Apple is a patent troll because the patents they are beating over Samsung's head are bullshit and never should have been issued in the first place. Yet the court grants the USPTO a wide berth of "deference" when the USPTO is already rubber stamping things expecting the courts to clean up THEIR mess.
It's a chicken and egg situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
It's a racket.
And Apple is in on it.
That makes them a patent troll.
Worse yet, you can't get a reexam at the USPTO without shitting your position up in court if you get sued later. According to the law, if you botch a reexam you cannot use prior art as a defense in court.
Mind you, I'd rather government be this magical free thing that nobody has to pay for. But cops, judges, tax collectors, municipal plumbers, soldiers, mayors, senators, councilors, sheriffs, and even prison wardens have to eat too, and every hour they spend on the job of government that they then cannot spend in the private sector has to be compensated.
So the question is, who should pay for this burden?
I'd rather tax the rich simply because they can afford it. The worst that can happen to the number 1 rich man is that he gets down to number 2, and if the government needs more money they both go down to number 3, who joins them on the trip down to number 4, and so on until the government's "civilized society bill" gets paid. There is a LONG way down before a rich man starts truly suffering poverty, or even inconvenience. Until he actually comes up short on something he needs or wants BESIDES being richer than someone else, he's got more money than he can use.
And that's assuming a 100 percent tax on the top bracket, which doesn't even have to be the case.
The idea isn't stupid, it's just one that will fail and at the same time expose the 1 percent for the greedy fuckers they really are when they stomp on it.
The rich should be taxed simply because they can afford it, and the worst a rich person could do is be brought down to be equal to the second richest person after him, and if that's not enough both of them only go down to tie with number 3, and so on. The worst that could happen is that they float down from heaven enough for us to see them, and all of us 99 percenters at the bottom will STILL be worse off than they. And we in the middle class are mostly doing ok, and there's no way that a tax on the rich could make the rich worse off than us.
So really, there is no downside to taxing the rich except that they could maybe be only 100 times as rich as us instead of 1000 times. When you're already at the top it's a long way down and you have PLENTY of wiggle room before you actually start hurting.
They're already getting the deck stacked in their favor anyway through bri^H^H^Hlobbying anyway, so they need to pay for the cake they're getting and eating too.
Unfortunately Facebook is a private company and they own the servers, so they get to dictate what data is and is not allowed.
They don't NEED a reason, legitimate or otherwise, to concern themselves with whatever they see fit.
Our facetime, however, is ours, and we may in turn see fit not to patronize them if we don't like what they're doing.
Since they sprung the trap after luring us in, and refuse to delete our data even if we tell them to, we're really not in much of a position to negotiate since they already have us by the balls.
Slashdot Mirror
It's called "having enough nukes to fire back if someone hits you first"
The flipside is that their customers will have lower taxes to compensate.
For ideas to be stolen they must first have owners.
I challenge this premise.
You vote with your wallet, I'll vote with mine.
Bad behavior is rewarded because it works.
A playground bully gets rich on other kid's lunch money because he's a big bad-ass who can break your bones if you don't cough up.
There is no system rewarding that, it's just a natural consequence of letting people do what they please.
I'll hate both, TYVM.
I'd bet that Apple lobbyists even helped make the system legal in the first place.
Apple is a patent troll because the patents they are beating over Samsung's head are bullshit and never should have been issued in the first place. Yet the court grants the USPTO a wide berth of "deference" when the USPTO is already rubber stamping things expecting the courts to clean up THEIR mess.
It's a chicken and egg situation where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
It's a racket.
And Apple is in on it.
That makes them a patent troll.
Worse yet, you can't get a reexam at the USPTO without shitting your position up in court if you get sued later. According to the law, if you botch a reexam you cannot use prior art as a defense in court.
Mind you, I'd rather government be this magical free thing that nobody has to pay for. But cops, judges, tax collectors, municipal plumbers, soldiers, mayors, senators, councilors, sheriffs, and even prison wardens have to eat too, and every hour they spend on the job of government that they then cannot spend in the private sector has to be compensated.
So the question is, who should pay for this burden?
