Listen to some Infected Mushroom at 320 kbps and tell me that again. You can hear so much more when you have the *combination* of good inputs and then high bit rates. If the input sucked to begin with the bit rate doesn't matter, which could be the case in many of these "is it better" studies. I can EASILY tell the difference between some random electronic music and the godliness of recording that is an Infected Mushroom album (even if you don't like the music). And no I am not an audiophile or anything; I have a $20 pair of headphones for my iPod and I can tell a huge difference with just that.
And nowhere did I say a defibrillator ran windows. My statement is 100% correct. Hospitals use windows devices. I am also not just talking about the receptionist desktops. There are windows machines in semi-critical roles. I don't know about every hospital, so some could even be in critical roles. But I know for a fact that hospitals around where I live purchase solutions from a vendor that uses windows as its primary doctor/nurse interaction method. If the systems were to fail it would be like running a busy fast food restaurant with no systems (and if you don't know how hard that is try it). A failure would not directly kill patients but would likely reduce the productivity of doctors, leading to a reduced level of care for the patients.
There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.
The drug thing is a whole different debate that I do not wish to even start with.
No, the real reason is fat people. I say we harvest them for their fat and use it as bio-fuel. Then we can solve the health care and energy situation at the same time.
I have a feeling some would not agree with this method but fuck 'em. All the other plans screw someone over too.
Well I had to start using illogical thinking in order to not get rated troll while still being able to express my opinions and ideas. Because heaven knows pointing out flaws in Obamas policy is blasphemy but pointing out Bush's flaws? That is mandatory.
But I guess you are correct, my trolls are worthless because they seem like valid arguments from some idiot on the interweb. Time to take it up a notch... I *hope* I still have karama to burn.
Obviously I was trying to point out the hypocritical behavior of most Slashdot thinking (i.e. EVERYONE is out to steal your money). They hate on corporations and the free market then they hate on this sort of thing. I thought it was apparent that I was trolling Obama and that I wish we had a more free market and less government control.
If you were just pointing that out to everyone else, thanks.
Its part of the stimulus. Just make people work and pay them for it... doesn't matter if it does any good, they have jobs. Oh shit, dare I mention how this could help the average Slashdot member have a job.
IM status can be set manually so if you are concerned about privacy... set it manually. Not to mention just because your SYSTEM knows things about you doesn't mean you must pass it on to any app, especially networked ones. Your system knows all sorts of things that it doesn't readily share.
Believe it or not people can determine all sorts of things about you IRL just by watching too. In fact, IRL, you are way more prone to being tracked and monitored than online. Imagine, someone can see you leave your house, go in, steal shit, and leave all by watching you. We need to fix that bug IRL asap.
I can't believe the level of unjust paranoia you are experiencing. The fact is if people care enough to track you, they will be able to. It doesn't matter if you have a laptop that turns off when you leave it or not. Also, how does a 5 minute delay from a regular inactivity time out differ from this so much that this tech is all of the sudden dangerous. It seems to me like people can be monitored via IM just as easy right now as if this was being widely used, just with a tad bit more 'false present' status existing.
They only speak this way because our legal system awards ridiculous sums to people who claim a corporation did them wrong regardless of the real damages done. Hopefully there is an even better place in hell for these crazies that get rich off of bullshit lawsuits. The corps are just trying to protect themselves so they don't have to shut their doors tomorrow. Clearly you would understand if you have seen the shit companies get thrown at them. Maybe this case is a legit one, maybe it is not, but the corporation protecting itself until they can defend or settle.
It is very possible that they did nothing wrong and if that is the case then why is it not valid for them to use absolutes? It makes complete sense that if you know you did nothing wrong to state that in absolute terms and not "I don't think we did anything".
Your sig is ironic: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue." yet you are bashing the defendant. Classic.
This bring up a good fucking point. Who the fuck cares about $32 million going to something useful. The government gets invoices for $500 for a screwdriver and they pay up (documented somewhere). We spend millions on each bomb dropped. The $700 billion it is going to cost to reform health care is "not important" according to the democrats. And we are bitching about $32 million that is going towards research that could be useful. Don't get me wrong I think the best way to cut government spending is to look at the details, like the $500 screwdriver thing, but for an organization as big as the US governemnt, spending $32 mill towards research that could save many times more in the future seems like a sound investment.
I really wish people would pick apart all of government spending as critically as this tiny drop in the bucket. I guess it is a much easier task to look at tiny projects and point out flaws but accepting a multibillion dollar proposal with little evidence or proof that it will work is fine.
