The most advanced case is Microsoft vs B&N as far as I know.
Since you don't know about Microsoft vs Motorola, let me point out that those patents were public information before B&N cried about an NDA.
The actual history of mobile lawsuits is quite short (it wasn't until Apple started suing), so I am wondering why you are clueless about it.
The problem MS has with their software patents is that they were VERY late to the OS game.
uhh.. what? Maybe you shouldn't talk about this subject, since you obviously don't know what you are talking about, and lets be honest.. you KNOW that you don't know what you are talking about.
What kind of person makes obviously erroneous declarations that they themselves know are erroneous?
B&N is in the unusual position of not having or needing a license for Windows and wouldn't be getting any kickbacks for paying the extortion money.
B&N is also in the unusual position of not having any IP of their own. Are we to only consider the craptacular weakness of B&N in this marketplace due to considerations specific to Microsoft? B&N is weak because its a book store trying to get in on the technology game only after they started failing as a book store. They have money problems in a big way, precisely the wrong time to go turning over stones looking for snakes.
So you sign NDA to punish yourself if you decide to allow your competitors know what technologies you use. Makes perfect sense.
You think these agreements are just licensing things that the current product uses? These manufacturers have the next product rolling out soon, and another already on the drawing board.
The patents in the Microsoft vs Motorola case turned out to be the same patents Barnes and Noble claimed they were not allowed to learn of without an NDA, even though the Motorola case was already in full motion and the patents in question on public record as being in question.
But dont tell the anti-Microsoft folks this. They will have to start complaining about any of the vast number of valid anti-Microsoft things to complain about instead of this invalid one. Also dont tell them how NDA's are standard business practice for any licensing negotiations.
"Confidentiality agreements often precede licensing negotiations or the acquisition of IP (intellectual property) rights and serve to strike an appropriate balance between the needs of the disclosing and receiving parties. A confidentiality agreement can either stand alone or be included as part of a broader agreement. An appropriately drafted confidentiality agreement should contain a list of standard provisions and exceptions."
This is so because neither party wants any information revealed about the negotiations. Barnes and Noble played on your ignorance to get you to support their refusal to even enter negotiations.
C'mon, read that statement you just wrote. Which groups sounds like it is getting special rights? When you say something is "reserved only" for some group that sounds pretty special to me.
Simple answer: Married heterosexuals and apparently if you have your way married homosexuals too, will have the special rights.
How is this idea that I can only get those special rights by getting married an enhancement of my personal freedom, my liberty, or my well being? Sounds pretty unfair to me. Letting homosexuals in on the unfairness game only makes it even more unfair. Homosexuals want to be able to get married because there are special benefits to doing so.
The fight should be to exclude heterosexuals from specialness, not include homosexuals into specialness. I'm not special because I am not married? fuck you, fuck all married people, and fuck all homosexuals that want to also be treated special.
Oh, sure, you're an honest broker, which is why you clipped a small part of one sentence of my original post, and used it to attempt to mislead people.
Which misleading is that? I have not proffered that global warming is or is not happening, nor that humans are or are not causing it.
You were trying to mislead us into believing that you knew what you were talking about. Not only were you wrong about the veracity of tree rings with regards to temperature record, you dared state that "every year" that tree rings have been proven to show skill at matching the instrumental record.
I guess in your world its ok to lead off with a complete fabrication in order to prove whatever point you have...
Only in far northern latitudes, something which you probably would have mentioned if you were being honest about it.
Yes, where the "stands" for temperature proxy are. Something you would have known if you actually wanted to learn about it instead of rushing to support a priori conclusion.
..and the power to erect new barriers to entry into the provider market. "Sure, you can start your own ISP.. you just have to install this $150,000,000 neutrality monitoring system on your backbone in order to comply with neutrality regulations"
Allowing same-sex marriage won't affect heterosexuals in the slightest.
Except for all the new people getting extra tax breaks, and all the new people forcibly placed on your employers health care package.. sure.. that stuff wont effect anyone at all.
Why do you think there was so much softening of things like health care reform, and a failure of the card check bills? because DEMOCRATS pealed off.