I'd rather tax the rich simply because they can afford it. The worst that can happen to the number 1 rich man is that he gets down to number 2, and if the government needs more money they both go down to number 3, who joins them on the trip down to number 4, and so on until the government's "civilized society bill" gets paid. There is a LONG way down before a rich man starts truly suffering poverty, or even inconvenience. Until he actually comes up short on something he needs or wants BESIDES being richer than someone else, he's got more money than he can use.
And that's assuming a 100 percent tax on the top bracket, which doesn't even have to be the case.
The idea isn't stupid, it's just one that will fail and at the same time expose the 1 percent for the greedy fuckers they really are when they stomp on it.
The rich should be taxed simply because they can afford it, and the worst a rich person could do is be brought down to be equal to the second richest person after him, and if that's not enough both of them only go down to tie with number 3, and so on. The worst that could happen is that they float down from heaven enough for us to see them, and all of us 99 percenters at the bottom will STILL be worse off than they. And we in the middle class are mostly doing ok, and there's no way that a tax on the rich could make the rich worse off than us.
So really, there is no downside to taxing the rich except that they could maybe be only 100 times as rich as us instead of 1000 times. When you're already at the top it's a long way down and you have PLENTY of wiggle room before you actually start hurting.
They're already getting the deck stacked in their favor anyway through bri^H^H^Hlobbying anyway, so they need to pay for the cake they're getting and eating too.
Interestingly enough Samsung is alleging jury misconduct, and also perjury during voir dire.
Since it was the jury foreman I foresee that either samsung is going to get a mistrial or apple will have had to do some serious bribing.
And one particular jury foreman will hopefully
Though ironically, how do we get rid of shills without booting conscentious jurors who believe in jury nullification?
Everyone can think about it all they want, but only the party gets to do anything, and they want what they want and screw the voice of the people.
It would be old news here in the US as we call that perjury.
The news bit is because his arrest was motivated because the government didn't like what he said.
Please cite the clause in the GPL that requires attribution.
If you find such a clause and it's not taken out of context I'll eat my words.
What happens to jury nullification when jurors ARE aware of it and have to commit perjury during voir dire to invoke it?
Stop spreading FUD.
The theme violated was failure to include complete source code. Attribution is a CC/BSD thing.
Could someone explain how this would be even possible to pull off in the first place unless our passwords were stored in plaintext?
Last time I checked, you couldn't truncate a password like this after it's already been hashed.
Microsoft, shame on you.
Private as in private, non government property.
The kind of situation where first amendment rights don't apply, smart-ass.
Unfortunately Facebook is a private company and they own the servers, so they get to dictate what data is and is not allowed.
They don't NEED a reason, legitimate or otherwise, to concern themselves with whatever they see fit.
Our facetime, however, is ours, and we may in turn see fit not to patronize them if we don't like what they're doing.
Since they sprung the trap after luring us in, and refuse to delete our data even if we tell them to, we're really not in much of a position to negotiate since they already have us by the balls.
Well the citizens of Monticello already told that to TDS, and they were wrong.
You can easily win a war with your customers if you're a monopoly.
Hell still hot: Coca Cola refuses to let Pepsi sell soda in their office vending machines.
Hell still hot: Olympic games sponsored by Visa don't allow Mastercard to be used for paying concessions stands.
General principle: When you're playing on someone else's turf, you abide by their will, and if they kick you out anyway, tough shit for you.
They are people.
Just not the citizens.
A nation's word is expressed by whoever is in charge, to wit, the government.
When a kingdom speaks, it is with the voice of the king, not the voice of the people. The only way the people get any say is if the king says they do.
Bad karma doesn't make what Iran is doing right, but it does rob their victims of the moral high ground if they bitch about it.
Evil is evil no matter if it is provoked or not, and that applies to ALL sides of ANY moral issue.
The worst part of prison rape is that it happens period. The fact that the perpetrators are getting free sex is just a side problem.
Notice my qualifier that I state that I do not think the victims deserve it anyhow.
It does however make SCOTUS the top judicial authority. It is possible that jurisdiction over constitutional issues is implied.