And when will everyone wake up and realize that the government isn't granted authority by the constitution it is RESTRICTED by the constitution. I.e People are not granted free speech, the government is not supposed to make a law restricting speech etc. Thus the government is allowed to do everything except what the constitution prevents it from doing.
I will now take this time to promote my agenda. Every gun law is unconstitutional. Thanks.
Why does the argument always switch to the company requiring you to code at home and dictation of free time? I have never heard of a company who's policy is to "not hire people unless they code at home". It is fairly ignorant to base your whole argument off that point. Companies are curious about what you may have coded at home for many legitimate reasons. Some of these reasons may lead to you being hired, not for just coding at home, but for what you have done. If you can't understand why they might want to know if you code at home then how do you understand why they need to know about felony convictions, drug use, past employers, etc.
If I was an architect and I designed my own home in my spare time I might mention that to a potential employer and it might make a difference... this is the same thing but for coders except that coding in one's spare time is "easier" than most other professions so it becomes something an employer may ask about rather then something you tell about. Please try and look past the idea that companies are trying to steal your free time, it's not true.
Yes and those things will be revealed in an interview. The fact is that the tech sector moves fast and those who only do it on the job are more likely to not know about new technologies or options that are out there.
A good interviewer will be able to notice if a candidate is socially inept or is way too devoted to his side projects. It is not like I said 'you must hire a person who codes at home'. I said it is a relevant topic in an interview.
Your sig is funny because it seems I have been modded down to bury the truth.. that coding on your own time is something that is OK to bring up in an interview and maybe even make a hiring decision based on.
Sorry for not elaborating in my first post but I thought everyone would understand that hobby coding can be one of many factors used to hire not the only one. Just as every other factor is not the only factor. I concede that simply writing code at home doesn't make you better, but brought into a hiring situation, where a manager must pick based on a variety of factors, I think it is important to talk about.
My previous post was not supposed to convince people to start coding in their spare time to get a job. It was meant to point out that it is a very real thing to be considered in hiring. In fact one of the major points of hiring a person who codes in their spare time is that they enjoy coding. Thus they probably think that coding is fun and exciting and as far as I am concerned, that counts as 'having a life' more than people who just code for the paycheck.
There is a difference but that doesn't make the original argument wrong. I think that it becomes a separator between candidates that are similar. A company that interviews based on hard coded rules and not based on learning about what an individual can bring to the table won't be around long enough to hire many people. The thing is that candidates that are equal in work experience and related technologies and one does stuff at home and one doesn't; Who do you hire? Its a no brain decision. That doesn't even start considering that many who work at home on programming have a much wider range of experience because they spend much more time learning about stuff related to the job. I don't think it should be a requirement and I don't think any smart person hires based off that single attribute. Instead I think it is just one more thing to use to pick between candidates.
The above approach is very conservative. One could easily argue much harder with many more (subjective) reasons why people who code at home would be better suited for the job than someone who just uses coding to pay the bills.
Yes you can do whatever you want in your spare time but it may be relevant to an employer. Those who code in their spare time are much more valuable than those who don't. Just as those that do drugs in their free time are less valuable. If something may affect how a person performs a given job then I think it is relevant in an interview.
Health care isn't broken. The "supporting" activities are what is broken. In the US, if you have the money, you can get anything fixed. If you want health care then save money or buy insurance that lets you get the care. If you don't want it then don't. I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society. Our system works orders of magnitude better than other countries where there are waiting lists or no care at all for even the most productive people. Those who contribute to society, and value health care enough to purchase it get help. The real problem is the cost of our health care system. Without a reduction in costs we can't lower them regardless of moving the bill around with dumb plans like Obama's. Passing off the costs to the government through Obama's plan will not fix anything. The best cost to remove is the litigation and effects of the litigation that are destroying the system.
In the end someone has to pay for the health care. If it is the government then you are going to pay more taxes rather than paying a high insurance premium. The government has every interest in gaining control of it completely so they can hand their buddies all the contracts. Have fun living in lala land where the government wants less control over everything. You give them an inch they take a mile and NEVER give it back.
True, what I was meaning is exactly what you point out... follow the chain of how the judge got there and who is allowing the judge to continue to be there and vote against that OR write those people expressing your concerns if they have enough in common with you that you don't want to vote against them. Politicians do listen if enough people threaten to not vote for them over an issue. If we don't let the politicians know they won't change. There is hope but it require more people to care about their vote, about their right and DUTY to participate in government. The second we let our elected officials do anything but what we the people want is the second we lose control for good.
