If Paice can get an injunction, though, it will hurt Toyota badly; they'll be forced to negotiate some kind of royalty deal or lose their hybrid sales.
But the court already ordered Toyota to pay royalties "based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h."
No, it seems that Paice really wants to block Toyota hybrid sales... they tried to do that in their original patent suit (which they won), but the judge didn't agree that Toyota sales should be blocked; instead, he awarded Paice royalties. So now Paice is trying again in a different venue--the ITC.
Because that's the only thing the ITC has power to do. It can't award monetary damages. The money comes in when Paice gets an injunction against Toyota, and Toyota decides to pony up for a license instead of lose the ability to import Priuses.
The part of TFA I quoted referred to the original patent suit in federal court, not the current matter before the ITC. The court does have power to award monetary damages, and it used that power: "Instead, in April he ordered Toyota to pay royalties based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h. Toyota is appealing that order."
mi said that patent holders just wanted to get paid for their patents. If that's what Paice wanted, seems like they would've just asked for that. The court obviously has the power to order Toyota to pay up, seeing that that's exactly what it did...
Contrary to oft-repeated headlines, a patent-holder never wants to block a patent-using technology from the market. They just want to get paid for it.
If that were true, why did Paice ask the court to block sales of the Toyota cars in question? Is there a reason for them to ask for something they don't actually want? TFA: "In the earlier case, the jury awarded $4.3 million in damages and the verdict was upheld on appeal. U.S. District Judge David Folsom in Marshall rejected Paice's request to issue a court order to halt sales of the Toyota vehicles. "
This is a great point. Although educating online banking users might not be the answer. Why don't banks have a 2-phased authorization type system (i.e. What you have and What you know)? I would gladly pay $5-$20 to have a PRNG pass-key (What I have) used in conjunction with a PIN (What I know) and have a more secure online banking system.
Bank of America offers that. You can either have them send an SMS to your phone with a number that you have to enter on the website; or you can buy a hardware token for $20.
I'm recalling articles from when it was formed. Long, long ago. I suggest you go to the USB-IF site and peruse their documentation.
If it was "long, long ago," could it be that your recollection of what the contract actually says is inaccurate? As mysidia points out, the USB-IF membership agreement explicitly says that membership does not grant any patent license. It doesn't even grant a license to use the trademarked USB logo--there's a separate USB-IF Trademark License Agreement for that, and USB-IF membership is not required to license the trademarks. It appears to me that you're the one making unfounded legal representations when you say that Palm "would still be in breach of contract with the USB-IF and there by using the patents illegally." In any case, it seems a bit presumptuous of you to claim that Palm would be breaching some contract when you don't actually know what contracts they've signed, and haven't recently read the ones that they probably did sign.
You can't... but do you care if you can't hear the difference? A square wave is square because it has higher order harmonics--a square wave with a fundamental frequency of 20kHz will have a harmonic at 60kHz with 1/3rd of the amplitude of the fundamental, a 100kHz harmonic with 1/5th of the amplitude of the fundamental, etc... The idea behind discrete-time sampling is that in the ideal mathematical world, you can exactly reconstruct the original waveform as long as it doesn't contain any frequencies higher than half the sampling rate. The designers of the CD decided that it's not important to keep the frequencies above 22kHz, since almost nobody can hear above that frequency. An audio CD is designed to store audio for people to listen to, so it's not important to differentiate between 20kHz sine, square, and sawtooth waves--nobody can tell the difference when they listen to them.
If you have an application where it is important to differentiate between those, then obviously audio CDs are not the right medium to use.
No, it's not useful for that purpose. "Ya'll" is a colloquial contraction of "you will" (i.e., a colloquial form of "you'll"), and isn't particularly Southern as far as I know.
The second-person plural pronoun often used in Southern speech is "y'all"--a contraction of "you all."
