HN user
Sure, but don't try to hack this metric too much. Manufacturers use it and don't try to game it. They actually want to improve it. Apple partners with Foxcon to get this number at 5, and wouldn't have it at 5 if they didn't believe Foxcon could manage demand. Apple would maintain inventories in their warehouse if that was the case.
This metric speaks as much about Foxcon's success as it does Apple's.
Some misconceptions in this thread on how inventory turnover is calculated.
It is (commonly) calculated as COGS / Average Inventory.
Let's say your COGS for a Macbook is $500. You buy material on Jan 1 to make it, assemble on Jan 2, and ship Dec 31. Your turnover is $500 / $500 = 1 for the year.
If you buy parts to make 2 Macbooks on Jan 1 your inventory turnover would be 0.5 ($500 / $1000).
This accounts for unused A5 chips in stock (or anything else unused), and online sales don't count as "0 days".
Failure to warn is only one component of liability. There is design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, and so on.
"It's complicated" is very accurate.
I'm not defending the legal field in its entirety, but your opinion would change if you or your loved one were harmed or killed.
Not totally accurate. There isn't much uncertainty in the law, but rather whether you broke it. Plaintiff has the burden of proof. And while there may not be a specific statute spelling out liability, case law has equal wait in the US.
Here is an example. This is a common 3 part test used to decide whether a manufacturer is liable for failure to warn:
1. Manufacturer had actual knowledge of the alleged danger
2. Manufacturer had no reason to know that consumers would know of this danger.
3. Manufacturer failed to exercise reasonable care to inform customers of the danger.
Despite the "no refund for deposits" clause, you are entitled to your full money back. It doesn't matter that they offer no warranties, express or implied, either.
You may have to go to small claims court to get it. Or you may have to get an attorney to get it (Tough to do, I know).
Just know he is feeding you BS and you will have to assert yourself to get it.
What state are you in?
The PDP-Linux maker should be sued for copyright (and trademark) infringement. Buyers may believe they are getting RedHat Linux because that is what the cover is, but they are not getting Red Hat Linux.
Once again, the programmer's work is sacred and we need Linus's permission, but an artist who creates cover art did trivial work and deserves no protection.
Those two pictures are not out of context. They are from the case that Baio cited himself. On Baio's blog (http://waxy.org/2011/06/kind_of_screwed/) he cites an "influential paper on fair use" as his reasoning and authority for his own fair use argument.
These pictures show what the paper writer is actually using as the "transformativeness" example. Baio never bothered to dig into the writer's citations to figure out the details. Trying to claim his own work is similar to the Blanch v. Koons case is a mistake. They aren't alike at all.
I don't think that your distinctions are fair.
Source code changes that I am suggesting will allow the new BaioNix to functionally "work" just as Linux does, just like how Baio created a picture but it "works" as a homage to an earlier Miles Davis photo.
And I am not suggesting trivial code modifications for the sole purpose of evading copyright. The changes that BaioNix has produce a simpler naming convention that enables programmers to understand the code easier.
People are acting like Baio has a slam dunk case but had to settle because he doesn't have money to defend. In reality Maisel has a slam dunk case and Baio wisely settled and cut his losses.
Is this a just result? As with everything, that is up for debate. But if you want to change the law to allow Baio-works one needs to consider what else it affects.
I think your attempt at a distinction in paragraph 1 actually proves my point. Yes, GPL covers binaries, or however else the code is distributed. Just like how copyright law protects a Miles Davis picture on an album cover, a CD liner, and on a web page when it is "mostly-the-same."
Baio was mostly the same. Koons was not. See these. http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/silksandals.j... http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/koonsniagara_...
The second picture by Koons is transformative. Baio's is not even close to Koons.
First, I can't say that I am surprised my post currently sits at 4 downvotes here on HN. A programmer's work is sacred while a photographer's is not.
Use some common sense? Baio absolutely published the photograph, which is why we are all having this discussion.
It doesn't matter why people buy something or if it had an impact on sales. A copyright holder retains the sole right to publish a work and its derivatives. That is the essence of how we protect works of art fixed in a tangible means of expression.
