Should Developers Support Windows Phone 8? I am reminded again of Betteridge's Law of Headlines which states "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
I am a Windows developer but if I'm going to develop smartphone apps it'll be for whoever offers me the biggest market: Android and the iPhone. Microsoft has a perfectly decent desktop OS, but instead of finding ways to reinvigorate the desktop using innovative technology (the way Jobs would have) they are chasing the smartphone market in a way that spooks desktop developers such as myself. I find myself not thinking "Windows for Smartphone" and now not even "Windows for desktop" but "Android for Tablet". Microsoft needs to stop copying other people's ideas, but just because it's immoral but because it's a lousy business strategy: It didn't work for Bing, Zune or anything else they've copied lately. If Microsoft don't do a reality test here they're heading for an even bigger disaster as they scuttle their flagship platform.
The major consoles have so many firmware updates that the days of Homebrew seem to be numbered, is there a way back for the Homebrew Community?
I have a friend at the RIAA who was sympathetic when I explained your problems: an old business model that lacks technical relevance or customer demand. He said you should respond by suing your customers.
I am not sure how this will help and to be honest neither did he, but he said that was the advice the RIAA's lawyers gave them and he's sure it's good advice because they further advise him it should start working any day now.
You made a good argument , but someone modded your post down to 0. Since your post was insightful and well-argued, this must have been for nothing more than reflex politics. I would much rather see well argued posts like yours on Slashdot regardless of where their political spectrum they come from. Better reading rather than the flood of funny 1-liners we have.
I really hope Slashdot gets around to penalising people abusing their mod-points. The current meta-moderation system doesn't work because it's like finding a needle in a haystack. Much better if you can click a link on a post that says 'the moderation here is suspect'.
Very true. I once went to a Japanese school on a sports day. In the races there would be smaller kids lagging behind, but everyone - the crowd and their classmates who had finished - would cheer them on: 'ganbatte!' - 'do your best!'. Compare that to the Western schools where the winner gets all the glory and the last kid is teased as a loser.
I recently read an article in a international-edition newspaper (sorry - can't remember which) by an apologist writer for the Chinese government censorship. He claimed that the Chinese government doesn't have an issue with reporting corruption by local government officials - indeed they see this as a useful public service and a vent for the public - and so won't censor these stories, but he did say they will censor stupid rumours (sham cures for radiation) but primarily anything that might cause a public gathering to take place. (After all, that's how revolutions get started!;-) This project will find a way to verify this, though what happened with T^2 and the blind dissident GC obviously doesn't fit his model.
Some quotes from that Salon article. Highly recommended reading:
"Arbitration is billed as a cheap, quick and private way to resolve civil disputes. The practice gained momentum in the 1980s, when judges, bowing to pressure to alleviate overcrowded courtrooms, began encouraging litigants to resolve their disputes voluntarily. Since then, arbitration has snowballed into an unlicensed industry that’s conservatively estimated at $350 million in annual sales, according to a spokeswoman at the nonprofit American Arbitration Association.
“We hear a lot of complaints about these cases,” said Gerald Uelman, professor of law at the University of Santa Clara. The for-profit arbitration business is booming, especially in California, he added. “It’s upsetting to the extent that it’s a resource used by institutional litigants.”
One big reason for the boom is money. Public judges, who earn about $150,000 a year in the public courts, often retire early to become, in effect, rent-a-judges. By doing so they can earn between $100 and $500 an hour — easily doubling or tripling their salaries. Arbitration firms often have powerful attorneys or corporations as steady clients. They pay monthly retainer fees or get volume discounts. As a result, some for-profit justice firms have a vested interest in keeping their clients happy if they want the return business, which has been the topic of seminars sponsored by the California Judges Association.
