text:
Whither Brexit
Answer… it's ongoing.
Hard to believe two years have passed since the first big shock result of 2016. Especially since little seems to have happened, in this case.
The main reason I feel like revisiting this topic is its useful lessons for national plebiscites, a concept which has been on my mind lately.
It's increasingly tempting to believe that America's national politics might benefit from some element of direct democracy. The reasons are mostly variations on the theme of current practices not working very well…
Comparing surveys on issues, and the outcome of votes for elected officials, it seems like there is definitely a disparity, and seems to me like people are less bad at choosing broad policies than they are at choosing leaders to empower. Both my own observations and some studies suggest that contests for elected office have devolved into mindless seesaws of partisan intensity, whereas facts and argument have at least some chance in initiative and referendum campaigns. On certain issues, meanwhile, ideas seem to have hardened and yet there is no apparent hope of settling e.g. the issue of abortion, because on this issue there is no real overlap between the two parties between which government is, over time, divided in America.
I believe that there are issues in which resort to a nationwide plebiscite would offer some hope of an America that is less ungovernable.
Mainly because, at this point, national politics are basically a kind of bastardized pseudo-direct-democracy anyway. In practice, we elect people to make decisions… in reality, ideological party "sorting" is now substantial, and elections are at least as much arguments about known issues as they are about trying to select wise and honorable people to deal with undefined "new business." At some point, it seems like we need either a better mechanism for resolving long-term disputes… or else we need to admit that we're in a civil war and respond accordingly.
Plebiscites seem like a possible solution. Yet even setting aside the inevitable constitutional roadblock, just for discussion's sake, there are reasons for concern. I think the story of Brexit demonstrates some interesting ones besides the obvious.
With Brexit, David Cameron's government held a simple-question referendum on matters which defy equally simple execution. "Leave the EU" is in some sense relatively straightforward to implement; one just abrogates all existing relationships with the European Union and hey presto, this is what gets called "hard Brexit."
This is also, even to plenty of people who are sympathetic to Brexit, insane.
Something should replace European Union membership. That seems to be generally accepted as just basic reason. Unfortunately, there is no equally basic definition for what "something" should be, and thus have followed two years of stalling, dithering, and hoping that something comes along to resolve the dilemma. (I'm reminded a bit of Republicans' futile efforts to find a palatable, conservative alternative to Obama's healthcare reforms which already were the most palatable, conservative approach that can actually be made to work.)
Obviously, holding the referendum before resolving this question was stupid. Even worse, once done, there are no good options. You've held a nationwide referendum, and, crucially, generally speaking all the major factions accepted its terms. The time to protest the referendum's vagueness was before the campaign got started. The powerful Remain coalition nonetheless proceeded to accept it as a valid and real decision-point, probably in large part because they expected to win.
Then they didn't. Despite which, all of the people at the top of all Britain's major political parties are still fundamentally at odds with any practical Brexit scenario. Also an obvious risk of plebiscites, though I think that it's probably exacerbated by the fact that, again, there is no consensus sane course of action for them to "just get on with."
I think that "do-over" and "just forget about it" are both problematic in their own way, also. Ultimately because, again, you held a referendum, society accepted it in the sense of taking part rather than boycotting it, people voted, and any course which clearly dishonors their decision is fundamentally illegitimate. I'm familiar with all the rejoinders, and they don't persuade me; Britain held a "consultative referendum" and the people consulted said "leave the EU." If the national leaders who treated this referendum as a decision of genuine consequence—which in this context is, again, basically all of the national leaders both in power and in-waiting—then do something other than leaving the EU, why should people continue to regard any of them or the system of governance which they direct as legitimate?
Even within a complete make-believe context, it's difficult for me to come up with any fair resolution to the fiasco which David Cameron set in motion. I could just about see the best possible compromise as represented by some kind of ranked-choice vote on, say, "Hard Brexit," no Brexit, and an actual negotiated settlement with the EU. The problem is that someone has to negotiate the third option with the EU, and it's unclear who could claim to be acting in credible good faith there. The EU does not want to give Britain a good Brexit deal, although to some extent that was a foreseeable issue inherent within separating from the EU. But Theresa May's government seems, especially after dithering with the issue for so long, like it could very intentionally work with the EU to create a bad deal, so as to make "no Brexit" seem preferable. Yet if May's government isn't leading the negotiations, who is? On what authority?
This truly does seem a nightmare, and therefore a serious warning to anyone considering big-issue plebiscites: there must be agreement beforehand about what course of action results from each possible outcome of the vote.
There are, as noted earlier, other traditional warnings about direct democracy. Yet most seem to come down to a belief that there is some reliable superior arbiter of what is right than the people; for all my disaffection with democracy I'm just not sure that there is. Representative democracy depends on the people choosing representatives who will make better choices than themselves. As noted, it just doesn't seem like that's how elections even work.
The rights of the minority are often raised as a warning against direct democracy. Americans voted against same-sex marriage rights in a number of states, after all. But it's unclear to me what should be empowered to restrain the majority from making bad choices. Mostly, people pursuing this objection seem to rely on a belief that America's Constitution is a more reliable protector than popular opinion… yet, setting aside the fact that the Constitution can (in theory) be amended, the Constitution seems not to have been that great a protector of minority rights, historically. The Constitution has not protected LGBTQ rights, or abortion rights, or many other rights; certain judges (and those who accepted those judges' decisions) have established those rights, and certain other judges can very conceivably un-establish them.
At any given time a majority of the people are certainly capable of being capricious, unfair, cruel and simply wrong… yet where are the Philosopher Kings to determine justice instead? How can they be identified, if they even exist, except through selection by the entirely fallible people?
For practical purposes, I don't deny that some kind of empowerment of elite decision makers is unavoidable. I hope one day that I may come up with some genuinely valuable ideas for how to get better elite decision makers than result from our current mess. Meanwhile, though, I do think that given the obvious inherent vulnerabilities of representative democracy, there is a legitimate role for direct democracy in at least some limited circumstances.
Tagged: Brexit, democracy, plebiscite


text:
Inner Circle of Advocates
Tyler S. Thompson
Liz J. Shepherd
Martin Kinney
Jordan A. Stanton
Marshall Rowland
FELA Litigation
Speak To An Attorney Now
Big Trucks, Big Dangers
According to the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, large trucks are more likely to cause death than an injury; large trucks were involved in eight percent of crashes causing a fatality, but only three percent of crashes involving injury. A recent horrific wreck involving a tractor-trailer in Kentucky highlights the dangers of these vehicles on our nation's roadways.
In March 2010, an Alabama semi-driver operating for Hester Inc. crossed the median of I-65 and hit a van carrying a Mennonite family. Eleven of the family members were killed, as was the driver, and only two small children survived.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the accident to determine the cause. Several theories are in play including driver fatigue, driving under the influence, and a driver medical condition. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has also instigated a review of Hester Inc. and will review drivers' hours of service, vehicle maintenance and inspection, driver qualification, controlled substance and alcohol testing, and compliance with licensing requirements.
Hester Inc. has apparently been cited over a dozen times in the past 30 months for drivers going over the hours of service. The FMCSA had rated Hester's drivers as "deficient" as recently as February. The FMCSA's review is on-going. If the FMCSA determines that Hester's operations are "unsatisfactory," the company's vehicles would be taken off the road for good.
Changes in the Rules for Trucking Companies and Drivers
This tragic incident has already inspired one change in federal regulations: the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has issued a new rule that mandates certain federal trucking and bus companies to install so-called "black boxes" to monitor the number of hours that drivers work. The rule was proposed a while ago, but FMCSA has resisted putting it into effect until now.
The electronic onboard device will be installed in the cab of certain large vehicles and will record whether the truck is running and the driver's hours in service. The electronic onboard device might also provide benefits to the drivers in the form of GPS-like features such as weather updates, detour notices and information about near-by truck parking for the driver's route. The black boxes could cost between several hundred and several thousand dollars per unit and additional costs for monthly subscriptions for GPS services.
Support for the black boxes is not universal. Certain industry groups, including the American Trucking Association, support the rule because of the "incentives" it provides for safe and non-compliant carriers to adopt the use of the black boxes. But some advocates, including Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, oppose the requirement of mandatory recorders claiming that the electronic onboard devices do not account for all driver activities that might contribute to driver fatigue. He also notes that the expense of installation and GPS services is cost-prohibitive for some drivers.
Other Dangers Associated with Large Trucks
After trucking accidents, federal agencies and plaintiff's lawyers routinely investigate the scene to determine the cause of the accident. These investigations have revealed violations of federal safety regulations including brake failures, shredded tires, defective fifth wheel couplings, lack of reflective tape, broken tail lights and failure to install blind-spot mirrors.
Other dangers not addressed by the new federal rule involve a dangerous operation. While a black box may record the time that a driver is on the road, it does not record whether the driver is driving safely. The driver may be under the influence of alcohol or prescription medication. Technology, like ignition interlock devices, already exists to catch drivers who are under the influence of alcohol. Perhaps more sophisticated technology could be developed and required to be part of the black-box software to monitor whether a driver is under the influence of controlled substances and alcohol.
Drivers may also be fatigued. Many drivers point to the lack of safe truck parking throughout the United States as a reason that drivers push themselves to their next stop. The new rule does not address creating more safe truck parking on the nation's highways and interstates.
Other dangers that the new rule does not address include inadequate training and education for new drivers and cell phone use causing distracted driving.
The size and weight of tractor-trailers creates dangers on the road. Proposals are under consideration in Washington to actually increase the weight limit of large trucks from 80,000 to 97,000 pounds, making them even more dangerous for individual motorists that encounter the vehicles and drivers that violate federal safety standards. If a loved one has been injured or killed in a trucking accident, an experienced trucking accident attorney should provide quick and informative advice about what to do next.
Brain Injuries Have More Damaging Effects Than Previously Thought Mar 07
A study by Mayo Clinic researchers has found that even mild traumatic brain injuries (TBI) can have negative effects on a person's ...
Tyler S. Thompson Named Top Ten Attorneys in Kentucky by Super Lawyers Magazine Jun 28
Tyler S. Thompson has been named one of the Top Ten Attorneys in Kentucky on multiple occasions in the past by Super Lawyers ...
Bullying Among Medical Providers May Harm Patients Mar 29
Doctors have a reputation for treating their subordinates harshly, and recent research shows that the damage caused by hostility ...
13800 Lake Point Circle

