Slashdot Mirror

Can anyone knowledgable comment? There are quite a few articles around saying that the key thing that MS did was to put in a certificate for the Tunisian Government in Windows / Internet explorer which let them intercept any domain they wanted to; See this posting in Scribd. If that's true it's a much more serious betrayal of their users by Microsoft.

The suit in Germany is based on the European Community-Design 000181607-0001 - filed in May 2004

Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

An oft-overlooked - but crucial - point of CD filings: you must have your design registered AND start using it for it to be considered 'active'. Just like registered trademarks in the US - they are not considered live and enforceable until you start using them in commerce.

Was Apple using that design back in 2004? No? When did they start using that design in commerce? Until that date - the design was registered but not enforceable.

And that's one reason why Apple didn't sue the JooJoo. So what's Samsung's excuse - that they actually copied the JooJoo, not the iPad? After the CD was enforcable?

The suit in Germany is based on the European Community-Design 000181607-0001 - filed in May 2004

Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

An oft-overlooked - but crucial - point of CD filings: you must have your design registered AND start using it for it to be considered 'active'. Just like registered trademarks in the US - they are not considered live and enforceable until you start using them in commerce.

Was Apple using that design back in 2004? No? When did they start using that design in commerce? Until that date - the design was registered but not enforceable. And like trademarks, others who use your registered design before you start using it are indemnified from infringement issues (it's why you often have small local mom-and-pop stores using "registered names/trademarks" without problem - they were using them before the larger entity registered and/or used the mark).

Samsung was using that design back in 2006, well before the iPhone existed or the iPad was even announced.

Yes, you can obviously make a tablet without fear getting sued by Apple - but Samsung decided they'd rather copy the design.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JooJoo

Is this what you had in mind, when you talk about 'copying design'?

And, obviously, I am not talking about Samsung copying the design...

First of all: until June 2009 the JooJoo/CrunchPad looked notably different: http://techcrunch.com/2009/04/09/crunchtablet-hits-the-net-a-little-early/, even ignoring the color, the non-flat front is quite obvious. Further, as http://peanutbuttereggdirt.com/e/custom/Apple-vs-Samsung-1-Hardware-Design.html shows, there are still a number of differences to Apple's claims: not only is the silver bezel missing that both the iPad and the Galaxy Tab have, the JooJoo's screen is also not centered - and its hard to tell what its icons look like. But let's get to the most important point.

The suit in Germany is based on the European Community-Design 000181607-0001 - filed in May 2004

Any "prior art" prior to 2004 please.

Look at this from the tin-hat angle:

David Leigh/Guardian is working in the interest of CIA/MI6 and looking not to collaborate with WikiLeaks, but to ensnare him for prosecution.
Clue: DL Insisting on seeing the actual files
Clue: DL Pressing for the GPG passphrase
Clue: DL Publishing the ENTIRE proceeding and passphrase in a book

Dumbshit-Borg is either a long-time mole or was "turned"
Clue: D-B had full access to all unredacted material
Clue: D-B acrimoniously split with Assange/WikiLeaks over ego-boundary shit and speculative "risk" issues
Clue: D-B in his schism is part of the probable exposure of these cables - portrayed as an "accident", while he was unilaterally and admittedly sabotaging WikiLeaks
Clue: D-B can now say "I told you so" over this exposure of sources - pointing to this as evidence, rather than a situation he perpetrated

The US Army Counterintelligence Agency said in 2008 that WikiLeaks was"a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army" and PLANNED OPERATIONS to neutralise/discredit WikiLeaks:

"The identification, exposure, or termination of employment of or legal actions against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others from using Wikileaks.org to make such information public."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28385794/Us-Intel-Wikileaks

Question: Do you think that the Agency makes these declarations in vain, for their entertainment value?

Question: Do you think they are alone, and that there are not equivalent planned and current operations by the CIA, etc.?

Question: Are the combined actions of DL and D-B implausible as the intended outcome of a counter-WikiLeaks strategy, set in motion by one or more intelligence agencies, including US Army Counterintelligence?

