is that we're refusing to accept the global economy and that we can't remain a strong manufacturer and a strong service provider...tariffs and taxes won't accomodate both happily.

We still have an incredibly strong economy, so I don't really see what anyone is complaining about...

I bought The Ladykillers and got the movie in 40 minutes. I watched it on my iMac (last Intel-model, 17") and the quality was really great. Might be slightly softer than DVD quality, but color, detail, everything is really sharp. Not at all like the TV shows. Chapter skipping is great....no complaints, really. I doubt I'll be buying many movies, but I'll certainly buy again when the selection improves.

My Netflix account stays, though.

People who speed and drive under the influence make me sick. Pull the apps. And when you catch the scum, throw them in jail and take away their licence. The don't deserve to walk among us.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)

Aren't intel in the process on implementing Open CL?

---