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Slide arrow to resize text.
"more than just a place to live."
Keyless entry to the building prevents unauthorized copies of keys. As a resident you will receive a convenient "electronic key." It is easy to use, even for people with arthritis.
A site manager is on duty in the office during normal business hours. For emergency situations pull cords are conveniently located in bedrooms and bathrooms of each unit and are directly connected to the local ambulance service.
1. Elevators The building has elevators -- no more climbing stairs.
2. Library where residents can obtain reading material.
3. Numerous common areas Residents may gather with family or friends for activities or just to chat.
4. Railings and grab bars Discretely built into the design of the bathrooms are grab bars to assist residents in maintaining their independence.
5. Staff provide assistance in accessing services available in the community as well as scheduling wellness and informational programs.
6. Transportation an accessible van is available that will make regularly scheduled trips to grocery and health needs stores, many of which are located within a one-mile radius of the residence.
Click here for information about the manager.


The 2005 International Workshop on Description Logics continues the tradition of international workshops devoted to discussing developments and applications of knowledge representation formalisms based on Description Logics. It is the 18th in the series of international workshops.
DL2005 will be co-located with IJCAI 2005 (the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 30 July to 5 August 2005), and will take place from the 26th to 28th July 2005 in the National e-Science Centre in Edinburgh, Scotland.
We invite submissions of technical papers of 8 pages. Authors of accepted technical and position papers will be invited to present their papers at the workshop. Accepted technical papers will be included in the informal conference proceedings as normal papers (8 pages) or long papers (12 pages). We plan to make the conference proceedings available electronically via CEUR.
Foundations of Description Logics, including distinguishing features of Description Logics with respect to other formalisms, expressive power of Description Logics, decidability and complexity of reasoning, and novel inference problems and reasoning techniques for solving these problems.
Extensions of Description Logics, including, but not limited to, closed world reasoning, defaults, epistemic reasoning, fuzzy operators, temporal and spatial knowledge, procedural knowledge, and query languages.
Integration of Description Logics with other formalisms, such as object-oriented languages, constraint-based programming, logic programming, and rule-based systems.
Use of Description Logics in applications or areas such as natural language, planning, learning, databases, document management, semistructured data, ontology design and engineering, e-Science, semantic web, and grid computing.
Building systems based on Description Logics, with special emphasis on optimization and implementation techniques.
Tools that exploit Description Logic reasoning, such as ontology editors and database schema design and integration tools.
Interested parties are invited to submit a technical paper not exceeding 8 pages that has been prepared according to the instructions found in submission.tex. In case you cannot use LaTeX, you can use the instructions found in submission.ps. To submit your paper, please follow the instructions at the Submission Page for DL 2005. In case you have problems with electronic submissions, please contact one of the workshop organizers.
Accepted papers are printed in the workshop proceedings. The proceedings will be electronically published as CEUR-Workshop Proceedings Volume 147 at http://CEUR-WS.org/. At the workshop, a hard copy of the proceedings will be handed out to the participants.
Accepted papers and posters can be found here.
Please note that, in contrast to previous DL workshops, registration is open to everybody, and not by invitation only.
The registration fee includes coffee breaks, three lunches and a social dinner at Howies Waterloo Place.
Please register online here. The registration is a two-stage process carried out by the National e-Science Centre, where in the first step you can have your hotel booked. A confirmation of this booking is, however, only possible after payment in the second step.
We offer a limited number of student travel awards to help young researchers attend DL2005. We invite full time students with an accepted DL paper to apply for this grant before June 15, 2005. Applications should include a brief CV, a student ID or other evidence of professional status, and a letter of support from their supervisor. Please send your application to Uli Sattler, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK, to arrive by June 15, 2005.
The DL'05 workshop will be held in National e-Science Centre, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. Please notice that accommodation can be arranged with the National e-Science Centre when registering online; please cf. the registration information above.
Information regarding costs, travel information, hotels, etc. will be distributed later. Check the home page of DL 2005 for updates.
Enquiries about the DL'05 workshop can be made by mailing to the organizing committee: dl2005@cs.man.ac.uk.
The official Description Logics WWW home page is at http://dl.kr.org/.
Patrick Lambrix has a nice collection of DL references, researchers, etc. at: http://www.ida.liu.se/labs/iislab/people/patla/DL/index.html.


When you commit to the CBTR Process you help ensure that your test taking skills - including a confident, positive attitude - meet the bar preparation and performance standards necessary to pass the bar on your next attempt. We will work together to meet that challenge.
Testimonials can be found on the menu located on the top of our website.
Information on the California Bar Exam dates and recent stats can be found on our Home Page.
Still not sure you need help? View the full report.
Avoid a nightmare of bar exam failures. Call 1-800-783-6168 today!
Also, there are accompanying discount opportunities because of this.
Cal Bar's "Pay It Forward" discount policy enables you to discount the cost of your individualized program if you have charitable experience in your background.
If you have no charitable experience, you may still qualify for a $1,000 discount from your totally personalized program – which includes old-fashioned one-on-one, materials, classes. Just ask.
Earn credit towards a FREE Course when you refer qualified candidates that enroll in the California Bar Tutorial & Review program - A common sense approach for raising your law school grades & passing the Bar Exam with an All-In-One-Common-Sense-Cost.
Cal Bar is pleased to announce that Ali Hinsche continued her remarkable run of success in having just passed the Florida bar exam.
This was her 4th (count 'em: 1, 2, 3, 4) successful bar - on her 1st attempt-following California, New York and Illinois.
While Ali worked with Cal Bar for each state, she also owes her success to persistence, hard work, and in learning how to adapt and apply the Cal Bar test-taking systems to the requirements of each bar exam.
Having trouble locating something on our website? Take a look at our Site Map or use the link at the top of every page to Contact Us. We would be glad to assist you.
I am writing to thank you for all the help you gave me while I was preparing for this past February's bar examination. I know I couldn't have done it without you.
Specializing in English as a Second Language (ESL) and applicants with learning needs requiring special bar exam accommodations.


જેઠ સુદ-૬ને રોજ સભામાં પ્રથમ પ્રકરણમાં ૫૧મું વચનામૃત વંચાતું હતું, તેમાં વાત આવી જે પુરુષોત્તમની દૃષ્ટિએ જોઈએ ત્યારે પુરુષોત્તમ સિવાય બીજું કશું દેખાતું નથી.
એમ કહી બીજી ઘણીક વાત કરી.
તે ઉપર કેશવલાલભાઈ (અમદાવાદવાળા)નો હાથ ભાંગ્યો તે વાત કરી.
On the day of Jeth Sud 6th, the 51st Vachanamrut of the first chapter was being read in the assembly. In it, it is said that if we see through the eyes of Purushottam, we do not see anything else excepting Purushottam.
Somchandbhai of Karachi asked, "Is that sight is of physical eyes? Then Bapashri said, "The one who merges in Lord Purushottam's Murti that means our soul is engrossed in Murti and sees through the eyes of Purushottam is called seeing through Purushottam's eyes.
His brother Seth Savaldasbhai said, "Milk and sugar are formless whereas is God and Mukta are formless or having form?" Bapashri said, "Shriji Maharaj and His Mukta are always having forms and Shriji Maharaj keeps His devotee's soul giving it form, his feet in His feet, his hand in His hand, his head in His head, his eyes in His eyes, his ears in His ears, all his organs in His organs.
Somabhai of Amdavad said, "In Vachanamrut it has been said that God's greatness is understood in association with saints. Can we understand His greatness through Himself?" Bapashri said, "If God Himself meets, He will explain His greatness and if saints meets, saints will explain and this is also explained by God through the medium of saints. Therefore, it should be known that His greatness is understood through Him only.
Govindbhai of Jetpur said, "The diamond cuts the diamond, which are these two diamonds?" Bapashri said, "One diamond is Maharaj and saint, in the other is Mumukshu (Seeker). While meditating if we are engrossed and feel our head in Maharaj's head, our hand is in Maharaj's hand, it is called the diamond is cut.