Think about it. Once they set this down IN PRINT, internally, and don't have a "positive" outcome? Sombody goes through the ringer.

This is likely all a setup. One with a scenario that is similar to the one indicated here, if not completely identical. It is one where where David Leigh and Dumbshit-Borg are either pathetic and self-serving dupes, or sickening quislings.

Either way, this is a noose fabricated of intentional actions with plausible deniability. Identify WikiLeaks with Assange's personality, and attack the personality. Attack the credibility of WikiLeaks methodology while distracting from their effectiveness and success in exposing filth, corruption and illegal government action.

I know the will get Assange one way or another. They just created the circumstance to have him charged in Australia - their one sure bet. But watch out, DL and D-B.

When your mysterious, untimely deaths occur, I will look at it as confirmation of these speculations.

And proudly burnish my tin-hat...

Some old memories come up from jmorris42's post recommending Relativity; The Special and the General Theory. I read that when I was in junior-high, did a book-report on it (I wish I had the book report to read now), and phoned the university to ask some anonymous physics professor questions about it. I haven't looked at it since, so I can't really judge how accessible it was.

I would say that Steven Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology" was the most accessible book that I studied at university.

A book that tried to be accessible, but was all over the map was Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler's "Gravitation". If you just go through and pick and choose sections, it's probably good too.

Here's others's opinions at physics forums

You'll have to decide what you mean by "understanding" the theory. There are many different levels of understanding and only you can decide what you are comfortable with, and what level of understanding meets your needs.

> Finally now I'm an adult and have heard both sides on all of these topics,
That's your problem right there -- you're listening to other people, instead of ...

No man is an island. You listen to the evidence put forth by others and you weigh it, check it for inconsistencies and flaws where you can, you add your own facts. That's science, it's the best method we have.

> have lived enough to have experience to throw into the mix ... coming to conclusions based on experience. Which experiences??

Life, all the facts you pick up along the way, all things you measure and the things you find that you can't. All the things you proved for yourself or have others prove to you and all the bullshit people try to sell you "on faith" that turns out to be worthless.

The only way to truely know god is to experience her/him. How can you even begin to understand god while you are still ignorant of your Higher Self ??

I need evidence, someone else's "revelations" won't do it for me. My own "revelations" wouldn't do it for me, they are useless without evidence. A great example of this sort of baseless, schizophrenia induced religious experience is the writer Philip K. Dick, he "experienced god and got in touch with his higher self." Human beings can convince themselves of the most amazing bullshit: the placebo effect, hysterical blindness, the jerusalem syndrome. All relatively benign unless they start to pull others into their madness. This is what I want, unless you can offer me that I ain't buying.

Samsung did loose the photo patent, but only because the gesture was *exactly* identical. I took a look at the ruling (available online for those who can read Dutch). The judge basically narrowed the patent beyond what Apple claimed it covers. This is why the phone are infringing and the tablets are not, even though Apple claimed they are infringing as well. Because of the narrow interpretation it's trivial to avoid violation of the patent. So even there it's hardly a win for Apple, since it's now documented and widely published how you avoid this patent.

I also liked the reasoning for dropping the design class. Basically the judge agreed with Samsung that the similarities are functionality related, not strict design choices, e.g. you want a plate of glass wider than the screen to avoid an edge which will smudge when using the tablet, you want small bezels to maximize screen size and rounded corners because sharp corners are unpleasant and might cause wear on clothing etc. Once those things where eliminated from the model design Apple was basically left with a round button below the screen as an unique feature (on the front of the tablet) which is square on the Samsung devices. And the back of the devices isn't similar enough (by far) to violate a model registration. This is also a big loss for Apple because basically sticking a logo on the back and avoiding a round button below the screen is now officially[1] enough to make sure your tablet doesn't look like an iPad.

[1] This is ruling is only a preliminary injunction, a full case might still follow and the judges in Germany might rule differently. And of course, IANAL.

