Using a non-compete for trade secret protection is an extreme example: the tightly-held trade secret has no expiration date, so a one-year non-compete just doesn't cut it.
I have no idea if a company has convinced someone to sign a multi-year non-compete in exchange for a percentage of the company — and then shortly afterward fired them for [reasons] after they signed all the agreements. They may not have been able to become familiar with the reason for the non-compete or NDA. That risk is a huge reason not to accept a position.
You must have the warrant before you buy the data. If you go fishing, buy the data, find what you're looking for, then get the warrant,...no.
If you buy data you must register the purchase with an accurate description of what was obtained, like the search terms.
You can't already have bought all the data, have it all stored on disks, and then just look something up (see: fishing)
I think it is fine when companies hoover the internet to feed the giant maws of the AI industry (I'm envisioning something like the movie Mortal Engines except for data). However: when you query the AI and receive an answer that you then use in a work, your work should then not qualify for copyright protection, since you plagiarized who knows someone else's work. I imagine not claiming the copyright would not alleviate the problem.
If you're writing a research paper, that's great, but you can't attribute just the AI, you need to attribute the source for the AI in each case.
Very early in developing a massive public-facing technology, one ought to ask how state governments such as that of the People's Republic of China, as well as less-capable state governments, would repurpose the technology once it became available to them? This exercise asks, "what if?" and needs to be considered when a technology winds up being used through over a billion devices.
Does the Texas state government operate what could be described as a social media platform with on the order of 50 million users? It would be an ideal place to test the efficacy of the new law.
There are vast areas worldwide that will just never see a cell tower or cable. I've ordered Starlink to be a backup service in case my primary service is interrupted. We've seen multiple-day power outages here several times; for the cell service to be sustained during these, the trucks have to wire utility pole gear with generators; at the same time by using Starlink all I have to do is power my gear with my own resources, I'm not relying on anyone else's power.
Starlink is popular right now because of twenty years of exceptionally bad behavior by internet service providers who want their network growth to be funded for them to serve oodles of people. And have government keep competitors out of the market.
I speculate here: to fend off some of the angst against Starlink, all Musk need do is buy one of current major providers, and just do what Google started to do and just expand coverage. It would certainly help if he also solved the Starlink satellite albedo problem. Hubble isn't the only thing that will experience streaks in sky image captures.
Also, note that Starlink is not the only satellite constellation business interested in hoisting 30,000+ satellites, there's quite the line forming. Starlink wasn't the first either.
"Meanwhile, even as Apple has now lost the case, it did still succeed in forcing the price of many ebooks much, much higher."
How did it do that? Are the contract terms with the large publishers still incorporating that thing where content pricing on Apple's Bookstore must match the lowest price on Amazon etal?
They constrain content availability so that any new content gets the lion's share of eyetracks.
They also constrain new content to specific venues.
To their point of view, they just have to fix the internet to plug up all the distracting uncontrolled sources of illegally provided content. There's a finite amount of money available from the public to pay for entertainment, the content folks want to funnel it all to new releases playing at movie houses first, because that maximizes the revenues for new titles.
If it weren't for that meddling iCEO, music would be using the same success formula today.
The company cannot replicate all those follows itself because it can't force followers to follow one of its other accounts. It can only get followers to voluntarily follow one of its accounts. So since the employee wouldn't surrender the account to the company, the company is forced to sue the employee to gain whatever tangible good will it believes it is owed, the account with all the established follows. The employee did run an account on twitter with the name of the company as part of the name, and in so doing was acting on behalf of the company with that account. The bewildering part of all this is that the employee refused to hand the account over, it hurts the value of the account, and the ex-employee is burning a bridge by not turning it over promptly.
Copyright and IP, when inconsistently enforceable, are more a nuisance than a benefit because they offer false promise. If the military adopted a more advantageous policy to reward inventors appropriately, their benefit would likely be tremendous.
The first release of the service was a test in three markets. It was backed up by advertising, and I'm told was well received. The second release of the service was for real, in the 31 largest markets, but for reasons I don't understand they weren't able to advertise, so consequently nobody knew about it. The set top boxes were recently for sale in places like Radio Shack and Best Buy, but nothing about the displays drew customer attention. The business model behind the second, full release of the service was much different than the first. There are bona fide reasons that such a service could thrive in the current market. I expect the company to achieve greater success with more intelligent backing.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by crenelle.
Trade Secret
Using a non-compete for trade secret protection is an extreme example: the tightly-held trade secret has no expiration date, so a one-year non-compete just doesn't cut it. I have no idea if a company has convinced someone to sign a multi-year non-compete in exchange for a percentage of the company — and then shortly afterward fired them for [reasons] after they signed all the agreements. They may not have been able to become familiar with the reason for the non-compete or NDA. That risk is a huge reason not to accept a position.
