This does not mean that the Senator does not understand the legislation he supports. It is quite possible that he understands the contradiction but simply doesn't care, either because there's more in those bills than just that, or because he's supporting one or both bills in exchange for, I don't know, favors. Political favors. Of some kind.
Am I the only one disgusted by internet gambling sites that would use a system built by those clowns? I wonder if they even did enough research to know who was behind that shiny new payment processing company.
Your proposal would effectively put an end to copyright, patents and trademarks. May I go out on a limb and suggest that you are actually in favor of certain aspects of these laws, especially trademarks? Just be aware of the price you'll pay for this solution.
Quite apart from the moral and legal aspects, this just looks like bad strategy. Apple could have chosen a better number, taken most of iFlow's profits and left just enough to keep the company alive on starvation dividends and emotion. It would have been like running a subsidiary of talented innovators with none of the liabilities. Why crush competitors when you can milk them at will?
"We're literally talking about walking into a plant, walking up to the line and ensuring that, indeed, the discs are in compliance... I don't think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about."
"Oh, we got a problem here. These discs don't look compliant. Yeah, you got way too many of 'em here, they don't got our seal of approval or nothing, this whole operation got a infringey look. Now you just have a seat while we go through your computer and -- is that your locker? Calm down sir, I don't think this is something you need to worry about."
How about this: Alice can edit her own post as much as she likes, until Bob replies to it.
The next step is to allow Bob to set a "you may eat your words" flag (default off) that would allow Alice to edit her post even after his reply is up. If she does, maybe his reply becomes invisible to everyone but him, until he reinstates it.
Are they edited "after the fact" (when else?) to show the officer's actions in the best possible light? Or are they made available to the public unedited?
As a mathematician I find legal language baffling. Wouldn't "public computer network" cover Twitter and Facebook? If not, then what does it cover? If it's not clear what that phrase covers, do they really want to have it in there? Have they thought about email and mailing lists? Telephone conversations? Newsletters?
It seems to me that what they have in mind is one-to-many communication, in which the speaker doesn't know who's listening. Why can't they say something like that, instead of cobbling together a sloppy list of examples?
Actually "rednecks" refers to the rural south (either geographically or philosophically). The rest of us prefer to be called "idiots", or in the case of those who favor constitutional rights, "lunatics".
...if some juicy confidential Wikileaks documents show up on the Pentagon's website, will the Wikileaks supporters here accuse the Joint Chiefs of crimes against humanity and call for them to be fed to crocodiles without benefit of council?
"The whole idea of lawsuits is to settle, to compel the other side to settle. And you do that by spending more money than you should, which forces them to spend more money than they should, and whoever comes to their senses first loses."
The cost of jails is shared by all of society, but the cost of defending against a spurious lawsuit is borne entirely by the victim. Imagine how society would look if it were up to you to pay for the incarceration of the person who mugged you-- or else just let him go.
(Also remember that there are valid lawsuits, and telling good from bad isn't always as easy as we'd like to think.)
This doesn't sound snarky to me, it sounds intelligent and well-informed. (It would be even more so if we could put some numbers behind the statements.) It sounds as if the whole patent lawsuit game is more like the classical Prisoner's Dilemma than we realized.
I have to wonder if there's some selection involved though: this lawyer has more experience with patent holders who have chosen to sue than with those who haven't, so maybe the impression that they are overconfident bullies is not generally accurate.
It has occurred to me before to wonder whether a company could somehow legally -- and publicly -- commit to never settling such suits, in order to discourage them. Sort of a "burn Moscow" defense. (I'm not saying it's a wise plan, just interesting.) Now I'm wondering about other strategies observed in the natural world...
“There’s always a concern that a conventional warhead on an ICBM might be confused with a nuclear device – what can you do to prove otherwise... With a high lift vehicle, your trajectory would be so different that no one would likely confuse it with something more sinister.”
All right, this baffles me. If the new device can carry a heavy conventional warhead, why couldn't people suspect that it might be carrying a nuke?
Maybe because it would be an unthinkable break with tradition? Or because nobody would expect us to put such an expensive warhead on a vehicle that still can't make it through a test flight? (I'm clutching at straws here.)
"...guns are 43 times more likely to be used to kill someone known to the family than..."