The rules that apply in open court often aren’t followed in private court. No laws prevent the hired judges from accepting gifts from attorneys. Another criticism is that the arbitrators and their clients and attorneys often work together regularly. “The same judges are often employed by one side or the other,” said Uelman. As it turned out, Girardi had ties to at least three of the private judges in the PG&E case: Jack Tenner, John Trotter and Jack Goertzen. Had this occurred in public court, judicial rules would have forced the judges to recuse themselves from the case due to a conflict of interest. But no such ethical standards bind participants in private arbitation."
Real small claims court doesn't spend much time on investigating claims. To clear cases quickly the judge quickly weighs up sides and makes a snap decision. Under the adversarial system of justice its not about finding the truth, but about who deciding presents the best arguments. That's easier for the judge, but it shouldn't be confused with justice. In some jurisdictions you can't appeal or even be told the reasons. The judge makes a mistake (they are human so it happens) you won't even know.
Small claims court weren't created because they are better than the bigger courts, but as a way of offering the little people cheaper although less reliable justice. The bigger courts are worse though since they are extremely expensive charging rates that cannot be justified. Whoever has the most money to fund the most appeals and buy the better lawyers wins.
Arbitration is in theory a great idea, but a big problem is that the arbitration system is taken over by judges and lawyers charging the same rates. It's sold as a cheaper alternative, but it has many traps. One problem is a big company who nominates an arbitration company (yes, they are companies) will pick one that gives them favorable results or they won't get repeat business. I loved Erin Brockovich the movie, but the arbitration system they used has been severely critcized by some of their clients. If you loved the movie then don't read this:
Privacy Laws in Australia are a feelgood thing so the public thinks they are protected when they really have no protection at all. Apart from bugging devices, Australia's privacy laws are very weak. The worst thing Google would face out of this would be a letter from the Privacy Commissioner saying 'please don't do that.' That letter isn't worth the paper it is written on.
Look at these slap on the wrist penalties:
An apology
A change to the respondent's practices or procedures
Staff counselling
Taking steps to address the matter, for example providing access to personal information, or amending records
Compensation for financial or non-financial loss
Other non-financial options, for example a complimentary subscription to a service.
http://www.privacy.gov.au/complaints/outcomes
Don't get excited about the financial compensation. That is only if you have suffered economic loss and the employee who did it doesn't have to pay a cent.
A lot of people still use laptops and desktops. Microsoft is throwing away that market to be in also ran far behind iPhone and Android. Microsoft should focus on doing what they do best. Instead they are scaring Windows customers and Windows developers into leaving the PC platform. Poorly played, Microsoft.
Even if older versions of Visual Studio can be used, they are notorious for breaking under new OSs. VS2003 won't work on Vista or Windows 7. VS2005/2008 is slower, and VS2010 doesn't support global directories so you must enter your search paths manually into every single library, making porting time consuming and tedious. What Microsoft are doing here is saying if you don't want to develop METRO apps, then it's time to leave the Windows platform.
Anonymity is necessary for Joe Public to exercise his right to free speech. The rich and powerful can't crush him like a bug if they don't know who he is.
I read the summary and am completely baffled by the train of thought. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises (which themselves are unsupported conjecture). What is this insane troll logic?
It's not insane logic at all. If you're an investor and you have $xK to invest what would you invest in? Hard high-tech like cancer research (lots of work, time and money, higher risk, low chance of success) or social media (much less work/time/money and a higher chance of success). Zuckenberg didn't get rich curing cancer, he did it inventing a social media website. This is why investors and entrepreneurs flock to social media projects and ignore the hard stuff.
Please don't tell Neil deGrasse Tyson about this or he will kill baby Vesta safe just like he killed its older sibling Pluto. This man is worse than the Pharaoh!
When I was studying film a while back I read about 24 frames per second versus 30 frames per second. 24 frames gives motion a bit of a blurry look. You see less, but this is the look of 'film' that we are used to and gives it an arty feel. There's nothing wrong with this. It's what we are used to. If you do pick up a video camera, look for one labelled '24P' which means it can also do 24 frames per second.
Sure Jackon knew this and I give him points for experimenting. If it doesn't work out, sure he will ditch it.