text:
Endicott Coat of Arms / Endicott Family Crest
This English surname of ENDICOTT was a Devon topographic name for someone who lived at the 'end of the cottages'. The name was originally derived from the Old English word ENDECOTT. One locality so named is Endicott in Cadbury, Devon, and another is now called Youngcott in Milton Abbot. Surnames derived from placenames are divided into two broad categories; topographic names and habitation names. Topographic names are derived from general descriptive references to someone who lived near a physical feature such as an oak tree, a hill, a stream or a church. Habitation names are derived from pre-existing names denoting towns, villages and farmsteads. Other classes of local names include those derived from the names of rivers, individual houses with signs on them, regions and whole countries. John ENDECOTT (c1588-1665) was the colonial governor of Massachusetts, from whom several American families are descended. He was probably born in Chagford, Devon, and went to America in 1628 as one of six adventurers forming the 'New England Company for the Plantation of Massachusetts'. They went to Naumkeag, which was already settled by an offshoot of the Plymouth community, and the two groups agreed to combine and change the name to Salem at Endecott's suggestion. Little is known of his life before 1628, beyond the fact that his grandfather and mother were wealthy, but ENDECOTT was disinherited because of religious differences with his parents. When the first immigrants from Europe went to America, the only names current in the new land were Indian names which did not appeal to Europeans vocally, and the Indian names did not influence the surnames or Christian names already possessed by the immigrants. Mostly the immigrant could not read or write and had little or no knowledge as to the proper spelling, and their names suffered at the hands of the government officials. The early town records are full of these mis-spelt names most of which gradually changed back to a more conventional spelling as education progressed.


text:
package com.intellij.vcsUtil;

import org.junit.Test;

import java.nio.charset.Charset;

import static org.junit.Assert.assertEquals;

public class VcsFileUtilTest {

  @Test
  public void unescape_cyrillic() {
    String charsetMessage = " Default charset: " + Charset.defaultCharset();
    assertEquals("Cyrillic folder was unescaped incorrectly." + charsetMessage,
                 "папка/file.txt",
                 VcsFileUtil.unescapeGitPath("\\320\\277\\320\\260\\320\\277\\320\\272\\320\\260/file.txt"));
    assertEquals("Cyrillic folder with file name were unescaped incorrectly." + charsetMessage,
                 "папка/документ",
                 VcsFileUtil.unescapeGitPath(
                   "\\320\\277\\320\\260\\320\\277\\320\\272\\320\\260/\\320\\264\\320\\276\\320\\272\\321\\203\\320\\274\\320\\265\\320\\275\\321\\202"));
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
ISTANBUL TOY MUSEUM
" We are like two tracks
of a railway
what difference
does it make
if the last station is near "
Sunay Akın's work on literature and history has always been admired and made the artist known as "Researcher Poet".
As a detail master, he put on stage the surprising subjects of different topics that are somehow connected to each other.
The most important specialty of Akın's stage performance is that he can make the audience break their walls between looking and seeing, considering he can maintain the light of a thousand books in his one hour show.
Sunay Akın has become unique in his league with his smooth language, acting ability and surprising stories and succeeded to expand his shows from theaters to institutional organizations.
Definitions such as "removing obstacles in front of creativity and innovation", "truth following the footsteps of dreams", "knowledge known as a whale wondering in shallow waters" and "making move in a chess game instead of hunting stones in checkers" are not enough to describe his stage performances!
The best way to do so is to invite you to watch one of his stage performances with a quote from Victor Hugo: "Poet, don't tell me about rain, make it rain".
About | Books | Shows | Gallery | Istanbul Toy Museum | Contact
© 2016 SUNAY AKIN. All rights reserved.


N.B.: considered a senior synonym of Evippella Strand, 1906 by Alderweireldt, 1991: 360.
Evippa brunneopicta (Loksa, 1965, T from Xerolycosa) = Evippa sjostedti Schenkel, 1936 (Yu & Song, 1988c: 113, sub E. potanini).
Evippa fujianensis Peng, Yin & Kim, 1996 = Evippa sibirica Marusik, 1995 (Marusik & Buchar, 2004: 153).
Evippa helanshanensis Peng, Yin & Kim, 1996 = Evippa sjostedti Schenkel, 1936 (Marusik & Buchar, 2004: 153).
Evippa potanini Schenkel, 1963 = Evippa sjostedti Schenkel, 1936 (Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50).
Evippa sector Alderweireldt & Jocqué, 2017 = Evippa fortis Roewer, 1955 (Zamani et al., 2017c: 69).
Evippa straeleni Roewer, 1959 = Evippa strandi (Lessert, 1926) (Alderweireldt, 1991: 372).
Evippa abacata (Karsch, 1881a: 9, j, North Africa) -- Alderweireldt, 1991: 376, contra Roewer, 1959b: 177 (Tj from Pardosa).
Evippa africana Strand, 1906b: 679, 1908k: 365, pl. 8, f. 10-12 (mf, Ethiopia) -- Alderweireldt, 1991: 376, contra Roewer, 1959b: 179, f. 92a-b.
Evippa brevipes Strand, 1906b: 680, 1908k: 369, pl. 8, f. 15 (f, Tunisia) -- Alderweireldt, 1991: 378, contra Roewer, 1959b: 183, f. 94.
Evippa typica (Strand, 1906b: 680, 1908k: 371, pl. 8, f. 14, m, Tunisia, originally in Evippella) -- Alderweireldt, 1991: 378, contra Roewer, 1959b: 194, f. 101.
Evippa ungulata (O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1876b: 603, j, North Africa, originally in Lycosa, T to Evippa by Simon, 1882b: 223) -- Alderweireldt, 1991: 376, contra Denis, 1947a: 39, pl. I, f. 14 (f), Roewer, 1959b: 184, f. 95 (f) and Denis, 1966e: 127, f. 42-43 (Dm, North Africa).
Lycosa aculeata Kroneberg, 1875: 38, pl. 5, f. 46 (Df).
Evippa aculeata Simon, 1895c: 342.
Evippa kronebergi Roewer, 1955c: 154 (superfluous replacement name for Lycosa aculeata, erroneously considered preoccupied by Sundevall, 1833a).
Evippa aequalis Alderweireldt, 1991: 367, f. 3.1-5 (Dmf).
Evippa apsheronica Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 52, f. 1-3 (Df).
Evippa apsheronica Ponomarev & Tsvetkov, 2004: 86, f. 1-2 (Dm).
Lycosa arenaria Audouin, 1826: 367, pl. 4, f. 3 (Df).
Lycosa festiva Pavesi, 1880b: 369 (Df).
Evippa arenaria Simon, 1898a: 354, f. 346-347, 350.
Evippa arenaria Roewer, 1959b: 175, f. 90a, 91 (f).
Evippa arenaria Denis, 1966e: 127, f. 41 (f).
Evippa arenaria Alderweireldt, 1991: 363, f. 1.1-3, 2.1-6 (f, Dm).
Evippa badchysica Sternbergs, 1979b: 65, f. 1 (Df).
Evippa badchysica Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 48, f. 23-24 (f).
Evippa banarensis Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 305, f. 121-125 (Dmf).
Boebe benevola O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1885b: 95 (Df).
Evippa benevola Simon, 1898a: 360.
Evippa beschkentica Andreeva, 1976: 48, f. 56-58 (Dmf).
Evippa brevicymbium Alderweireldt & Jocqué, 2017: 10, pl. 6-8,12, f. 6-7, 12, 15 (Dmf).
Evippa caucasica Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 52, f. 4-6 (Dm).
Lycosa concolor Kroneberg, 1875: 38, pl. 4, f. 26 (Dm).
Evippa concolor Simon, 1895c: 342.
Evippa douglasi Hogg, 1912: 215, f. 8 (Df).
Evippa eltonica Dunin, 1994b: 243, f. 1-4 (Dmf).
Evippa eltonica Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50, f. 7-9, 13-15 (mf).
Evippa eltonica Esyunin, Tuneva & Farzalieva, 2007: 51, f. 6-9 (mf).
Evippa fortis Roewer, 1955a: 758, f. 4 (Dm).
Evippa sector Alderweireldt & Jocqué, 2017: 13, pl. 9-11, 14, f. 10-11, 14, 17 (Dmf) [urn:lsid:nmbe.ch:spidersp:049316].
Evippa fortis Zamani et al., 2017c: 69, f. 7A-C (m, S of E. sector).
Evippa jabalpurensis Gajbe, 2004c: 10, f. 10-13 (Df).
Evippa jocquei Alderweireldt, 1991: 374, f. 8.1-3, 9 (Dmf).
Evippa jocquei Alderweireldt & Jocqué, 2017: 15, pl. 8-9, 13, f. 16 (mf).
Evippa kazachstanica Ponomarev, 2007b: 94, f. 32 (Df).
Evippa kirchshoferae Roewer, 1959b: 178, f. 121 (Df).
Evippa kirschoferae Alderweireldt, 1991: 371, f. 6.1 (f).
Evippa kirchshoferae Barrientos, Miñano & Mestre, 2015: 4, f. 2A-D, 3, 4, 5A-C, 6A-B (f, Dm).
Evippa lugubris Chen, Song & Kim, 1998: 70, f. 1-6 (Dm).
Evippa lugubris Song, Zhu & Chen, 1999: 320, f. 202I (m).
Evippa luteipalpis Roewer, 1955a: 759, f. 5-7 (Dmf).
Evippa mandlaensis Gajbe, 2004c: 8, f. 6-9 (Df).
Evippella massaica Roewer, 1959b: 195, f. 103a-b (Df).
Evippella nigerrima Miller & Buchar, 1972: 394, f. 26-30 (Df).
Evippa onager Simon, 1895c: 341 (Df).
Evippa ?onager Sternbergs, 1979b: 67, f. 1 (f, Dm; misidentified per Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50).
Evippa ?onager sensu Sternbergs, 1979 Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50, f. 19-22, 28-29 (mf).
Evippa caucasica Zamani et al., 2016: 107, f. 28-30 (m) [misidentified per Zamani et al., 2017c: 63, as 'E. onager sensu Sternbergs, 1979'].
Lycosa praelongipes O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1871c: 822, pl. 50, f. 3 (Df).
Pardosa praelongipes Schmidt, 1895: 476.
Evippa praelongipes Simon, 1897i: 290.
Evippa praelongipes Roewer, 1959b: 182, f. 93 (f).
Evippa praelongipes Denis, 1966e: 127, f. 44 (f).
Evippa praelongipes Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 311, f. 135-137 (f).
Evippa praelongipes Alderweireldt, 1991: 369, f. 5.1-5 (f, Dm).
Evippa projecta Alderweireldt, 1991: 368, f. 4.1-3 (Dm).
Evippa rajasthaneus Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 306, f. 126-130 (Dmf).
Evippa rubiginosa Simon, 1885d: 11 (Df).
Evippa rubiginosa Gravely, 1924: 611, f. 5E (f).
Evippa rubiginosa Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 313, f. 143-145 (f).
Evippa russellsmithi Alderweireldt, 1991: 373, f. 7.1-5 (Dmf).
Evippa schenkeli Sternbergs, 1979b: 65, f. 1 (Df).
Evippa schenkeli Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50, f. 25-27 (f).
Evippa shivajii Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 312, f. 138-142 (Dmf).
Evippa sibirica Marusik, in Eskov & Marusik, 1995: 64, f. 58-62 (Dmf).
Evippa fujianensis Peng, Yin & Kim, 1996b: 71, f. 1-7 (Dmf).
Evippa fujianensis Yin et al., 1997c: 7, f. 1a-g (mf).
Evippa fujianensis Song, Zhu & Chen, 1999: 320, f. 190I, T (mf).
Evippa sibirica Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50, f. 10-12, 16-18 (mf).
Evippa sibirica Marusik & Buchar, 2004: 153 (S).
Evippa sjöstedti Schenkel, 1936b: 304, f. 106 (Df).
Evippa potanini Schenkel, 1963: 387, f. 224 (Df).
Xerolycosa brunneopicta Loksa, 1965: 16, f. 24 (Df).
Evippa potanini Song, Yu & Yang, 1982: 209, f. 1-3 (f, Dm).
Evippa potanini Hu, 1984: 216, f. 226.1-4 (mf).
Evippa potanini Song, 1987: 220, f. 178 (mf).
Evippa potanini Yu & Song, 1988c: 113 (S).
Evippa potanini Hu & Wu, 1989: 201, f. 167.1-4 (mf).
Evippa potanini Zhao, 1993: 67, f. 27a-c (mf).
Evippa helanshanensis Peng, Yin & Kim, 1996b: 72, f. 8-11 (Df).
Evippa helanensis Yin et al., 1997c: 8, f. 2a-d (f, lapsus).
Evippa helanshanensis Song, Zhu & Chen, 1999: 320, f. 190J (f).
Evippa potanini Song, Zhu & Chen, 1999: 320, f. 190K, 191A (mf).
Evippa potanini Hu, 2001: 171, f. 76.1-4 (mf).
Evippa sjostedti Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50, f. 30-34 (mf, S).
Evippa sjostedti Marusik & Buchar, 2004: 153 (S).
Evippa sjostedti Zhu & Zhang, 2011: 262, f. 189A-E (mf).
Evippa söderbomi Schenkel, 1936b: 302, f. 105 (Dmf).
Evippa soderbomi Hu & Wu, 1989: 202, f. 168.1-4 (mf).
Evippa soderbomi Song, Zhu & Chen, 1999: 320, f. 190L, 191B (mf).
Evippa sohani Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 303, f. 116-120 (Dmf).
Evippa solanensis Tikader & Malhotra, 1980: 308, f. 131-134 (Df).
Proevippa strandi Lessert, 1926: 352, f. 13 (Df).
Evippa straeleni Roewer, 1959b: 185, f. 96a-b (Df).
Proevippa strandi Roewer, 1959b: 193, f. 90b, 100a-b (f).
Evippa strandi Alderweireldt, 1991: 372, f. 6.3 (Tf from Proevippa, S).
Evippa turkmenica Sternbergs, 1979b: 67, f. 1 (Df).
Evippa turkmenica Marusik, Guseinov & Koponen, 2003b: 50, f. 35 (f).