Hypothetical: Baio downloads the latest Linux kernel. He changes all variable and function names to words of his choosing. Baio now says that he has the right to distribute BaioNix code free from GPL copyright restrictions and does so. The Free Software Foundation sues Baio alleging copyright infringement.
Who wins and why? How is this different from or the same as Maisel v. Baio?
I am a lawyer, and have studied copyright law, and in my opinion Baio's work is not even close to transformative.
Or course this is a matter of interpretation and we are deciding on degrees, but here is an example of what transformative is:
The case that Baio is relying on is Blanch v. Koons. Here is the original work: http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/silksandals.j...
Here is the work of the subsequent artist who was found to be "transformative": http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/images/koonsniagara_...
Can we agree that Baio's work doesn't arise to the level of transformativeness that the Koons work did?
Show the bosses this chart: http://www.deadondemand.com/products/digitalshredder/
It describes how much money they will personally owe and how much prison time each of them could do when there is a breach.
note: I have no financial interest in the company linked. It is simply the most comprehensive chart I have seen.
I have a BS/MS in Electrical & Computer Engineering. For a while I designed/manufactured sensor systems. Our customers were nuclear plants, oil refineries, chemical plants, etc. My company had a line of products that monitored steam valves, among other systems.
For a bunch of reasons I decided to go back to law school and added that skill.
So now I operate at the intersection of law, management/operations, and engineering for small companies. So far it is working out as a good niche.
Former steam valve monitoring engineer here.
The motivation for moving from "per valve" to "total for all valves" was cost savings in monitoring. There are thousands of these in plants. Operators didn't want to have to check each one individually, so they got the rule changed to a total measurement.
To actually measure they "randomly" sample their valves, monitor, and then extrapolate to the rest. I say "randomly" because the best ones get checked repeatedly.
The steam valves are designed with pressure relief valves. When pressure exceeds a specified limit, the release is opened to the atmosphere.
Increasing releases is a symptom of other issues in a plant, some very dangerous and some just a reflection on increased utilization.
Example of what happens when steam goes wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_New_York_City_steam_explos...
I am a lawyer, and what ggchappell said is correct.
The work required to license either isn't difficult. Arguing back and forth on terms is how the legal bills add up. It all boils down to how much money must be paid.
Your product is mostly the underlying asset, not the streamlined process.
Remember, every licensee of the copyright or trademark will be selling the same thing (mostly). How do they differentiate themselves in the market? Probably price, in a multitude of ways.
Yes, copyright and TM are different, but both can be handled similarly. Let's start with similarities.
You can register both individually, and then execute a licensing contract for each afterward. You sign and the new party signs. Terms of the agreement ae mostly up to both of you.
Trademarks allow for extra assignment recording rights. You can check the USPTO website for those or contact an attorney for specifics.
Basically, you creat a license, like GPL or a CC license or a custom one (how most are done).
You can charge a flat fee, ongoing royalties, or other. Whatever fits your goals and the market.
atty here btw.
You are correct, but there are some gotchas, too.
1. Hopefully you incorporated in your state and actually have the protection, not as a Delaware LLC, which might not help you. Hopefully you paid the yearly fees and did the registration requirements, too.
2. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't just let you walk away. The opponent will get your assets. Did you claim your computer as a deduction? Other side could get that. They can get any corporate assets up to the judgement amount. If you have regular income from licensing agreements they can also get that. And so on.
3. Declaring bankruptcy isn't without its consequences. Senior officers of companies that declare bankruptcy can be prohibited from serving as a senior officer or founder of other/new companies. In some instances it will show up on your personal credit report.
4. Hopefully you don't have a business line of credit that you made a personal guarantee on. Or friends and family loans.
And so on.
> I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Ha. If you were a lawyer you would know that saying "this is not legal advice" doesn't actually turn legal advice into non-legal advice.
The whole post is legal advice.
EDIT: I think that is funny that I get downvoted for this. The writer very early on in the post demonstrates that he doesn't have legal knowledge, yet he advocates people using his language in their own contracts.
Some of the clauses don't protect how the writer thinks they do, if at all. Parts of the analysis/summary are flat out wrong.
For example, the legal costs clause is one of the scariest in the post. You really want to allow the other side to recover their legal costs if he sues you? These things work both ways.
