First-to-file does favor companies and corporations indirectly, if not necessarily patent trolls.
You fail to prove your point. You equate corporations to patent trolls and then go on to talk about how corporations have money and small inventors do not.
The definition of a patent troll is an individual that files patents with no intention of exploiting the patent themselves. Patent trolls typically have few to no employees their only assets are patents they purchased from others. Patent troll income is derived primarily from bullying others into questionable patent licenses.
If company X has a factory that makes widgets and they have a patent on widgets, then they are not a patent troll, even if they sue to prevent other from making widgets. Maybe you think everybody should be allowed to make widgets, but that doesn't make company X a troll. That is the power patents grant, to prevent other from using your invention for 20 years (in the US). If you don't like that, your problem is with the patent system as a whole, not company X's trollish-ness.
Both corporations and individuals can be patent trolls. Your discussion of corporations v. "the little guy" is irrelevant to the issue of legitimate inventors v. trolls.
First to file encourages people to file for patents sooner rather than waiting for someone else to file and cutting them off with a first to invent claim.
First to file doesn't favor patent trolls, they can't patent the invention if someone else was using it publicly and didn't bother to patent it.
If anything it cuts off patent trolls because they can't keep inventions a secret waiting for someone else to file a patent, and then usurp that patent from the original filer.
Don't you need to dominate the market to be considered a monopoly? Last time I checked Apple only dominates the hipster/ trust-afarian/ techno-snob markets. Plenty of other markets for fledgling entrepreneurs.
Mr. Wu seems to be saying inflammatory things to increase book sales.
You cannot serve process by mail using a 1st class stamp. You have to use a special class of mail with signature service and return receipt requested, the postal employee does not leave it without an adult who says that they can accept mail for the addressee, signing for it. Also, when you mail it, the process server has to have to physically affix a copy of the suit to the address you are mailing it to, its called nail and mail. Nail it to the door, mail a copy also.
So your anecdote about your neighbors junk mail is irrelevant to this discussion.
thedirt.com got served in error, ignored the papers, and this is what happens when you ignore court papers. This is fixed easily enough by showing up to court now and correcting the error.
The court system works just fine, thedirt.com sitting on their ass and not correcting the error in the beginning is the problem. They would have been able to recover whatever it cost them to respond from the plaintiff that erroneously served them.
...it's probably because they weren't properly notified.
Why would you ruin someone's life without forcing proper process-serving and making sure the person or a lawyer for them show up?
So a defendant can avoid all liability by not showing up and ignoring the court? That sounds real fair to the victim. Why would you ruin someone's life by allowing wrong doers to avoid liability by placing their fingers in their ears and chanting 'Nah-nah-nah i can't hear you" to avoid a lawsuit.
Also, let me point out thedirt.com claims it wasn't properly served, yet got the paperwork with the judgment to give to the press, which is all served in exactly the same manner. It must be magic.
The civil system in the US needs to be torn apart and started again from scratch, or merged into the criminal system like in (some?) European countries.
Your answer to this one instance of a mistake in paperwork that results in an easy to nullify judgment is to impose Napoleonic Code? Other than the Napoleonic system (which is used be France Mexico and Louisiana) the US has imported most of the spirit of European systems. And to boot you want to allow judges to make up numbers through "simple inspection", that allows judgments to be crafted on something based on nothing other than net worth. That sounds real fair to the plaintiff.
In reality, this judgment is going to be nullified once thedirt.com gets off their lazy ass and goes to court. You can't impose a penalty on the wrong party, in civil or criminal court. But that doesn't mean thedirt.com isn't going to try to milk some free advertising out of this.
This article notes nothing abnormal about Huawei's corporate structure, for a Chinese corporation or any corporation. The author describes an employee stock ownership plan, ESOPs exist in plenty of western nations and there is nothing sinister about them.
The author trying to use this round about "the company setup weird, that makes it bad" argument belies the fact that corporate structure is irrelevant to the quality of the products produced.
This article makes me think the author has the following motivation to write the article: 1. Paid by a competitor to smear Huawei 2. Paid by an investment bank that wants to take Huawei public, to convince Huawei management going public will improve Huawei's public image, thus making the investment bank a mint on the IPO and another small fortune when the investment bank sells the shares of Huawei to the investment bank's customers.