text:
Q: Insert Strings that contain " ` " or " ' " to the database table - Php I have to insert some strings to my database.
The problem is that every time I use " ` " or " ' " it causes errors in the Sql.
For ex, when someone types "that's great" , it just messes everything up.
How can I solve this?
Thanks!

A: Use the real escape string function. Actually, MySQL prevents ' or ` from entering the system in order to prevent SQL Injection attacks.
Function Syntax: mysql_real_escape_string($your_string)

A: Use the mysqli escape string function:http://au1.php.net/manual/en/mysqli.real-escape-string.php (you shouldn't be using the mysql functions as they are depreciated) http://au1.php.net/manual/en/function.mysql-real-escape-string.php

A: Use a prepared/parameterized query.
Manual: http://www.php.net/manual/en/mysqli.quickstart.prepared-statements.php

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Software infringement and the fair use defense
Posted by Steve Vondran | Sep 01, 2022
Attorney Steve® Software License Compliance Essentials - Is non-commercial use of software protected by the copyright fair use defense?
One explanation we commonly get from company owners who are facing a software audit demand letter, or being sued for copyright infringement are that there was no commercial use, or minimal use only. In most cases, this is not a defense to unlicensed software. However, here is some key language from federal caselaw. In the right case, perhaps there is room to argue that the installation of software was solely for research or teaching purposes. This remains to be seen.
Is it copyright infringement in the 9th circuit if a company uses unlicensed copyrighted software programs for non-commercial usage?
An engineer had installed a personal copy of CAD software on his home computer. He used this only for his personal non-commercial use. The software publisher found out that he had this unlicensed software installed and sent him a copyright infringement demand letter. The engineer is claiming "fair use" of the software because he was not using it for business or commercial purposes. Will the copyright fair use defense succeed?
Let's take a look at the possible outcomes.
Quick Conclusion
To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a copyright and a copying of protectable expression beyond the scope of a license. (MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1458, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1992))
To establish the copying element, a plaintiff must catch the defendant in the act or be able to demonstrate circumstantial evidence of the defendant's access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the defendant's work. (CNC Software, Inc. v. T D Mfg., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76586, 2020 WL 2042330 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2020))
A "copying" for purposes of copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. (MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1458, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1992))
Running copyrighted software, without ownership of the copyright or a license to run the software, constitutes copyright infringement. (Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2006))
FAIR USE DEFENSE IN SOFTWARE INFRINGEMENT CASES
17 U.S.C. § 107 (2022) sets out the fair use defense. In determining whether the use is a fair use, the four factors to be considered include the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (17 U.S.C. § 107 (2022))
Whenever a user puts copyrighted software to uses beyond the uses it bargained for, it affects the legitimate market for the product. (Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept., 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006))
Not all four factors of the fair use defense must favor the defendant for the defense to apply. (Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept., 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006))
No decisions were identified in which a Ninth Circuit court found copyright infringement specifically where a company used unlicensed copyrighted software programs for non-commercial use; however, the following decisions may be instructive.
In the unpublished decision of CNC Software, Inc. v. T D Mfg., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76586, 2020 WL 2042330 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2020), the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that the plaintiff established a claim of direct copyright infringement. The plaintiff was the undisputed owner of numerous registered copyrights in various versions of its Mastercam® software. Copying was established because the pirated software was a cracked version of the licensed software. Thus, the defendants' loading of the pirated software onto their several computers and unlicensed use of the software constituted copyright infringement.
Furthermore, one of the defendants was personally liable because as a corporate officer and engineer, he downloaded, installed, and used the pirated software on several computers. The plaintiff also established that the defendants engaged in willful copyright infringement where the defendants were informed on numerous occasions of the plaintiff's copyright and their infringement, but they continued to use the pirated software.
In Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept., 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006), the United States Court of Appeals found that the defendant was not entitled to fair use where they made unauthorized copies of computer software. The defendant created exact copies of the software and put those copies to the identical purpose as the original software. The Court explained that the defendant's use was not transformative and was commercial in nature; the software took years to develop and required extensive investment from the plaintiff; the defendant copied the entire copyrighted work; and, the defendant affected the legitimate market for the product. Thus, all four factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2022) weighed against a finding of fair use.
Additional Copyright Case Law
17 U.S.C. § 117 (2022) sets out limitations on exclusive rights as applicable to computer programs. Subdivision (a) sets out limited circumstances where the owner of a copy of a computer program may make or authorize the making of another copy or adaption of that program.
These circumstances include where the new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or where the new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful. Subdivision (c) sets out that the copying of software for purposes of servicing the computer is not an infringement:
117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) MAKING OF ADDITIONAL COPY OR ADAPTATION BY OWNER OF COPY.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
(b) LEASE, SALE, OR OTHER TRANSFER OF ADDITIONAL COPY OR ADAPTATION.-Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.
(c) MACHINE MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if-
(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and
(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.
(d) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this section-
(1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and
(2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.
In MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1458, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1992) ("MAI"), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that to prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a copyright and a copying of protectable expression beyond the scope of a license.
In this case, the plaintiff's software licenses allowed the plaintiff's customers to use the software for their own internal information processing; however, the software licenses did not allow for the use or copying of MAI software by third parties such as the defendant. Therefore, any copying done by the defendant was beyond the scope of the license. The Court noted that it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act and that a copy created in the computer's RAM can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated. Therefore, the Court held that a "copying" for purposes of copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM (at 517-519):
To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove ownership of a copyright and a " 'copying' of protectable expression" beyond the scope of a license. S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir.1989).
MAI software licenses allow MAI customers to use the software for their own internal information processing. This allowed use necessarily includes the loading of the software into the computer's random access memory ("RAM") by a MAI customer. However, MAI software licenses do not allow for the use or copying of MAI software by third parties such as Peak. Therefore, any "copying" done by Peak is "beyond the scope" of the license.
It is not disputed that MAI owns the copyright to the software at issue here, however, Peak vigorously disputes the district court's conclusion that a "copying" occurred under the Copyright Act.
The Copyright Act defines "copies" as:
material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
17 U.S.C. § 101.
The Copyright Act then explains:
A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.
The district court's grant of summary judgment on MAI's claims of copyright infringement reflects its conclusion that a "copying" for purposes of copyright law occurs when a computer program is transferred from a permanent storage device to a computer's RAM. This conclusion is consistent with its finding, in granting the preliminary injunction, that: "the loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit ("CPU") causes a copy to be made. In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by license, such acts constitute copyright infringement." We find that this conclusion is supported by the record and by the law.
Peak concedes that in maintaining its customer's computers, it uses MAI operating software "to the extent that the repair and maintenance process necessarily involves turning on the computer to make sure it is functional and thereby running the operating system." It is also uncontroverted that when the computer is turned on the operating system is loaded into the computer's RAM. As part of diagnosing a computer problem at the customer site, the Peak technician runs the computer's operating system software, allowing the technician to view the systems error log, which is part of the operating system, thereby enabling the technician to diagnose the problem. 4
Peak argues that this loading of copyrighted software does not constitute a copyright violation because the "copy" created in RAM is not "fixed." However, by showing that Peak loads the software into the RAM and is then able to view the system error log and diagnose the problem with the computer, MAI has adequately shown that the representation created in the RAM is "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration."
After reviewing the record, we find no specific facts (and Peak points to none) which indicate that the copy created in the RAM is not fixed. While Peak argues this issue in its pleadings, mere argument does not establish a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment. A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in pleadings, but "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(e); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Harper v. Wallingford, 877 F.2d 728 (9th Cir.1989).
The law also supports the conclusion that Peak's loading of copyrighted software into RAM creates a "copy" of that software in violation of the Copyright Act. In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula Int'l, Inc., 594 F.Supp. 617, 621 (C.D.Cal.1984), the district court held that the copying of copyrighted software onto silicon chips and subsequent sale of those chips is not protected by § 117 of the Copyright Act. Section 117 allows "the 'owner' 5 of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy" without infringing copyright law, if it "is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" or if the new copy is "for archival purposes only." 17 U.S.C. § 117 (Supp.1988).
One of the grounds for finding that § 117 did not apply was the court's conclusion that the permanent copying of the software onto the silicon chips was not an "essential step" in the utilization of the software because the software could be used through RAM without making a permanent copy. The court stated:
RAM can be simply defined as a computer component in which data and computer programs can be temporarily recorded. Thus, the purchaser of [software] desiring to utilize all of the programs on the diskette could arrange to copy [the software] into RAM. This would only be a temporary fixation. It is a property of RAM that when the computer is turned off, the copy of the program recorded in RAM is lost.
While we recognize that this language is not dispositive, it supports the view that the copy made in RAM is "fixed" and qualifies as a copy under the Copyright Act.
We have found no case which specifically holds that the copying of software into RAM creates a "copy" under the Copyright Act. However, it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. See e.g. Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 260 (5th Cir.1988) ("the act of loading a program from a medium of storage into a computer's memory creates a copy of the program");
Nimmer on Copyright, § 8.08 at 8-105 (1983) ("Inputting a computer program entails the preparation of a copy."); Final Report of the National Commission on the New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, at 13 (1978) ("the placement of a work into a computer is the preparation of a copy").
We recognize that these authorities are somewhat troubling since they do not specify that a copy is created regardless of whether the software is loaded into the RAM, the hard disk or the read only memory ("ROM"). However, since we find that the copy created in the RAM can be "perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated," we hold that the loading of software into the RAM creates a copy under the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment as well as the permanent injunction as it relates to this issue.
In Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2006), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California cited MAI, supra, with approval and noted that according to the Ninth Circuit, running copyrighted software, without ownership of the copyright or a license to run the software, constitutes copyright infringement (at 994-995):
Plaintiff observes that Netpickle does not challenge that Netpickle's use of Iconix-registered code or insubstantial variants of that code continued through at least mid-May 2006. Plaintiff argues that using the code to operate and further develop the website necessarily involves making infringing copies of it Indeed, according to the Ninth Circuit, running copyrighted software, without ownership of the copyright or a license to run the software, constitutes copyright infringement: "[T]he loading of copyrighted computer software from a storage medium (hard disk, floppy disk, or read only memory) into the memory of a central processing unit ('CPU') causes a copy to be made.
In the absence of ownership of the copyright or express permission by licence, such acts constitute copyright infringement." MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 518 (9th Cir.1993). Netpickle does not challenge this proposition. Thus, Plaintiff has provided convincing evidence that Netpickle has infringed copyrighted software owned by Plaintiff.
In the unpublished decision of CNC Software, Inc. v. T D Mfg., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76586, 2020 WL 2042330 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2020), the United States District Court for the Central District of California held that the plaintiff established a claim of direct copyright infringement. The plaintiff was the undisputed owner of numerous registered copyrights in various versions of its Mastercam® software. To establish the copying element, a plaintiff must catch the defendant in the act or be able to demonstrate circumstantial evidence of the defendant's access to the copyrighted work and substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the defendant's work. In this case, copying was established because the pirated software was a cracked version of the licensed software.
The defendants' loading of the pirated software onto their several computers and unlicensed use of the software constituted copyright infringement. Furthermore, one of the defendants was personally liable because as a corporate officer and engineer, he downloaded, installed, and used the pirated software on several computers (at 8-9):
To establish a claim of direct copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove: 1) ownership of a copyright; and 2) the copying of constituent elements of the work that are original. Feist Pubs., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. 2d 358 (1991). CNC is the undisputed owner of numerous registered copyrights in various versions of its Mastercam® software. Complaint ¶¶ 10 to 18,; Keshishian Decl. ¶ 5. The copyright registrations presumptively satisfy the first element of copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989).
To prove the "copying" element, a plaintiff must catch the defendant in the act or can demonstrate "(1) circumstantial evidence of the defendant's access to the copyrighted work; and (2) substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the defendant's work." Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Film Ventures Int'l, Inc., 543 F.Supp. 1134, 1140 (C.D. Cal. 1982).
Here, copying is established because the pirated software is a cracked version of the licensed software. Xiang Li v. United States, No. CR 10-112-LPS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118613, 2017 WL 3222537, at *7 (D. Del. July 28, 2017) ("in the eyes of the individuals who purchased and used the pirated software, the pirated software was substantially identical to non-cracked versions.").
Defendants' loading of the pirated software onto their several computers and unlicensed use of the software constitutes copyright infringement. MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511, 519 (9th Cir. 1993) (defendants loading of the operating software constituted copying and further "violated [plaintiff's] copyright through the unlicensed use of [plaintiff's] software at [defendant's] headquarters").
Truong is also personally liable for the direct infringement because, as a corporate officer and engineer, he downloaded, installed, and used the pirated software on several computers. Complaint. "A corporate officer or director is, in general, personally liable for all torts which he authorizes or directs or in which he participates, notwithstanding that he acted as an agent of the corporation and not on his own behalf." Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp., 768 F.2d 1001, 1021 (9th Cir.1985) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court also explained that to prove willfulness under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or that the defendant's actions were the result of reckless disregard for, or willful blindness to, the copyright holder's rights. In this case, the defendants were informed on numerous occasions of the plaintiff's copyright and their infringement, but they continued to use the pirated software. Thus, the plaintiff also established that the defendants engaged in willful copyright infringement.
