Saturday, March 29, 2003

Some places to go to learn about avoiding "spam" http://www.spamhaus.org/ http://www.spews.org/ http://www.spamfaq.net/ http://spam.abuse.net/ What I don't understand is that you don't have a right not to hear messages, although many states have created "Do Not Call" lists. Why isn't the answer a state-sponsored "Do Not E-mail" list? What other answer is not consistent with the First Amendment? You don't have a right to a newspaper or magazine that doesn't have ads? You don't have a right to a TV rpogram without ads? Why do you have a right to an e-mail inbox without ads? What is spam, anyway? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/30/business/30MUSI.html 11:19:29 PM    comment []

Patents on software in the US and in Europe probably don't benefit most people. It's hard to see how they promote innovation. They obviously benefit IBM and some other companies, but they also stifle competition and protect those who are already rich enough to apply for patents and protect them against challengers by means of expensive litigation. http://gibuskro.lautre.net/patents/Overview.html http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt 10:37:15 PM    comment []

Check out Sarah Lai Stirland's blog: http://www.corante.com/connected/ 7:29:19 PM    comment []

See Lawrence Lessig's idea at http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,3959,932615,00.asp 7:24:25 PM    comment []

I applaud the efforts of David Weinberger and Doc Searles http://www.worldofends.com/ About ten days ago, Doc Searls and I put up a site called "World of Ends" (http://www.worldofends.com). It seemed to us that business and government generally are just plain wrong about what the Internet is, which is why they keep making proposals that would so radically diminish the Net's value. So, we decided to explain it in short words. For me, the "take-away" is: 1. The Internet is an agreement, and to succeed on the Internet, any new agreements -- e.g., Digital Rights Management -- have to be actually agreeable to users as well as vendors. 2. The Internet's ethos is governed by Doc's three rules: No one owns it, everyone can use it, anyone can improve it. Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But since Doc and I seem to become obnoxious whenever we're put together -- it's apparently a recessive gene we both carry -- the tone became "Yo, blockheads!" ---From JOHO Journal of the Hyperlinked Organization March 17, 2003 Here's his contact information: Editor: David Weinberger (self@evident.com) Please send subscription requests or modifications to self@evident.com. Or use our Sub/Unsub form at http://www.hyperorg.com/forms/adminhome.html ======================================== For the fully glorious illustrated and hyperlink-saturated online version of JOHO, please visit: http://www.hyperorg.com/current/current.html 7:14:31 PM    comment []

The magazine based on dirty pictures was unlikely to beat Oprah Winfrey in this case: http://www6.law.com/lawcom/displayid_cases.cfm?statename=NY&docnum=188308&table=case+digest&flag=full Market surveys were conducted in this case by the defendants, rather than by the plaintiff (who proceeded pro se): "The defendants also commissioned a market research study to determine whether there was a likelihood of reverse consumer confusion between "> Magazine and "O The Oprah Magazine." (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶67.) The survey, was conducted by Dr. Henry Ostberg, a market researcher of the Admar Group, Inc., in shopping malls across the United States, and revealed that only 7 out of 255 respondents, or 2.7 percent, perceived any connection between the plaintiff's magazine and "O The Oprah Magazine." (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶68-69,78.) Only 3 people, or 1.2 percent, of respondents believed that the "> Magazine produced by the plaintiff was actually produced by any of the defendants or by Oprah Winfrey. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶74.) The survey was conducted under double-blind conditions, where neither the interviewer or the respondents were aware of the survey's sponsor and had no indication concerning an expected outcome, and it conformed to generally-accepted standards of professional market research. (Defs.' Rule 56.1 Stmt. ¶80-81.)" 5:54:28 PM    comment []

© Copyright 2003 Noel D. Humphreys.