exporting bookmarks with tags from delicious

So as many of you have already heard, it looks like Yahoo will be shuttering delicious. Sad but apparently true. In any event, one would think that it would be a relatively simple matter to export from delicious and import into your browser’s bookmarks. The export part is relatively straightfoward, but (at least for those using Firefox, which I do), if you want to import your tags along with your bookmarks, things get a little trickier, because of some incompabitilies between the format that delicious uses for its export file (html) and the format that Firefox uses (JSON).

Apparently, some folks far cleverer than I came up with some ruby scripts that can do it, but why go to all that trouble. Here’s the easiest solution I’ve been able to find: Go here but before you follow the steps, make note of the following:

  1. instead of typing in the URL identified in Step 2 (http://api.del.icio.us/posts/all) use this one instead: https://api.del.icio.us/v1/posts/all (you need to copy and paste into the location bar).
  2. In Step 6, there is one minor detail omitted – the steps to restore should be [Bookmark] -> [Organize Bookmarks] -> [import and backup] -> [Restore] -> [Choose file] -> <created file at 5>.
  3. Also in Step 6, if you have a lot of bookmarks be forwarned that Firefox may become non-responsive as it processes the import. It may give you the “script is taking a long time to respond” message. If you do get that, select the “don’t ask again” checkbox and then click “continue”, then go grab a coffee or some other beverage. Once its done, you should have all your bookmarks (and tags) from delicious now safely ensconced in your Firefox bookmarks.

If you still need an online bookmarks tool, consider Mozilla Sync or Diigo. Perhaps not surprisingly, there seems to be a bit of a backlog in processing imported bookmarks into Diigo. If you don’t need to import bookmarks into Firefox and plan to use something like Diigo exclusively, then of course no need to go through all of the hassle above, as (from what I understand) Diigo will import tags when you import your delicious bookmarks.

Goodbye delicious, it’s been nice knowing you.

conversion of data (and not the conversion you’re probably thinking of)

Very interesting piece from Duane Morris on a case in New York. My ultra short summary of the summary: Insurance company leases computer to agent. Agent puts all his business and personal data on it. Insurance company terminates agency, takes back the computer and all data on it, and refuses to give the agent access to any of it. Agent sues, loses, but then wins on appeal.

The interesting part is the basis on which he won, which was a claim under “conversion”. Not necessarily incredibly groundbreaking, as other cases have dealt with conversion as applied to intangibles previously, but, as the folks at Duane note:

Under the merger doctrine, a conversion claim will apply to intangible property, such as shares of stock, that are merged or converted into a document, such as a stock certificate. Accordingly, conversion of the certificate may be treated as conversion of the shares of stock represented by the certificate. More recently, the court ruled that a plaintiff could maintain a cause of action for conversion where the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s intangible property right to a musical performance by misappropriating a master recording, a tangible item of property capable of being physically taken.

Thyroff was the Court’s first opportunity to consider whether the common law should permit conversion for intangible property that did not strictly satisfy the merger test. Recognizing that it “is the strength of the common law to respond, albeit cautiously and intelligently, to the demands of common sense justice in an evolving society,” the Court decided that the time had arrived to depart from the strict common-law limitation of conversion.

Interestingly, in their analysis of the decision, they conclude that:

This decision provides a powerful remedy for New York employers to bring a cause of action against employees who steal company information or [intangible] property. Unlike claims for breach of fiduciary duty or misappropriation of trade secrets, conversion may be easier to plead than other claims because it does not require that the employer establish willfulness or wrongful conduct.

Hmmm. Not quite sure I’d agree – after all, the “conversion” itself would need to be established. Also, I’m not sure that a rogue employee who takes a copy of his or her employer’s confidential information but leaves the original copy with their employer, would be the basis for a cause of action under conversion, which, if I understand the case correctly, has more to do with depriving someone of property that is rightfully theirs. Absconding with confidential information does not deprive the owner of that information of the data, but rather the value the owner of the data can realize by virtue of the fact it can only be used by that owner. That situation seems somewhat different than the one in Thyroff – the analogy there would be if insurance company did not deny the agent access to his information, but rather took a copy of it and used it in a way they weren’t supposed to. It would be interesting to see whether the court would extend a claim of conversion to deprivation not of the intangible information itself, but rather value of the rights to exploit it exclusively. Alternatively, it may be that the ruling could be read broadly enough to already take that into account.

I also wonder what sort of effect this might have on those who might have otherwise leapt at the opportunity to become an agent for the insurance company…