|
| Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 10:45 PM EDT |
Please include the article title and make links clickable thru
Post Mode HTML
Huh?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: gfim on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
They still don't seem to acknowledge that all of the Doug Lea authored files
contain the string "released to the public domain" in the header!
---
Graham[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT |
| [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
| http://www.thev
erge.com/2011/08/11/broken-patent-
system/
Goes into some depth on the
issue and on patent reform
ideas.
Worth a read anyway, regardless of
whether you agree or
disagree.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
| http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/
2012
/07/why-there-are-too-many-patents-in-america/259725/ [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 03:31 PM EDT |
Verizon is insane to want this. If they are not content-neutral then they are
responsible for the content. Which means they can be sued for libel, copyright
infringement, etc for any and all content they deliver. So if Verizon wins this
case, Sony, Viacom, etc can sue Verizon, deep pockets, instead of going after us
little people. Be careful what you wish for, Verizon.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Bas Burger on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
I honestly wonder how much accountability a person can endure before giving
up...
---
No comments...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 10:56 PM EDT |
I find it funny that we are discussing presumably with concern the effect of
internet censorship laws in Russia aimed at reducing [redacted]ography on a
website where you can't even use the word [redacted]ography without the website
software automatically censoring it by replacing '[redacted]' with '[redacted]'.
Irony anyone?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