Because Democrats are greedy sons-of-bitches that are willing to sell us all out while telling us that its for our own good, and that anything bad you see them do is the fault of Republicans.
That is literally what happened, yet we still see the Democrats here blame the shit that the Democrats signed into law on the Republicans.. and lets not get started on the father of lies Obama who personally made sure that the NDAA applied to citizens, and then publicly objected to it applying to citizens while he signed it into law. Fucking hilarious Democrats.
Gay marriage is not an issue of Democrats pushing their morals on others. It is an issue of personal freedom and the government not promoting any specific religion.
Oh bullshit.
If it were about personal freedom, the Democrats would insist that you can name any other human being as having all the same rights that only marriage gives you.. without getting married.. and I assure you that its a fucking long list, including but not limited to rights to employer health benefits, tax breaks, joint bankruptcies, next-of-kin status, penalty-free transfer of property, bereavement leave, joint tax filing, inheritance, social security,...
Instead of being about personal freedom, its about letting homosexuals also have special rights currently reserved only to married heterosexuals. I hear you pretend to care, but I do not observe actual caring. I observe that you actually want to perpetuate an injustice by letting another select group into club-elite.
Next time, prepare yourself on the topic, so that you wont make silly statements about personal freedom when the actual goal is to be treated special.
Your ethics is lacking: we accept you 100,000,000 people suffering and dying in agony so that these (us?) 300,000,000 might prosper and multiply.
Your ethics are lacking. India alone has over half a billion people living in the horrible conditions of extreme poverty right now, today. So how many displaced people are we talking about that will be added to the billions in poverty already?
I swear Americans and Europeans have no fucking real concept of this world. The impact on humanity that you fear will happen because of global warming, is already happening on a much larger scale and not because of global warming.
Every year we can predict the thickness of tree rings
Umm, no. Every year we observe more divergence from the predictions since about 1950..
The kicker is that the only locations where tree rings can be used as good temperature proxies ("stands" where other contributing factors like precipitation are minimized) are in fact in places that show the most divergence.
Tree ring proxies are damn near worthless until they figure this out. Why dont you know this?
They literally do not have a choice to make, either take a loan at an absurdly high interest rate, or get fired, have no car and no way to get a car that runs. Not much of a choice that. You are correct, in that sometimes (hell maybe a lot of times) people could wait for one more check, but if it's a choice of "lose your job" or "get taken by an industry set up to rob you blind", which are you going to do?
Your example of when this isnt the case is an exceptional car repair, yet your default insinuation (with a bailout clause of "maybe a lot") is that its rare to not have an exceptional need for the money immediately?
Do you see the bias?
The reason poor people use these check cashing ripoffs is mainly because a lot of them dont have bank accounts. The reason they don't have bank accounts is because they either cannot or do not save. I see "poor" people enjoying expensive things that I choose to live without (high end cell phones and their plans, for example) because I feel that they are too expensive, and I am certainly not poor.
What makes me different isnt that I make a decent living. Its that I make good choices. The GP is right that "poor" people in American are mainly on our bottom rung because they make choices that keep them there.
I put "poor" in quotes all the time with reference to Americans because "poor" Americans arent really poor. The standard of living of our "poor" is the envy of literally billions of people. Part of the reason that our "poor" people make consistently bad choices is because being "poor" aint so bad, and thats artificially so... the real cause of the "problem."
Didn't look like the AC was looking for a debate. Looked like he was pointing out the absurd extent of the ignorance of American liberals, Hes right. I'm not sure how anyone could have lived in America in the past few years without learning about the goings-ons of the EPA in San Joaquin Valley. Its not just the water pumps. Once the pumps were turned off, the air quality dropped (DUH!) so the EPA started freaking out about that too.
As far as the GP, it was a desert before the irrigation. It is turning into a desert again. Mankind turned it into a lush fertile valley, but the environmental dipshits demanded that it be turned back into a fucking desert. You bet your ass this had made front page news repeatedly. Tens of thousands of displaced workers and farm owners makes the news even without the benefit concerts (thats right.. FUCKING BENEFIT CONCERTS) that have helped raise more awareness.