My dutch is very limited to sinaasappelsap but I believe this is the ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/62981838/KG-11-0730-en-11-731-Apple-Samsung
Maybe some dutch person can translate the it?

This is supposed to be the patent (in english):
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/description?CC=EP&NR=2059868A2&KC=A2&FT=D&date=20090520&DB=&locale=en_EP

What really bothers me is that this is clearly a software patent of the ridiculous kind (How to stroke a touch sensitive device horizontally. There must be prior art...) How could this be valid in civilized Europe? I thought we had said no to software patents (with a few exceptions) back in 2005 or such.

to cause massive chaos using the European Community Design patents... which are subject to no review at all when being granted, merely have the right forms been filled in in the correct manner... the referenced Community Design being the one responsible for Samsung being blocked from selling their Galaxy items in Germany as they purportedly look like a thing thing with rounded corners that Apple have registered a community design for...

Actually, many of the images in the court filing are deceptive if not outright photoshopped.

The Galaxy Tab on page 35 has obviously been squashed in its long dimension, to give it a more iPad-like appearance. The iPad to its left "for comparison" is shown at a more acute angle, making it appear slimmer.

The pic of the rear of the iPad on page 36 (lower left) it looks awfully long for an iPad. Measuring its dimensions in pixels gives you a height of 274 pixels, and a width of 196 to 223 (measured just before the corners start to curve). Average the two widths of the trapezoid and you get average dimensions of 274x209.5 pixels, or a foreshortened aspect ratio of 1.308. The iPad 2's actual dimensions are 241x186 mm, or a 1.295 aspect ratio. Foreshortening normally makes the aspect ratio smaller (when the product is sideways in portrait mode), since it lessens the height while not affecting the average width. But in this picture, the foreshortened aspect ratio is larger than the product's actual aspect ratio! Indicating that the picture has been stretched to make the iPad appear longer like the Galaxy Tab.

The photo you cite on page 39 is taken at an angle, foreshortening the dimension where the two products differ the most, thus making the difference appear smaller than it actually is. The whole document seems to be crafted to deceive, with images manipulated either in post-processing or with camera angles to make the products appear more similar than they actually are.

If you actually go to the complaint, you see that there are several photos of the actual Tab, showing the different aspect ratio. There's also a listing of the actual dimensions of both, side by side.

I have to do this the long way, but let's start off with http://www.internic.net/ which is " InterNIC is a registered service mark of the U.S. Department of Commerce "

then we go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterNIC look at the section internic and icann, again it's a contract agreement for services, the DOC retains control of it.

then we shoot over to the recent seizure warrant used by ICE, http://www.scribd.com/doc/45473003/ICE-affidavit-partial

I wish I had the note's where it's mentioned in the DOC that they own it lock stock and barrel. But the current circumstantial points that I might be correct.

if I find the correct documents I will reply again.

You attack all sorts of other points that I'm not interested in discussing with you. The topic here was what Apple's proposed defense against Lodsys is. That one is available on Scribd as a PDF document for everyone to read, and it raises only one defense: exhaustion. Here's the Scribd link. Compare the substance of that document to your off-base claim that Apple raised exhaustion only as a reason for an intervention without limiting its defenses to that one.

What:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/61650044/WTF-Happened-to-the-Constitution-The-Right-to-Privacy-in-the-Digital-Age

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/digital-age-what-heck-happened-constitution

Who:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html

The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

Apple is both competing on trademarks and design innovation. People used to say the iPod would bomb, it's done well. People said the iPhone would bomb, it's done well. People used to say the iPad... well, you get the point. Apple is willing to innovate even where it will kill current product lines. Microsoft could never do a good tablet because it's worried about the Windows franchise. It could never do a good phone because it needs to look like desktop Windows. Steve Jobs to his credit is fine selling iPads even if they cannibalize MacBook sales. He made iTunes for Windows even though not having iTunes there was a carrot to buy a Mac - he's good with iTunes on Windows as long as it sold iPods. He killed the iPod Mini for the Nano because he felt Solid State was the way forward. Apple is many things, being pathetic not being one i ascribe to it

Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two. Whether you say that industrial design should be able to be protected by law, well that's a different argument. But the design element is one of the things that Apple can use, and it does.