Re:in other news, cementing the BP CEO has started
on
Gulf Oil Leak Plugged?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Absolutely wrong.
Officers and Directors indemnification insurance is for shareholder derivative suits and has nothing to do with tort liability.
Officers and directors would to covered by the corporation's general liability policy, the same as every other employee.
This isn't about paid subscriptions as much as it is about maintaining a regional lock on ISP choice. News12 Long Island and Newsday are both owned by cablevision. If you use cable vision's ISP, optimum online, you have free access to
www.newsday.com
and
www.news12.com. Optimum customers never hit a pay wall, they are allowed on the site. If you don't use optimum online, you get hit with a pay wall.
A major reason that Newsday has so few subscriptions is that the majority of the people in the region which these new sources cater to don't even know about subscriptions because non-optimum customers are the only ones that hit a pay-wall.
For copyright to exist there needs to be a statute defining what is protected. The first copyright statutes granted printing monopolies to aristocratic friends of English monarchs, giving the aristocrat the right to own and use a printing press. There has never been a common law copyright.
In the present day United States the federal government has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over copyrighted works that are defined in 17 U.S.C. 301. 301 covers everything that can be copyrighted in the United States. Copyright cases brought in state court for such works can be dismissed by the state court judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant doesn't even need to raise the issue, the state court judge can just say "can't hear it" and dismiss.
If the state has a statute, on the books, that provides copyright protect to something that 301 doesn't provide protection for then that would allow the state court to hear the case. EXCEPT 301 covers everything which can be copyrighted in the United States, the state copyright statute will be invalidated for some reason, so it is a circular argument.
Also, this is just a nastygram (R), not an actual lawsuit. His name was already used in print, the alleged infringement already happened, IF he did have a cause of action he would filed a suit. The fact he just sent out a notice not to do it again "or else" makes me believe he doesn't even buy his own BS.
1. Precedence can only be set by a court higher than the court you are presently in. Even the same judge can ignore the way he ruled on an identical case. This judge was essentially outlining all the loop holes that the defense could have used but didn't, essentially outlining every way in which the defense's lawyer failed to make a convincing argument and creating a road map for lawyers who deal with a similar case in the future.
2. Amicus curiae is a brief, submitted to an appellate court, which deals with to a specific issue in a case, tailored to the facts of the present case to persuade the court to rule in favor the the amicus curiae's position. The case today is not an amicus curiae because it was not written to the facts of a case presently being decided by a court, it is about a case that happened in the past.
This case is a good road map for defendant's attorneys to learn what not to do.
Create a limited access user profile for non-tech savvy family members. Lock it down as much as possible. Or use the guest account feature that clears the profile when the user logs out.
Using an operating system other than windows is a good idea also, but unrealistic that it will result in a better situation for the tech support family member. Your virus issues will be replaced with compatibility complaints. If the family doesn't want to learn how to avoid viruses they don't want to learn a new operating system.
The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.
The article says that Idaho is the most SPAMMED, as in it receives the most spam. The article does not say that Idaho sends out the most spam.
Your comment about population is also irrelevant because this is not a measurement of volume of spam. The article measurement is a a percentage of legit mail received by people versus spam, so even the "best state" has a spam rate in the low 80%.
This article is pretty much an advertisement for Symantec products.
Morgan Stanley is the place for this kind of article because Morgan Stanley does stock analysis. Money managers pay alot of money to get these analyzes and rely on stock analysis information from financial analysts. The Money managers then use that analysis as a basis for investment strategies. This 15 year old boy's article is an analysis of stocks that fit into the category of media. This will very likely cause money managers to change their investment strategies to reflect what the boy says, because popular media companies make money.
To put it in layman's terms: Money managers know nothing about nothing and get by, by BSing people. Money managers read financial analyzes to get buzzwords and keep up on "whats hot." Twitter used to be a big buzz word, this 15 year old boy has now destroyed the buzz.
Not everyone is going to agree on everything and making donations a Boolean value is pretty silly.