Whle it is true that Heaven's Gate was a seriously long winded and full of itself movie, I don't think it reached the level of suck of Ishtar, Crybaby, or Gigli. Hell you could use those movies to torture prisoners with, although that is probably banned by the Geneva Convention.
You sound like someone who's just read on the internet that Ishtar was horrible, yet hasn't actually watched it for themselves. It's not a great movie--perhaps not even a good movie. But it's not a horrible movie; its suckage level is moderate.
Ethylene is a key component in Levinstein sulfur mustard, a chemical weapon agent.
Well... yes... in the same way that nitrogen is a key component in hydrogen cyanide, a chemical weapon agent. Or how oxygen is a key component in Sarin, a chemical weapon agent.
Despite that, ethylene, nitrogen, and oxygen remain relatively harmless.
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
Sure, that's perfect--but where do you find roads that have a speed limit of 30km/h? You say that the limit in most residential areas is 50km/h, so 30 is even slower than the limit on residential streets, which generally have the lowest speed limit of any public roads (at least where I'm from). I generally take the back roads to work, and the speed limit on those roads are 40 mph, with a short 45 mph section. If I wanted to take major roads, the speed limit would be 55 mph, with some 45 mph sections.
FWIW, biking's fairly popular around here, and I generally pass a biker during my commute every other day or so. The road is two lanes wide in each direction, and has very light traffic, so I don't have any problems with moving to the left lane to pass.
IPv6 was published as a standard in December 1998; it's definitely long past the draft stage. And the IEEE doesn't have anything to do with IP standards.
BTW, here's the press release from the DSI about the gambling website shutdown, which confirms the May 19 court order date. I tried Google Translate on it, but it did a pretty bad job. It translated the headline as "I found a good gaming site 72.", which made me LOL though:) (the correct translation is "DSI finds 72 gambling websites")
The Bangkok Post article is combining two unrelated stories, and gets the chronology of the two events backwards. The kid's suicide has nothing to do with the DSI shutting down gambling websites (both articles in Thai, unfortunately... this may be an English article about the suicide, but it's currently giving me a MySQL error). Also, the Bangkok Post says the court order to shut down the sites is dated May 19, and that "the court order follows the death of a 12-year-old boy". However, the boy killed himself on May 21.
Hah, you aren't able to refute any of my points. You even reinforce then:
and thus, you don't get the warning with default settings.
Exactly--you don't get the warning. So much for "Run virus.exe in XP (SP2), Vista, or (I presume) 7. What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?"
Contrary to your claim, Windows does not show a any warning dialog box when running an unsigned EXE. Explorer shows a dialog when running an unsigned EXE if and only if a flag is set on the EXE. However, it's very easy to get an unflagged EXE that was downloaded from the Internet. Just put it in a ZIP file--if you're lucky, whatever you downloaded it with flagged the ZIP as being from the Internet. But extract the EXE (using Window's built-in ZIP support, for example), and the extracted EXE isn't marked as being from the Internet. No warning when you run it.
You said, and I quote, "Run virus.exe in XP (SP2), Vista, or (I presume) 7. What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?" I gave an example of unsigned code that XP and Vista will run without any sort of security warning.
Download an exe from some random place and run it.
And so you now attempt to add another condition--the EXE has do be downloaded from some random place. What if you get the EXE from a USB flash drive? And what you're talking about only happens if whatever you used to do the download writes a Zone.Identifier alternate data stream to the EXE identifying the download as coming from the Internet zone. IE6+some update will do that, and so will Firefox 3, but most other apps won't mark the file and Explorer won't show the warning. And note that since it's not Windows itself that pops up the warning, but ShellExecute[Ex], it doesn't always show up even if the EXE is marked. Run it from a Command Prompt, for example, and you won't get any warning.
Compare this to what happens if you set the NTFS permissions to deny execute permission to the file--nothing will be able to execute it until you grant execute permission.
All Windows system files are compared with a copy of the original every time they are accessed by the System File Checker.
