Verizon said it was 1% of their customers. 1% of their customers on a $100 a month plan adds up pretty quickly. The financials should show an increase in revenue, a flat or even 0.5% drop is "bad". Even if half of them leave they just lost a lot of revenue and didn't get rid of any of the high usage customers that they were aiming at.
The thing that Verizon doesn't realize is that the type of people that hung onto this plan for 3 years are not the type of people that will stay with Verizon if they get off of unlimited, its the type of people that hang out on slick deals. They are going to be left with just the people who use 50+ GB a month and the ones that use 5-10GB are going to switch to another carrier where they can pay half the price for that amount of data.
I'd much rather see the headline "pro-gamers get their hands on the steam controller and approve" than anything else. Especially any that use the claw or hammer grips (aka keeping a finger on the a b x y buttons at all times). Game developers aren't necessarily known for being good at their games.
EVERY contract is a restraint of trade. A restraint is only part of what is needed to be illegal. You also need either an agreement that unreasonably restrains competition under Sherman act section 1 (such as a horizontal agreement to split up the market or price fix), or a restraint using monopoly power under Sherman act section 2. An exclusivity agreement not to sell android code unless it comes from Google is not a violation of either section.
If you read the whole section he didn't say he would do nothing about it because China was worse. He said that there are better ways to fix it than taxing carbon emissions in America. What would our corporate overlords do if there was a Cap and Trade tax? They would dodge the tax, like they dodge any tax they can, by moving their operations elsewhere, in this case, out of America. A tax on just American operations would have no net decrease in emissions.
Interesting to think about whether the Fourth Amendment applies here. The Fourth Amendment only protects us from government action. This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. This is determined by the level of government involvement in the situation and the totality of the circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the facts here it seems like this non-profit would be considered an agent of the government, and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages, but the material they collect probably cannot be used as evidence in a crime.
The internet was always somewhere just beyond the reach of the law because laws always focused on taking down the illegal program or site through technical means. The most recent set of laws focuses less on technology, and more on financial backing, which has proven much more effective at censoring any program or website. You can get around DNS blocking, but you can't get around a site not having any way whatsoever to collect revenue. Ensuring no revenue will cripple websites in a way that none of your technological solutions can prevent.
Don't forget Compuserve also served up content in an icons in a grid that looks even more closely like the iphone than anything else.
Random blog with a picture:
http://www.fanboy.com/2009/07/compuserve.html
I would assume most cities are not nearly as prolific at handing out tickets than Boston. Generating parking revenue is one area where they have their act together. Cambridge even puts yoga images to calm you down after handing you a $25 ticket.
Google did not give the patents to HTC for keeps, google is letting HTC use them as part of their fight. Other android device makers can use the patents as well if they get into a dispute with microsoft, rim, apple, or anyone else who uses wireless communication.
You are clearly not an engineer if you think tuition bills are the problem. Most good engineers do not go into much debt because of scholarship programs, which happen to be very good in engineering because there is a very small amount of engineers. Especially if they go into a phd program, which is completely paid for with a living stipend.
Dead on. I would mod you up but you are already at a 5. The only thing I would have to add to your reply would be that coupons generally are not given anymore. Lawyers only collect on coupons that are used, thus they opt for the cash route much more often. And a lot of time the cash is so insignificant to each individual that it is given to charity or an NPO. I.E. the recent google buzz case going to privacy NPOs.
He will most likely try and get a settlement out of it before he has to show much damages.
He should have went with the privacy route, it would be much easier to get a settlement, and you automatically get around $10 million without having to show harm.
Easier said than done. Tenure track positions rely heavily on publication in good journals. Losing your job over a copyright is not worth it for one person, it would take an industry wide movement, which is very hard to organize.
How do you enforce a non-disclosure? Kindly ask the person not to use any of the knowledge or experience he acquired on the previous job? Even if the person was serious in agreeing to that, its hard to not subconsciously use the information and skills that you were hired to provide. How do you know the person used that information or information they had before their original job. If you want any type of successful restriction, non-compete is the real way to go.
You can sue a corporation in any state that they do business in, therefore you could likely sue both companies in any state... And they could probably argue for a preliminary injunction, which would bar him from working until the trial, so much of the case would be arguing over the preliminary injunction.
Slashdot Mirror
Verizon said it was 1% of their customers. 1% of their customers on a $100 a month plan adds up pretty quickly. The financials should show an increase in revenue, a flat or even 0.5% drop is "bad". Even if half of them leave they just lost a lot of revenue and didn't get rid of any of the high usage customers that they were aiming at.
The thing that Verizon doesn't realize is that the type of people that hung onto this plan for 3 years are not the type of people that will stay with Verizon if they get off of unlimited, its the type of people that hang out on slick deals. They are going to be left with just the people who use 50+ GB a month and the ones that use 5-10GB are going to switch to another carrier where they can pay half the price for that amount of data.
