RFC 3390 uses the "MUST" terminology exactly one place: when describing behavior after a packet is lost during the syn/synack. It doesn't use the phrase "MUST NOT" anywhere.
In every other respect slow-start is recommended but optional. Google is in no way breaching the standard by not using it.
I'm aware of how the moderation system works. My point is that merely disagreeing with a commenter's viewpoint is insufficient cause to mod a post down. You mod it down because its abusive or has no relationship with the topic or commits a gross logical fallacy or suffers an near-uncontested factual error. When you mod a post down merely because you didn't like what an otherwise eloquent author had to say, you risk participating in a tyranny of the majority.
Thanks for the correction, yes, that's what I was trying to get at. Looks like I missed the part about someone demanding a re-examination. Defendant claims prior art. Plaintiff files an amendment. Repeat until the defendant runs out of prior art claims. Then see if there's enough of a patent left to proceed.
And yes, given the courts' rulings on "obviousness" that a patent examiner is required to follow, an uneducated jury often is in a better position to evaluate the legitimacy of a patent. You can give them 80 instructions on exactly how they're to evaluate the word "obvious" when patent's legitimacy but at the end of the day they already know what obvious means and will look for ways to disregard contrary instructions.
What possible basis could Immigration and Customs Enforcement have for seizing a domain name associated with bit torrent? I can see a dozen ways the USG could reasonably go after a bit torrent tracker, but this one just doesn't make sense.
I'm flying to Florida soon to visit my mother. My plan is to avoid the new scanners.
If I can't, my fallback plan includes opting out. I haven't settled on the details yet, but here's several possibilities I'm considering:
1. Wear an athletic cup.
2. Upon hearing the description of the process, proclaim: "I'm willing to consent to the pat down, but not by you. I insist my screening be performed by an attractive young woman." I might also offer phrases like, "No man shall touch my junk," "I'm sorry but I think you're a pervert. I will only consent to be touched by someone who is not a pervert," and "If I must consent to a groping by a prostitute, I insist that my assailant be female."
3. Upon hearing the description of the process, proclaim: "Before you screen me, I insist that you demonstrate the process by having another agent perform it on you. Once observed to my satisfaction, I will consent to you performing the identical procedure on me." Quotes might include: "I understand your reluctance to undergo a groping but as the saying goes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "For your pay this day, our government has required you to join the oldest profession in the world, and for that I pity you. Yet I have no sympathy for your choices. You can quit this job, quit prostituting yourself, any time you want to. You can quit right now."
As I understand it (and IANAL so I could be way off base) the process goes something like this:
You're sued for infringing X. You assert that Y (which they failed to cite or differentiate) is prior art for X. They file a modification to X adding a citation for Y and explaining the difference between Y and X. Rinse, repeat. If the patent on X is still broad enough to cover your use, you either settle or lose in court. If the patent on X has been narrowed enough that it no longer covers your use, they settle or lose in court.
Generally, one or the other of you decides to settle once things are fully fleshed out. The matter becomes pretty obvious and there's no point in either of you continuing the expense. You're not going to succeed on process-related counterclaims; they had a reasonable belief that you'd infringed the patent when they sued.
Occasionally the mistaken party gets stubborn and goes to court anyway. When that happens, it's about 50/50 whether the court rules in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. The court rarely invalidates the patent; when ruling in favor of the defendant, it's usually because the defendant's use was enough different from what the patent has become by the time of the actual trial that it doesn't infringe.
Generally speaking, the patent office is not your friend in this situation. When you submit a claim of prior art, they rule more carelessly than a court and once they rule the court is loathe to reconsider.
More underlings means more slots for overlings. overlings, who can do the work -and- speak comprehensible English, are valuable enough to get paid well. Explain to me again why you're worried about the boss adding underlings to your company's ranks?
Sure, H1B is a cheat. When they've a skill in demand we ought to be encouraging these folks to seek citizenship. But H1B is what we can get past the xenophobes, the pretext why these 4N's should skip the quotas.
So, let me see if I got this right: you're -against- allowing educated college graduates to stay in the US and perhaps immigrate because they're merely generic graduates not ivy league graduates?
First, you misunderstand. The case wasn't dismissed because of evidence, it was dismissed because if all of the factual claims were proven to be 100% true they wouldn't add up to malicious prosecution.
Second, check the timeline. The note was written 10/27/2007 by the head of the law firm, not the particular lawyer. Nearly all the claims had been dismissed months earlier and the rest of the case ended the following week. Even if you were to conclude that the lawyer could not have reasonably believed the client following the note, the case was over! There was no more prosecution!