That's nice, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand? Which is that Windows does not check for, or verify a digital signature on EXEs before executing them. At the very least, CreateProcess() should return an error if a signature exists, but cannot be verified--that means the EXE has been tampered with or is otherwise corrupt. The caller could, perhaps, do something special if it wanted to run the EXE anyway. Something along the lines of how on Vista, when you run an EXE that is marked as requiring elevation and the caller doesn't have admin privs, CreateProcess() returns ERROR_ELEVATION_REQUIRED.
I can tell you like to think of yourself a "power user", but that you don't actually know how all of this stuff works. Come back when you get a clue.
Run virus.exe in XP (SP2), Vista, or (I presume) 7.
What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?
Rename the file to virus.txt.exe and try again.
What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?
What are you talking about? Neither XP SP2 nor Vista automatically check for or verify a digital signature before running an EXE. In fact, most EXEs included with Windows aren't even signed. Try looking at the properties of, for example, C:\Windows\Notepad.exe. Note the complete lack of any digital signature (at least on XP and Vista; I haven't checked Windows 7).
I'd love it if there were a setting to make Windows (or at the very least, Explorer) check the signature before running an executable, but as far as I know, there is none. (There are signing requirements for device drivers, but not for regular EXEs).
It used to support Unicode, but apparently, due to people using control characters (RTL overrides and such) to do clever things, anything non-ASCII is now filtered or mangled. Too bad they went overboard--seems like the easy way to fix this would be to only filter out control characters. Unicode publishes a handy database that you can use to find out which characters are control characters.
Using red/yellow fire and living under a yellow sun, that is.
The sun may be yellow compared to some other stars, but daylight still has a color temperature of around 5500K, much higher/bluer than an incandescent bulb, and closer to "cool white" CFLs.
It would take as little as a public statement that he's ok with insults. "Hear me, my people! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me! So chill out and let those people out of jail mmkay?"
He basically did that, but it didn't seem to have helped any. See his 2005 birthday speech, where he says, "If you say that the King cannot be criticised, it suggests that the King is not human... If we hold that the King cannot be criticised or violated, then the King ends up in a difficult situation." and "If they get sent to prison, I pardon them. If they don't go to prison, I wonâ(TM)t sue them, because those who violate the King and are punished are not the ones who are in trouble. It would be the King who was in trouble. It is strange, but the lawyers like to send people to prison (for allegedly violating the King)."
The lawmakers have their own reason for keeping the lèse majesté law—it's a great weapon against their political enemies. See for example, the case of Giles Ungpakorn, who wrote a book criticizing the 2006 military coup.
The UHF spectrum was simply to valuable for society to continue to allow a few analog TV holdouts to continue squatting on some of the most valuable parts of the EM spectrum for free or minimal cost.
You do also realize, don't you, that the switch to digital didn't remove any stations, just moved their channel allocations around a bit?
Yes, moved their allocations around a bit... moved them out of the most valuable parts of the EM spectrum: former UHF channels 52-69 (698 MHz-806 MHz; i.e., the 700 MHz band)
As far as I can tell, he's no Thai—he's just a farang who lived in Thailand for maybe a year, and now thinks he knows everything about Thai politics. Unfortunately for him, he's shown that he knows very little—for example, he thinks that that Samak Sundaravej was appointed PM by the junta.
The problem is that your premise, that they have only a set amount of money for coupons, is false.
Uh, in what way is it false? I'll answer that for you—it is in no way false; it is absolutely true. About $1.34 billion was allocated to the coupon program, with a cap of $160 million on administrative costs.
Slashdot Mirror
If Paice can get an injunction, though, it will hurt Toyota badly; they'll be forced to negotiate some kind of royalty deal or lose their hybrid sales.
But the court already ordered Toyota to pay royalties "based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h."
No, it seems that Paice really wants to block Toyota hybrid sales... they tried to do that in their original patent suit (which they won), but the judge didn't agree that Toyota sales should be blocked; instead, he awarded Paice royalties. So now Paice is trying again in a different venue--the ITC.
