The 12M pounds would qualify as liquidated damages.
It's a contract issue. It's not a fine, but you could be liable for it and in theory Wikileaks could sue you over it.
However, since Wikileaks is almost universally deemed a criminal enterprise owing to the stuff they are usually involved in leaking, they would probably not have standing.
Claims should be litigatable if they have merit. Arbitrarily telling a plaintiff they have to shit-can X number of claims just because "you filed too much" isn't kosher.
It's a justiceability issue that has no basis on the actual merits of the claims.
it's like getting beat up and having to pick which injury you get to sue for.
I'm all for Google winning, but I want them to win fair and square.
More like Oracle is accusing google of stabbing it in both shoulders and the judge is forcing it to only pick one shoulder to sue for.
Now if the judge were to throw out specific claims instead of putting a hard cap on the number and let Oracle choose what to let google get away wtih, that would make better sense.
If the judge is letting Oracle decide for itself which 3 of those 100 or so claims to proceed with, then it sorta implies that the judge thinks they are all potentially valid.
I can understand getting yelled at to simplify the docket and not overload the judge and jury, but permanently barring claims at a summary stage isn't kosher.
At most the judge should have booted them off without prejudice.
And I'm not at ALL cool with the apparent limitation on prior art and defenses.
At least now we know who is really at fault for tethering being so underground.
It's the carriers that don't like it.
They probably forced google's hand:
Carrier: Block tethering or we won't let your phone run on our network Google: How about if we let you decide for yourself? Carrier: eh, good enough...*BLOCK* Google: Not our fault, blame them *POINT*
When they have a monopoly on the pieces that they put together, they usually use the good stuff as bait to force you to swallow the other stuff with it.
Going ala-carte lets you be too picky for their pocketbook.
Perhaps the giants upon whose shoulders he was standing aren't too happy about him wearing cleats?
I'd address the entitlement complex of the creative mind that wants to hog all the credit and profit for the final product without remembering what it needed to get there.
100 percent originality is very difficult to achieve.
Actually, making sure all people have an equal share of bandwidth would seem to enhance neutrality in the sense that nobody gets a bigger piece of the pie than anyone else, would it not?
Slashdot Mirror
The 12M pounds would qualify as liquidated damages.
It's a contract issue. It's not a fine, but you could be liable for it and in theory Wikileaks could sue you over it.
However, since Wikileaks is almost universally deemed a criminal enterprise owing to the stuff they are usually involved in leaking, they would probably not have standing.
Actually, it's worse than being an unsecured creditor. They at least get to be in the line at all when court comes up.
The TOS probably states that points can be forfeited/confiscated/adjusted/fucked with for any or no reason.
Claims should be litigatable if they have merit. Arbitrarily telling a plaintiff they have to shit-can X number of claims just because "you filed too much" isn't kosher.
It's a justiceability issue that has no basis on the actual merits of the claims.
it's like getting beat up and having to pick which injury you get to sue for.
I'm all for Google winning, but I want them to win fair and square.
Who is to say whether or not Google can fit valid defenses into the 8 prior art slots they've been hogtied into limiting themselves to?
If Google needs 9 to prove a defense, they're screwed.
More like Oracle is accusing google of stabbing it in both shoulders and the judge is forcing it to only pick one shoulder to sue for.
Now if the judge were to throw out specific claims instead of putting a hard cap on the number and let Oracle choose what to let google get away wtih, that would make better sense.
If the judge is letting Oracle decide for itself which 3 of those 100 or so claims to proceed with, then it sorta implies that the judge thinks they are all potentially valid.
Telling Google they have to pick and choose what they can use to defend themselves isn't kosher.
If I were Google I'd appeal this pronto.
I can understand getting yelled at to simplify the docket and not overload the judge and jury, but permanently barring claims at a summary stage isn't kosher.
At most the judge should have booted them off without prejudice.
And I'm not at ALL cool with the apparent limitation on prior art and defenses.
Someone like this?
http://fatpita.net/?i=537
Paying a patent troll to go away is like paying a ransom to kidnappers.
All it does is ring the dinner bell and attract more sharks.
How the hell is it OK for you to tax my mileage if I should happen to be driving on private roads?
My guess is that it would be the responsibility of USAF.
Because it's cheap as hell, we're capitalist bastards, and we don't give a FUCK about human rights.
And also, because our competitors don't either.
It depends what you mean by force.
If it was signed at gunpoint, or by threats to the safety of family, you bet.
"Sign this or you don't get to work here", not so much.
Would it be sophisticated and professional to *frame* anonymous?
Who scapegoated them?
A professional cyber cracker may well opt to take advantage of anonymous's wrath by leaving a frame job behind.
If the water company made that a condition of service then you BET they'd get away with it.
Usually though water is treated as a public utility which pretty much nips that trickery in the bud.
if only internet service could be protected the same way.
At least now we know who is really at fault for tethering being so underground.
It's the carriers that don't like it.
They probably forced google's hand:
Carrier: Block tethering or we won't let your phone run on our network
Google: How about if we let you decide for yourself?
Carrier: eh, good enough...*BLOCK*
Google: Not our fault, blame them *POINT*
In a falsetto voice after he got neutered by big daddy.
How much do you want to bet we'll not get them back now that bin laden's gone?
Record companies do the same thing.
When they have a monopoly on the pieces that they put together, they usually use the good stuff as bait to force you to swallow the other stuff with it.
Going ala-carte lets you be too picky for their pocketbook.
Perhaps the giants upon whose shoulders he was standing aren't too happy about him wearing cleats?
I'd address the entitlement complex of the creative mind that wants to hog all the credit and profit for the final product without remembering what it needed to get there.
100 percent originality is very difficult to achieve.
Nah, R&D might just be working the kinks out.
Putting decent limits on copyrights and patents, and making it easier for bullshit patents to get the old heave ho, will go quite far by themselves.
Actually, making sure all people have an equal share of bandwidth would seem to enhance neutrality in the sense that nobody gets a bigger piece of the pie than anyone else, would it not?
They don't have to confirm jack shit.
Their TOS probably means they reserve the right to disconnect anyone at will.
The difference is that you are paying for your connection and in return are entitled to a significant amount of latitude on how you see fit to use it.
The privilege does not cascade down to freebies mooching your net without payment.