Well, sure. But this would not have been an 'additional' question, it would have been the SAME question that the judge already asked. It's not like the guy gave some hint that there was more and the judge missed it.
I am guessing that the 'have you ever been involved in a lawsuit' question gets asked in every single civil trial. Nobody wants to waste time in every jury selection reasking questions that have already been asked and should have been answered completely.
Furthermore, the guy now claims that they were asking for a 'ten year period'. So even if a lawyer re-asked the question, or said 'are there any more cases' the guy would still have answered no.
Odd how those other people knew that they should state they were involved in multiple cases, but this guy (who later stated he was glad to be on the jury) didn't.
It's more than that. It's 'you think a partner in a law firm looks over the names of potential jurors in a case she is not involved in just to see if the name of someone her husband sued 20 years ago pops up'?
I see you get your knowledge of this stuff from movies.
This was jury selection, not the trial. The judge was asking questions, not the attorneys. The juror is not on trial, and is not a witness. He is being asked simple, direct questions by the judge, for the purpose of seeing if there is anything that would disqualify him. The juror obviously knows this, and it is his responsibilty and duty to state any and all disqualifying information.
These things take long enough as it is. There is no reason to drag it out any further by treating every potential juror as some kind of hostile witness who needs to be thoroughy interrogated.
Anybody can read the transcript, and there is no mention of a time period. As for whether there were 'other' instructions that said 10 years - who knows? However, in the transcript you can see where other jurors mentioned cases more than 10 years old, and the judge did not say 'I don't care about those'. Instead, he asked those jurors the exact same questions he asked everyone else.
Your ham analogy is apt, yet you completely miss the point.
If you design a receiver using all the information that is known, you can't be faulted for having a 'cheap/poorly designed/non-conforming' device. In the TV/ham case, that would mean that the TV is designed knowing that the amateur bands are there, and the power levels that may be used in those bands. If you don't design your device to reject those frequencies at those power levels, you have made a poor device. In that case, you will indeed be told to fix your TV, and the ham operator is free to continue operating. HOWEVER, if the ham ups his power level beyond what is allowed, and it interferes with your TV, that is NOT the fault of the TV, it is the fault of the amateur operator, and he is the one who will be told to stop operating.
In the GPS case, the GPS receivers were designed (properly) using the available information. Namely, that the adjacent bands would be used only for low power satellite-to-earth transmissions. If they fail under those conditions, fault the device. HOWEVER, if they fail because someone decides to use those bands in a relatively high-power application, and the GPS devices fail, that is clearly NOT the fault of the device.
And I have no idea what you mean by 'non-conforming'. Non-conforming to what?
Only a problem if the only thing your attraction has going for it is the title. If the worlds biggest ferris wheel was in the middle of Kansas, that would be a concern. If someone builds a bigger wheel than this one, this one will still be in NYC, and will still offer the same views, etc.
Oh, yes, Quite absurd. I mean every tourist attraction there is has a single hotel attached to it that can hold more people than the attraction can. For instance, stadiums always have a 30000 room hotel attached to them.
Wow, that is some seriously good logic you have there. "People don't want to go on a rickety, 40-ft high ferris wheel at a carnival (with a view of - nothing), therefore a 630-ft high wheel with a great view of NYC, Statue of Liberty, etc, will not attract anybody". Do you also suppose that the idea of a 'cruise industry' will fail because the line for the 'boat' kiddie ride at the same carnival is very short?
It says 10am to 10pm in the Spring, Fall, and Winter, and til 2AM 'or even all night' in the summer. It also says 'up to 30000/day'. There is nothing incompatible with '30000 people on a busy day in the summer, average of 12300 per day (which is 4.5 miilion per year) over the course of a year'. Both of those figures fit easily into the numbers provided, and leave plenty of room for maintenance and weather.
Correct. This is what was done in the SCO v IBM case. SCO asked the court to force IBM to turn over all the source to AIX. IBM agreed, but only on the condition that neither SCO nor SCO's counsel had access to it.
Ye another ill-informed, totally incorrect post modded to +5 informative by clueless mods.
You do NOT PATENT AN IDEA OR CONCEPT, such as "playing a game in a room". You patent HOW YOU DO IT.
Even a cursory look at the link you provided and the actual patent application shows they are not even similar.
The link you provided says they use an "Intersense IS-900 ultrasonic/accelerometer-based tracking system". Claim 1 of the patent says they use a camera. Those are not the same.