Just look at the balance of potential damages. Your potential damages are for the unpaid contract price. That is it. The client's damages if your software fails could be millions of dollars in tort liability. And you are going to pay their legal fees when they hire the best contingency lawyers around and win?
By the way, defense attorney's can't take cases on contingency basis. If you are being sued you will have to pay your own way with the hope of collecting afterward. The legal costs clause created a nice incentive to go to trial for the opposing plaintiff.
Be careful out there.
No, it wouldn't work.
The reason why is at the very heart of copyright law. You need to learn this area.
Owning copyright to a work gives the owner EXCLUSIVE rights to distribution of that work.
Therefore, just because you sold a legal copy to a user via Amazon you do not have the right to broadcast the work on your website. Only the copyright owner can do that, because he has exclusive distribution rights. Your broadcast isn't authorized even though you selling DVDs is authorized.
Be careful with this stuff. In my opinion you are playing with fire here. The RIAA has no problems with burying people who distribute songs illegally. MPAA has done less of this, but you don't want to be the example.
They probably don't need any license. What rifftrax is doing is selling you an mp3 with their own comedy on it. It is a completely new work. The customer buys/rents the companion DVD and then syncs.
That is slightly different than OP because OP wants to broadcast the movie, or at least the exact words. The exact words are what he needs to license, even if he does perform them himself.
If OP can figure out a way to teach people language by making his own rifftrax mp3 then he is in business. Good call prodigal_erik.
I have an idea for you. This might work. You REALLY need to read up on Copyright Law, though. To be honest, you might not be the best person for this. You may want to speak with an experienced copyright person. Anyway...
This might work: Stop broadcasting the video. You make an audio only CD where you and friends play the parts in the movies. The customer is instructed on when to start the audio CD so that it syncs with the movie. You can also distribute a book that tells the person when to start and stop the movie/audio and then do your thing with your company.
So all you are selling is an audio CD, which you performed, and a companion workbook.
This MAY work because what you are doing is making a "cover song" of the movie audio. You will need a mechanical license, if it is even available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license
I have never heard of this for movies, but it might work. A mechanical license will be cheaper and easier than negotiating with a movie studio.
This is how it works in the music world: http://www.harryfox.com/public/FAQ.jsp
No idea if you can do this in the movie world, but you should check it out.
No.
Filing in a state that you aren't yet doing business has no benefit and could actually hurt you.
By registering in a state you are consenting to being sued there. Why would you register a Delaware (or elsewhere) LLC when you are in California. Bad idea.
Second, if you don't register in your home state it could be found that you aren't operating an LLC at all. Say hello to personal liability for your debts.
Register in your home state, and as you expand to operations/contacts in other jurisdictions, register there.
Yup.
Also, doing business in your home state is automatic. Working there = doing business there.
Filing an LLC in another state without actually doing business there is useless.
That changes nothing. Still copyright infringement. See above.
Transformation and educational purpose do not mean what you think they mean.
1. Transformation is more than adding your own translation on top of the movie. You need to change the meaning or expression of the work. The meaning of your version is exactly the same as the original by definition (you are making a word for word translation).
2. Your "educational purpose" argument is diminished when you affect the market for the work. The movie studio will argue your students should rent/buy the movie and watch with subtitles. Your website is taking away sales. Also, if you try to earn money from this you are no longer seeking any educational purpose.
3. You are broadcasting the original movie without permission. That is copyright infringement.
4. Regarding your quote, you should read the Blanch v. Koons case and look at Blanch's original work versus Koon's alleged infringing work to see what transformation requires.
That is copyright infringement, and would not constitute fair use.
Around ycnews it is often said to not worry about that. No one will sue you until you get big, and then you can negotiate. I have no opinion on that advice.
Studios are unlikely to license you big name movies and TV shows.
Can you contact independent filmmakers instead? They may be giving their work away for free already. You could create a market for it. Your customers pay to use your service, and then you give a cut to the filmmaker. Filmmaker makes money where he wouldn't have before, and also gets greater exposure for his work.
I definitely didn't mean that. Thanks for the clarification.
Corporate protection does not extend to criminal acts conducted by directors, officers, or employees.