Because that's the only thing the ITC has power to do. It can't award monetary damages. The money comes in when Paice gets an injunction against Toyota, and Toyota decides to pony up for a license instead of lose the ability to import Priuses.
The part of TFA I quoted referred to the original patent suit in federal court, not the current matter before the ITC. The court does have power to award monetary damages, and it used that power: "Instead, in April he ordered Toyota to pay royalties based on the wholesale prices equal to 0.48 percent for a second- generation Prius, 0.32 percent for each Highlander and 0.26 percent for each Lexus RX400h. Toyota is appealing that order."
mi said that patent holders just wanted to get paid for their patents. If that's what Paice wanted, seems like they would've just asked for that. The court obviously has the power to order Toyota to pay up, seeing that that's exactly what it did...
Contrary to oft-repeated headlines, a patent-holder never wants to block a patent-using technology from the market. They just want to get paid for it.
If that were true, why did Paice ask the court to block sales of the Toyota cars in question? Is there a reason for them to ask for something they don't actually want? TFA: "In the earlier case, the jury awarded $4.3 million in damages and the verdict was upheld on appeal. U.S. District Judge David Folsom in Marshall rejected Paice's request to issue a court order to halt sales of the Toyota vehicles. "
This is a great point. Although educating online banking users might not be the answer. Why don't banks have a 2-phased authorization type system (i.e. What you have and What you know)? I would gladly pay $5-$20 to have a PRNG pass-key (What I have) used in conjunction with a PIN (What I know) and have a more secure online banking system.
Bank of America offers that. You can either have them send an SMS to your phone with a number that you have to enter on the website; or you can buy a hardware token for $20.
I'm recalling articles from when it was formed. Long, long ago. I suggest you go to the USB-IF site and peruse their documentation.
If it was "long, long ago," could it be that your recollection of what the contract actually says is inaccurate? As mysidia points out, the USB-IF membership agreement explicitly says that membership does not grant any patent license. It doesn't even grant a license to use the trademarked USB logo--there's a separate USB-IF Trademark License Agreement for that, and USB-IF membership is not required to license the trademarks. It appears to me that you're the one making unfounded legal representations when you say that Palm "would still be in breach of contract with the USB-IF and there by using the patents illegally." In any case, it seems a bit presumptuous of you to claim that Palm would be breaching some contract when you don't actually know what contracts they've signed, and haven't recently read the ones that they probably did sign.
Oh, if Palm were to go such a route the they would still be in breach of contract with the USB-IF and there by using the patents illegally.
Could you post a link to the contract between Palm and the USB-IF? I'd like to take a look at it myself. Thanks.
You can't... but do you care if you can't hear the difference? A square wave is square because it has higher order harmonics--a square wave with a fundamental frequency of 20kHz will have a harmonic at 60kHz with 1/3rd of the amplitude of the fundamental, a 100kHz harmonic with 1/5th of the amplitude of the fundamental, etc... The idea behind discrete-time sampling is that in the ideal mathematical world, you can exactly reconstruct the original waveform as long as it doesn't contain any frequencies higher than half the sampling rate. The designers of the CD decided that it's not important to keep the frequencies above 22kHz, since almost nobody can hear above that frequency. An audio CD is designed to store audio for people to listen to, so it's not important to differentiate between 20kHz sine, square, and sawtooth waves--nobody can tell the difference when they listen to them.
If you have an application where it is important to differentiate between those, then obviously audio CDs are not the right medium to use.
No, it's not useful for that purpose. "Ya'll" is a colloquial contraction of "you will" (i.e., a colloquial form of "you'll"), and isn't particularly Southern as far as I know.
The second-person plural pronoun often used in Southern speech is "y'all"--a contraction of "you all."
Whle it is true that Heaven's Gate was a seriously long winded and full of itself movie, I don't think it reached the level of suck of Ishtar, Crybaby, or Gigli. Hell you could use those movies to torture prisoners with, although that is probably banned by the Geneva Convention.