Apple is not a computer company, nor a phone company, nor a media company. It is a design company. It designs products that work. You may think you want a company run by geeks, but then you get Windows Zune, and Squirting files, and PlaysForSure. Of course Apple will fight for it's designs.

In a weird way, in our financial society, Apple not using available trademarks may open them up to shareholder lawsuits - not doing all to protect shareholder value and all that. It's a sucky system. Apple is not manipulating it. It is using one of it's many ways to compete. In the courtroom, and in the market.

That's the most ignorant crock of you know what I've read on here...

The iPod was supposed to bomb because it was an exact copy of the Archos out at the time with a smaller hard drive, a different case on it, and a spinning wheel that not many reviewers liked...

The iPhone was supposed to bomb because it was an exact copy of many of the other phones out at the time with far less features and thrown into a different case...

The iPad was supposed to bomb because it was an exact copy of many of the other tablets out at the time with far less features and thrown into a different case...

You get the point. Apple doesn't innovate at all. They take an existing product, remove features from it, put it into a different case, and then sell it at a 250% markup.

That's their entire selling point. They sell a product that's stripped to the bare bones so any moron can use it, throw it into a shiny package, and sell it for a price where people feel exclusive buying it. Then when people start getting comfortable with the features they have and want more than just the one extra feature the next generation of iDiot has Apple goes lawsuit crazy and tries to bring everyone else innovating back down.

This isn't running scared, this is Apple saying "We won't stand by while you try to use our work." I know that's not the Slashdot wisdom, but frankly Slashdot wisdom ain't exactly wise outside of certain limited facets of technology.

What work would that be?

There's a reason for all those "rectangle" comments -- and it's not "Slashdot wisdom".

As for your "running scared" comment, you have to be incredibly short-sighted to come such a conclusion.

The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

Apple is both competing on trademarks and design innovation. People used to say the iPod would bomb, it's done well. People said the iPhone would bomb, it's done well. People used to say the iPad... well, you get the point. Apple is willing to innovate even where it will kill current product lines. Microsoft could never do a good tablet because it's worried about the Windows franchise. It could never do a good phone because it needs to look like desktop Windows. Steve Jobs to his credit is fine selling iPads even if they cannibalize MacBook sales. He made iTunes for Windows even though not having iTunes there was a carrot to buy a Mac - he's good with iTunes on Windows as long as it sold iPods. He killed the iPod Mini for the Nano because he felt Solid State was the way forward. Apple is many things, being pathetic not being one i ascribe to it

Apple is fairly innovative, and pretty much every phone I see now looks like an iPhone with maybe a button or two. Whether you say that industrial design should be able to be protected by law, well that's a different argument. But the design element is one of the things that Apple can use, and it does.

Apple is not a computer company, nor a phone company, nor a media company. It is a design company. It designs products that work. You may think you want a company run by geeks, but then you get Windows Zune, and Squirting files, and PlaysForSure. Of course Apple will fight for it's designs.

In a weird way, in our financial society, Apple not using available trademarks may open them up to shareholder lawsuits - not doing all to protect shareholder value and all that. It's a sucky system. Apple is not manipulating it. It is using one of it's many ways to compete. In the courtroom, and in the market.

The community design document can be found here. They're effectively preventing anyone from creating a mobile computer device that is rectangular in shape with round corners. Unbelievable.

This is what you call intellectual property? a drawing of a rectangular screen with a earphone jack and a data connector

This must be how the message of the Weaseljumper was able to survive being embedded in coal for a million years or so: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13855395/Weaseljumper-Read-Me-First

Although in The Marching Morons it was "Would you buy that for a quarter?" which reflects inflation between 1951 and today.

But the help we give should be based on actual need, not on skin color.

Like it or not, skin color matters.