> Good. The copyright cartels are like negligent parents: they think all the rest of society should bear their responsibility for them.
The problem is Congress has been all too willing to make copyright penalties unreasonably harsh. 'Crimes' are by definition offences against the state or against the public. From that position of power copyright cartels have no need to let the free market run and reduce their prices.
You could ask why doesn't Congress take an equally harsh line against Patents? "You wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal an Idea?" Instead of suing for patent infringement in civil court, have the police come around and throw start-up entrepreneurs into jail. Now that will send a message!
The entrepreneur is protected even if there is no NDA. Under Common Law, confidentiality is automatically applied to anything that has the 'necessary quality of confidence' like a business idea or trade secret. That is automatically applied even if there is no written agreement. An NDA is a good idea because it makes clear that the person knows they are dealing with confidential material. Even if there is no NDA though, the entrepreneur is still protected and can sue for damages under breach of confidence. Note: The law may vary in your area, and it is ALWAYS a good idea to get everything in writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence
1. Create a National Broadbank Network, call it NBN,
2. spend billions of dollars forcing the entire country to migrate to it even though they're perfectly happy with ADSL
3. Give control to Stephen Conroy put block off all the sites with ideas he disagrees with
4. And give control to the Media cartel to shutdown anyone downloading content without paying them royalties
Terrified?
Ok.
Don't panic.
There is one more.
5. Vote Labor out of existence, the Libs shut the wretched NBN thing down and and we all go back to ADSL. VICTORY!
NoDaddy.com used to carry a lot of news about the abuses by ICANN. Like ICANN's CEO violating their own rules.
NoDaddy.com also used to carry criticism of GoDaddy, but then GoDaddy made NoDaddy's web admin an offer he couldn't refuse, and suddenly there was no where to post criticism of either. Does anyone know of a new site to post criticism of ICANN besides slashdot?
> Not entirely true -- they could demand an order of specific performance to have your IP transferred to them.
Do you know of any cases where this has actually happened for an idea the employee has developed in good faith (without using their former employer's time, equipment, IP or premises)?
Also these non-compete clauses are slipped into employment contracts as take-it-or-leave-it. See parent link: The courts are supposed to take a dim view of these. When the employee signs, it's from an unequal position and they don't know what they're getting into.
Anon wrote
> That may be why they add in the contract that if you are found in breach for any reason, the damages to the company are incalculable ?
To trigger specific performance? Even if the contract says that doesn't mean the courts would blindly follow it. If you stick in a clause that says 'If you break this contract you agree to pay us $xK ' the courts will strike it too because those are not actual losses.
Mod parent up. Contract Law is contrary to what many people think it is, and I mean that in a good way. It tries to be very fair.
The general public think if it's written down in a contract, and you signed it, you're bound by it. That's wrong. Aside from the very relevant link the parent posted, if you walk away from a contract the other party is only entitled to actual economic damages. So long as your new product isn't competing with your old employer and you haven't taken any of their IP (it's a felony to steal IP), then they haven't lost any money and aren't entitled to a cent in damages.
I was about to, but this article shows that the police can use the most absurd things to make your life a living hell. Police and other so-called public servants really should be judged the same way employees of companies are: Do something stupid, and you get fired. Lawyers only go after the money since that is after all where the money is, but the cops who did this are also responsible so I hope the victim names them on the law suit or at least lists them as co-defendants to be named after all. That way their incredible dumb is out in the open for all the world to mock and laugh at.
"I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."
"Corporations are born in a lawyerâ(TM)s office, exist only on paper, have no social conscience, no soul and can never die."
The worst example of blind love for a corporation would have to be the way consumers worship Apple; a company whose workers are treated cruelly and ruthlessly. What is 'Cool' about this?
Google started off with their heart in the right place, and from that they earned our trust. The fact that many of us trust them with our entire e-Mail collection is pretty amazing.
