It wouldn't be an overturn, just a pass (meaning the punishment for this law cannot be applied in this particular case).
That doesn't completely invalidate your point though--if enough groups of 12 people do that, the law is effectively "toothless" and therefore de facto overturned.
Sorry, you're not getting it. It is irrelevant whether the name redskins is offensive. The point is that if you are going to complain that someone did something racially insensitive to you, it is the height of hypocrisy when you are at the center of a dispute about racial insensitivity yourself.
Native Americans have sued repeatedly to get the Redskins to change the name, so their opinion of the name is clear.
If Mr. Snyder wants to be the victim he needs to treat others as he wishes to be treated.
I don't know that I agree that they failed when they included ads--I think that's close, but the nuance is that the failure was a lack of attention to the experience.
Meaning, given that the ads were just slapped on, and there was no corresponding value increase--it was a miss.
Mike, might want to tone down the 'massive' use of 'massive'.
It would be interesting to correlate this with patent lawsuits (which I think has been done and is hard work, I know) as well as with some analysis of the population of potential patent-generators. Patent applications shows how many patents are requested, but gives no reference for understanding how many could have or have been historically in relation to the population pool.
The number of examiners only increased by 3% from 2008 to 2009. I wonder if this is partially motivated by a need to grow fee revenue and therefore the examiner pool. A vicious cycle.
Hey, nice strawman there where you imply that the post and responses would be shocked if they realized this allows for damages to be higher.
In fact, I think everyone here would be overjoyed if the *actual* damages were presented openly and proven.
For example, in your example, perhaps touch did have an enormous impact on the iPhone. But those damages would have to calculated by demonstrating not the contribution to the overall invention, but in terms of what should have been a reasonable license fee--especially considering the owner of that patent had no reasonable manner (or intention) of creating a competing product.
RTFA, the damages are not "share of the profits" but "what should have been a reasonable license fee" given the context of the case.
"Being willfully ignorant that piracy hasn't been the major reason for that is just funny."
So if being willfully ignorant that consumer interests have changed. Oh, and that each pirated copy does not equal a lost sale. Oh and the fact that "piracy" as you term it, has been occurring (perhaps even in amounts you would assert today) since recording 8-track and cassette tapes became economical. I can remember having a huge library of both purchased and cassette-recorded music.
Very well said, but this particular poster won't listen--they just want to lob hand grenades to distract and obfuscate. This way of thinking is alien to him.
True, but if this reduced corresponding infringement claims, it might be manageable. I like the idea--and I think the review should proceed regardless of the outcome of the suit (settled, dismissed, etc.).
The bad news: patent reviews aren't exactly full of sanity and reason either.
Re: Mike, you're only "correct" by hard-line semantics.
So how do you explain Google wrenching away the "monopoly" of Yahoo Search? How do you explain the entrance of Linux into the marketplace against Microsoft? Twitter versus Facebook?
Your post assumes that the market cannot change rapidly to: include new capabilities/offerings or b) reward better or revolutionary ways of meeting customer needs.
I'm sorry, but if you understood anything about the lifecycle of a business, you would understand that being a large, well-established business in the "maintenance" phase of its life is precisely what makes them vulnerable--the inability to innovate and move to market the way a new entrant can.
I have seen no evidence that you or Mr. Wu have provided that explain what the true barrier for entrance is, other than: "I can't see what the next great innovation is, so it must not exist."
I don't think anyone disagrees with the general sentiment of your post. The problem has to do with the incentive structure--incentives usually introduce all kinds of unintended consequences. Whenever you encourage a particular behavior based on a quantitative metric (cost) and ask that it be balanced against a qualitative metric (keeping others informed), the individual is likely to bias the tradeoff in favor of the observable (quantitative) metric.
In other words, the police may not communicate effectively in situations where they really need to, because of the mental inefficiency the tradeoff has created.
I was consulting to a criminal investigative organization that was considering outsourcing their investigative desktops. The outsourcing agreement would have charged the organization by each minute of use of each desktop. I asked the executives I was working with: "do you really want your supervisors to begin to judge investigations and investigators by the cost of the use of the desktops?"