The reason that people on the other side of the planet know about this but American liberals don't is because the rest of the planet isn't pretending to be aware.
I think if we want to fix this, culturally, we need to get out of the "I want to be rich" idea
Most americans dont know that they are already rich, so the problem isnt wanting to be rich. They want to be richer. Jealousy.
Also, the idea that growth can be sustained indefinitely is a dangerous fallacy. You can keep printing money and raising you salary all you want, but the truth is that we have a limited amount of resources on Earth, and once they are gone there is no more. And we cannot eat money. We are not using these resources wisely, nor we are partitioning them in an equitable way among our society. At some point we need to find a system that is sustainable, or we will either deplete everything, or the control of these resources would be so concentrated that for practical purposes it will be as if they are depleted for 99.99% of the population. The idea that something can grow indefinitely on limited resources is not sound, and can only possibly benefit the individuals that are in control of these scarce resources by means of appeasing the rest of the potential consumers.
The fallacy is what you just suggested. It is not a zero sum game. Wealth can and does get created without a mobilization of additional resources. To quote Richard Feynman:
"The idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries -- that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time." - Richard Feynman
Not all of the under 25 crowd is rolling with the entitlement mentality. Until now the most vocal of our youth have been the ones that want their money for nothing, but then just this week we saw Ron Paul winning the districts in Iowa with the youngest demographics.. and if there is anything at all that says anti-entitlement, its fucking supporting Ron Paul.
I truly believe that what we need most is to maximize GDP growth. All across the world the countries with the highest GDP per capita hold the top tier standards of living across all metrics. Sure there are differences here and there, but as much as folk like to complain about those differences they are just quibbling about what are essentially minor differences.
For example people like to point out the differences between america's private health care to the best public health care systems. This type of comparison is a fraud. Compare any country with a low GDP per capita with any country with a high GDP per capita and you see there really isnt that big of a difference between any of the high GDP per capita countries. Its true that some countries are more efficient than others, but the over-riding factor in terms of health care is still the GDP per capita and not the nature of the method of funding it.
This observation holds not just for health care, but for every metric pertinent to standards of living.
America has the largest economy with one of the best standards of living because we have traditionally sustained exceptional GDP growth. We have all gotten richer, that does include our poor, and our goal should be to continue getting richer as a whole rather than to appease the petty jealousies of those that feel entitled.
We can sustain an average 7% GDP growth.. we've done it in the past. Doubling our wealth every 10 years beats the snot out of everything the entitlement crowds are complaining about. Thats how we grew to have one of the highest standard of living in the first place, and if we want to maximize our future standards of living then clearly maximizing our GDP growth will be a necessity to achieve that goal.
If you want to give credit to government figures for the nearly balanced budget, then you have to give it to the Republicans.
One of the first things the House did in 1995 was to vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment. The bill passed the House 300 to 132. 98% of the representatives that voted against it in the House were Democrats.
The Republicans no longer take balancing the budge seriously, but back then they did. They controlled House and Senate at the time, so it was Republican budgets that were passed all through the Clinton years.
Stop listening to what the politicians are saying, and start watching what they are doing. And for fucks sakes if you are a liberal and you arent armed with stuff that you know are facts.. just shut the fuck up, because you guys are notorious for Big Lies.. for example, the guy I replied to and the army of liberals that say the exact same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, that's why it would make sense for licensee to make licensor sign NDA. Not the other way around.
You will twist your world up into a little ball in order to maintain a belief, wont you?
Standard industry practice, because discloser may be unilateral, bilateral or even multilateral. (so much for your false dichotomy.)
The most advanced case is Microsoft vs B&N as far as I know.
Since you don't know about Microsoft vs Motorola, let me point out that those patents were public information before B&N cried about an NDA.
The actual history of mobile lawsuits is quite short (it wasn't until Apple started suing), so I am wondering why you are clueless about it.
The problem MS has with their software patents is that they were VERY late to the OS game.
uhh.. what? Maybe you shouldn't talk about this subject, since you obviously don't know what you are talking about, and lets be honest.. you KNOW that you don't know what you are talking about.