Finally, CNC alleges that Defendants' acts of copyright infringement were willful. "finding of 'willfulness' in [the copyright] context can be based on either 'intentional' behavior, or merely 'reckless' behavior." In re Barboza, 545 F.3d 702, 707 (9th Cir. 2008).
"To prove 'willfulness' under the Copyright Act, the plaintiff must show (1) that the defendant was actually aware of the infringing activity, or (2) that the defendant's actions were the result of 'reckless disregard' for, or 'willful blindness' to, the copyright holder's rights." Island Software & Computer Serv., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 413 F.3d 257, 263 (2d Cir. 2005); Peer Int'l Corp. v. Pausa Records, Inc., 909 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1990).
On numerous occasions, Defendants were informed of CNC's copyrights and Defendants' infringement, but Defendants continued using the pirated software and their actions of infringement were "knowing, intentional and willful." Willfulness can also be inferred from a defendant's failure to defend. Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 500 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Thus, CNC has established that Defendants engaged in willful copyright infringement.
"Copyright is a federal law protection provided to the authors of 'original works of authorship,' including software programs." Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. , 621 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 –03 ). Copyright infringement occurs whenever someone "violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner." Id. at 1106. As a copyright owner, Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right to reproduce its work. 17 U.S.C. § 106(1).
Plaintiff alleges Defendant has copied and reproduced its products without permission and circumvented technological measures designed to control access to them. It provides a list of nine Autodesk copyright registrations. Id. Ex. A. While Plaintiff does not state whether Defendant has allegedly infringed upon all these products, the Court finds Plaintiff's allegations provide fair notice to Defendant of the claims against it.
17 U.S.C. § 107 (2022) sets out the fair use defense. This section states that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research (QUERY: what if the software is used only for research or training), is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use is a fair use, the factors to be considered include the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work:
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept., 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained that not all four factors of the fair use defense must favor the defendant for the defense to apply. In weighing the factors, courts bear in mind that fair use is appropriate where a reasonable copyright owner would have consented to the use (at 777-778):
To determine whether the Sheriff's Department's use was fair, we must balance four factors. See id. at 800. These factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. See Dr. Seuss, 109 F.3d at 1399-1404.
Not all of the four factors must favor the Sheriff's Department. See Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1522 (9th Cir.1992). As we balance these factors, we bear in mind that fair use is appropriate where a "reasonable copyright owner" would have consented to the use, i.e., where the "custom or public policy" at the time would have defined the use as reasonable. Subcomm. on Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights of the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., Study No. 14, Fair Use of Copyrighted Works 15 (Latman) (Comm. Print 1960).
The Court found that the defendant was not entitled to a fair use defense where they made unauthorized copies of computer software. The defendant's use was not transformative because they created exact copies of the software and put those copies to the identical purpose as the original software. Furthermore, the defendant's use was commercial in nature. A commercial use can be demonstrated by showing that repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.
Additionally, the software products took years to develop and required extensive investment from the plaintiff. Thus, the nature of the copyrighted work also weighed against a finding of fair use. Furthermore, the defendant's copying of the entire copyrighted work also weighed against a finding of fair use. Lastly, the Court explained that whenever a user puts copyrighted software to uses beyond the uses it bargained for, it affects the legitimate market for the product. Accordingly, the Court found that the widespread use of hard drive imaging in excess of one's licenses could seriously impact the market for the plaintiff's product. Therefore, the fourth factor also weighed against a finding of fair use.
We first consider the nature of the work: whether the new work is transformative or simply supplants the original work, and whether the work is commercial in nature. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579, 114 S.Ct. 1164.
Of primary concern is whether the Sheriff's Department's use was transformative; the more "transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of the other factors." A use is considered transformative only where a defendant changes a plaintiff's copyrighted work or uses the plaintiff's copyrighted work in a different context such that the plaintiff's work is transformed into a new creation. See, e.g., id. at 578-79, 114 S.Ct. 1164. The Sheriff's Department created exact copies of RUMBA's software. It then put those copies to the identical purpose as the original software. Such a use cannot be considered transformative. See Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 819 (9th Cir.2003) (finding that reproducing music CDs in computer MP3 format is not a transformative use because the resulting use of the copyrighted work was the same as the original use, i.e., entertainment). In cases where "`use is for the same intrinsic purpose as[the copyright holder's] ... such use seriously weakens a claimed fair use.'" Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, Inc., 227 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313, 1324 (2d Cir.1989)).
Next, the Sheriff's Department's use of hard drive imaging to copy RUMBA Office did not promote the advancement of knowledge and the arts — goals that copyright intends to secure. "[C]opyright law ultimately serves the purpose of enriching the general public through access to creative works," Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 527, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994). But the Sheriff's Department did not "provide the marketplace with new creative works," nor was there any advancement of public knowledge in this case. Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1336 (9th Cir. 1995). Thus, allowing such a "fair use" would not further the ultimate goals of copyright law.
Finally, the Sheriff's Department use was commercial in nature. The Sheriff's Department alleges that its use was "commercially insignificant" because not all of the copies of Wall Data's computer software were actually used, and because the Sheriff's Department is a government agency that does not compete with Wall Data. We disagree. As we explained in Worldwide Church of God, "repeated and exploitative copying of copyrighted works, even if the copies are not offered for sale, may constitute a commercial use." 227 F.3d at 1118. A commercial use "is demonstrated by a showing that repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies." A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir.2001); see also Worldwide Church of God, 227 F.3d at 1118 (concluding that a use is "commercial" where the infringer profited from its infringement because "it gained an `advantage' or `benefit' from its distribution and use of [the plaintiff's product] without having to account to the copyright holder").
The terms of Wall Data's RUMBA license clearly restricted the Sheriff's Department's use to a "single designated computer" and prohibited the Sheriff's Department from using "the Software in any other multiple computer or multiple user arrangement." Despite this condition, the Sheriff's Department loaded an entire suite of software, including RUMBA Office, onto nearly all of the computers in the Twin Towers. By using hard drive imaging, the Sheriff's Department saved man-hours and eliminated possible errors associated with separately installing the individual software packages onto each computer in the Twin Tower facility.
Hard drive imaging also ensured that those users who needed to use RUMBA would be able to access the software at whatever computer they were assigned to work. Such flexibility could only have been achieved by purchasing licenses for each of the computers on which the software was loaded, or by negotiating with Wall Data for a less restrictive license.
Accordingly, we conclude that "the purpose and character" of the Sheriff's Department's use was commercial, because the copies "were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies," Napster, 239 F.3d at 1015, or at least the expense of purchasing a more flexible license. Thus, the district court did not err when it decided that the Sheriff's Department's use was not "for a legitimate, essentially non-exploitative purpose," and that the commercial aspect of the Sheriff's Department's use was not "of minimal significance." Sega, 977 F.2d at 1522-23.6
The Sheriff's Department's installation of the RUMBA Office software onto nearly all of its computers in the Twin Towers was not transformative, did not promote an advancement of the arts, and was commercial in nature. The first factor therefore weighs against a finding of fair use.
Second Fair Use Factor: Nature of the Copyrighted Work
In analyzing the second fair use factor, we look at the nature of the copyrighted work, creative works being "`closer to the core of intended copyright protection' than informational and functional works." Dr. Seuss, 109 F.3d at 1402 (quoting Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586, 114 S.Ct. 1164). Our sister circuits have also considered, under this factor, whether the copyrighted work represents "substantial investment of time and labor ... in anticipation of a financial return." MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180, 182 (2d Cir.1981). Although the RUMBA software products are not purely creative works, copyright law nonetheless protects computer software. See Sega, 977 F.2d at 1519 ("[T]he 1980 amendments to the Copyright Act unambiguously extended copyright protection to computer programs.").
In addition, Wall Data presented undisputed evidence that RUMBA software products were developed over several years, and required a multi-million dollar investment on Wall Data's part. We therefore conclude that the nature of the copyrighted work weighs against a finding of fair use.
Third Fair Use Factor: Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used
Next, we consider whether the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright work as a whole," 17 U.S.C. § 107(3), is "reasonable in relation to the purpose of copying," Dr. Seuss, 109 F.3d at 1402. The Sheriff's Department copied RUMBA Office in its entirety to ensure that all of the computers in the Twin Towers had identical copies of the software. And although "entire verbatim reproductions are justifiable where the purpose of the work differs from the original," Mattel, 353 F.3d at 804, the Sheriff's Department put its copies to the exact purpose for which the original software licenses were purchased. Consequently, the Sheriff Department's "verbatim" copying of the entire copyrighted work also weighs against a finding of fair use. See Worldwide Church of God, 227 F.3d at 1118 ("While wholesale copying does not preclude fair use per se, copying an entire work militates against a finding of fair use.")
Fourth Fair Use Factor: Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market
In addressing the final fair use factor, we focus on "the normal market for the copyrighted work" and whether the allegedly infringing use threatens the potential market for, or value of, a copyrighted work. See Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 568, 105 S.Ct. 2218 (noting that the fourth fair use factor is concerned with "use that supplants any part of the normal market for a copyrighted work") (quoting S.Rep. No. 473, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 65 (1975)). We have said:
"[t]his inquiry attempts to strike a balance between the benefit the public will derive if the use is permitted and the personal gain the copyright owner will receive if the use is denied. The less adverse effect that an alleged infringing use has on the copyright owner's expectation of gain, the less public benefit need be shown to justify the use."
Mattel, 353 F.3d at 804-05.
The Sheriff's Department contends that its copying was solely an attempt to use efficiently its licensed copies of the RUMBA software products, and accordingly, there was no negative impact on Wall Data's market. It points to its own statements that it would not have purchased additional copies of the license had it known that its configuration went beyond its license. We are not persuaded.
The Sheriff's Department bought a few licenses and found a way to install the program onto all of its computers without paying the fee required for each installation. The Sheriff's Department could have bargained for the flexibility it desired, but it did not. Whenever a user puts copyrighted software to uses beyond the uses it bargained for, it affects the legitimate market for the product.
Thus, although hard drive imaging might be an efficient and effective way to install computer software, we conclude that "unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant" would nonetheless lead to over-use of the software. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590, 114 S.Ct. 1164 (quoting 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05[A](4), at 13-102.61 (1993)).
Equally important, ghost copies of the software lay dormant and were unuseable only until a Sheriff's Department network administrator decided to activate RUMBA Office on that computer. The Sheriff's Department thus created its own "sub-licensing" system where it granted users permission to use the software and, in essence, asked Wall Data to "trust" that it was not using RUMBA in excess of its authorization under the license.
We recognize that computer licensing is generally an "honor system," in that there is little to stop a person with physical possession of software from installing it on multiple computers. But in this case, the Sheriff's Department's system made tracking infringement almost impossible, because Wall Data could not independently verify which of the computers had been used to access RUMBA and which ones had not — it had to trust the Sheriff's Department that its system was not allowing over-use.
In fact, after Wall Data brought the over-use of RUMBA to the Sheriff's Department's attention, a Sheriff's Department employee admitted, in an email, that he was not sure how to tell which computers had accessed RUMBA.7 This system therefore made copyright infringement easier (because no physical installation was necessary) and made detection of over-use more difficult.
In recognition of the ease with which software can be over-used, courts have been cautious to extend protection to methods that would make copyright infringement of software any easier:
Software fundamentally differs from more traditional forms of medium, such as print or phonographic materials, in that software can be both, more readily and easily copied on a mass scale in an extraordinarily short amount of time and relatively inexpensively. One of the primary advantages of software, its ability to record, concentrate and convey information with unprecedented ease and speed, makes it extraordinarily vulnerable to illegal copying and piracy. [Thus,] it is important to acknowledge these special characteristics of the software industry and provide enhanced copyright protection for its inventors and developers.
Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Stargate Software Inc., 216 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1059 (N.D.Cal.2002). We believe that "widespread use" of hard drive imaging in excess of one's licenses could seriously impact the market for Wall Data's product. See Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590, 114 S.Ct. 1164 (citations omitted). Therefore, we conclude that the fourth factor also weighs against a finding of fair use.
In considering the four fair use factors — the purpose and character of the work, the nature of the use, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect on the plaintiffs' market — none militate in favor of the Sheriff's Department's fair use defense in regard to using unlicensed software.
We therefore hold that the Sheriff's Department is not entitled to a fair use defense, and we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment on the Sheriff's Department's fair use defense.
CONTACT A SOFTWARE INFRINGEMENT DEFENSE LAW FIRM
Since 2004 we have helped HUNDREDS of clients both large and small, local and international, resolve allegations of software infringement, unlicensed usage, over-installation, and software piracy. Companies we have defended against in EULA licensing and compliance issues include the following:
The Business Software Alliance ("BSA")
Vero software (Hexagon) - Cabinet vision, ESPRIT, Alphacam
Autodesk Software (unlicensed AutoCAD, Revit, Maya, Inventor), we are the #1 leading firm handling software audits with Autodesk, both internal audits brought by the company, or letters from their IP law firm Donahue Fitzgerald
Microsoft SPLA audits
VB Conversion
Soildworks (unlicensed use - they employ "phone home" technology)
Siemens (including Texas lawsuits)
CNC Mastercam
Software Compliance Group
Bentley Software
If you received what we call "the love letter" call us for a free initial consultation at (877) 276-5084 or email us through our contact form. In this niche area of copyright law, there is no substitute for experience and we have it in droves!
LEGAL AUTHORITIES
17 U.S.C. § 117 (2022)
MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1458, 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1992)
Iconix, Inc. v. Tokuda, 457 F.Supp.2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
CNC Software, Inc. v. T D Mfg., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76586, 2020 WL 2042330 (C.D. Cal. March 24, 2020)
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept., 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006)