White guy with a criminal record has a better shot at a job callback than a black guy with no criminal record

Person with a "black sounding" name has a worse shot at a job compared with a similarly qualified applicant without a "black sounding" name.

I could go on (blacks and whites use/sell drugs at similar rates but blacks are arrested more and serve longer sentences, unemployment among blacks is worse than among whites despite similar qualifications and education levels, etc), but you get the point.

Tom Weller's Science Made Stupid covered this topic back in 1985:
http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/14650088?access_key=key-2hz3ld86f19nx2xs0hcx&start_page=31

If you'd followed the proceedings you should have. The oral arguments are worth checking out for everybody, and there are a few choice quotes. The reference to Mortal Kombat is lovely, but my personal favorite is where (page 57) Sotomayor points out that since the law only covers violence against humans, "a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured" would be totally scott-free.

Vodka is right of course, but in the super intelligent socialist infested collectivist fest that is Slashdot, where the majority of users believe that wealth is a privilege, that there is such a thing as a 'right to internet access' or a right to $good_that_is_not_a_right, that there is no such thing as property rights, and that democracy is 'fair', you are simply banging your head against the wall.

for all those that are open minded, who concede that they could be brainwashed but who wish not to be brainwashed, you need look no further than the following resources to convince you:

The Kingdom of Moltz
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/schiff/moltz.pdf

How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesnt, by Irwin Schiff
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt

For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

Thomas Woods, 'Where do rights come from?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlit:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/money.asp

The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

And finally,

The Fallacy Detective
http://www.fallacydetective.com/products/item/the-fallacy-detective/

because faulty reasoning is behind most of the ideas that prop up economic illiteracy and the belief in government created 'rights'.

After having consumed these works, it will be impossible for anyone to think that... well, anything fallacious to do with Economics or rights. The question is, do you have the stomach to throw away bad ideas that have been ingrained into you, possibly for decades, that are the core of your personal philosophy?

You are as wrong as it is possible to be wrong.

I dont likve in the USA, I am totally against the Federal Reserve and its money printing, Im against government destroying 'health care' through its absurd interference, etc etc.

As for 'laptop that I could never have bought without government borrowing from china' this is just pure economic illiteracy and nonsense:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt

try that for a primer on the fundamental principles.

Alcohol abuse in other people is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents are bad, ALL parents must be put under the wing of the State 'for the sake of the children'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates laws to control the internet, and it gives birth to totalitarian countries like Sweden (Home School banned, because their parliament says their society is perfect, and so there is no need for Home Schooling. Im not making that up. State monopoly on the sale of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden etc etc), Finland (where you are fined for speeding proportionally to your income) and Iceland (train wreck vassal state, hollowed out by the banksters, where you dont have even the most basic of your rights).

No wonder alcoholism is rife; these people are living in a sort of hell, where the human spirit is so suppressed they seek escape through drugs. All people instinctively know when they are not free, even if consciously they think that they are. You know the line from The Matrix; these people are born into bondage, bondage to the State. I chafes at their soul, and so, they seek solace in a bottle.

The State; its enough to turn a man to drink!

The Higgs, the Theory of Everything, the End Times - all on hold again, apparently:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19550880/GUT-The-Grand-Unified-Theory-A-oneact-play-with-seven-blackouts

I think the letter he wrote in reply to the non-final rejection was the most representative of this person's delusion. I reuploaded it at scribd for easy access: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57372518/USPTO-05-27-2008-Miscellaneous-Incoming-Letter

As I read it, all I could think of is if you're god why do you need the patent office to enforce the sue of your abilities?

It is in at least the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

It's legal to film and record police in Maryland. The case mentioned in your link went to the Maryland Circuit Court for Harford County and was ruled not a violation of the law. "A law enforcement officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy in encounters with citizens in public places"

Montana operates with a balanced budget...

If only Montana could do that without relying on handouts from other states such as California.

You are an industry apologist who is attempting to hide the problems present in GMO, and I will make no further attempt at discourse with you.

