|
Authored by: JamesK on Friday, January 25 2013 @ 05:10 PM EST |
I can understand the reason for locking a subsidized phone, as the carriers are
entitled to recovery the subsidy. But what happens when that is paid for?
Perhaps unlocking should be mandatory at the end of the initial contract period,
so customers are free to take their paid for phone elsewhere. In Canada,
carriers are required to unlock phones on request and for a service fee.
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 04:18 AM EST |
I don't know how the content of this story compares to the subscription only
Law360 article but it's dated the day the
Law360 article says Bob Goodlatte made his announcement.
He
[Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), House Judiciary Chairman] also added that the committee
"may" hold hearings on the CFAA and Lofgren's draft measure, but emphasized that
"no decisions have been made yet."
http://thehi
ll.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/278593 goodlatte-house-judiciary-to-look
at-computer-hacking-law-in-wake-of-swartz-death
(Link worked in preview.
If it is broken, replace the two spaces in the text version of the URL with
hyphens. Spaces added after "278593" and "look" so line could break.)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 07:22 AM EST |
What an incredible
read! Such a wonderfully composed
brief. So eminently readable any astute
high school graduate
could easily follow the arguments presented. It defies
logic
that so many in the judiciary, and even the US Government
promoted the
notion that our genes can be patented.
Aside from thoughts on the merits
of the petitioners
brief, all through reading it I saw little arguments that
taken in isolation could be copied and pasted into a brief
arguing against
software patents. If only we could put
together a brief like that directed
towards overturning
these patents on mathematics. Surely computer science isn't
inherently more complicated than molecular biology! I would
suggest using that
brief as a template and a "How To" manual
to prepare a similar brief against
software patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 08:04 AM EST |
Seems that once the boot is lifted off their necks, the manufacturers are less
inclined to just follow Microsoft's lead.
Couldn't happen to a more deserving company...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, January 26 2013 @ 05:28 PM EST |
"The case is yet another example of U.S.-based social media services
butting up against European hate speech laws."
Foreign companies have long found themselves subject to U.S. laws for activities
occurring outside of the U.S.. For example, back in the '60s some Canadian
companies had been punished for doing business with Cuba, even though it was not
in violation of Canadian law. More recently is the U.S. seizing domain names of
off shore sites that the U.S. has determined violate U.S. laws, regardless of
the fact that the operation is entirely legal in the country where they reside.
The U.S. has a long history on forcing its laws on things that are outside of
it's jurisdiction. Well, what goes around...
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|