But we see that money is their primary driver. For anyone who thought could be trusted to keep giving away generously, look at the about turn they did on Google Maps. People who build their businesses on it were shafted overnight with demands for a $10K license fee. Some indy developers and startups did contact Google: surely you can't mean us? Google replied that yes, they most certainly did.
This is the new Google who believe they have come as far as they can on goodwill and destroying competitors by giving stuff away for 'free'. Now it's payback time!
As for their latest toadying to repressive regimes and corrupt governments in the pockets of lobbyists, well, Google have struck a new low. That's the bad news. The worse news is they don't care: If corporations are people, and the US Supreme Court things they are, then Google is a real asshole.
Slashdot Mirror
Should Developers Support Windows Phone 8? I am reminded again of Betteridge's Law of Headlines which states "Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'".
I am a Windows developer but if I'm going to develop smartphone apps it'll be for whoever offers me the biggest market: Android and the iPhone. Microsoft has a perfectly decent desktop OS, but instead of finding ways to reinvigorate the desktop using innovative technology (the way Jobs would have) they are chasing the smartphone market in a way that spooks desktop developers such as myself. I find myself not thinking "Windows for Smartphone" and now not even "Windows for desktop" but "Android for Tablet". Microsoft needs to stop copying other people's ideas, but just because it's immoral but because it's a lousy business strategy: It didn't work for Bing, Zune or anything else they've copied lately. If Microsoft don't do a reality test here they're heading for an even bigger disaster as they scuttle their flagship platform.
Or in 2 words: Betteridge's Law.
The major consoles have so many firmware updates that the days of Homebrew seem to be numbered, is there a way back for the Homebrew Community?
I have a friend at the RIAA who was sympathetic when I explained your problems: an old business model that lacks technical relevance or customer demand. He said you should respond by suing your customers.
I am not sure how this will help and to be honest neither did he, but he said that was the advice the RIAA's lawyers gave them and he's sure it's good advice because they further advise him it should start working any day now.
> He said "stakeholders", not "shareholders". Not the same thing at all.
I'm sure whenever an investment banker uses either term they giggle hysterically.
Very true. How many countries ban supersonic fighters becaus they are 'too noisy'?
I really hope Slashdot gets around to penalising people abusing their mod-points. The current meta-moderation system doesn't work because it's like finding a needle in a haystack. Much better if you can click a link on a post that says 'the moderation here is suspect'.
Very true. I once went to a Japanese school on a sports day. In the races there would be smaller kids lagging behind, but everyone - the crowd and their classmates who had finished - would cheer them on: 'ganbatte!' - 'do your best!'. Compare that to the Western schools where the winner gets all the glory and the last kid is teased as a loser.
I recently read an article in a international-edition newspaper (sorry - can't remember which) by an apologist writer for the Chinese government censorship. He claimed that the Chinese government doesn't have an issue with reporting corruption by local government officials - indeed they see this as a useful public service and a vent for the public - and so won't censor these stories, but he did say they will censor stupid rumours (sham cures for radiation) but primarily anything that might cause a public gathering to take place. (After all, that's how revolutions get started! ;-) This project will find a way to verify this, though what happened with T^2 and the blind dissident GC obviously doesn't fit his model.
But don't pretend for a moment we are any better. The news is heavily censored everywhere, even in liberal western democracies:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/google-getting-more-requests-from-democracies-to-censor/
Libel laws are a very effective way to cause self-censorship by the media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-libel-laws-are-stifling-free-speech-says-un-894519.html
http://overland.org.au/blogs/loudspeaker/2012/03/defamation-laws-the-real-threat/
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/archivedfactsheets/freespeechanddefamationpre2010.html
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/130/1/Defamation-and-Freedom-of-Speech/Page1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/opinion/self-censorship-at-cbs.html
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2003/2003_LIBEL_LAW_AND_CORRUPTION.html
There's also soft self-censorship too even in the US: "Sure you can print that... if you are prepared for consequences... Ah wonderful. I knew we could find common ground."