In case of future readers of this thread I will make a point to for the reader. Please do your own research. Things like Google Scholar make finding peer reviewed scientific studies exceedingly easy. Take the time to read them. Here is one to get you started.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33928396/GMO-Study

This is only one of several studies I've seen showing adverse, sometimes severe effects of the descendants of mammals raised on diet that is only partially based on GMOs. If you still have confidence in feeding your kids that after you understand the depth of the issue go ahead.

I can recommend Ryles Concept of mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Mind http://www.scribd.com/doc/7003453/Gilbert-Ryle-The-Concept-of-Mind

Late Wittgensteins philosophical investigations or Quine, especially his: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_What_There_Is is also brilliant, and makes this confusions go away.

The problem is that you only hear non quietistic solutions since the quietistics ones are, well, quiet :)

Carl Gustav Jung said it long before. You might find his book, The Undiscovered Self interesting.

Impact Shock 3400G, 6.5 milliseconds
Penetration Resistance 500 lb. weight from 10 feet
Static Crush 5000 lbs., 5 minutes
High Temperature Fire 1100 C, 30 minutes
Low Temperature Fire 260 C, 10 hours
Deep Sea Pressure and 20,000 feet, 30 days
Sea Water/Fluids Immersion Per ED-56a
The CSMU design has been fully qualified to these requirements and, in fact, exceeds them by considerable margin in key survival areas:
Impact shock has been successfully demonstrated at 4800 G's
High temperature fire exposure has been tested to 60 minutes
Low temperature fire was tested immediately after exposure to 1100 C fire.

From here. Check out the physical design on page 8.

In another action, they are going up against Brother, Canon, HP, Hulu, Lenovo, Lexmark, Samsung, and others:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48672587/Lodsys-v-Brother-International-et-al

Seems to me they will take on anyone they think will pay them

Yes, and those AES instructions are well documented.

Absolutely. I was particularly glad to see, in the full list of questions asked, that they question the seizure program itself, not just the dubious claims about the plug-in. The list is as follows (the source linked above is apparently a copy of the official email):

April 19, 2011 email from Mozilla to US Department of Homeland Security Special Agent
To help us evaluate the Department of Homeland Security's request to take-down/remove the MAFIAAfire.com add-on from Mozilla's websites, can you please provide the following additional information:
1. Have any courts determined that MAFIAAfire.com is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)
2. Have any courts determined that the seized domains related to MAFIAAfire.com are unlawful, illegal or liable for infringement in any way? (please provide relevant rulings)
3. Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.
4. Has DHS, or any copyright owners involved in this matter, taken any legal action against MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domains, including DMCA requests?
5. What protections are in place for MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domain owners if eventually a court decides they were not unlawful?
6. Can you please provide copies of any briefs that accompanied the affidavit considered by the court that issued the relevant seizure orders?
7. Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down MAFIAAfire.com is based?
8. Please identify exactly what the infringements by the owners of the domains consisted of, with reference to the substantive standards of Section 106 and to any case law establishing that the actions of the seized domain owners consti tuted civil or criminal copyright infringement.
9. Did any copyright owners furnish affidavits in connection with the domain seizures? Had any copyright owners served DMCA takedown notices on the seized
domains or MAFIAAfire.com? (if so please provide us with a copy)
10. Has the Government furnished the domain owners with formal notice of the seizures, triggering the time period for a response by the owners? If so, when, and have there been any responses yet by owners?
11. Has the Government communicated its concerns directly with MAFIAAfire.com? If so, what response, if any, did MAFIAAfire.com make?

For customers who do not toggle location-based service capabilities to "Off," Apple collects information about the device's location (latitude/longitude coordinates) when an ad request is made. This information is transmitted securely to the Apple iAd server via a cellular network connection or Wi-Fi Internet connection. The latitude/longitude coordinates are converted immediately by the server to a five-digit zip code. Apple does not record or store the latitude/longitude coordinates-Apple stores only the zip code. Apple then uses the zip code to select a relevant ad for the customer.