Instead of punishing them for having a view point that doesn't completely match your own, how about rewarding them for doing a good job on the stuff you do agree on.
If you hate spam 70% of the time, hate patent trolls 30% of the time and would have donated $100, then donate $30.
The reason that the wall street journal is able to charge for access to its website is that it comes up with quality articles based on independent reporting that people are willing to pay for.
With articles like Dont tax bigger boobs during crunch The sun is Murdoch's only hope to achieve a business model similar to that of the Wall Street Journal.
You sound like somebody that jumps to conclusions and creates fantasies rather than live in reality.
1. The author identified NO defects with the hospital software. He speculated on defects in the software based on 2nd or 3rd hand information. Speculation in this case is useless. The defects I could clearly see were with the humans in the story. 2. In fact, the computer software could be absolutely perfect and the hospital staff was not trained in how to use it properly. Their ignorance is not the software's fault. 3. If you genuinely think that a hospital is "an environment that doesn't lend itself to patience, thoroughness and careful consideration" you have watched way too much TV and need a reality check. Life is not ER, doctors don't just do stuff without thinking, measure twice cut once is even more applicable to flesh.
You need to wake up and focus on actual problem in this situation. The hospital staff. They have a higher ethical obligation to patients than to blame their failings on an inanimate object.
Your point is irrelevant, the author's doctor gave the author written instructions that were not read or reviewed. The author had his medical information in his hands and nobody looked at it.
Don't blame the computer for human incompetence. The computer system is symptomatic of a broken communication system in the hospital, not causal.
People have the ability to speak and think, none of the health professionals in the article did that. Blaming the computer is not acceptable for their failure as professionals.
This article reads like a lifetime made for TV movie. Heavy on emotion devoid of logic.
The author was repeated asked for his medical information, his doctor's written instructions were ignored and different departments within the hospital did not communicate. Therefore the problem is Obama's computerized data record system that doesn't exist yet.
The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for the author to tie his experience to how computerized medical records are bad. He never did, his experiences were caused by humans that did not care enough about patients to read computerized records OR paper records.
The author fails to explain how his experience proves anything other than that particular hospital is terrible and that the health professionals employed there are less than friendly.
it really isn't a realistic or technically feasible.
Either you missed the point of the OP or are ignoring it on purpose. There is no reason for the power grid to be on the consumer internet and you cited none.
The power grid was designed before the internet.
The controls you described to switch power between providers already exist. There is not a human being flipping switches at every substation with "walkie talkies", there is already an automated system to switch power which is completely independent from the internet. If you want to upgrade this already existing network to include modern hardware, do not connect it with the internet.
You are acting like it is impossible to create a network of computers without WWW access. The power grid doesn't need twitter, or even a GUI interface, it just needs to send simple signals between embedded systems. transmitting signals between embedded systems can be accomplished without connecting the power grid to facebook.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K3-707
Please note part (c) second sentence of the section. However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if such person produces in court satisfactory evidence that at the time of the arrest the motor vehicle was covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7â'601 of this Code.
Which means... if you bring proof of insurance to traffic court, you will not get fined, which is what i have been saying from the beginning. The thing the cop rights is NOT a fine it is a summons to appear at court to determined whether you should be fined.
It is illegal to drive with out proof of insurance, the penalty is a fine, which can be rebutted by providing proof of insurance at the traffic court hearing.
What? You think you can get fined for legal activities?
This is already the way it works. If you can't produce your insurance card when you are stopped by the police you are issued a ticket that can be rebutted by producing proof of insurance at the traffic court date.
Everyone is making a big deal out nothing.
Even if the city decides to go forward with the plan (which it probably will not) false positives will infuriate insurance customers, who will complain to the insurance companies/ change providers, which will cause insurance companies to lobby that the law be revoked. The problem will solve itself.
Slashdot Mirror
First-to-file does favor companies and corporations indirectly, if not necessarily patent trolls.
You fail to prove your point. You equate corporations to patent trolls and then go on to talk about how corporations have money and small inventors do not.
The definition of a patent troll is an individual that files patents with no intention of exploiting the patent themselves. Patent trolls typically have few to no employees their only assets are patents they purchased from others. Patent troll income is derived primarily from bullying others into questionable patent licenses.