We are consistently moving that direction because fewer and fewer people want to take responsibility for anything. We are stuck in the 'it's not my fault' thought process. Voting is not the only thing you can do to ensure politicians stay accountable. Write them when legislation comes up that you don't like and if they don't go your way, don't vote for them AND let them know it. Take some responsibility and let your senators and representatives know what you think.
Yes, the problem is these companies have legal teams to fight litigation like this and are expecting it. It's almost a sunk cost for them. While smaller companies that can't do as much get screwed. What ever happened to people looking past themselves. Just because this lawsuit isn't against you doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. In general people need to start fighting for what is right in the world and not being so self centered... it will end up helping out in the long run so even if you are self centered it is still the logical choice.
Anyway, why you are relying on these companies to do this for YOU. This kind of passiveness is why we the people get less and less rights every day. We are letting institutions take them because we are giving them up, throwing up the white flag. Stop demanding that companies or governments fix our problems and do it yourself. We will be better off.
Not necessarily. I could file suit that you stole my house. This is a baseless and invalid claim... just because I filed it (lets say with a great lawyer) does not mean there is any validity to the claim. While it is true that in this case a lawyer could easily argue that there is some basis, the truth is that the lawyer knows there isn't. This is of course impossible to prove and thus nothing will change. The lawyer gets paid, the company keeps filing suits until one wins.
The point is that this is under the SPIRIT of the law this suit is illegal and definitely immoral/unethical. I am of course assuming the lawyers know this is a bullshit suit. If they don't then the company hold all the blame. I don't think its reasonable to assume that not a lawyer or employee of Eolas knows that this is a fraud. Proving that in a court may be impossible but that doesn't mean they aren't breaking various laws.
Just because no one can prove I sped today doesn't mean I didn't.
The problem here is of the legal system's inability to handle malicious lawsuit of ANY type. The high payout of civil suits these days has created predatory lawyers that can prey on individuals and companies that know its easier to settle than fight it out. The legal systems lack of a way to fight this behavior at a reasonable cost, without hiring the very people that profit from the behavior. Even the 'good' lawyers are profiting equally off of these suits.
Heard of ethics? Usually ethics is subjective but this case... not so much. You are not required to file suits against companies... so it was a conscious decision in pursuit of money. They are trying to defend a patent that is about the equal of patenting 'land' and saying anyone that uses 'land' is violating their patent. Clearly this patent is bullshit and clearly trying to defend a patent that you know is bullshit it unethical and possibly illegal depending on the degree of Eolas "knowing" the patent is bullshit (which they obviously do).
I am sorry your moral compass is so fucked you can't seem to see the issues here. You can't rely on the government to do everything for you... there and many things in the world that are not illegal but are quite harmful to society. Just because it is 'legal' to file this suit doesn't mean it is right. And there is still question to the legality under this clause:
"In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense."
If the patent is blatantly illegitimate and is easy to prove it should be invalid then the lawyers are actually breaking the law.
This is the type of scum of the earth shit that ruins productivity, innovation, and increases costs for every other consumer. Everyone wants to throw CEO's in jail yet these douche bags don't do ANYTHING productive for society. At least CEO's try and make their companies profitable(by providing services to consumers), even if it is just to cash in stock options.
Talk about the ultimate drain on society being upheld by the government... we need to vote against the judges and politicians that allow this to happen under their watch. GET OUT AND VOTE AGAINST THIS!! It will lower the cost of doing business and consequently the cost of goods and services. It will make these lawyers get out of the legal system for frivolous shit and back to doing something productive for society.
Something with only a 12% market share can in no statistical way achieve: "Most Windows PC Owners Also Own a Mac" when Windows has the market share that it does. So why even bring it up? Arrange the people however you want to and its impossible. In recent news, most jet owners also own a car, and most car owners do not own a jet. Really freakin' insightful, looking forward to more. But really, is this honestly being put on the front page? No one knew this? No "you must be new here"... this is not common knowledge, its common sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen to some Infected Mushroom at 320 kbps and tell me that again. You can hear so much more when you have the *combination* of good inputs and then high bit rates. If the input sucked to begin with the bit rate doesn't matter, which could be the case in many of these "is it better" studies. I can EASILY tell the difference between some random electronic music and the godliness of recording that is an Infected Mushroom album (even if you don't like the music). And no I am not an audiophile or anything; I have a $20 pair of headphones for my iPod and I can tell a huge difference with just that.