Apple does not share any interest-based or location-based information about individual customers, including the zip code calculated by the iAd server, with advertisers. Apple retains a record of each ad sent to a particular device in a separate iAd database, accessible only by Apple, to ensure that customers do not receive overly repetitive and/or duplicative ads and for administrative purposes.

So now tell us what Google does.

However, particularly in points 3(linked above) and 8(following) of their apologia, they admit to collecting location data in a previously undisclosed way. "8. What other location data is Apple collecting from the iPhone besides crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data? Apple is now collecting anonymous traffic data to build a crowd-sourced traffic database with the goal of providing iPhone users an improved traffic service in the next couple of years."

You mean this way is different from the way they already publicised 9 month ago? http://www.scribd.com/doc/34546602/apple-response-to-markey-barton

To provide location-based services, Apple must be able to determine quickly and precisely where a device is located. To do this, Apple maintains a secure database containing information regarding known locations of cell towers and Wi-Fi access points. The information is stored in a database accessible only by Apple and does not reveal personal information about any customer.

Information about nearby cell towers and Wi-Fi access points is collected and sent to Apple with the GPS coordinates of the device, if available: (1) when a customer requests current location information and (2) automatically, in some cases, to update and maintain databases with known location information.

Page 6f. In case you were wondering, we already talked about it here: http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/07/20/0250203/Apple-Lays-Out-Location-Collection-Policies. Not only that, you posted to that discussion.

I really hope you're trying to be sarcastic or ironic - otherwise there isn't a clue stick big enough. The 'only way' isn't. There are several. All methods of interception require money, some require legislation and the rest require subterfuge and technical skill. In this case I imagine it's very simple. The state has a law saying it's legal for certain agencies to intercept calls in order to protect national security. The state's telecoms provider(s) purchase interception equipment from telecoms hardware providers. It gets plugged in and switched on. The state uses it. No conspiracy, no mad l33t skillz, no drama. Except possibly for the subjects/victims of the interception. For examples of legal intercept equipment, see http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CEkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cisco.com%2Fweb%2Fabout%2Fsecurity%2Fintelligence%2FLI-3GPP.html&ei=CWy3Td-NNZS1hAe6_8H3Dg&usg=AFQjCNGEKGTT3PTOMkB172TvxVlkqgMKZg or http://www.scribd.com/doc/49742557/50/Legal-Interception-Gateway-LIG There is of course the relatively recent case of illegal intercept, in Greece. There it came to light that politicians and other high profile figures had their mobils calls tapped. On investigation, one of the country's mobile providers found that someone had installed, configured and turned on the 'legal intercept' software/hardware to do the tapping. Here's the rub - it wasn't done by the government company or home intelligence service. So who did it and why?

Discovery of the Higgs will lead to the theory which describes the unification of all forces, which will trigger the end times: Heaven on earth and the revealing of all truth.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19550880/GUT-The-Grand-Unified-Theory-A-oneact-play-with-seven-blackouts

As it stands, they did prove that it wasn't a valid patent- but the Jury believed "the little guy's attornies" all the same

The jury was never asked to rule on the validity of the patent.

The jury was asked three questions which must be answered consistently:

[Paraphrased]

1 Did Bedrock prove by the weight of the evidence presented here that Google infringed on its patent?

On Claim 1 - Yes. On Claim 2 - Yes.

2 Did Google prove by the weight of the evidence presented here that it did not infringe on the patent?

On Claim 1 - No. On Claim 2 - No.

3 If you find that the patent was infringed, what would be fair and reasonable compensation for Bedrock, based on the weight of the evidence presented here?

$ 5 million.

Bedrock v. Google

For the case to reach the jury in this form, Google must have lost every argument with the judge at every stage in the case where the validity of the patent could be contested.

That does not bode well for an appeal.

The jury trial was demanded in this case - and it is an expensive and high-risk proposition.

The appellate court judge does not second-guess a jury on matters of fact.

The most he is likely to allow is an argument that any damages awarded were "excessive."