http://rt.com/usa/news/editor-at-top-us-newspaper-resigns-over-censorship/
http://cofcc.org/2011/03/new-york-times-editor-confesses-to-censoring-information-about-black-crime/
http://usmediaandisrael.com/intimidation-at-the-new-york-times/
http://omnologos.com/watch-out-for-self-censorship-at-the-new-york-times/
"Tell the truth and run." - Yugoslav proverb
Some quotes from that Salon article. Highly recommended reading:
"Arbitration is billed as a cheap, quick and private way to resolve civil disputes. The practice gained momentum in the 1980s, when judges, bowing to pressure to alleviate overcrowded courtrooms, began encouraging litigants to resolve their disputes voluntarily. Since then, arbitration has snowballed into an unlicensed industry that’s conservatively estimated at $350 million in annual sales, according to a spokeswoman at the nonprofit American Arbitration Association.
“We hear a lot of complaints about these cases,” said Gerald Uelman, professor of law at the University of Santa Clara. The for-profit arbitration business is booming, especially in California, he added. “It’s upsetting to the extent that it’s a resource used by institutional litigants.”
One big reason for the boom is money. Public judges, who earn about $150,000 a year in the public courts, often retire early to become, in effect, rent-a-judges. By doing so they can earn between $100 and $500 an hour — easily doubling or tripling their salaries. Arbitration firms often have powerful attorneys or corporations as steady clients. They pay monthly retainer fees or get volume discounts. As a result, some for-profit justice firms have a vested interest in keeping their clients happy if they want the return business, which has been the topic of seminars sponsored by the California Judges Association.
The rules that apply in open court often aren’t followed in private court. No laws prevent the hired judges from accepting gifts from attorneys. Another criticism is that the arbitrators and their clients and attorneys often work together regularly. “The same judges are often employed by one side or the other,” said Uelman. As it turned out, Girardi had ties to at least three of the private judges in the PG&E case: Jack Tenner, John Trotter and Jack Goertzen. Had this occurred in public court, judicial rules would have forced the judges to recuse themselves from the case due to a conflict of interest. But no such ethical standards bind participants in private arbitation."
http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/
> whats wrong with the real small claims court?
Real small claims court doesn't spend much time on investigating claims. To clear cases quickly the judge quickly weighs up sides and makes a snap decision. Under the adversarial system of justice its not about finding the truth, but about who deciding presents the best arguments. That's easier for the judge, but it shouldn't be confused with justice. In some jurisdictions you can't appeal or even be told the reasons. The judge makes a mistake (they are human so it happens) you won't even know.
Small claims court weren't created because they are better than the bigger courts, but as a way of offering the little people cheaper although less reliable justice. The bigger courts are worse though since they are extremely expensive charging rates that cannot be justified. Whoever has the most money to fund the most appeals and buy the better lawyers wins.
Arbitration is in theory a great idea, but a big problem is that the arbitration system is taken over by judges and lawyers charging the same rates. It's sold as a cheaper alternative, but it has many traps. One problem is a big company who nominates an arbitration company (yes, they are companies) will pick one that gives them favorable results or they won't get repeat business. I loved Erin Brockovich the movie, but the arbitration system they used has been severely critcized by some of their clients. If you loved the movie then don't read this:
http://www.salon.com/2000/04/14/sharp/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8169252&page=1#.T875jlK6SSo
http://www.givemebackmyrights.com/bma-faq.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-21/consumers-may-see-new-limits-on-mandatory-arbitration
http://www.homeloanbasics.com/articles/FirstTimeHomeBuyers/MandatoryArbitrationClausesStripHomebuyersofSuitableRecourse
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x301912
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/website-aims-to-boost-50m-arbitration-industry-2351246.html
The justice system badly needs reform, but you have many politicians and lawyers doing very well out of the current system who won't give it up.