text:
The Battle for the Home
Now that Facebook has joined the Battle for Homes, Ben Thompson at Stratechery compares Amazon, Apple, Google, and Facebook's Strengths and Weaknesses, their Go-to-markets, and Business Models. Finally he picks the likely losers and winners, and asks: Will it matter? Will this be a battle as significant as the one for Computers and Mobile devices?
> If the first stage of competition in consumer technology was the race to be the computer users went to (won by Microsoft and the PC), and the second was to be the computer users carried with them (won by Apple in terms of profits, and Google in terms of marketshare), the outlines of the current battle came sharply into focus over the last month: what company will win the race to be the computer within which users live?
Winners and Losers
> There are compelling cases to be made for at least three of the four companies:
> Amazon: Amazon's head start is meaningful, and its widespread integration with other products mean it is likely that more people have a device with Alexa integration than not. The company is also highly motivated to win and has the business model to justify it.
> Google: I find Google's case the most compelling. Product is not the only thing that matters, but it is awfully important, and Google is the best placed to deliver the best product. Its services are superior, its knowledge of users the most comprehensive, and its overall product chops have improved considerably. Yes, its go-to-market is worse than Amazon's and it has a late start, but it is still early.
> Apple: The loyalty of Apple's userbase cannot be overstated, particularly when you remember that the company's userbase is the most affluent customers of all. This makes it difficult to ever count Apple out, even if their product is late and tied to the worst services.
> Facebook: It is hard to envision how Portal won't be a loser: the company has no natural userbase, has a terrible reputation for privacy, and has no obvious business model or go-to-market strategy.
> There is one final question that overshadows all-of-this: while the home may be the current battleground in consumer technology, is it actually a distinct product area — a new epoch, if you will? When it came to mobile, it didn't matter who had won in PCs; Microsoft ended up being an also-ran.
> The fortunes of Apple, in particular, depend on whether or not this is the case. If it is a truly new paradigm, then it is hard to see Apple succeeding. It has a very nice speaker, but everything else about its product is worse. On the other hand, the HomePod's close connection to the iPhone and Apple's overall ecosystem may be its saving grace: perhaps the smartphone is still what matters.
> More broadly, it may be the case that we are entering an era where there are new battles, the scale of which are closer to skirmishes than all-out wars a la smartphones. What made the smartphone more important than the PC was the fact they were with you all the time. Sure, we spend a lot of time at home, but we also spend time outside (AR?), entertaining ourselves (TV and VR), or on the go (self-driving cars); the one constant is the smartphone, and we may never see anything the scale of the smartphone wars again.
Please find the full article on Ben's excellent blog