Neither are you likely to get very far arguing that the jury was biased or incompetent.

Furthermore, those studies were never vetted.

Except for that paper by the United States Government Accountability Office that says that all the studies commissioned by the RIAA and MPAA are bogus and that copying generally helps sales.

It's fascinating that every study on "casual" copyright infringement that way paid for by an organization with lots of items under copyright says that "piracy is bad", while every study done by groups that only care about the truth shows that "piracy is unimportant".

There are many places to download e books for free: Free e Books,

Scribd , Feedbooks , Smashword and many more if you just Google free e books. I've got more thn 400 books in my Kindle, about 25% of which I've had to pay for. Quitchabitchen.

EVERYONE should read the Grace Commission report - the Government PUBLICLY ADMITTED that 100% of income tax collected goes to paying the INTEREST on the national debt! Them now trying to tell us anything is is pure BS lies - surprise the government lying to us YET again.

"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government."
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grace_Commission
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32595026/Grace-Commission-Report-full
http://thetruthnews.info/GraceCommissionReport.pdf
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf

The suit is about being "considered", not about being "chosen". Google was not considered, only Microsoft offerings were considered. The DOI should have issued the RFQ with whatever restrictions they wanted short of a specified product and chosen from the bids. They did it wrong. http://www.scribd.com/doc/40513712/Google-v-US-Complaint

people will still pay for high quality photographers to take high quality pictures, you just wont be able to make as much money from once off work by ad hearing to artificial scarcity.

Actually, hard economic data shows the exact opposite effect on artist income: once the (very) expensive copyright middlemen have been eliminated, once distribution has turned into a commodity, there's significantly more money left for real creative artists like the grandparent poster.

That is what is scaring content industry fat cats: creative artists getting a much better deal by eliminating expensive (and control freak) middlemen that stand between their works and the public who enjoys those works.

Employee salaries and benefits only make up about 10% of the state budget [ca.gov] ($7B salaries + $3.4B benefits)

That's only counting the payroll expenditures that come out of the General Fund. Total state expenditure on payroll is about $23.6 billion, or just less than a third of the total resources available for 2010-2011. The percentage of General Fund is also closer to 12 percent.

Worth noting, though, that if you reduced state employee compensation to zero it still wouldn't make up for the budget shortfall.

• The defendants cannot be severed from this case at this juncture because of judicial efficiency, and the fact that the plaintiffs only have an IP address along with date and time requiring them to sub-peona Time Warner for the information of actual defendants. She determines that the burden of finding out the names and addresses of defendants would be far greater on the plaintiffs than Time Warner at this juncture of the case. Furthermore she opines that for the purpose of judicial efficiency she has to allow plaintiff's request, so there are not thousands of cases filed.
• Even though the defendants are protected by the 1st amendment rights, this does not preclude the defendants from being identified. She says that the 1st amendment rights are unaffected at this juncture as the actual defendants have not been identified. (In effect -- freedom of speech does not mean that you can remain anonymous -- you have to take responsibility of your speech.)
• Furthermore, Time Warner and others have stated that actions on the internet constitute expression that can be considered to be free speech. She denies this, because if she wouldn't, this implies that any act on the internet, especially concerning usage of files comes under free speech and you can remain anonymous, which would have been a sweeping judgement regarding all activities on the internet. So this would have been squashed under any judge.
• Finally Time Warner has argued that her court does not have jurisdiction as the defendants are located in different places falling under different judicial scopes. She agrees with this, however she says that since the defendants have NOT been identified at this juncture, the question of jurisdiction is premature.

In other words, she is agreeing to let the case proceed at the very least until the defendants are identified by name and address. She says that other questions can and should be answered after the defendants are named.
Having read her opinion, I would not say she was overly biased against one party or the other. This is by no means a judgement against file-sharers and is just an order to let the defendants be identified at least, before the validity of the case can be judged.

So, I have a hard time understanding the impulsive comments above -- read before accuse? (Oh but this is /.)