And nowhere did I say a defibrillator ran windows. My statement is 100% correct. Hospitals use windows devices. I am also not just talking about the receptionist desktops. There are windows machines in semi-critical roles. I don't know about every hospital, so some could even be in critical roles. But I know for a fact that hospitals around where I live purchase solutions from a vendor that uses windows as its primary doctor/nurse interaction method. If the systems were to fail it would be like running a busy fast food restaurant with no systems (and if you don't know how hard that is try it). A failure would not directly kill patients but would likely reduce the productivity of doctors, leading to a reduced level of care for the patients.
There are victims of this crime. Those who bought or didn't buy shares at the 'wrong' price because they didn't have the information that the insiders did. Insider trading causes the honest people to A) lose money or B) not make as much money. So there are victims and injuries.
The drug thing is a whole different debate that I do not wish to even start with.
No, the real reason is fat people. I say we harvest them for their fat and use it as bio-fuel. Then we can solve the health care and energy situation at the same time.
I have a feeling some would not agree with this method but fuck 'em. All the other plans screw someone over too.
Well I had to start using illogical thinking in order to not get rated troll while still being able to express my opinions and ideas. Because heaven knows pointing out flaws in Obamas policy is blasphemy but pointing out Bush's flaws? That is mandatory.
But I guess you are correct, my trolls are worthless because they seem like valid arguments from some idiot on the interweb. Time to take it up a notch... I *hope* I still have karama to burn.
Obviously I was trying to point out the hypocritical behavior of most Slashdot thinking (i.e. EVERYONE is out to steal your money). They hate on corporations and the free market then they hate on this sort of thing. I thought it was apparent that I was trolling Obama and that I wish we had a more free market and less government control.
If you were just pointing that out to everyone else, thanks.
But if they have water then they could have plants which means there could be oil. The oil is worth bombing for, so the water is too, right?
Did you not know that many hospitals already run windows equipment?
Its part of the stimulus. Just make people work and pay them for it... doesn't matter if it does any good, they have jobs. Oh shit, dare I mention how this could help the average Slashdot member have a job.
Then, when the corporations are big enough, they will eat all the humans.
IM status can be set manually so if you are concerned about privacy... set it manually. Not to mention just because your SYSTEM knows things about you doesn't mean you must pass it on to any app, especially networked ones. Your system knows all sorts of things that it doesn't readily share.
Believe it or not people can determine all sorts of things about you IRL just by watching too. In fact, IRL, you are way more prone to being tracked and monitored than online. Imagine, someone can see you leave your house, go in, steal shit, and leave all by watching you. We need to fix that bug IRL asap.
I can't believe the level of unjust paranoia you are experiencing. The fact is if people care enough to track you, they will be able to. It doesn't matter if you have a laptop that turns off when you leave it or not. Also, how does a 5 minute delay from a regular inactivity time out differ from this so much that this tech is all of the sudden dangerous. It seems to me like people can be monitored via IM just as easy right now as if this was being widely used, just with a tad bit more 'false present' status existing.
They only speak this way because our legal system awards ridiculous sums to people who claim a corporation did them wrong regardless of the real damages done. Hopefully there is an even better place in hell for these crazies that get rich off of bullshit lawsuits. The corps are just trying to protect themselves so they don't have to shut their doors tomorrow. Clearly you would understand if you have seen the shit companies get thrown at them. Maybe this case is a legit one, maybe it is not, but the corporation protecting itself until they can defend or settle.
It is very possible that they did nothing wrong and if that is the case then why is it not valid for them to use absolutes? It makes complete sense that if you know you did nothing wrong to state that in absolute terms and not "I don't think we did anything".
Your sig is ironic: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue." yet you are bashing the defendant. Classic.
This bring up a good fucking point. Who the fuck cares about $32 million going to something useful. The government gets invoices for $500 for a screwdriver and they pay up (documented somewhere). We spend millions on each bomb dropped. The $700 billion it is going to cost to reform health care is "not important" according to the democrats. And we are bitching about $32 million that is going towards research that could be useful. Don't get me wrong I think the best way to cut government spending is to look at the details, like the $500 screwdriver thing, but for an organization as big as the US governemnt, spending $32 mill towards research that could save many times more in the future seems like a sound investment.