The link you provided clearly shows they are using flat, carefully positioned white walls. The patent says that they use the camera "to compensate for the topography of the environmental surface". A different claim states that they "compensate for the color of the environmental surface".
They also talk about things like "shielding the user from the light by detecting his position". In other words, when the user is facing the projector, block out the image that would displayed on his face so as to not blind him. Clearly they don't have to do this in the cave system since it is using rear-projection.
When oh when is the slashdot crowd going to learn what patents are, what they protect, and what prior art is and is not? Something in a movie or science-fiction book is NOT prior art. Something that has the same end result but gets there in a different way is NOT prior art.
Are all these people rich and famous? No. The point remains valid - getting found liable in a civil trial for murder is going to cost you thousands of times what it costs to be found liable for copyright infringement.
What a complete cop out. Ever hear of something called the NRA? That seems to be made up of ordinary people who are willing to contribute to a cause they deeply believe in. They also seem to have a whole lot of lobbying power, and don't get put on terrorist lists.
Of course, it is far easier to just whine and cry and blame someone else for your troubles.
If you are going to make a comparison between copyright and murder civil trials (which the GP, not I, did) then you are going to get comparisons between those cases. There are no ordinary civil murder trials.
If you want to gloss over the minor fact that he was not convicted of murder, then you have a point. His not being convicted had absolutely nothing to do with murder carrying less punishment than copyright infringement.
The wrongful death suit was a civil case, like this one. And the GP carefully pointed out that his was talking about civil law. And in these cases, in civil court, murder carried a 33000 times greater liability than copyright infringement.
Why, in every article about law, does some idiot have to say something to the effect of 'you get away with less for murdering someone'? It is flatly untrue.
Case in point - the judgment in this case was less than $10K/song (it is not the court nor law's fault that she did it 24 times). OJ Simpson was ordered to pay $33M for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman. So it seems like the 'liability' for murder is approx 33000 times greater than the liability for copyright infringement.
I am pretty sure that withholding evidence means that prosecutor has seen evidence that may exonerate the defendant, and has not reported it to the court (or the defense). If he has shown it to the judge, the defense also has it, and it has not been withheld.
Also, 'volunteer administrators' are not being called a corporate officer, William Ryan Holliday, owner of "Holliday IT Services Inc" (a California corporation) is being sued, as is James Heilman, a board member of WikiMedia Canada.
And the problem is not that they a speaking on behalf of the company, it is that they are acting as if they are speaking on behalf of the company.
Also, since when are 'adminstrators and beaurocrats' the community? The community is at the very least ALL of the contributors, and many times include users. And claiming that 'the community' is moving IS a lie - some admins are moving, they do not represent 'the community'.
And WTF is with the "WikiTravel as a business no longer exists" crap? The site exists, works, and is being updated. The home page was updated three days ago, and random clicking on articles shows many articles added/altered in the last month.
I have no clue about the merits of the case, and frankly I don't care in the slightest about the case.
That said, the fact remains that the case is not about copyrights, CC-sa licenses, suing people 'for wanting to leave', or any of the other crap that the summary said and subsequent posters think it is.
That may well be the case, but that does not appear to be what they are complaining about here.
They are not complaining about somebody referring to WikiTravel, they are complaining about somebody pretending to be WikiTravel.
If these two guys starting this new site were not trying to deceive anyone they could have sent a letter saying "Hi, we're trying to start our own website to compete with WikiTravel. We have legally copied all of the content from WikiTravel. We hope that as a contributor, you will stop contributing to WikiTravel and will instead contribute to our website."
That would probably have been fine, because they are not attempting to deceive anyone, and the use of the WikiTravel name was as reference only.
Instead, they sent a letter saying something to the effect of "This is a message from the WikiTravel administrators. As a member of the WikiTravel community, we want to remind you that the WikiTravel community is migrating to WikiMedia".
Do you see the difference? Any reasonable person reading that first statement would have no doubt that the new site was not in fact WikiTravel, but a new site to compete with it. The same reasonable person, on reading the second statement, could easily come to the conclusion that WikiTravel itself was moving or being renamed, and if they want to continue contributing to what was WikiTravel they must now migrate to WikiMedia. That is an intentional deception.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, this is why you should also carefully read the Certificate of Authenticity that comes with each and every apple, etc, that you purchase.
Have you every actually been to a grocery store or otherwise purchased food?
Well, sure. But this would not have been an 'additional' question, it would have been the SAME question that the judge already asked. It's not like the guy gave some hint that there was more and the judge missed it.
