jriordan

Fascinating case. The resolution [1]:

"The case continued to a final injunction which allowed Nissan Computer Corporation to maintain control of the domains Nissan.com and Nissan.net so long as it neither advertised nor mentioned/made disparaging comments about Nissan Motor. Nissan Motor then filed a series of appeals that ultimately resulted in the same judgment in favor of Nissan Computer Corporation."

So Mr. Nissan wins and NissanUSA would probably be best burying the information about this case due to the negative publicity (for their otherwise excellent brand) and the fact that Mr. Nissan is eloquent and persuasive about the rights to his own name.

Perhaps this is a lesson in how NOT to pursue a perceived cyber-squatter?

[1] http://www.yalelawtech.org/ip-in-the-digital-age/why-nissan-...

Hard to get anything without a "server not responding" error or a seemingly-perpetually spinning wheel...

If the whole conversion process is being done in real time, I understand. But then you ought to advise your users that, because of this (BETA-stage etc...) they allow your website a good 5 or 10 minutes to do what it needs to do. Otherwise the wait is too long and good-bye...

I think that these layoffs were made significantly less burdensome because of who was laid off -- i.e. real estate brokers.

Almost all real estate brokers in the non-tech world work as 1099 contractors anyway, paid completely on commission -- no salary and no benefits. This has always been the "standard" in real estate, and pretty much everyone gets into the brokerage business knowing that. Sure, there have been some innovative exceptions over the last couple of decades (limited-service residential brokerages like HelpUSell or Assist2Sell, for instance), but full-commission is the general rule.

So... you are a broker and you take a salary or semi-salary job with a tech start-up... You ought to realize that you are stepping outside the way your business normally operates. You are much more likely to be standing on shaky business ground, much more likely to be discarded when the boss changes his mind about the deal he signed (which happens in real estate all the time!).

Laid off from that company with the snazzy HN post "42 Floors is Hiring!" from a short time ago? If you are a competent broker, you have a career path available that has always been there and will be there for the foreseeable future-- back to being a commissioned salesperson. If you can produce sales, you can get a new spot quickly and without much hassle.

If it were any other demographic, the boss would have had a harder time.

Microsoft owns Windows. Licenses it to OEMs. If Microsoft didn't have a problem with OEM's disabling Windows Update, then then would have prohibited it in their license agreement.

Could this be any more patronizing and offensive? Look, if you are Anthem member, or if you were an Anthem member, you've been doxxed... and quite comprehensively:

have obtained personal information from our current and former members such as their names, birthdays, medical IDs/social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses and employment information, including income data

And you were doxxed nearly two months ago. Or maybe not, because Anthem goes out of its way to NOT tell you when this occurred. If you were affected here's how they will notify you:

We continue working to identify the members who are impacted. We will begin to mail letters to impacted members in the coming weeks.

So sometime within the next month you will get a snail mail telling you that you were doxxed... and that letter will probably be extremely vague about the details, but will be quite heavy on the PR and perhaps even have a nice picture of Grandpa CEO at the top.

Anthem is not taking this seriously. No matter what they are trying to communicate with their PR gloss, they seem to care about covering their asses first and really don't seem to give a hoot about all your personal data that is out there in the wild.

More like AnthemLies.com...

What do you think is the best way to learn of these things, i.e. physics fundamentals and all in the modern state of knowledge?

I ask from the perspective of a B.S. Physics cum computer software person... which, I think, might not be too far removed from the perspectives of most HN peeps...

Okay, I'm like 5 years old, but could you explain to me how this is available here for free, yet it costs $32 to read the final published version?

I mean... this is fundamental human knowledge we are talking about... isn't there some better way of doing this than $32-a-pop?

And very much in practice. Census reps -- all those temp workers that provide a reliable employment spike -- are instructed to pay multiple home visits to anyone who hasn't completed a questionnaire, extended survey or not. They are also instructed to remind holdouts of criminal liability for not responding. And they do!

Also census reps must take an oath to not disclose individual information:

http://www.census.gov/acs/www/about_the_survey/oath_nondiscl...

How this comports with Section 215 access to individual data will be interesting to see.

Here's why census data is relevant: If you receive an extended survey from the U.S. census, you are legally required to fill it out with all sorts of personal data. If you don't return it, a census rep will hound you until you do.

The "Privacy Policy" for this data is on the U.S. Census website here:

http://www.census.gov/about/policies/privacy/data_protection...

Note the statement that "the statistics we release do not identify individuals or businesses".

During the last census, it became pretty obvious that this would be an effective way for the U.S. Government to compel information from people who were suspected of something. Section 215 of the Patriot Act, after all, gives the government carte blanche to obtain any "tangible" thing.

IMHO... the interesting questions to ask when this legal opinion is released are:

1. Was there ever any accuracy to the U.S. Census "Privacy Policy"? Were the privacy policies of the U.S. Census misrepresented to the public, and in particular to those who were required to complete an extended survey?

2. Does the legal opinion address the "third-party doctrine" when the information provided is provided under legal compulsion, and in particular with potential (if commonly unused) penalties for non-cooperation?

A very interesting test case would be for someone to sue the government, in light of the upcoming 2020 census, to test the constitutionality of the criminal liability for not completing the extended survey in light of the government using the information provided for potential law enforcement purposes. It should be easier than usual to establish standing since anyone can be forced to complete one of these extended surveys.

At least THIS carousel doesn't break the back button.

there's an English version:

http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Andre_sprog/English/2013/05/17/1309...