The OP probably has a decent tort against this Kazaryan fellow, since he was (allegedly) found to have participated in manufacturing the case. Libel or something, I don't know exactly the right tort. But the OP went after the folks with deep pockets instead.
I can't say I blame him for wanting to be paid but you don't get to go after the lawyers for doing their jobs.
Lawyers aren't just allowed to believe their client, they're one or two hairs short of being required to. To be guilty of malicious prosecution, they'd have to have conspired with your particular nemesis to fabricate the case knowing full well there was no case. Except for factual claim #28 against Vladimir Kazaryan, none of your alleged facts, if found to be true, would support a finding of malicious prosecution. And you lose that one because count 5 (aiding and abetting malicious prosecution) only works if you can first prove that there was a malicious prosecution.
I hate to tell you this but the judge got it right: "Appellants complaint did not set forth claims of abuse of process and vicarious liability for which relief could be granted."
You should have tried something like, "[lawyer] could not have reasonably believed in the existence of Zubitskiy after [date] but failed to promptly terminate the case." The lawyer is both entitled and expected to believe his client, at least until the client's claim becomes utterly non-credible.
Sucks to be falsely sued. I know from first-hand experience. But you can't bust the lawyer for doing his job representing the client.
“Once Red Hat settles and pays for a license for the patent, any subsequent defendant will find it more difficult to convince a court that the patent should not be enforceable.”
Not exactly. For the judge to consider the settlement, Acacia would first have to enter it in to evidence. If they tried to enter merely the fact of a settlement, the defendant would be entitled to the entire settlement agreement during discovery.
And when the judge finds out that Red Hat licensed the patent for a dollar and an agreement not to countersue, well, that doesn't bode well for Acacia.
The man's a brilliant lawyer. I've read a number of opinions he offered as AG. They are uniformly well argued, even when I wish the conclusions were otherwise. Worse, from the perspective of those who support Mann, Cuccinelli thoroughly analyzes the relevant law and doesn't misinterpret it to fit his preconceptions. Unlike former Virginia AG's, I didn't find a single example where I said, "No, that's obviously not what the law you just quoted means."
If Mann cut any corners, Cuccinelli will crucify him.
Nothing is "better" in a vacuum. You always have to consider the holistic picture.
At every step along the way the computer with the x86 chip provided the user experience that didn't require me to immediately find and purchase all new software, much of which wasn't as good as what I already had. From a practical, user perspective the computer in which the x86 chip was part of the package was consistently the better technology.
That's the challenge IPv6 faces. What good is it if I can't use it to play farmville?
My Vonage (VoIP) works just fine behind a NAT and my DVR calls out to a remote service from which I control it. I don't need VNC or bittorrent. Neither do 99% of the folks who buy residential Internet service. If you're one of the 1% that does, you buy the static IP address option for an extra five bucks. No muss, no fuss.
it will require some big honking firewalls to do the NAT
What makes you think that? A generic linux appliance on old hardware can handle 1000 general purpose NAT users easily. Add that to the 1% of users who actually use the Internet in a way that they need a dedicated IP address and you're still looking at a better than 50:1 compression of client-side IP addresses consumed.
Or was there some technical reason that ISP NAT needs to folks hundreds of thousands of users into the same single box?
It isn't. The somewhere south of 1% of you who have the slightest idea what port forwarding is will pay the extra $5 for a hobbyist/gamer/home office Internet connection that has a publicly routable IP address. The other 99% who do email, web and the occasional VPN to work won't notice or care about the difference. If anything, the reduced hits from scanning bots will improve the network security those 99% experience with their computers.
Or did you imagine you'd be forcibly stripped of the IP address you actually use with no recourse? Seriously, such a straw man.
For your information, plan B is ISP NAT and a zero-sum game address transfer market. That would allow us to reallocate upwards of 80% of IPv4's addresses, extending the life of IPv4 some 10 to 20 years. It's not a fun prospect, but it's eminently workable -- perhaps even more so than IPv6.
So, anyone who says there's no plan B doesn't know what they're talking about.
That depends. Are your a corporate CEO agreeing to let me "peer" packets with your secretary's PC? 'Cause if you are then I agree that NAT has got to go.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
RFC 3390 uses the "MUST" terminology exactly one place: when describing behavior after a packet is lost during the syn/synack. It doesn't use the phrase "MUST NOT" anywhere.
In every other respect slow-start is recommended but optional. Google is in no way breaching the standard by not using it.