I am guessing that the 'have you ever been involved in a lawsuit' question gets asked in every single civil trial. Nobody wants to waste time in every jury selection reasking questions that have already been asked and should have been answered completely.
Furthermore, the guy now claims that they were asking for a 'ten year period'. So even if a lawyer re-asked the question, or said 'are there any more cases' the guy would still have answered no.
Odd how those other people knew that they should state they were involved in multiple cases, but this guy (who later stated he was glad to be on the jury) didn't.
It's more than that. It's 'you think a partner in a law firm looks over the names of potential jurors in a case she is not involved in just to see if the name of someone her husband sued 20 years ago pops up'?
I see you get your knowledge of this stuff from movies.
This was jury selection, not the trial. The judge was asking questions, not the attorneys. The juror is not on trial, and is not a witness. He is being asked simple, direct questions by the judge, for the purpose of seeing if there is anything that would disqualify him. The juror obviously knows this, and it is his responsibilty and duty to state any and all disqualifying information.
These things take long enough as it is. There is no reason to drag it out any further by treating every potential juror as some kind of hostile witness who needs to be thoroughy interrogated.
Anybody can read the transcript, and there is no mention of a time period. As for whether there were 'other' instructions that said 10 years - who knows? However, in the transcript you can see where other jurors mentioned cases more than 10 years old, and the judge did not say 'I don't care about those'. Instead, he asked those jurors the exact same questions he asked everyone else.
The attorneys were not asking the question, "the court" (judge) was.
Your ham analogy is apt, yet you completely miss the point.
If you design a receiver using all the information that is known, you can't be faulted for having a 'cheap/poorly designed/non-conforming' device. In the TV/ham case, that would mean that the TV is designed knowing that the amateur bands are there, and the power levels that may be used in those bands. If you don't design your device to reject those frequencies at those power levels, you have made a poor device. In that case, you will indeed be told to fix your TV, and the ham operator is free to continue operating. HOWEVER, if the ham ups his power level beyond what is allowed, and it interferes with your TV, that is NOT the fault of the TV, it is the fault of the amateur operator, and he is the one who will be told to stop operating.
In the GPS case, the GPS receivers were designed (properly) using the available information. Namely, that the adjacent bands would be used only for low power satellite-to-earth transmissions. If they fail under those conditions, fault the device. HOWEVER, if they fail because someone decides to use those bands in a relatively high-power application, and the GPS devices fail, that is clearly NOT the fault of the device.
And I have no idea what you mean by 'non-conforming'. Non-conforming to what?
Only a problem if the only thing your attraction has going for it is the title. If the worlds biggest ferris wheel was in the middle of Kansas, that would be a concern. If someone builds a bigger wheel than this one, this one will still be in NYC, and will still offer the same views, etc.
Oh, yes, Quite absurd. I mean every tourist attraction there is has a single hotel attached to it that can hold more people than the attraction can. For instance, stadiums always have a 30000 room hotel attached to them.
Wow, that is some seriously good logic you have there. "People don't want to go on a rickety, 40-ft high ferris wheel at a carnival (with a view of - nothing), therefore a 630-ft high wheel with a great view of NYC, Statue of Liberty, etc, will not attract anybody". Do you also suppose that the idea of a 'cruise industry' will fail because the line for the 'boat' kiddie ride at the same carnival is very short?
It says 10am to 10pm in the Spring, Fall, and Winter, and til 2AM 'or even all night' in the summer. It also says 'up to 30000/day'. There is nothing incompatible with '30000 people on a busy day in the summer, average of 12300 per day (which is 4.5 miilion per year) over the course of a year'. Both of those figures fit easily into the numbers provided, and leave plenty of room for maintenance and weather.
Correct. This is what was done in the SCO v IBM case. SCO asked the court to force IBM to turn over all the source to AIX. IBM agreed, but only on the condition that neither SCO nor SCO's counsel had access to it.
Ye another ill-informed, totally incorrect post modded to +5 informative by clueless mods.
You do NOT PATENT AN IDEA OR CONCEPT, such as "playing a game in a room". You patent HOW YOU DO IT.
Even a cursory look at the link you provided and the actual patent application shows they are not even similar.
The link you provided says they use an "Intersense IS-900 ultrasonic/accelerometer-based tracking system". Claim 1 of the patent says they use a camera. Those are not the same.
The link you provided clearly shows they are using flat, carefully positioned white walls. The patent says that they use the camera "to compensate for the topography of the environmental surface". A different claim states that they "compensate for the color of the environmental surface".