If company X has a factory that makes widgets and they have a patent on widgets, then they are not a patent troll, even if they sue to prevent other from making widgets. Maybe you think everybody should be allowed to make widgets, but that doesn't make company X a troll. That is the power patents grant, to prevent other from using your invention for 20 years (in the US). If you don't like that, your problem is with the patent system as a whole, not company X's trollish-ness.
Both corporations and individuals can be patent trolls. Your discussion of corporations v. "the little guy" is irrelevant to the issue of legitimate inventors v. trolls.
First to file encourages people to file for patents sooner rather than waiting for someone else to file and cutting them off with a first to invent claim.
First to file doesn't favor patent trolls, they can't patent the invention if someone else was using it publicly and didn't bother to patent it.
If anything it cuts off patent trolls because they can't keep inventions a secret waiting for someone else to file a patent, and then usurp that patent from the original filer.
Don't you need to dominate the market to be considered a monopoly? Last time I checked Apple only dominates the hipster/ trust-afarian/ techno-snob markets. Plenty of other markets for fledgling entrepreneurs.
Mr. Wu seems to be saying inflammatory things to increase book sales.
You cannot serve process by mail using a 1st class stamp. You have to use a special class of mail with signature service and return receipt requested, the postal employee does not leave it without an adult who says that they can accept mail for the addressee, signing for it. Also, when you mail it, the process server has to have to physically affix a copy of the suit to the address you are mailing it to, its called nail and mail. Nail it to the door, mail a copy also.
So your anecdote about your neighbors junk mail is irrelevant to this discussion.
thedirt.com got served in error, ignored the papers, and this is what happens when you ignore court papers. This is fixed easily enough by showing up to court now and correcting the error.
The court system works just fine, thedirt.com sitting on their ass and not correcting the error in the beginning is the problem. They would have been able to recover whatever it cost them to respond from the plaintiff that erroneously served them.
...it's probably because they weren't properly notified.
Why would you ruin someone's life without forcing proper process-serving and making sure the person or a lawyer for them show up?
So a defendant can avoid all liability by not showing up and ignoring the court? That sounds real fair to the victim. Why would you ruin someone's life by allowing wrong doers to avoid liability by placing their fingers in their ears and chanting 'Nah-nah-nah i can't hear you" to avoid a lawsuit.
Also, let me point out thedirt.com claims it wasn't properly served, yet got the paperwork with the judgment to give to the press, which is all served in exactly the same manner. It must be magic.
The civil system in the US needs to be torn apart and started again from scratch, or merged into the criminal system like in (some?) European countries.
Your answer to this one instance of a mistake in paperwork that results in an easy to nullify judgment is to impose Napoleonic Code? Other than the Napoleonic system (which is used be France Mexico and Louisiana) the US has imported most of the spirit of European systems. And to boot you want to allow judges to make up numbers through "simple inspection", that allows judgments to be crafted on something based on nothing other than net worth. That sounds real fair to the plaintiff.
In reality, this judgment is going to be nullified once thedirt.com gets off their lazy ass and goes to court. You can't impose a penalty on the wrong party, in civil or criminal court. But that doesn't mean thedirt.com isn't going to try to milk some free advertising out of this.
The order baring transfer of assets was only good until July 9th, it is now July 13th. So what happened?
This article notes nothing abnormal about Huawei's corporate structure, for a Chinese corporation or any corporation. The author describes an employee stock ownership plan, ESOPs exist in plenty of western nations and there is nothing sinister about them.
The author trying to use this round about "the company setup weird, that makes it bad" argument belies the fact that corporate structure is irrelevant to the quality of the products produced.
This article makes me think the author has the following motivation to write the article:
1. Paid by a competitor to smear Huawei
2. Paid by an investment bank that wants to take Huawei public, to convince Huawei management going public will improve Huawei's public image, thus making the investment bank a mint on the IPO and another small fortune when the investment bank sells the shares of Huawei to the investment bank's customers.
Absolutely wrong.
Officers and Directors indemnification insurance is for shareholder derivative suits and has nothing to do with tort liability.
