As it has been known by all creatures on earth (maybe except lawyers), the U.S. Library of Congress issued a statement on Monday that legalized “jailbreaking” wireless telephone handsets.

It is no doubt a good news for jailbreakers, the unauthorized App developers, as well as iPhone buyers. Now you can strut up to the black corner of the computer arcade, looking straight inside the eyes of the guy who knows how to satisfy your desire (of anything that Jobs don't want you do, such as watching flash video), and speak laudly: "break it, please."

"Wait, wait! It's an iPod ... OK ... if you like to call it iTouch, then it is an iTouch... It's not an iPhone, I mean ... not a telephone handset."

"What?"

Let's stop the drama and go back to the law:

At least from the literal meaning of the newly annouced exemption, iTouch owners may be excluded from the benificiaries. Here is the fulltext of the exemption:

... Persons making noninfringing uses of the following six classes of works will not be subject to the prohibition against circumventing access controls (17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)) until the conclusion of the next rulemaking.
...
(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.
...

Is an iTouch a "wireless telephone handset"? I don't know. At least Apple, even before such exemption promulgated, has already said it isn't a telephone - it is a great iPod, a pocket computer and a game player, but not a telephone... because only iPhone will be a telephone. (How about iPad 3G? Too big to be a "handset"?)

Enjoy the vedio:

今年就有三次泄露了，加上2010年4月正式公布的草案版本，大家手上至少可以有四个版本的了。

这还真有意思。难道有一种公布的名字叫“泄露”？

Reducing the jury’s $675,000 award also sends another no less important message: The Due Process Clause does not merely protect large corporations, like BMW and State Farm, from grossly excessive punitive awards. It also protects ordinary people like Joel Tenenbaum.

Still, for each song, Joel has to pay $2,250 (USD), and if my memory serves, upon what is the appropriate amount of damages, "30 Dollars", Charlie said after the hearing.

Google's ICP license renewed. See the captured today's Google.cn web page below (left), and compare it with the page in last week (right).

Google.cn on 9 July 2010:

Google.cn on 4 July 2010:

Exactly as what I predicted, Google is trying to make Google.cn being a non-search engine website. It now places "Music", "Translation" and "Shopping" at the web page. These are what Google wishes to keep on running in China. While the search engine service of Google.cn is replaced by a link to google.com.hk. Legally speaking, Google.cn is not providing search engine service currently. It is merely a link to another website. Just like the links added in any of our own web posts.

Google’s SVP David Drummond announced the official reason of such change (underlines added).

“...it’s clear from conversations we have had with Chinese government officials that they find the redirect unacceptable—and that if we continue redirecting users our Internet Content Provider license will not be renewed (it’s up for renewal on June 30). Without an ICP license, we can’t operate a commercial website like Google.cn—so Google would effectively go dark in China … instead of automatically redirecting all our users, we have started taking a small percentage of them to a landing page on Google.cn that links to Google.com.hk — users can conduct web search or continue to use Google.cn services like music and text translate, which we can provide locally without filtering. This approach ensures we stay true to our commitment not to censor our results on Google.cn and gives users access to all of our services from one page… As a company we aspire to make information available to users everywhere … We are therefore hopeful that our license will be renewed on this basis so we can continue to offer our Chinese users services via Google.cn.”

看了下面的截屏，心里五味杂陈：
作为一条观察互联网的虫虫，有些激动，因为这故事后面是互联网的爆炸式增长。
作为一坨中国人，有些感动，多善良的女人啊。这样的真情流露，让人对这个社会有了希望。
作为一名信善者，有些忐忑，希望天灾以及天灾之后可能的各种祸不把这样的好人儿打倒。

"My husband’s life is uncertain now. I will try to ship the garlic tomorrow, Okay?"

Please read the translation of an online conversation between a seller and a buyer at Taobao.com. The buyer ordered a bottle of garlic spread from the seller.