They also talk about things like "shielding the user from the light by detecting his position". In other words, when the user is facing the projector, block out the image that would displayed on his face so as to not blind him. Clearly they don't have to do this in the cave system since it is using rear-projection.
When oh when is the slashdot crowd going to learn what patents are, what they protect, and what prior art is and is not? Something in a movie or science-fiction book is NOT prior art. Something that has the same end result but gets there in a different way is NOT prior art.
OK, how about these cases:
Hans Reiser - $60M
Roberto Ramirez - $10M
Jose Antonio Ramos - $2M
Aaron Walter Foster - $6M
Jason Young - $15.5M
Are all these people rich and famous? No. The point remains valid - getting found liable in a civil trial for murder is going to cost you thousands of times what it costs to be found liable for copyright infringement.
What a complete cop out. Ever hear of something called the NRA? That seems to be made up of ordinary people who are willing to contribute to a cause they deeply believe in. They also seem to have a whole lot of lobbying power, and don't get put on terrorist lists.
Of course, it is far easier to just whine and cry and blame someone else for your troubles.
And those are almost never murder cases. They are accidents, negligence, etc. Where are the $50K murder cases?
If you are going to make a comparison between copyright and murder civil trials (which the GP, not I, did) then you are going to get comparisons between those cases. There are no ordinary civil murder trials.
If you want to gloss over the minor fact that he was not convicted of murder, then you have a point. His not being convicted had absolutely nothing to do with murder carrying less punishment than copyright infringement.
The wrongful death suit was a civil case, like this one. And the GP carefully pointed out that his was talking about civil law. And in these cases, in civil court, murder carried a 33000 times greater liability than copyright infringement.
Why, in every article about law, does some idiot have to say something to the effect of 'you get away with less for murdering someone'? It is flatly untrue.
Case in point - the judgment in this case was less than $10K/song (it is not the court nor law's fault that she did it 24 times). OJ Simpson was ordered to pay $33M for the wrongful death of Ron Goldman. So it seems like the 'liability' for murder is approx 33000 times greater than the liability for copyright infringement.
Because a civil judgment is not a fine.
I am pretty sure that withholding evidence means that prosecutor has seen evidence that may exonerate the defendant, and has not reported it to the court (or the defense). If he has shown it to the judge, the defense also has it, and it has not been withheld.
Also, 'volunteer administrators' are not being called a corporate officer, William Ryan Holliday, owner of "Holliday IT Services Inc" (a California corporation) is being sued, as is James Heilman, a board member of WikiMedia Canada.
And the problem is not that they a speaking on behalf of the company, it is that they are acting as if they are speaking on behalf of the company.
Also, since when are 'adminstrators and beaurocrats' the community? The community is at the very least ALL of the contributors, and many times include users. And claiming that 'the community' is moving IS a lie - some admins are moving, they do not represent 'the community'.
And WTF is with the "WikiTravel as a business no longer exists" crap? The site exists, works, and is being updated. The home page was updated three days ago, and random clicking on articles shows many articles added/altered in the last month.
I have no clue about the merits of the case, and frankly I don't care in the slightest about the case.
That said, the fact remains that the case is not about copyrights, CC-sa licenses, suing people 'for wanting to leave', or any of the other crap that the summary said and subsequent posters think it is.
That may well be the case, but that does not appear to be what they are complaining about here.
They are not complaining about somebody referring to WikiTravel, they are complaining about somebody pretending to be WikiTravel.
If these two guys starting this new site were not trying to deceive anyone they could have sent a letter saying "Hi, we're trying to start our own website to compete with WikiTravel. We have legally copied all of the content from WikiTravel. We hope that as a contributor, you will stop contributing to WikiTravel and will instead contribute to our website."
That would probably have been fine, because they are not attempting to deceive anyone, and the use of the WikiTravel name was as reference only.
Instead, they sent a letter saying something to the effect of "This is a message from the WikiTravel administrators. As a member of the WikiTravel community, we want to remind you that the WikiTravel community is migrating to WikiMedia".
Do you see the difference? Any reasonable person reading that first statement would have no doubt that the new site was not in fact WikiTravel, but a new site to compete with it. The same reasonable person, on reading the second statement, could easily come to the conclusion that WikiTravel itself was moving or being renamed, and if they want to continue contributing to what was WikiTravel they must now migrate to WikiMedia. That is an intentional deception.