I'm aware of how the moderation system works. My point is that merely disagreeing with a commenter's viewpoint is insufficient cause to mod a post down. You mod it down because its abusive or has no relationship with the topic or commits a gross logical fallacy or suffers an near-uncontested factual error. When you mod a post down merely because you didn't like what an otherwise eloquent author had to say, you risk participating in a tyranny of the majority.
Thanks for the correction, yes, that's what I was trying to get at. Looks like I missed the part about someone demanding a re-examination. Defendant claims prior art. Plaintiff files an amendment. Repeat until the defendant runs out of prior art claims. Then see if there's enough of a patent left to proceed.
And yes, given the courts' rulings on "obviousness" that a patent examiner is required to follow, an uneducated jury often is in a better position to evaluate the legitimacy of a patent. You can give them 80 instructions on exactly how they're to evaluate the word "obvious" when patent's legitimacy but at the end of the day they already know what obvious means and will look for ways to disregard contrary instructions.
I expect you're right about point 1. I'm prepared, financially and mentally, to contest points 2 and 3 in court.
What possible basis could Immigration and Customs Enforcement have for seizing a domain name associated with bit torrent? I can see a dozen ways the USG could reasonably go after a bit torrent tracker, but this one just doesn't make sense.
I'm flying to Florida soon to visit my mother. My plan is to avoid the new scanners.
If I can't, my fallback plan includes opting out. I haven't settled on the details yet, but here's several possibilities I'm considering:
1. Wear an athletic cup.
2. Upon hearing the description of the process, proclaim: "I'm willing to consent to the pat down, but not by you. I insist my screening be performed by an attractive young woman." I might also offer phrases like, "No man shall touch my junk," "I'm sorry but I think you're a pervert. I will only consent to be touched by someone who is not a pervert," and "If I must consent to a groping by a prostitute, I insist that my assailant be female."
3. Upon hearing the description of the process, proclaim: "Before you screen me, I insist that you demonstrate the process by having another agent perform it on you. Once observed to my satisfaction, I will consent to you performing the identical procedure on me." Quotes might include: "I understand your reluctance to undergo a groping but as the saying goes, do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "For your pay this day, our government has required you to join the oldest profession in the world, and for that I pity you. Yet I have no sympathy for your choices. You can quit this job, quit prostituting yourself, any time you want to. You can quit right now."
Wouldn't prior art prove otherwise?
As I understand it (and IANAL so I could be way off base) the process goes something like this:
You're sued for infringing X.
You assert that Y (which they failed to cite or differentiate) is prior art for X.
They file a modification to X adding a citation for Y and explaining the difference between Y and X.
Rinse, repeat.
If the patent on X is still broad enough to cover your use, you either settle or lose in court.
If the patent on X has been narrowed enough that it no longer covers your use, they settle or lose in court.
Generally, one or the other of you decides to settle once things are fully fleshed out. The matter becomes pretty obvious and there's no point in either of you continuing the expense. You're not going to succeed on process-related counterclaims; they had a reasonable belief that you'd infringed the patent when they sued.
Occasionally the mistaken party gets stubborn and goes to court anyway. When that happens, it's about 50/50 whether the court rules in favor of the plaintiff or defendant. The court rarely invalidates the patent; when ruling in favor of the defendant, it's usually because the defendant's use was enough different from what the patent has become by the time of the actual trial that it doesn't infringe.
Generally speaking, the patent office is not your friend in this situation. When you submit a claim of prior art, they rule more carelessly than a court and once they rule the court is loathe to reconsider.
More underlings means more slots for overlings. overlings, who can do the work -and- speak comprehensible English, are valuable enough to get paid well. Explain to me again why you're worried about the boss adding underlings to your company's ranks?
Sure, H1B is a cheat. When they've a skill in demand we ought to be encouraging these folks to seek citizenship. But H1B is what we can get past the xenophobes, the pretext why these 4N's should skip the quotas.
So, let me see if I got this right: you're -against- allowing educated college graduates to stay in the US and perhaps immigrate because they're merely generic graduates not ivy league graduates?
I'd call that a fortuitous error. Who would buy a drink which includes a series of letters strikingly similar to "vomit?"
Other helpful items for children include the Playmobil Security Checkpoint
http://www.amazon.com/Playmobil-3172-Security-Check-Point/dp/B0002CYTL2/
Friend, when you stepped from defending to prosecuting, you needed better legal counsel.
First, you misunderstand. The case wasn't dismissed because of evidence, it was dismissed because if all of the factual claims were proven to be 100% true they wouldn't add up to malicious prosecution.
Second, check the timeline. The note was written 10/27/2007 by the head of the law firm, not the particular lawyer. Nearly all the claims had been dismissed months earlier and the rest of the case ended the following week. Even if you were to conclude that the lawyer could not have reasonably believed the client following the note, the case was over! There was no more prosecution!