Yes it is the point, but I'm not sure why you believe the implication of Mike's post is your first sentence. Popcorn (or food) is one part of the experience, the movie, the location, the seating, etc. are others. But the issue discussed here is partly that theaters are focusing so greatly on generating revenue through the popcorn that they are forgetting to balance the popcorn with all of the other elements of the experience that they control.
This means that if you just keep jacking up the price of popcorn w/o improving everything else--you'll just end up collapsing your own revenue stream.
So Mike is just saying that the overall experience must be considered, along with all known constraints (the movies you can choose from to show), rather than just focusing on food (popcorn).
I happen to live near this school and am friends with parents with kids at the school. This school and nearly all others in Fairfax are excellent schools. This is probably just an aberration, but certainly worth examination. As a parent, I'd want to speak with the teacher and I'd be explaining that I'd be teaching my son/daughter to treat this as a narrow thought experiment and nothing more.
Mike, I don't have inside information or anything, but I wonder if this isn't a decision based on a number of mistakes. Recently there was another WP-related twitter issue by a sports writer (Mike Wise) that deliberately posted some false information via twitter that other bloggers, etc. around the US ran with and got burned. Wise says he did it as a joke, but he got suspended (probably deserved if you're maintaining journalistic standards) from writing for a month.
I'm NOT defending this short-sighted decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Mike Wise issue made them very gun-shy regarding Twitter.
Unfortunately, they've just demonstrated that they aren't really prepared to move forward with the rest of humanity in the world of social media.
Probably. It all depends on what human-rights standards the manufacturers or the government holds them to.
BTW, the only point I was making (badly perhaps) was that "sweatshop" is being used in a generalized manner to indicate any large-scale third-world manufacturing effort and some are probably (as the person I was replying to says) a positive impact, while some or many are not.
The problem is that both situations occur, and it is not always easy to tell if the factory is exploitative or if it is helpful. The word "sweatshop" IMO is intended to indicate a factory where its introduction is negative and exploitative to the surrounding community.
For example, if the factory arrives and offers income above the norm for the surrounding community buut requires that families send their children to the factory for 15 hrs/day, 7 days/wk, is that ok even if conditions are good?
On the post: Judge Bans Handing (Factual) Pamphlets To Jurors; Raising First Amendment Issues
Re: Re: Jury is the finder of fact
That doesn't completely invalidate your point though--if enough groups of 12 people do that, the law is effectively "toothless" and therefore de facto overturned.
I'm just saying it isn't an instantaneous thing.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Native Americans have sued repeatedly to get the Redskins to change the name, so their opinion of the name is clear.
If Mr. Snyder wants to be the victim he needs to treat others as he wishes to be treated.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh! It's a mystery!
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Time for the police to step in?
[citation needed]
And be sure to address the fact that economies and innovation have existed long before copyright.
On the post: Hulu Owners Looking To Make Hulu Even More Useless
Re: Control the content: lose the war.
Meaning, given that the ads were just slapped on, and there was no corresponding value increase--it was a miss.
On the post: US Patent Office Grants Massively More Patents Than Ever Before
Interesting to correlate with other data
It would be interesting to correlate this with patent lawsuits (which I think has been done and is hard work, I know) as well as with some analysis of the population of potential patent-generators. Patent applications shows how many patents are requested, but gives no reference for understanding how many could have or have been historically in relation to the population pool.
The number of examiners only increased by 3% from 2008 to 2009. I wonder if this is partially motivated by a need to grow fee revenue and therefore the examiner pool. A vicious cycle.
On the post: Federal Appeals Court Finally Rejects Silly Rules Of Thumb For Calculating Patent Damages
Re:
In fact, I think everyone here would be overjoyed if the *actual* damages were presented openly and proven.
For example, in your example, perhaps touch did have an enormous impact on the iPhone. But those damages would have to calculated by demonstrating not the contribution to the overall invention, but in terms of what should have been a reasonable license fee--especially considering the owner of that patent had no reasonable manner (or intention) of creating a competing product.
