I don't know how many times I have seen checkout chicks charge groceries' to a card and don't even check the signature on the back matches what is signed.
11 posts • joined 21 Jan 2013
'Patents should be treated the same as trademarks; if you don't defend them right from the get-go, you lose them.'
Well the interesting part of that statement is you can only defend something when you know about it.
I hope in this case that SIP technology has no doubt been reported on every medium that a small business can use the fact that BT knew about it and did nothing and that now they are asking for licencing arrangements that requests for past payment should be dismissed.
Secondly since this is basically industry wide standard for VIOP I would also be arguing that this should be categorised as a FRAND based licence and the amounts being asked for is too excessive (especially targeted at small businesses) when the technology was sourced from another company like cisco, Microsoft, etc who should have informed the client about this sort of issue (a good way to pass the buck to someone who can defend against this crap).
Of course what would be even better is if there was laws against this sort of action (and it should be easy to prove that they knew it was being publically used) and fine the company and/or drop the law suits currently filed as a deterrent for this sort of thing.
I can understand both points of view because if someone has a warrant for outstanding fines that can be treated differently to someone suspected of kidnapping someone. I mean if I had outstanding fines that I paid today and the police pulled me over I could produce the receipt and confirm it has been paid and be along my way without wasting lots of time.
The most worrying part about the article is there was no mention of auditing. If police use the information from this system to set someone up or unfairly persecute someone and it goes to trial can the defendant find out how many times your name, location, vehicles, etc were searched and detailed information was retrieved and by who. How do we know that police are not entering the licence plates of the cars they see to find out who has an interesting record to then pull someone over and hand out tickets, check for defects, do an inspection of a persons contents, etc to meet internal quotas and raise money for the police (not that police officers would ever do something like that).
Also with the person who hides drugs in their socks, can the cops be allowed to question the person when their socks look bulgy because a note in their record says that's where the hide their drugs? If I have a record for 'transporting prohibited substances' can the cops use that as a reasonable suspicion of a criminal activity when they see me driving around and do a full search of my car?
EA has obviously decided not to do their usual thing where each new game is really the old game with better graphics and an extra feature or two.
This game is now basing the simulation on the EA senior management’s thought processes (or maybe one of their programmers) with the game being informally labelled SimCity 5 - Zombie Apocalypse where you have been cryogenically frozen and awoken 500 years in the future and are the only person with half a brain and need to run the city.
Then everyone should have some fun with this and sign up high profile anti piracy figures to torrenting sites and download a few torrents against their name.
No doubt law enforcement will get around to arresting these naughty, naughty people (after RIAA, MPAA, etc members accidently leave briefcases full of case at the local cop shop) and make an example of them. I wonder if the trials will end up something like in NZ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/31/rianz_gets_tiny_little_copyright_win/.
I have the same thing with my home internet. When I buy content from my ISP (i.e. music, videos, etc) they allocate that data to a separate section that doesn't count to the data cap.
The way I see AT&T perceiving this as some what similar, you are paying for a cell tower and the data allowance to go with it. So AT&T are going to treat this as nothing more than a huge wifi network (for internet based data) for all AT&T mobiles connected to it.
i.e. You’re a mining company and pay for a tower so employees can use phone and internet services on site and we are not going to double charge you for internet usage from mobile devices linked to this cell network (which you no doubt pay for anyway).
As to the statement about abusing the spirit of net neutrality is BS. Net neutrality is about ISP’s not killing competition using their clout for their own online services. Nowhere in this article does it state for AT&T customers having their own cell towers with customers using AT&T mobiles using AT&T internet services get the data free. All it says is ANY internet usage from AT&T mobiles will not be charged to the mobile account. You could be using facebook, youtube or even looking up The Register and we will not charge you.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021