Look at these slap on the wrist penalties:
Don't get excited about the financial compensation. That is only if you have suffered economic loss and the employee who did it doesn't have to pay a cent.
http://www.caslon.com.au/privacyguide3.htm
http://www.privacy.gov.au/complaints/outcomes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_in_Australian_law
A lot of people still use laptops and desktops. Microsoft is throwing away that market to be in also ran far behind iPhone and Android. Microsoft should focus on doing what they do best. Instead they are scaring Windows customers and Windows developers into leaving the PC platform. Poorly played, Microsoft.
Even if older versions of Visual Studio can be used, they are notorious for breaking under new OSs. VS2003 won't work on Vista or Windows 7. VS2005/2008 is slower, and VS2010 doesn't support global directories so you must enter your search paths manually into every single library, making porting time consuming and tedious. What Microsoft are doing here is saying if you don't want to develop METRO apps, then it's time to leave the Windows platform.
Anonymity is necessary for Joe Public to exercise his right to free speech. The rich and powerful can't crush him like a bug if they don't know who he is.
It's not insane logic at all. If you're an investor and you have $xK to invest what would you invest in? Hard high-tech like cancer research (lots of work, time and money, higher risk, low chance of success) or social media (much less work/time/money and a higher chance of success). Zuckenberg didn't get rich curing cancer, he did it inventing a social media website. This is why investors and entrepreneurs flock to social media projects and ignore the hard stuff.
Please don't tell Neil deGrasse Tyson about this or he will kill baby Vesta safe just like he killed its older sibling Pluto. This man is worse than the Pharaoh!
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on killing Pluto: 'All I did was drive the getaway car'
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/26/2903224/dr-neil-degrasse-tyson-killing-pluto-on-the-verge
When I was studying film a while back I read about 24 frames per second versus 30 frames per second. 24 frames gives motion a bit of a blurry look. You see less, but this is the look of 'film' that we are used to and gives it an arty feel. There's nothing wrong with this. It's what we are used to. If you do pick up a video camera, look for one labelled '24P' which means it can also do 24 frames per second.
Sure Jackon knew this and I give him points for experimenting. If it doesn't work out, sure he will ditch it.
When TSA employees want to smuggle drugs their co-workers create a distraction by frisking a 4 year old.
> Good. The copyright cartels are like negligent parents: they think all the rest of society should bear their responsibility for them.
The problem is Congress has been all too willing to make copyright penalties unreasonably harsh. 'Crimes' are by definition offences against the state or against the public. From that position of power copyright cartels have no need to let the free market run and reduce their prices.
You could ask why doesn't Congress take an equally harsh line against Patents? "You wouldn't steal a car, so why would you steal an Idea?" Instead of suing for patent infringement in civil court, have the police come around and throw start-up entrepreneurs into jail. Now that will send a message!
The entrepreneur is protected even if there is no NDA. Under Common Law, confidentiality is automatically applied to anything that has the 'necessary quality of confidence' like a business idea or trade secret. That is automatically applied even if there is no written agreement. An NDA is a good idea because it makes clear that the person knows they are dealing with confidential material. Even if there is no NDA though, the entrepreneur is still protected and can sue for damages under breach of confidence. Note: The law may vary in your area, and it is ALWAYS a good idea to get everything in writing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_confidence
There is a solution!
1. Create a National Broadbank Network, call it NBN,
2. spend billions of dollars forcing the entire country to migrate to it even though they're perfectly happy with ADSL
3. Give control to Stephen Conroy put block off all the sites with ideas he disagrees with
4. And give control to the Media cartel to shutdown anyone downloading content without paying them royalties
Terrified? Ok.
Don't panic.
There is one more.
5. Vote Labor out of existence, the Libs shut the wretched NBN thing down and and we all go back to ADSL. VICTORY!
NoDaddy.com used to carry a lot of news about the abuses by ICANN. Like ICANN's CEO violating their own rules. NoDaddy.com also used to carry criticism of GoDaddy, but then GoDaddy made NoDaddy's web admin an offer he couldn't refuse, and suddenly there was no where to post criticism of either. Does anyone know of a new site to post criticism of ICANN besides slashdot?