RTFA, the damages are not "share of the profits" but "what should have been a reasonable license fee" given the context of the case.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Make Up A Non-Existent Criminal Contributory Infringement Rule In Seizing Domain Names?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: #1 AC
"Being willfully ignorant that piracy hasn't been the major reason for that is just funny."
So if being willfully ignorant that consumer interests have changed. Oh, and that each pirated copy does not equal a lost sale. Oh and the fact that "piracy" as you term it, has been occurring (perhaps even in amounts you would assert today) since recording 8-track and cassette tapes became economical. I can remember having a huge library of both purchased and cassette-recorded music.
So... your assertion addresses those points how?
On the post: Canadian Music Collection Society Demanding Payment For 30 Second Song Previews
Just play 29.999 seconds of the song
On the post: Harvard Newspaper Staff Apparently In Need Of A Lesson On Copyright Basics
Re: Re:
On the post: Harvard Newspaper Staff Apparently In Need Of A Lesson On Copyright Basics
Re: why don't you cite the entire phrase from the constitution
On the post: Creating Flight Plans Online? Patented! Small Company Sued Out Of Business For Not Wanting To Pay $3.2 Million Per Month
Re: Re: defend patent in court
The bad news: patent reviews aren't exactly full of sanity and reason either.
On the post: Tim Wu Insists That Market Domination Is A Monopoly
Re: Mike, you're only "correct" by hard-line semantics.
Your post assumes that the market cannot change rapidly to: include new capabilities/offerings or b) reward better or revolutionary ways of meeting customer needs.
I'm sorry, but if you understood anything about the lifecycle of a business, you would understand that being a large, well-established business in the "maintenance" phase of its life is precisely what makes them vulnerable--the inability to innovate and move to market the way a new entrant can.
I have seen no evidence that you or Mr. Wu have provided that explain what the true barrier for entrance is, other than: "I can't see what the next great innovation is, so it must not exist."
On the post: UK Police Told To Text Instead Of Using Radios In Order To Save Money
Re:
In other words, the police may not communicate effectively in situations where they really need to, because of the mental inefficiency the tradeoff has created.
I was consulting to a criminal investigative organization that was considering outsourcing their investigative desktops. The outsourcing agreement would have charged the organization by each minute of use of each desktop. I asked the executives I was working with: "do you really want your supervisors to begin to judge investigations and investigators by the cost of the use of the desktops?"
On the post: Blaming Popcorn For Hollywood's Troubles
Re: But Mike, isn't selling popcorn the point?
This means that if you just keep jacking up the price of popcorn w/o improving everything else--you'll just end up collapsing your own revenue stream.
So Mike is just saying that the overall experience must be considered, along with all known constraints (the movies you can choose from to show), rather than just focusing on food (popcorn).
On the post: Virginia High School Says Barring Students From Doing Outside Research Helps Them 'Think For Themselves'
Re: Wait what?
On the post: Washington Post Tells Reporters To Stop Engaging Readers On Twitter
May be after a pattern of mistakes...
I'm NOT defending this short-sighted decision, but it wouldn't surprise me if the Mike Wise issue made them very gun-shy regarding Twitter.
Unfortunately, they've just demonstrated that they aren't really prepared to move forward with the rest of humanity in the world of social media.
On the post: Dirty Tricks: Anti-Piracy Group Caught Planting Evidence In Usenet Case
Re: Re: Wait, what?
b) what consequences exactly?
On the post: Fox Gets Tons Of Attention For Banksy Simpsons Video... Then Pulls It Off YouTube
Re: Re: Re:
BTW, the only point I was making (badly perhaps) was that "sweatshop" is being used in a generalized manner to indicate any large-scale third-world manufacturing effort and some are probably (as the person I was replying to says) a positive impact, while some or many are not.
On the post: Fox Gets Tons Of Attention For Banksy Simpsons Video... Then Pulls It Off YouTube
Re:
For example, if the factory arrives and offers income above the norm for the surrounding community buut requires that families send their children to the factory for 15 hrs/day, 7 days/wk, is that ok even if conditions are good?
Next >>