You sound like someone who's just read on the internet that Ishtar was horrible, yet hasn't actually watched it for themselves. It's not a great movie--perhaps not even a good movie. But it's not a horrible movie; its suckage level is moderate.
Ethylene is a key component in Levinstein sulfur mustard, a chemical weapon agent.
Well... yes... in the same way that nitrogen is a key component in hydrogen cyanide, a chemical weapon agent. Or how oxygen is a key component in Sarin, a chemical weapon agent.
Despite that, ethylene, nitrogen, and oxygen remain relatively harmless.
So, when the speed limit is 30km/h and I am traveling at 36km/h, is that not sufficient? I can burst up to about 50 km/h - the limit in most residential areas.
Sure, that's perfect--but where do you find roads that have a speed limit of 30km/h? You say that the limit in most residential areas is 50km/h, so 30 is even slower than the limit on residential streets, which generally have the lowest speed limit of any public roads (at least where I'm from). I generally take the back roads to work, and the speed limit on those roads are 40 mph, with a short 45 mph section. If I wanted to take major roads, the speed limit would be 55 mph, with some 45 mph sections.
FWIW, biking's fairly popular around here, and I generally pass a biker during my commute every other day or so. The road is two lanes wide in each direction, and has very light traffic, so I don't have any problems with moving to the left lane to pass.
IPv6 was published as a standard in December 1998; it's definitely long past the draft stage. And the IEEE doesn't have anything to do with IP standards.
BTW, here's the press release from the DSI about the gambling website shutdown, which confirms the May 19 court order date. I tried Google Translate on it, but it did a pretty bad job. It translated the headline as "I found a good gaming site 72.", which made me LOL though :) (the correct translation is "DSI finds 72 gambling websites")
The Bangkok Post article is combining two unrelated stories, and gets the chronology of the two events backwards. The kid's suicide has nothing to do with the DSI shutting down gambling websites (both articles in Thai, unfortunately... this may be an English article about the suicide, but it's currently giving me a MySQL error). Also, the Bangkok Post says the court order to shut down the sites is dated May 19, and that "the court order follows the death of a 12-year-old boy". However, the boy killed himself on May 21.
and thus, you don't get the warning with default settings.
Exactly--you don't get the warning. So much for "Run virus.exe in XP (SP2), Vista, or (I presume) 7. What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?"
Contrary to your claim, Windows does not show a any warning dialog box when running an unsigned EXE. Explorer shows a dialog when running an unsigned EXE if and only if a flag is set on the EXE. However, it's very easy to get an unflagged EXE that was downloaded from the Internet. Just put it in a ZIP file--if you're lucky, whatever you downloaded it with flagged the ZIP as being from the Internet. But extract the EXE (using Window's built-in ZIP support, for example), and the extracted EXE isn't marked as being from the Internet. No warning when you run it.
You completely fail it. Give it up already.
You are factually incorrect.
I shall repeat: NO U
You said, and I quote, "Run virus.exe in XP (SP2), Vista, or (I presume) 7. What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?" I gave an example of unsigned code that XP and Vista will run without any sort of security warning.
Download an exe from some random place and run it.
And so you now attempt to add another condition--the EXE has do be downloaded from some random place. What if you get the EXE from a USB flash drive? And what you're talking about only happens if whatever you used to do the download writes a Zone.Identifier alternate data stream to the EXE identifying the download as coming from the Internet zone. IE6+some update will do that, and so will Firefox 3, but most other apps won't mark the file and Explorer won't show the warning. And note that since it's not Windows itself that pops up the warning, but ShellExecute[Ex], it doesn't always show up even if the EXE is marked. Run it from a Command Prompt, for example, and you won't get any warning.
Compare this to what happens if you set the NTFS permissions to deny execute permission to the file--nothing will be able to execute it until you grant execute permission.
All Windows system files are compared with a copy of the original every time they are accessed by the System File Checker.