Used to kill someone? That's not the same as accidental injury, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation (and it's highly misleading in other ways).
Do you have gun statistics in your argument? If so, you should know how to handle them correctly, in order to avoid faulty reasoning. I recommend that you get some training, but I have mixed feelings about whether you should be required to get a license...
On the post: Senator Leahy Supports Bringing Drugs In From Canada... And Also Banning Such Sites From The Internet
realpolitik
On the post: Feds Seize More Poker Sites
Re:
On the post: Verizon's Attempt To Attack Cablevision With Patents Fails
Re: The best option
On the post: DHS's ICE Group Accused Of Lying To Court About Expense Of Complying With FOI Request
psst
(I do not think that links to what you think it links to.)
On the post: Access Copyright Claims Trademark On The Copyright Symbol
Re: Further Inspection
On the post: Death Of iFlow Reader Due To Apple Changes Shows Why Betting On Closed Platforms Is Risky
It's a clumsy parasite that kills its host.
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
nice plant you got here
"Oh, we got a problem here. These discs don't look compliant. Yeah, you got way too many of 'em here, they don't got our seal of approval or nothing, this whole operation got a infringey look. Now you just have a seat while we go through your computer and -- is that your locker? Calm down sir, I don't think this is something you need to worry about."
On the post: Should Young People Have Their Votes Count More?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The next step is to allow Bob to set a "you may eat your words" flag (default off) that would allow Alice to edit her post even after his reply is up. If she does, maybe his reply becomes invisible to everyone but him, until he reinstates it.
On the post: Police Claim That Allowing People To Film Them In Public Creates 'Chilling Effects'
Re: Re:
On the post: UK Court Expands 'Super Injunction' Censorship Rules To Include Twitter & Facebook
IAN,IRN,AL
It seems to me that what they have in mind is one-to-many communication, in which the speaker doesn't know who's listening. Why can't they say something like that, instead of cobbling together a sloppy list of examples?
On the post: UK Court Expands 'Super Injunction' Censorship Rules To Include Twitter & Facebook
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Julian Assange Doesn't Do Irony Well: Threatens His Own Internal Leakers With $20 Million Penalty
So...
On the post: Settling Lawsuits Sometimes Makes Sense. Period.
Re: Re: terrible thinking - like an accountant
"The whole idea of lawsuits is to settle, to compel the other side to settle. And you do that by spending more money than you should, which forces them to spend more money than they should, and whoever comes to their senses first loses."
On the post: Settling Lawsuits Sometimes Makes Sense. Period.
Re: terrible thinking - like an accountant
The cost of jails is shared by all of society, but the cost of defending against a spurious lawsuit is borne entirely by the victim. Imagine how society would look if it were up to you to pay for the incarceration of the person who mugged you-- or else just let him go.
(Also remember that there are valid lawsuits, and telling good from bad isn't always as easy as we'd like to think.)
On the post: Settling Lawsuits Sometimes Makes Sense. Period.
Re: personally
On the post: Settling Lawsuits Sometimes Makes Sense. Period.
red of tooth and claw
I have to wonder if there's some selection involved though: this lawyer has more experience with patent holders who have chosen to sue than with those who haven't, so maybe the impression that they are overconfident bullies is not generally accurate.
It has occurred to me before to wonder whether a company could somehow legally -- and publicly -- commit to never settling such suits, in order to discourage them. Sort of a "burn Moscow" defense. (I'm not saying it's a wise plan, just interesting.) Now I'm wondering about other strategies observed in the natural world...
On the post: DailyDirt: Weapons To Fight Terrorists...
I actually used to be a rocket scientist...
All right, this baffles me. If the new device can carry a heavy conventional warhead, why couldn't people suspect that it might be carrying a nuke?
Maybe because it would be an unthinkable break with tradition? Or because nobody would expect us to put such an expensive warhead on a vehicle that still can't make it through a test flight? (I'm clutching at straws here.)
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: It May Soon Be Illegal For Doctors In Florida To Ask About Gun Safety
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Used to kill someone? That's not the same as accidental injury, so it really isn't relevant to this conversation (and it's highly misleading in other ways).
Do you have gun statistics in your argument? If so, you should know how to handle them correctly, in order to avoid faulty reasoning. I recommend that you get some training, but I have mixed feelings about whether you should be required to get a license...
Next >>