text:
20 September, 2018 13:01 #BANKTREASON
by SPEAK Project | Sep 20, 2018 | General Info, News Blog | 2 comments
Unacceptable delays compensating customers…(That's putting it mildly)
TSB boss Paul Pester to step down after IT fiasco
TSB chief Paul Pester is to step down after seven years in charge, in the wake of a major IT failure at the bank.
In April this year, customers were left without access to online banking services for several weeks when an attempt to move data to a new computer system went wrong.
The bank is still struggling to get its IT systems to work properly.
On Monday, it apologised to customers who faced disruption to their online and mobile banking over the weekend.
Following Mr Pester's departure, TSB chairman Richard Meddings will take on the role of executive chairman until a new chief executive is appointed.
Mr Meddings said: "Although there is more to do to achieve full stability for customers, the bank's IT systems and services are much improved since the IT migration. Paul and the Board have therefore agreed that this is the right time to appoint a new CEO for TSB."
Nicky Morgan, chair of the Treasury Committee, said she felt Mr Pester's decision was the correct one.
"Since the IT problems at TSB began, Paul Pester set the tone for TSB's complacent and misleading public communications," she said.
"In this light, it is right that he is stepping down, but the committee remains concerned about the continuing problems at TSB, including unacceptable delays in compensating customers who have been badly let down."
Mr Pester walks away with a payout worth nearly £1.7m, made up of £1.2m severance pay and a "historical" bonus of around £480,000 from before TSB's takeover by Sabadell in 2015. All other performance-related pay – including a bonus linked to the customer migration – was frozen amid investigations into the IT fiasco.
#BANKTREASON
© 2018 – 2019, SPEAK Project. All rights reserved.
Dave B	on September 20, 2018 at 1:28 pm
Rats jumping ship!
Troy Megill	on September 20, 2018 at 4:01 pm
I take it that now the well is low, the criminals can't hide anything that was missing.
I hope there is a worldwide bank run.
This we I'll go as planned, money was the cabal's tool of control.
We must have this, to wipe out evil.