The OP probably has a decent tort against this Kazaryan fellow, since he was (allegedly) found to have participated in manufacturing the case. Libel or something, I don't know exactly the right tort. But the OP went after the folks with deep pockets instead.
I can't say I blame him for wanting to be paid but you don't get to go after the lawyers for doing their jobs.
Lawyers aren't just allowed to believe their client, they're one or two hairs short of being required to. To be guilty of malicious prosecution, they'd have to have conspired with your particular nemesis to fabricate the case knowing full well there was no case. Except for factual claim #28 against Vladimir Kazaryan, none of your alleged facts, if found to be true, would support a finding of malicious prosecution. And you lose that one because count 5 (aiding and abetting malicious prosecution) only works if you can first prove that there was a malicious prosecution.
I hate to tell you this but the judge got it right: "Appellants complaint did not set forth claims of abuse of process and vicarious liability for which relief could be granted."
You should have tried something like, "[lawyer] could not have reasonably believed in the existence of Zubitskiy after [date] but failed to promptly terminate the case." The lawyer is both entitled and expected to believe his client, at least until the client's claim becomes utterly non-credible.
Sucks to be falsely sued. I know from first-hand experience. But you can't bust the lawyer for doing his job representing the client.
“Once Red Hat settles and pays for a license for the patent, any subsequent defendant will find it more difficult to convince a court that the patent should not be enforceable.”
Not exactly. For the judge to consider the settlement, Acacia would first have to enter it in to evidence. If they tried to enter merely the fact of a settlement, the defendant would be entitled to the entire settlement agreement during discovery.
And when the judge finds out that Red Hat licensed the patent for a dollar and an agreement not to countersue, well, that doesn't bode well for Acacia.
Ditto. I have yet to see SORBS receive criticism they haven't earned.
If it's yellow, let it mellow
If it's brown, flush it down
The man's a brilliant lawyer. I've read a number of opinions he offered as AG. They are uniformly well argued, even when I wish the conclusions were otherwise. Worse, from the perspective of those who support Mann, Cuccinelli thoroughly analyzes the relevant law and doesn't misinterpret it to fit his preconceptions. Unlike former Virginia AG's, I didn't find a single example where I said, "No, that's obviously not what the law you just quoted means."
If Mann cut any corners, Cuccinelli will crucify him.
Certainly. They centralize admin of all the subscriber cable modems now. Why would they do anything else with the NAT boxen?
Nothing is "better" in a vacuum. You always have to consider the holistic picture.
At every step along the way the computer with the x86 chip provided the user experience that didn't require me to immediately find and purchase all new software, much of which wasn't as good as what I already had. From a practical, user perspective the computer in which the x86 chip was part of the package was consistently the better technology.
That's the challenge IPv6 faces. What good is it if I can't use it to play farmville?
My Vonage (VoIP) works just fine behind a NAT and my DVR calls out to a remote service from which I control it. I don't need VNC or bittorrent. Neither do 99% of the folks who buy residential Internet service. If you're one of the 1% that does, you buy the static IP address option for an extra five bucks. No muss, no fuss.
it will require some big honking firewalls to do the NAT
What makes you think that? A generic linux appliance on old hardware can handle 1000 general purpose NAT users easily. Add that to the 1% of users who actually use the Internet in a way that they need a dedicated IP address and you're still looking at a better than 50:1 compression of client-side IP addresses consumed.
Or was there some technical reason that ISP NAT needs to folks hundreds of thousands of users into the same single box?
How the hell did this get modded interesting?
It isn't. The somewhere south of 1% of you who have the slightest idea what port forwarding is will pay the extra $5 for a hobbyist/gamer/home office Internet connection that has a publicly routable IP address. The other 99% who do email, web and the occasional VPN to work won't notice or care about the difference. If anything, the reduced hits from scanning bots will improve the network security those 99% experience with their computers.
Or did you imagine you'd be forcibly stripped of the IP address you actually use with no recourse? Seriously, such a straw man.
For your information, plan B is ISP NAT and a zero-sum game address transfer market. That would allow us to reallocate upwards of 80% of IPv4's addresses, extending the life of IPv4 some 10 to 20 years. It's not a fun prospect, but it's eminently workable -- perhaps even more so than IPv6.
So, anyone who says there's no plan B doesn't know what they're talking about.
That depends. Are your a corporate CEO agreeing to let me "peer" packets with your secretary's PC? 'Cause if you are then I agree that NAT has got to go. ;-)