> Not entirely true -- they could demand an order of specific performance to have your IP transferred to them.
Do you know of any cases where this has actually happened for an idea the employee has developed in good faith (without using their former employer's time, equipment, IP or premises)?
Also these non-compete clauses are slipped into employment contracts as take-it-or-leave-it. See parent link: The courts are supposed to take a dim view of these. When the employee signs, it's from an unequal position and they don't know what they're getting into.
Anon wrote
> That may be why they add in the contract that if you are found in breach for any reason, the damages to the company are incalculable ?
To trigger specific performance? Even if the contract says that doesn't mean the courts would blindly follow it. If you stick in a clause that says 'If you break this contract you agree to pay us $xK ' the courts will strike it too because those are not actual losses.
Mod parent up. Contract Law is contrary to what many people think it is, and I mean that in a good way. It tries to be very fair.
The general public think if it's written down in a contract, and you signed it, you're bound by it. That's wrong. Aside from the very relevant link the parent posted, if you walk away from a contract the other party is only entitled to actual economic damages. So long as your new product isn't competing with your old employer and you haven't taken any of their IP (it's a felony to steal IP), then they haven't lost any money and aren't entitled to a cent in damages.
I was about to, but this article shows that the police can use the most absurd things to make your life a living hell. Police and other so-called public servants really should be judged the same way employees of companies are: Do something stupid, and you get fired. Lawyers only go after the money since that is after all where the money is, but the cops who did this are also responsible so I hope the victim names them on the law suit or at least lists them as co-defendants to be named after all. That way their incredible dumb is out in the open for all the world to mock and laugh at.
Sagely words, cffrost.
Some others:
"I refuse to believe that corporations are people until Texas executes one."
"Corporations are born in a lawyerâ(TM)s office, exist only on paper, have no social conscience, no soul and can never die."
The worst example of blind love for a corporation would have to be the way consumers worship Apple; a company whose workers are treated cruelly and ruthlessly. What is 'Cool' about this?
Apple's Chinese workers treated 'inhumanely, like machines'
Investigation finds evidence of draconian rules and excessive overtime to meet western demand for iPhones and iPads
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/apr/30/apple-chinese-workers-treated-inhumanely
Apple Store Employees Speak Out Against Demoralizing, Draining Work Conditions
http://www.cultofmac.com/103041/apple-store-employees-speak-out-against-demoralizing-draining-work-conditions/
The Darker Side of Apple: The Human Cost of Your iProducts
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/darker-side-apple-human-cost-iproducts-164412176.html
At least 14 workers at Foxconn factories in China have killed themselves in the last 16 months as a result of horrendous working conditions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382396/Workers-Chinese-Apple-factories-forced-sign-pledges-commit-suicide.html
Google started off with their heart in the right place, and from that they earned our trust. The fact that many of us trust them with our entire e-Mail collection is pretty amazing.
But we see that money is their primary driver. For anyone who thought could be trusted to keep giving away generously, look at the about turn they did on Google Maps. People who build their businesses on it were shafted overnight with demands for a $10K license fee. Some indy developers and startups did contact Google: surely you can't mean us? Google replied that yes, they most certainly did.
Forbes: "Google's Penny Pinching Is Costing It Customers"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisbarth/2011/12/27/googles-penny-pinching-is-costing-it-customers/print/
This is the new Google who believe they have come as far as they can on goodwill and destroying competitors by giving stuff away for 'free'. Now it's payback time!
They've also been dodging their taxes: "The U.S. Internal Revenue Service is auditing how Google Inc. (GOOG) avoided federal income taxes by shifting profit into offshore subsidiaries"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-13/irs-auditing-how-google-shifted-profits-offshore-to-avoid-taxes.html
As for their latest toadying to repressive regimes and corrupt governments in the pockets of lobbyists, well, Google have struck a new low. That's the bad news. The worse news is they don't care: If corporations are people, and the US Supreme Court things they are, then Google is a real asshole.