I really wish people would pick apart all of government spending as critically as this tiny drop in the bucket. I guess it is a much easier task to look at tiny projects and point out flaws but accepting a multibillion dollar proposal with little evidence or proof that it will work is fine.
And when will everyone wake up and realize that the government isn't granted authority by the constitution it is RESTRICTED by the constitution. I.e People are not granted free speech, the government is not supposed to make a law restricting speech etc. Thus the government is allowed to do everything except what the constitution prevents it from doing.
I will now take this time to promote my agenda. Every gun law is unconstitutional. Thanks.
Why does the argument always switch to the company requiring you to code at home and dictation of free time? I have never heard of a company who's policy is to "not hire people unless they code at home". It is fairly ignorant to base your whole argument off that point. Companies are curious about what you may have coded at home for many legitimate reasons. Some of these reasons may lead to you being hired, not for just coding at home, but for what you have done. If you can't understand why they might want to know if you code at home then how do you understand why they need to know about felony convictions, drug use, past employers, etc.
If I was an architect and I designed my own home in my spare time I might mention that to a potential employer and it might make a difference... this is the same thing but for coders except that coding in one's spare time is "easier" than most other professions so it becomes something an employer may ask about rather then something you tell about. Please try and look past the idea that companies are trying to steal your free time, it's not true.
Yes and those things will be revealed in an interview. The fact is that the tech sector moves fast and those who only do it on the job are more likely to not know about new technologies or options that are out there.
A good interviewer will be able to notice if a candidate is socially inept or is way too devoted to his side projects. It is not like I said 'you must hire a person who codes at home'. I said it is a relevant topic in an interview.
Your sig is funny because it seems I have been modded down to bury the truth.. that coding on your own time is something that is OK to bring up in an interview and maybe even make a hiring decision based on.
Sorry for not elaborating in my first post but I thought everyone would understand that hobby coding can be one of many factors used to hire not the only one. Just as every other factor is not the only factor. I concede that simply writing code at home doesn't make you better, but brought into a hiring situation, where a manager must pick based on a variety of factors, I think it is important to talk about.
My previous post was not supposed to convince people to start coding in their spare time to get a job. It was meant to point out that it is a very real thing to be considered in hiring. In fact one of the major points of hiring a person who codes in their spare time is that they enjoy coding. Thus they probably think that coding is fun and exciting and as far as I am concerned, that counts as 'having a life' more than people who just code for the paycheck.
There is a difference but that doesn't make the original argument wrong. I think that it becomes a separator between candidates that are similar. A company that interviews based on hard coded rules and not based on learning about what an individual can bring to the table won't be around long enough to hire many people. The thing is that candidates that are equal in work experience and related technologies and one does stuff at home and one doesn't; Who do you hire? Its a no brain decision. That doesn't even start considering that many who work at home on programming have a much wider range of experience because they spend much more time learning about stuff related to the job. I don't think it should be a requirement and I don't think any smart person hires based off that single attribute. Instead I think it is just one more thing to use to pick between candidates.
The above approach is very conservative. One could easily argue much harder with many more (subjective) reasons why people who code at home would be better suited for the job than someone who just uses coding to pay the bills.
Yes you can do whatever you want in your spare time but it may be relevant to an employer. Those who code in their spare time are much more valuable than those who don't. Just as those that do drugs in their free time are less valuable. If something may affect how a person performs a given job then I think it is relevant in an interview.
Health care isn't broken. The "supporting" activities are what is broken. In the US, if you have the money, you can get anything fixed. If you want health care then save money or buy insurance that lets you get the care. If you don't want it then don't. I don't get how anyone can claim they have the right to being cured of any sickness they get. Doctors work their asses off to get where they are. How fair is it for those doctors to have to treat bums off the street who haven't contributed anything to society. Our system works orders of magnitude better than other countries where there are waiting lists or no care at all for even the most productive people. Those who contribute to society, and value health care enough to purchase it get help. The real problem is the cost of our health care system. Without a reduction in costs we can't lower them regardless of moving the bill around with dumb plans like Obama's. Passing off the costs to the government through Obama's plan will not fix anything. The best cost to remove is the litigation and effects of the litigation that are destroying the system.
In the end someone has to pay for the health care. If it is the government then you are going to pay more taxes rather than paying a high insurance premium. The government has every interest in gaining control of it completely so they can hand their buddies all the contracts. Have fun living in lala land where the government wants less control over everything. You give them an inch they take a mile and NEVER give it back.