I'd much rather see the headline "pro-gamers get their hands on the steam controller and approve" than anything else. Especially any that use the claw or hammer grips (aka keeping a finger on the a b x y buttons at all times). Game developers aren't necessarily known for being good at their games.
EVERY contract is a restraint of trade. A restraint is only part of what is needed to be illegal. You also need either an agreement that unreasonably restrains competition under Sherman act section 1 (such as a horizontal agreement to split up the market or price fix), or a restraint using monopoly power under Sherman act section 2. An exclusivity agreement not to sell android code unless it comes from Google is not a violation of either section.
If you read the whole section he didn't say he would do nothing about it because China was worse. He said that there are better ways to fix it than taxing carbon emissions in America. What would our corporate overlords do if there was a Cap and Trade tax? They would dodge the tax, like they dodge any tax they can, by moving their operations elsewhere, in this case, out of America. A tax on just American operations would have no net decrease in emissions.
Can a person fail the turing test for being too dumb to create a description that most people on slashdot can understand?
Interesting to think about whether the Fourth Amendment applies here. The Fourth Amendment only protects us from government action. This non-profit would be considered a private person, whom are only covered when they are acting in their capacity as an agent of the government. This is determined by the level of government involvement in the situation and the totality of the circumstances. I'm not a lawyer, but based on the facts here it seems like this non-profit would be considered an agent of the government, and therefore you may not be able to sue them for money damages, but the material they collect probably cannot be used as evidence in a crime.
This probably had something to do with it. Verizon found a way to buy as much spectrum as they wanted while jumping through way less regulation hurdles. http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/12/verizon-buys-up-spectrum/2/
The internet was always somewhere just beyond the reach of the law because laws always focused on taking down the illegal program or site through technical means. The most recent set of laws focuses less on technology, and more on financial backing, which has proven much more effective at censoring any program or website. You can get around DNS blocking, but you can't get around a site not having any way whatsoever to collect revenue. Ensuring no revenue will cripple websites in a way that none of your technological solutions can prevent.
Don't forget Compuserve also served up content in an icons in a grid that looks even more closely like the iphone than anything else. Random blog with a picture: http://www.fanboy.com/2009/07/compuserve.html
I would assume most cities are not nearly as prolific at handing out tickets than Boston. Generating parking revenue is one area where they have their act together. Cambridge even puts yoga images to calm you down after handing you a $25 ticket.
Maybe no one cares who people are facebook friends with???
Its even easier than that. A patent is granted to the inventor. You can't take another persons invention to the patent office.
Apparently even the posters don't even bother reading the articles anymore... First line under the title: Apr 13, 2009 3:50 am
Google did not give the patents to HTC for keeps, google is letting HTC use them as part of their fight. Other android device makers can use the patents as well if they get into a dispute with microsoft, rim, apple, or anyone else who uses wireless communication.
Your university must suck. I went to an average state university and everyone I know that wanted an engineering job found one.
You are clearly not an engineer if you think tuition bills are the problem. Most good engineers do not go into much debt because of scholarship programs, which happen to be very good in engineering because there is a very small amount of engineers. Especially if they go into a phd program, which is completely paid for with a living stipend.
Dead on. I would mod you up but you are already at a 5. The only thing I would have to add to your reply would be that coupons generally are not given anymore. Lawyers only collect on coupons that are used, thus they opt for the cash route much more often. And a lot of time the cash is so insignificant to each individual that it is given to charity or an NPO. I.E. the recent google buzz case going to privacy NPOs.
He will most likely try and get a settlement out of it before he has to show much damages. He should have went with the privacy route, it would be much easier to get a settlement, and you automatically get around $10 million without having to show harm.
Easier said than done. Tenure track positions rely heavily on publication in good journals. Losing your job over a copyright is not worth it for one person, it would take an industry wide movement, which is very hard to organize.
How do you enforce a non-disclosure? Kindly ask the person not to use any of the knowledge or experience he acquired on the previous job? Even if the person was serious in agreeing to that, its hard to not subconsciously use the information and skills that you were hired to provide. How do you know the person used that information or information they had before their original job. If you want any type of successful restriction, non-compete is the real way to go.
You can sue a corporation in any state that they do business in, therefore you could likely sue both companies in any state... And they could probably argue for a preliminary injunction, which would bar him from working until the trial, so much of the case would be arguing over the preliminary injunction.
Is that the plot to Terminator 4? I have a feeling Arnold could stop this.
I wonder if they were allowed to use calculators?
A blanket wont work. It has to be reflective and distort the image a little. Try a mirror from the 1700's.