Atria Property Services (Atria) and Axies are the Greek members of the CBRE affiliate network, the world's largest commercial real estate services firm. Both companies belong to Atria Group, the first firm of commercial real estate consultants and chartered surveyors to establish a presence in Greece, in 1990.
We are happy to tailor our services to meet each client's unique needs and to deliver value beyond expectations.


text:
EMBA Students Share 4 Takeaways on Innovation in China
It's an exciting time in China now because of the speed of innovation. There also is a lot of competition, particularly over talent. And while the rate of construction may finally be slowing down, the city (of Beijing) is still expanding its infrastructure.
Global Business Week offers students an opportunity to apply classroom learning in a different part of the world. For second-year students Victoria Zhang (East Coast) and Johnie Lee (West Coast), this focus on global learning was one of the reasons they came to Wharton.
They both chose to spend their Global Business Week in China, one of the fastest growing emerging markets in the world. The trip allowed Victoria, associate director of clinical pathology at URMC, and Johnie, principal engineer at Kash Payment, to experience China's unique business culture and entrepreneurial economy.
Here are four key takeaways on innovation in China they shared from their trip:
1. The speed of innovation has set a fast pace for change in China.
Victoria grew up in China and travels there frequently for conferences and to visit family — and yet every time she goes back, she sees significant changes. "It's so dramatic that I can't keep up with it," she said. Going to China for Global Business Week gave Victoria a chance to show her classmates her home country, but she also wanted to go to learn more about the driving forces behind China's growth and how businesses are developing and innovating.
"It's an exciting time in China now because of the speed of innovation," she said. "There also is a lot of competition, particularly over talent. And while the rate of construction may finally be slowing down, the city (of Beijing) is still expanding its infrastructure. I also saw blue skies during our visit, which was almost unheard of a few years back because of pollution."
2. The American business model doesn't always succeed.
A highlight of the week in Beijing for Johnie was the group's visit to Didi Chuxing, China's largest ride-sharing company. "It was interesting timing, as Uber had recently announced its departure from China and had sold its China operations to Didi. During our visit, we talked to executives about how the company competed – and won – against Uber," he said.
Johnie also enjoyed the visit to Tencent, the creator of China's most popular messaging app WeChat, which boasts more than 750 million daily users. "The app goes beyond messages – people live their life on this app because it's a platform for communication, paying bills, finding and selling products, and more," he said. "One amazing statistic is that the average WeChat user spends over two hours a day on WeChat."
"Being in China, we could see how ingrained it is in society," Johnie said. When he tried to buy a juice with cash at a street market, the vendor quickly told him, "WeChat only!" "After spending several years of my career at Google Wallet trying to increase mobile payment adoption, it was fascinating to observe this mass adoption of WeChat in China. It was also like looking to the future of the messaging app war that is taking place in Silicon Valley," Johnie said.
3. Tech companies in China are starting to make more of global impact and adopt some of the Silicon Valley culture.
A highlight for Victoria was their visit to Cheetah Mobile, a leading developer of mobile tools and internet security in China. Executives discussed global expansion and how 80 percent of the revenue from one of their applications comes from outside China. "That is a very unique revenue structure and shows how much impact Chinese businesses are making on a global level," she said.
With a giant slide and climbing wall, Cheetah's global headquarters in Beijing also bore a striking resemblance to the colorful and imaginative workspaces in Silicon Valley. Johnie noticed the resemblance too. "It was interesting to see companies (in China) starting to look and feel a lot more like Silicon Valley," he said. "At some corporate campuses, we saw things that you would see in Silicon Valley tech companies, like slides and game rooms. There is an energy and passion about building the future."
Before this trip, Victoria focused on the differences in business practices between the U.S. and China, but she gained a new perspective after their company visits and interaction with executives. "Academically, it provided a unique opportunity for us to visit a different country with access to high-level business leaders," she said. "Now, I see more similarities like the integration of talent — business executives speak English — and business concepts."
4. Business expansion practices in China sometimes involve a siloed approach.
Johnie said that trip exceeded his expectations and gave him an opportunity to see classroom learning in action. "I had taken a multinational strategy course in the prior term, where we often talked about Chinese case studies. Having the opportunity to see firsthand how things are done made that class all the more enriching."
For instance, Johnie found the business expansion practices in China quite interesting, particularly how companies stayed in their respective focus areas whether it was communications or e-commerce. "We asked why companies don't try to expand into other areas and compete with each other," he said. "The answer was: 'Why would we do that? If we are the leader in search, we focus on search.' That is so different from the U.S., where the tech giants are all treading in the same areas."
The trip wasn't all business — the students also had a chance to see some of the sights in China and to get to know each other better in the process. "At this point in our careers, it's often difficult to find the time to go away with a group of friends. So the week in China was an amazing opportunity to deepen friendships and make new connections," Johnie said.
The EMBA Program organized a trip to the Great Wall, and Victoria and a few classmates who also had roots in China served on a social committee that helped to arrange events like visits to Tiananmen Square, the Forbidden City, Summer's Palace, a Kung Fu show, a Chinese opera, and dinners. Victoria enjoyed the chance to get to know her classmates better as well as Wharton EMBA students from the West Coast and INSEAD MBA students.
"Students were seeking out opportunities to connect with people they had not yet met," she said. "It was like instant bonding because everyone wanted to learn about each other while they learned about China."
Global Business Week
International Learning Opportunities
Victoria Zhang, WG'17
Campus: Philadelphia
Current Role: Associate Director of Clinical Pathology at URM
Current Location: Rochester, NY
Prior Education: University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, PhD; Harvard Medical School, Fellowship
Johnie Lee, WG'17
Campus: San Francisco
Current Role: Principal Engineer, Kash Payment
Current Location: San Francisco, CA
Prior Education: Columbia University, BS in Computer Science
Wharton in Three Parts: Facts, Faculty, and Family
How I've Used the Wharton Network and Flexible Options
How These Two MBAs Are Driving New Connections with an Analytics Startup
Women of Wharton Events Provide Valuable Opportunities to Connect
How This Wharton/Penn Team Rebounded From a Loss to Win a Social Enterprise Competition
Stuart Gold's Success Story About Earning an MBA as a Public Administration Professional
New Mom Says Having a Baby in Wharton's EMBA Program is "Definitely Doable"
4 Academic and Coaching Resources this EMBA Alum Used to Land a People Analytics Job at LinkedIn
Wharton Scale School Workshop Series Strikes a Chord with Bay Area Alumni
How to Decide If Wharton's EMBA Program Is the Right Fit
EMBA Students Look at the Hard Work of the Leisure Industry in Spain
How this EMBA Student Juggles Operating a Winery, School and a New Baby
An MBA Entrepreneur Crosses the Globe to Launch Two Startups in His First Year
Wharton's PhD Program Prepared This Doctor to Perform Economic Evaluations in Health Care
Top 5 Developments in Analytics From 10 Years of the Wharton Customer Analytics Initiative


text:
Battleworn
The Memoir of a Combat Medic in Afghanistan
by Chantelle Taylor
Page Count : 254
Format : Hardcover
Format : E-Book
Dimensions : N/A
Gritty, harrowing and full of courage, a testimony to the men and woman from the council estates of Britain who lived and died in the longest campaign the British Army has fought in decades a must read for any politician.
– AR retired Warrant Officer 1st Class 22 SAS Chantelle Taylor joined the British Army in 1998 as a combat medical technician. Ten years later she made history, becoming the first female soldier to kill a Taliban fighter in close-quarter combat while on patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. In Battleworn, she tells the story of B Company, a beleaguered group of individuals who fought relentlessly to hold Nad-e Ali, a dusty, sweltering hellhole surrounded by the Taliban. A routine patrol into an area saturated with enemy fighters escalates into a seven-week siege. Facing the possibility of death daily, Taylor writes of gun battles and perilous patrols, culminating in the extraction of more than sixty-six casualties with four killed in action. A powerful story written with a humility that captures the sometimes impalpable humour of soldiers at war, Battleworn provides a testament to combat medics all over the world. It highlights the crucial role that they play in today's 360-degree battlefield.
Chantelle Taylor joined the British Army in 1998 as a combat medical technician, twelve years and five deployments later she was recommended to take the Queens commission from the ranks but opted to leave the service. She returned to Afghanistan for a third time with the U.S. Department of State, where the former soldier developed from inception the trauma assistant program completing two years as an instructor in combat medicine. Her contribution to the world of tactical medicine continues with her experiences in the field shared through the interactive "soldier" exhibition at the British national army museum, London. Chantelle was formerly presented to Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip during the official museum opening ceremony. "Battleworn" along with the author's poem "Keep me Awake" was featured as part of the British militaries contribution to the Warrior Care exhibition of art in Washington, D.C. Taylor recently advised technically on the short film "Do No Harm" in Los Angeles and her book has been named as a finalist in the Independent Foreword reviews "book of the year" awards.