What kind of person makes obviously erroneous declarations that they themselves know are erroneous?
B&N is in the unusual position of not having or needing a license for Windows and wouldn't be getting any kickbacks for paying the extortion money.
B&N is also in the unusual position of not having any IP of their own. Are we to only consider the craptacular weakness of B&N in this marketplace due to considerations specific to Microsoft? B&N is weak because its a book store trying to get in on the technology game only after they started failing as a book store. They have money problems in a big way, precisely the wrong time to go turning over stones looking for snakes.
So you sign NDA to punish yourself if you decide to allow your competitors know what technologies you use. Makes perfect sense.
You think these agreements are just licensing things that the current product uses? These manufacturers have the next product rolling out soon, and another already on the drawing board.
They wood, and are, the same patents.
The patents in the Microsoft vs Motorola case turned out to be the same patents Barnes and Noble claimed they were not allowed to learn of without an NDA, even though the Motorola case was already in full motion and the patents in question on public record as being in question.
But dont tell the anti-Microsoft folks this. They will have to start complaining about any of the vast number of valid anti-Microsoft things to complain about instead of this invalid one. Also dont tell them how NDA's are standard business practice for any licensing negotiations.
The NDA is completely unnecessary
An NDA is standard business practice in licensing negotiations.
From the IP Hand Book Chapter 12
"Confidentiality agreements often precede licensing negotiations or the acquisition of IP (intellectual property) rights and serve to strike an appropriate balance between the needs of the disclosing and receiving parties. A confidentiality agreement can either stand alone or be included as part of a broader agreement. An appropriately drafted confidentiality agreement should contain a list of standard provisions and exceptions."
This is so because neither party wants any information revealed about the negotiations. Barnes and Noble played on your ignorance to get you to support their refusal to even enter negotiations.
We know what the patents are.. first through the Motorola lawsuit, and then again through Barnes and Noble echoing the same patents.
Why dont you know what the patents are?
C'mon, read that statement you just wrote. Which groups sounds like it is getting special rights? When you say something is "reserved only" for some group that sounds pretty special to me.
Simple answer: Married heterosexuals and apparently if you have your way married homosexuals too, will have the special rights.
How is this idea that I can only get those special rights by getting married an enhancement of my personal freedom, my liberty, or my well being? Sounds pretty unfair to me. Letting homosexuals in on the unfairness game only makes it even more unfair. Homosexuals want to be able to get married because there are special benefits to doing so.
The fight should be to exclude heterosexuals from specialness, not include homosexuals into specialness. I'm not special because I am not married? fuck you, fuck all married people, and fuck all homosexuals that want to also be treated special.
Oh, sure, you're an honest broker, which is why you clipped a small part of one sentence of my original post, and used it to attempt to mislead people.
Which misleading is that? I have not proffered that global warming is or is not happening, nor that humans are or are not causing it.
..nice world that must be.
You were trying to mislead us into believing that you knew what you were talking about. Not only were you wrong about the veracity of tree rings with regards to temperature record, you dared state that "every year" that tree rings have been proven to show skill at matching the instrumental record.
I guess in your world its ok to lead off with a complete fabrication in order to prove whatever point you have...
Only in far northern latitudes, something which you probably would have mentioned if you were being honest about it.
Yes, where the "stands" for temperature proxy are. Something you would have known if you actually wanted to learn about it instead of rushing to support a priori conclusion.
..and the power to erect new barriers to entry into the provider market. "Sure, you can start your own ISP.. you just have to install this $150,000,000 neutrality monitoring system on your backbone in order to comply with neutrality regulations"
Its not just CBS.
MSNBC and FOXNEWS are both pretty fucking biased against Ron Paul, yet these two otherwise push diametrically opposed propaganda.
The big media is against Ron Paul, because Ron Paul is the only candidate that isnt in the pockets of any of the big media.
If that is not a slashdotter wet dream, its because the slashdotter in question was already brainwashed.
Allowing same-sex marriage won't affect heterosexuals in the slightest.