There should be a stipulation in this bill:
You must have the warrant before you buy the data. If you go fishing, buy the data, find what you're looking for, then get the warrant,...no. If you buy data you must register the purchase with an accurate description of what was obtained, like the search terms. You can't already have bought all the data, have it all stored on disks, and then just look something up (see: fishing)
AI generated content lacks protection
I think it is fine when companies hoover the internet to feed the giant maws of the AI industry (I'm envisioning something like the movie Mortal Engines except for data). However: when you query the AI and receive an answer that you then use in a work, your work should then not qualify for copyright protection, since you plagiarized who knows someone else's work. I imagine not claiming the copyright would not alleviate the problem. If you're writing a research paper, that's great, but you can't attribute just the AI, you need to attribute the source for the AI in each case.
Were Apple to implement this
Very early in developing a massive public-facing technology, one ought to ask how state governments such as that of the People's Republic of China, as well as less-capable state governments, would repurpose the technology once it became available to them? This exercise asks, "what if?" and needs to be considered when a technology winds up being used through over a billion devices.
Asking for a friend
Does the Texas state government operate what could be described as a social media platform with on the order of 50 million users? It would be an ideal place to test the efficacy of the new law.
Starlink service is desirous; balance is also
There are vast areas worldwide that will just never see a cell tower or cable. I've ordered Starlink to be a backup service in case my primary service is interrupted. We've seen multiple-day power outages here several times; for the cell service to be sustained during these, the trucks have to wire utility pole gear with generators; at the same time by using Starlink all I have to do is power my gear with my own resources, I'm not relying on anyone else's power. Starlink is popular right now because of twenty years of exceptionally bad behavior by internet service providers who want their network growth to be funded for them to serve oodles of people. And have government keep competitors out of the market. I speculate here: to fend off some of the angst against Starlink, all Musk need do is buy one of current major providers, and just do what Google started to do and just expand coverage. It would certainly help if he also solved the Starlink satellite albedo problem. Hubble isn't the only thing that will experience streaks in sky image captures. Also, note that Starlink is not the only satellite constellation business interested in hoisting 30,000+ satellites, there's quite the line forming. Starlink wasn't the first either.
What managers want to avoid: Zoom meetings
Management would rather poke their eyes out with ice picks than do more Zoom.
Development staff could have one or two Zoom meetings a day, but managers spent all their waking hours in Zoom and Microsoft Teams.
Everyone must return to the office to work.
"Meanwhile, even as Apple has now lost the case, it did still succeed in forcing the price of many ebooks much, much higher."
How did it do that? Are the contract terms with the large publishers still incorporating that thing where content pricing on Apple's Bookstore must match the lowest price on Amazon etal?
Backups?
Presumably, backups are included with the rest of the seized assets.
East India Company
They constrain content availability so that any new content gets the lion's share of eyetracks.
They also constrain new content to specific venues.
To their point of view, they just have to fix the internet to plug up all the distracting uncontrolled sources of illegally provided content. There's a finite amount of money available from the public to pay for entertainment, the content folks want to funnel it all to new releases playing at movie houses first, because that maximizes the revenues for new titles.
If it weren't for that meddling iCEO, music would be using the same success formula today.
It's the followers that the company wants.
The company cannot replicate all those follows itself because it can't force followers to follow one of its other accounts. It can only get followers to voluntarily follow one of its accounts. So since the employee wouldn't surrender the account to the company, the company is forced to sue the employee to gain whatever tangible good will it believes it is owed, the account with all the established follows. The employee did run an account on twitter with the name of the company as part of the name, and in so doing was acting on behalf of the company with that account. The bewildering part of all this is that the employee refused to hand the account over, it hurts the value of the account, and the ex-employee is burning a bridge by not turning it over promptly.
Copyright and IP, when inconsistently enforceable, are more a nuisance than a benefit because they offer false promise. If the military adopted a more advantageous policy to reward inventors appropriately, their benefit would likely be tremendous.
as it was described to me
The first release of the service was a test in three markets. It was backed up by advertising, and I'm told was well received. The second release of the service was for real, in the 31 largest markets, but for reasons I don't understand they weren't able to advertise, so consequently nobody knew about it. The set top boxes were recently for sale in places like Radio Shack and Best Buy, but nothing about the displays drew customer attention. The business model behind the second, full release of the service was much different than the first. There are bona fide reasons that such a service could thrive in the current market. I expect the company to achieve greater success with more intelligent backing.