]]>

　　首先，时代变了。如果说二十多年来，我们的重心就是法律移植的话，那么现在时代已经变了。中国自1980年代以来，已经颁布了许多法律。这些法律规则有自创的，有抄英美的，有移植欧洲的，还有大量移植得形似神不似的。但无论如何，它们都是中国的现行法律，对人民的生产生活娱乐八卦有直接影响，可惜很多法律的概念体系、逻辑关系都十分模糊，立法技术也相当粗糙。很多时候，我们一见到这些看上去很丑的法律条文，就不由得说：啊呀啊呀这些法律太落后啦，然后就很自然地把它们扔一边去了。似乎那些简单的指出逻辑冲突、寻找概念定义的工作，已经不能体现学术研究功力了。可是，真的是这样的吗？别的我不懂，知识产权立法就需要对大量的概念进行法律解释和清理工作。只有解释清楚了这些概念，才可以做到法律适用的统一。如果一个国家最精英、最有经验的法学研究者们都把时间用在研究别的语言的法律上了，把中国法律的解释和理解工作都留给备考司法考试的学生来做。那我看还是有点不太妥当的。

　　其次，与法律的实施或执行相比，中国实定法中的很多规则，已经是应然层面的东西了。本来，实定法是实然性质的东西，对法学来说，只满足于对现行法律条文的解释或整理工作，而不搞点“法律应该怎么修改完善”或者“应然的法律”（ought to law）是怎么样的之类的研究，的确是不太有追求。但是，这也要分地方分情况。与好多外国不同，中国的法治以及支撑法治的其它种种机制都还很不健全。或者说得更直接点，法治在中国还是一件相当奢侈的精神追求，远远没达到现实状态的程度。咱就不说那些默认“宪法顶个球”的事儿了。就只说可以被援引的法律，也有许多是摆设。它们以一种奇异的状态存在在中国社会中：法条中所确定的标准和原则看上去很美，但很难被普遍、连续、平等、全面地执行。许多制度成了选择性执法的工具，而因为是选择性执法，所以如果被执行人有“办法”，就可以避免成为被处罚者，这种“高标准、低要求”的制度安排，深深地损伤了人们对法律的尊重和信仰，换来的是人们对执法人员的敬畏。“遇到事情找找人”恐怕在许多人心里比遇到事情翻法律更重要。这样的环境下，如果学者们还不去分析那些法律条文，就不可能找出需要批判（我说的是法教义学上的逻辑批判，而不是价值观上的盖帽子）的、看上去很美，实际上很坏的制度。从这个意义上来讲，对中国实定法的精细分析，其实也同时是在做“应然”的工作。

　　有一种观点是：既然许多条文都摆明了是摆设，你再拿着这些摆设去进行逻辑演绎、推理论证，甚至用推理出来的结论去辩论，那不是不食人间烟火，甚至很不真诚吗？这种观点是有道理的。它指出了纯粹进行实定法的教义研究的问题——的确，如果拿着现行实定法中明显过时的口号性语言去主张某种宏大得让人没法跟他讨论的观点（比如当年有关物权法的争论），那就算不是不真诚，也实在是对法律的进步无益。但是，如果我们不把目标设定为维护或者反对某种意识形态，而是带着求索的心态，去发现法律中具体的概念的涵义、去分析它们的逻辑关系和适用范围，那么实定法的研究还是很有价值的。相反，如果对现行法律视而不见（这包括两方面，一是对现行法律的规定视而不见，二是对现行法律规定中的毛病视而不见），那是不是也很不食人间烟火吗？毕竟，我们的法官和执法者只能按照现行法律去适用啊，如果没有相应的理论研究的支持，他们不是更要东一榔头西一钉耙了吗？现在许多知识产权审判中肆意的造法（其实往往不是造法，而是主动当某些国家的下级法院），其中一个原因，恐怕也是因为学术研究中充满了外国法评介，却很少有对我们自己的概念体系的解释和整理，法官们不得不按着这些研究成果的路数去说话吧。