Except for all the new people getting extra tax breaks, and all the new people forcibly placed on your employers health care package.. sure.. that stuff wont effect anyone at all.
Why do you think there was so much softening of things like health care reform, and a failure of the card check bills? because DEMOCRATS pealed off.
Because Democrats are greedy sons-of-bitches that are willing to sell us all out while telling us that its for our own good, and that anything bad you see them do is the fault of Republicans.
That is literally what happened, yet we still see the Democrats here blame the shit that the Democrats signed into law on the Republicans.. and lets not get started on the father of lies Obama who personally made sure that the NDAA applied to citizens, and then publicly objected to it applying to citizens while he signed it into law. Fucking hilarious Democrats.
Except that quite a few reproductive rights are reserved to married folk.
Gay marriage is not an issue of Democrats pushing their morals on others. It is an issue of personal freedom and the government not promoting any specific religion.
Oh bullshit.
...
If it were about personal freedom, the Democrats would insist that you can name any other human being as having all the same rights that only marriage gives you.. without getting married.. and I assure you that its a fucking long list, including but not limited to rights to employer health benefits, tax breaks, joint bankruptcies, next-of-kin status, penalty-free transfer of property, bereavement leave, joint tax filing, inheritance, social security,
Instead of being about personal freedom, its about letting homosexuals also have special rights currently reserved only to married heterosexuals. I hear you pretend to care, but I do not observe actual caring. I observe that you actually want to perpetuate an injustice by letting another select group into club-elite.
Next time, prepare yourself on the topic, so that you wont make silly statements about personal freedom when the actual goal is to be treated special.
Your ethics is lacking: we accept you 100,000,000 people suffering and dying in agony so that these (us?) 300,000,000 might prosper and multiply.
Your ethics are lacking. India alone has over half a billion people living in the horrible conditions of extreme poverty right now, today. So how many displaced people are we talking about that will be added to the billions in poverty already?
I swear Americans and Europeans have no fucking real concept of this world. The impact on humanity that you fear will happen because of global warming, is already happening on a much larger scale and not because of global warming.
Every year we can predict the thickness of tree rings
Umm, no. Every year we observe more divergence from the predictions since about 1950..
The kicker is that the only locations where tree rings can be used as good temperature proxies ("stands" where other contributing factors like precipitation are minimized) are in fact in places that show the most divergence.
Tree ring proxies are damn near worthless until they figure this out. Why dont you know this?
They literally do not have a choice to make, either take a loan at an absurdly high interest rate, or get fired, have no car and no way to get a car that runs. Not much of a choice that. You are correct, in that sometimes (hell maybe a lot of times) people could wait for one more check, but if it's a choice of "lose your job" or "get taken by an industry set up to rob you blind", which are you going to do?
Your example of when this isnt the case is an exceptional car repair, yet your default insinuation (with a bailout clause of "maybe a lot") is that its rare to not have an exceptional need for the money immediately?
Do you see the bias?
The reason poor people use these check cashing ripoffs is mainly because a lot of them dont have bank accounts. The reason they don't have bank accounts is because they either cannot or do not save. I see "poor" people enjoying expensive things that I choose to live without (high end cell phones and their plans, for example) because I feel that they are too expensive, and I am certainly not poor.
What makes me different isnt that I make a decent living. Its that I make good choices. The GP is right that "poor" people in American are mainly on our bottom rung because they make choices that keep them there.
I put "poor" in quotes all the time with reference to Americans because "poor" Americans arent really poor. The standard of living of our "poor" is the envy of literally billions of people. Part of the reason that our "poor" people make consistently bad choices is because being "poor" aint so bad, and thats artificially so... the real cause of the "problem."
Didn't look like the AC was looking for a debate. Looked like he was pointing out the absurd extent of the ignorance of American liberals, Hes right. I'm not sure how anyone could have lived in America in the past few years without learning about the goings-ons of the EPA in San Joaquin Valley. Its not just the water pumps. Once the pumps were turned off, the air quality dropped (DUH!) so the EPA started freaking out about that too.