Officers and directors would to covered by the corporation's general liability policy, the same as every other employee.
mod parent up.
This isn't about paid subscriptions as much as it is about maintaining a regional lock on ISP choice. News12 Long Island and Newsday are both owned by cablevision. If you use cable vision's ISP, optimum online, you have free access to www.newsday.com and www.news12.com. Optimum customers never hit a pay wall, they are allowed on the site. If you don't use optimum online, you get hit with a pay wall.
A major reason that Newsday has so few subscriptions is that the majority of the people in the region which these new sources cater to don't even know about subscriptions because non-optimum customers are the only ones that hit a pay-wall.
There is no such thing as common law copyright.
For copyright to exist there needs to be a statute defining what is protected. The first copyright statutes granted printing monopolies to aristocratic friends of English monarchs, giving the aristocrat the right to own and use a printing press. There has never been a common law copyright.
In the present day United States the federal government has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over copyrighted works that are defined in 17 U.S.C. 301. 301 covers everything that can be copyrighted in the United States. Copyright cases brought in state court for such works can be dismissed by the state court judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant doesn't even need to raise the issue, the state court judge can just say "can't hear it" and dismiss.
If the state has a statute, on the books, that provides copyright protect to something that 301 doesn't provide protection for then that would allow the state court to hear the case. EXCEPT 301 covers everything which can be copyrighted in the United States, the state copyright statute will be invalidated for some reason, so it is a circular argument.
Also, this is just a nastygram (R), not an actual lawsuit. His name was already used in print, the alleged infringement already happened, IF he did have a cause of action he would filed a suit. The fact he just sent out a notice not to do it again "or else" makes me believe he doesn't even buy his own BS.
You are confusing a number of concepts.
1. Precedence can only be set by a court higher than the court you are presently in. Even the same judge can ignore the way he ruled on an identical case. This judge was essentially outlining all the loop holes that the defense could have used but didn't, essentially outlining every way in which the defense's lawyer failed to make a convincing argument and creating a road map for lawyers who deal with a similar case in the future.
2. Amicus curiae is a brief, submitted to an appellate court, which deals with to a specific issue in a case, tailored to the facts of the present case to persuade the court to rule in favor the the amicus curiae's position. The case today is not an amicus curiae because it was not written to the facts of a case presently being decided by a court, it is about a case that happened in the past.
This case is a good road map for defendant's attorneys to learn what not to do.
Create a limited access user profile for non-tech savvy family members. Lock it down as much as possible. Or use the guest account feature that clears the profile when the user logs out.
Using an operating system other than windows is a good idea also, but unrealistic that it will result in a better situation for the tech support family member. Your virus issues will be replaced with compatibility complaints. If the family doesn't want to learn how to avoid viruses they don't want to learn a new operating system.
The is the whole point of a "monopoly position", they didn't just make a product, they eliminated all other reasonable alternatives to their product, creating an artificially high price.
Your JK Rowling analogy is missing the part where JK Rowling buys up every other publishing company, shuts them down, turns the book industry into a harry Potter monoculture, and makes Harry Potter the only book series on the planet aside from a few hold outs that have the creativity to write their own books.
Please educate yourself.
The article says that Idaho is the most SPAMMED, as in it receives the most spam. The article does not say that Idaho sends out the most spam.
Your comment about population is also irrelevant because this is not a measurement of volume of spam. The article measurement is a a percentage of legit mail received by people versus spam, so even the "best state" has a spam rate in the low 80%.
This article is pretty much an advertisement for Symantec products.
Morgan Stanley is the place for this kind of article because Morgan Stanley does stock analysis. Money managers pay alot of money to get these analyzes and rely on stock analysis information from financial analysts. The Money managers then use that analysis as a basis for investment strategies. This 15 year old boy's article is an analysis of stocks that fit into the category of media. This will very likely cause money managers to change their investment strategies to reflect what the boy says, because popular media companies make money.
To put it in layman's terms:
Money managers know nothing about nothing and get by, by BSing people. Money managers read financial analyzes to get buzzwords and keep up on "whats hot." Twitter used to be a big buzz word, this 15 year old boy has now destroyed the buzz.