True, what I was meaning is exactly what you point out... follow the chain of how the judge got there and who is allowing the judge to continue to be there and vote against that OR write those people expressing your concerns if they have enough in common with you that you don't want to vote against them. Politicians do listen if enough people threaten to not vote for them over an issue. If we don't let the politicians know they won't change. There is hope but it require more people to care about their vote, about their right and DUTY to participate in government. The second we let our elected officials do anything but what we the people want is the second we lose control for good.
We are consistently moving that direction because fewer and fewer people want to take responsibility for anything. We are stuck in the 'it's not my fault' thought process. Voting is not the only thing you can do to ensure politicians stay accountable. Write them when legislation comes up that you don't like and if they don't go your way, don't vote for them AND let them know it. Take some responsibility and let your senators and representatives know what you think.
Yes, the problem is these companies have legal teams to fight litigation like this and are expecting it. It's almost a sunk cost for them. While smaller companies that can't do as much get screwed. What ever happened to people looking past themselves. Just because this lawsuit isn't against you doesn't mean it doesn't affect you. In general people need to start fighting for what is right in the world and not being so self centered... it will end up helping out in the long run so even if you are self centered it is still the logical choice.
Anyway, why you are relying on these companies to do this for YOU. This kind of passiveness is why we the people get less and less rights every day. We are letting institutions take them because we are giving them up, throwing up the white flag. Stop demanding that companies or governments fix our problems and do it yourself. We will be better off.
Not necessarily. I could file suit that you stole my house. This is a baseless and invalid claim... just because I filed it (lets say with a great lawyer) does not mean there is any validity to the claim. While it is true that in this case a lawyer could easily argue that there is some basis, the truth is that the lawyer knows there isn't. This is of course impossible to prove and thus nothing will change. The lawyer gets paid, the company keeps filing suits until one wins.
The point is that this is under the SPIRIT of the law this suit is illegal and definitely immoral/unethical. I am of course assuming the lawyers know this is a bullshit suit. If they don't then the company hold all the blame. I don't think its reasonable to assume that not a lawyer or employee of Eolas knows that this is a fraud. Proving that in a court may be impossible but that doesn't mean they aren't breaking various laws.
Just because no one can prove I sped today doesn't mean I didn't.
The problem here is of the legal system's inability to handle malicious lawsuit of ANY type. The high payout of civil suits these days has created predatory lawyers that can prey on individuals and companies that know its easier to settle than fight it out. The legal systems lack of a way to fight this behavior at a reasonable cost, without hiring the very people that profit from the behavior. Even the 'good' lawyers are profiting equally off of these suits.
Heard of ethics? Usually ethics is subjective but this case... not so much. You are not required to file suits against companies... so it was a conscious decision in pursuit of money. They are trying to defend a patent that is about the equal of patenting 'land' and saying anyone that uses 'land' is violating their patent. Clearly this patent is bullshit and clearly trying to defend a patent that you know is bullshit it unethical and possibly illegal depending on the degree of Eolas "knowing" the patent is bullshit (which they obviously do).
I am sorry your moral compass is so fucked you can't seem to see the issues here. You can't rely on the government to do everything for you... there and many things in the world that are not illegal but are quite harmful to society. Just because it is 'legal' to file this suit doesn't mean it is right. And there is still question to the legality under this clause:
"In the United States, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense."
If the patent is blatantly illegitimate and is easy to prove it should be invalid then the lawyers are actually breaking the law.
This is the type of scum of the earth shit that ruins productivity, innovation, and increases costs for every other consumer. Everyone wants to throw CEO's in jail yet these douche bags don't do ANYTHING productive for society. At least CEO's try and make their companies profitable(by providing services to consumers), even if it is just to cash in stock options.
Talk about the ultimate drain on society being upheld by the government... we need to vote against the judges and politicians that allow this to happen under their watch. GET OUT AND VOTE AGAINST THIS!! It will lower the cost of doing business and consequently the cost of goods and services. It will make these lawyers get out of the legal system for frivolous shit and back to doing something productive for society.
Something with only a 12% market share can in no statistical way achieve: "Most Windows PC Owners Also Own a Mac" when Windows has the market share that it does. So why even bring it up? Arrange the people however you want to and its impossible. In recent news, most jet owners also own a car, and most car owners do not own a jet. Really freakin' insightful, looking forward to more. But really, is this honestly being put on the front page? No one knew this? No "you must be new here"... this is not common knowledge, its common sense.