That's nice, but what does that have to do with the subject at hand? Which is that Windows does not check for, or verify a digital signature on EXEs before executing them. At the very least, CreateProcess() should return an error if a signature exists, but cannot be verified--that means the EXE has been tampered with or is otherwise corrupt. The caller could, perhaps, do something special if it wanted to run the EXE anyway. Something along the lines of how on Vista, when you run an EXE that is marked as requiring elevation and the caller doesn't have admin privs, CreateProcess() returns ERROR_ELEVATION_REQUIRED.
I can tell you like to think of yourself a "power user", but that you don't actually know how all of this stuff works. Come back when you get a clue.
Run virus.exe in XP (SP2), Vista, or (I presume) 7.
What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?
Rename the file to virus.txt.exe and try again. What's that box? A security warning about unsigned code?
What are you talking about? Neither XP SP2 nor Vista automatically check for or verify a digital signature before running an EXE. In fact, most EXEs included with Windows aren't even signed. Try looking at the properties of, for example, C:\Windows\Notepad.exe. Note the complete lack of any digital signature (at least on XP and Vista; I haven't checked Windows 7). I'd love it if there were a setting to make Windows (or at the very least, Explorer) check the signature before running an executable, but as far as I know, there is none. (There are signing requirements for device drivers, but not for regular EXEs).
Fuck off insecurity experts.
NO U
It used to support Unicode, but apparently, due to people using control characters (RTL overrides and such) to do clever things, anything non-ASCII is now filtered or mangled. Too bad they went overboard--seems like the easy way to fix this would be to only filter out control characters. Unicode publishes a handy database that you can use to find out which characters are control characters.
Using red/yellow fire and living under a yellow sun, that is.
The sun may be yellow compared to some other stars, but daylight still has a color temperature of around 5500K, much higher/bluer than an incandescent bulb, and closer to "cool white" CFLs.
It's highly unlikely that you'll get one.
I'd translate. Just because Thais love the king doesn't mean that Thais love the lèse-majesté law. Even the king himself disagrees with the law.
It would take as little as a public statement that he's ok with insults. "Hear me, my people! Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me! So chill out and let those people out of jail mmkay?"
He basically did that, but it didn't seem to have helped any. See his 2005 birthday speech, where he says, "If you say that the King cannot be criticised, it suggests that the King is not human ... If we hold that the King cannot be criticised or violated, then the King ends up in a difficult situation." and "If they get sent to prison, I pardon them. If they don't go to prison, I wonâ(TM)t sue them, because those who violate the King and are punished are not the ones who are in trouble. It would be the King who was in trouble. It is strange, but the lawyers like to send people to prison (for allegedly violating the King)."
The lawmakers have their own reason for keeping the lèse majesté law—it's a great weapon against their political enemies. See for example, the case of Giles Ungpakorn, who wrote a book criticizing the 2006 military coup.
The town is named West, and it's not actually in West Texas--it's more Central Texas.
The UHF spectrum was simply to valuable for society to continue to allow a few analog TV holdouts to continue squatting on some of the most valuable parts of the EM spectrum for free or minimal cost.
You do also realize, don't you, that the switch to digital didn't remove any stations, just moved their channel allocations around a bit?
Yes, moved their allocations around a bit... moved them out of the most valuable parts of the EM spectrum: former UHF channels 52-69 (698 MHz-806 MHz; i.e., the 700 MHz band)
As far as I can tell, he's no Thai—he's just a farang who lived in Thailand for maybe a year, and now thinks he knows everything about Thai politics. Unfortunately for him, he's shown that he knows very little—for example, he thinks that that Samak Sundaravej was appointed PM by the junta.
The problem is that your premise, that they have only a set amount of money for coupons, is false.
Uh, in what way is it false? I'll answer that for you—it is in no way false; it is absolutely true. About $1.34 billion was allocated to the coupon program, with a cap of $160 million on administrative costs.