Not everyone is going to agree on everything and making donations a Boolean value is pretty silly.
Instead of punishing them for having a view point that doesn't completely match your own, how about rewarding them for doing a good job on the stuff you do agree on.
If you hate spam 70% of the time, hate patent trolls 30% of the time and would have donated $100, then donate $30.
The reason that the wall street journal is able to charge for access to its website is that it comes up with quality articles based on independent reporting that people are willing to pay for.
With articles like Dont tax bigger boobs during crunch The sun is Murdoch's only hope to achieve a business model similar to that of the Wall Street Journal.
Cablevision in the US supplies broadband at up to 101Mbps
Cablevision has announced that they are going to offer 101 Mbps service. Hold off on giving them credit until they actually do it.
You sound like somebody that jumps to conclusions and creates fantasies rather than live in reality.
1. The author identified NO defects with the hospital software. He speculated on defects in the software based on 2nd or 3rd hand information. Speculation in this case is useless. The defects I could clearly see were with the humans in the story.
2. In fact, the computer software could be absolutely perfect and the hospital staff was not trained in how to use it properly. Their ignorance is not the software's fault.
3. If you genuinely think that a hospital is "an environment that doesn't lend itself to patience, thoroughness and careful consideration" you have watched way too much TV and need a reality check. Life is not ER, doctors don't just do stuff without thinking, measure twice cut once is even more applicable to flesh.
You need to wake up and focus on actual problem in this situation. The hospital staff. They have a higher ethical obligation to patients than to blame their failings on an inanimate object.
Your point is irrelevant, the author's doctor gave the author written instructions that were not read or reviewed. The author had his medical information in his hands and nobody looked at it.
Don't blame the computer for human incompetence. The computer system is symptomatic of a broken communication system in the hospital, not causal.
People have the ability to speak and think, none of the health professionals in the article did that. Blaming the computer is not acceptable for their failure as professionals.
This article reads like a lifetime made for TV movie. Heavy on emotion devoid of logic.
The author was repeated asked for his medical information, his doctor's written instructions were ignored and different departments within the hospital did not communicate. Therefore the problem is Obama's computerized data record system that doesn't exist yet.
The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for the author to tie his experience to how computerized medical records are bad. He never did, his experiences were caused by humans that did not care enough about patients to read computerized records OR paper records.
The author fails to explain how his experience proves anything other than that particular hospital is terrible and that the health professionals employed there are less than friendly.
it really isn't a realistic or technically feasible.
Either you missed the point of the OP or are ignoring it on purpose. There is no reason for the power grid to be on the consumer internet and you cited none.
The power grid was designed before the internet.
The controls you described to switch power between providers already exist. There is not a human being flipping switches at every substation with "walkie talkies", there is already an automated system to switch power which is completely independent from the internet. If you want to upgrade this already existing network to include modern hardware, do not connect it with the internet.
You are acting like it is impossible to create a network of computers without WWW access. The power grid doesn't need twitter, or even a GUI interface, it just needs to send simple signals between embedded systems. transmitting signals between embedded systems can be accomplished without connecting the power grid to facebook.
That statute says exactly what I said.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=062500050K3-707
Please note part (c) second sentence of the section.
However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if such person produces in court satisfactory evidence that at the time of the arrest the motor vehicle was covered by a liability insurance policy in accordance with Section 7â'601 of this Code.
Which means... if you bring proof of insurance to traffic court, you will not get fined, which is what i have been saying from the beginning. The thing the cop rights is NOT a fine it is a summons to appear at court to determined whether you should be fined.
No, that is the way it is today.
It is illegal to drive with out proof of insurance, the penalty is a fine, which can be rebutted by providing proof of insurance at the traffic court hearing.
What? You think you can get fined for legal activities?
This is already the way it works. If you can't produce your insurance card when you are stopped by the police you are issued a ticket that can be rebutted by producing proof of insurance at the traffic court date.
Everyone is making a big deal out nothing.
Even if the city decides to go forward with the plan (which it probably will not) false positives will infuriate insurance customers, who will complain to the insurance companies/ change providers, which will cause insurance companies to lobby that the law be revoked. The problem will solve itself.