As far as the GP, it was a desert before the irrigation. It is turning into a desert again. Mankind turned it into a lush fertile valley, but the environmental dipshits demanded that it be turned back into a fucking desert. You bet your ass this had made front page news repeatedly. Tens of thousands of displaced workers and farm owners makes the news even without the benefit concerts (thats right.. FUCKING BENEFIT CONCERTS) that have helped raise more awareness.
The reason that people on the other side of the planet know about this but American liberals don't is because the rest of the planet isn't pretending to be aware.
I think if we want to fix this, culturally, we need to get out of the "I want to be rich" idea
Most americans dont know that they are already rich, so the problem isnt wanting to be rich. They want to be richer. Jealousy.
Also, the idea that growth can be sustained indefinitely is a dangerous fallacy. You can keep printing money and raising you salary all you want, but the truth is that we have a limited amount of resources on Earth, and once they are gone there is no more. And we cannot eat money. We are not using these resources wisely, nor we are partitioning them in an equitable way among our society. At some point we need to find a system that is sustainable, or we will either deplete everything, or the control of these resources would be so concentrated that for practical purposes it will be as if they are depleted for 99.99% of the population. The idea that something can grow indefinitely on limited resources is not sound, and can only possibly benefit the individuals that are in control of these scarce resources by means of appeasing the rest of the potential consumers.
The fallacy is what you just suggested. It is not a zero sum game. Wealth can and does get created without a mobilization of additional resources. To quote Richard Feynman:
"The idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there’s only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn’t take into account the real reason for the differences between countries -- that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn’t the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time." - Richard Feynman
(emphasis mine)
Not all of the under 25 crowd is rolling with the entitlement mentality. Until now the most vocal of our youth have been the ones that want their money for nothing, but then just this week we saw Ron Paul winning the districts in Iowa with the youngest demographics.. and if there is anything at all that says anti-entitlement, its fucking supporting Ron Paul.
I truly believe that what we need most is to maximize GDP growth. All across the world the countries with the highest GDP per capita hold the top tier standards of living across all metrics. Sure there are differences here and there, but as much as folk like to complain about those differences they are just quibbling about what are essentially minor differences.
For example people like to point out the differences between america's private health care to the best public health care systems. This type of comparison is a fraud. Compare any country with a low GDP per capita with any country with a high GDP per capita and you see there really isnt that big of a difference between any of the high GDP per capita countries. Its true that some countries are more efficient than others, but the over-riding factor in terms of health care is still the GDP per capita and not the nature of the method of funding it.
This observation holds not just for health care, but for every metric pertinent to standards of living.
America has the largest economy with one of the best standards of living because we have traditionally sustained exceptional GDP growth. We have all gotten richer, that does include our poor, and our goal should be to continue getting richer as a whole rather than to appease the petty jealousies of those that feel entitled.
We can sustain an average 7% GDP growth.. we've done it in the past. Doubling our wealth every 10 years beats the snot out of everything the entitlement crowds are complaining about. Thats how we grew to have one of the highest standard of living in the first place, and if we want to maximize our future standards of living then clearly maximizing our GDP growth will be a necessity to achieve that goal.
If you read it, the theme is, "The government needs to spend a lot of money directly on research in order for research to happen".
I read it as "The government wants to pick the winners and losers again."
I do believe that.
But then you will have to buy a separate $1095.99 HDMI cable.
Clinton had a budget surplus.
If you want to give credit to government figures for the nearly balanced budget, then you have to give it to the Republicans.
One of the first things the House did in 1995 was to vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment. The bill passed the House 300 to 132. 98% of the representatives that voted against it in the House were Democrats.
The Senate picked up the bill but their 65 to 35 vote failed the 2/3rd majority needed. 94% of the representatives that voted against it in the Senate were Democrats.
The Republicans no longer take balancing the budge seriously, but back then they did. They controlled House and Senate at the time, so it was Republican budgets that were passed all through the Clinton years.
Stop listening to what the politicians are saying, and start watching what they are doing. And for fucks sakes if you are a liberal and you arent armed with stuff that you know are facts.. just shut the fuck up, because you guys are notorious for Big Lies.. for example, the guy I replied to and the army of liberals that say the exact same thing.