Linda Stevens, an intellectual property attorney at Schiff Hardin, said California courts have not been receptive to the doctrine of so-called "inevitable disclosure." "It's pretty clear in California now that the courts are hostile to and have not adopted and in fact have rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine," she said.
Basically the legal opinion is against HP. My guess is that the lawsuit, as is, will be tossed without prejudice before ever getting to trial.
I don't get my information about non competes in California from Slash. I have now read the lawsuit, most relevantly the Prayer for Relief reading in part "That Hurd be enjoined by... permanent injunction... from holding a position with a competitor".
This is a direct attempt to bypass the legality of non competes in California in my opinion, albeit I admit that I am not aware of case law in this situation. I would be surprised, however, if a judge ruled that California law be stricken null for all cases where an employee has trade secret information for their employer. That's many employees, albeit we can admit that Mr. Hurd has lots more than most.
If there is even ONE email between Hurd and Oracle, ONE phone call - he's dead meat.
I doubt it very much. It's as much a contract of bad faith for HP to offer this contract as it is for him to take it. The contractual term is illegal in California. There are two parties to this contract, not the one. Are they both in bad faith? Not sure what the courts do in that circumstance... but it may be that Mr. Hurd does not care about the $12M. Ellison may have taken care of the issue.
As for the trade secrets thing, you cannot try a person in a civil court for something they MIGHT do.
The treatment of Julian Assange, the person, but as conducted by the government in question, is without a shadow of a doubt a subject of public interest. There may be other interests, such as his right to privacy, but the public interest is certainly there, on several levels.
Are you sure? The Enterprise's phasers are, I would assume, more powerful than simply redirecting the matter-energy conversion of their transporters at a target. The transporters convert the transported material to energy, and using an E=MC**2 calculation, I'm able to calculate that a few thousand pounds of transported matter are many gigatons-nuclear-equivalent of energy...:-)
Well. I looked just now. I remember that this was an OSHA issue, but can find no evidence of it. I must admit, it may be possible that I am misremembering the internal review of safety at McDonald's for OSHA violations.
Still, in reading updated information, it does seem fairly well a good claim for negligence. Even McDonald's admitted in Court that they would not have expected their own customers to know that they could receive 3rd degree burns so quickly from the coffee, and other establishments do not serve it so hot.
Your telling of the McDonalds' events is, unfortunately, false. What happened is that McDonalds' sold coffee, repeatedly and unrepentantly, at temperatures higher than the local law would allow. They were fined for it on numerous occasions, deciding that the fine was less troublesome than changing. When faced with such a sentiment, and confronted with a woman who had to have skin grafts on her vagina from being burned as a consequence of their brazen and open flouting the law, the jury was rather decidedly pissed. Thank God for the legal system.
I'm pretty sure that the biblical definition of adultery included all sex (or sexual activity) outside of marriage
While you will indeed find that some modern interpretations of the bible are a bit loose, you will not find translators historically missing that much meaning in mistranslation into English.
When I said that "the sentiment is true," what I meant was that the sentiment, that the Christian church teaches that masturbation is "wrong," is true. That was his sentiment, and the sentiment is correct. As far as this being a wrong thing to teach, I will side with the vast corpus of evidence from the psychology community, of course. And before you ask, no, I won't cite it for you. Children have to grow up on their own sometimes; I have no interest in being a tool for your emerging adulthood. That is for you to find on your own.
He knows that. He's being figurative. You, however, aren't getting the message. Because while it is not literally true, the sentiment is entirely true.
We all are born with the ability to walk to a copy machine and make copies. Without the law, we are born to this right. In the interest of "promoting progress in the arts," congress takes that right away from us and leaves it, to the exclusion of everyone but the author, to the author (or his assignee) alone. Copyright isn't so much about the granting of a right, as the taking it away from everyone else. This is why the word "exclusive" is used in the law. It excludes.
From the various stories and statements, what happened was this: he asked her out, probably more than once. Not a crime, and not really against policy in any corporation. Here's where it gets fuzzy, though. He's the boss-man, and she works for them. It will start to stress a girl out, knowing that he can terminate the business relationship. From her own statement, she did not want him fired, and probably went to HR in order to make the complaint formal so no reprisals would occur. HR isn't always the best way, but some times a girl will feel pressured. Someone in any management position should take great care of asking out anyone over whom one has management influence over, and when making the decision to do so should probably never make a second attempt if the answer is "no".
If you RTFA, you'll see he wasn't fired for any of this, regardless. It was something else, with finances.
Tab is tab, space is space. It matters a lot, because if you use tabs, but they set the distance to 8, and someone else converts a tab to fill-based-spaces to the next tab alignment, you'll get cosmetic mismatches.
The costs I gave you were exclusively for the primary storage system itself. To wit: quoted price for fully licensed, redundant HA system from vendor with appropriate licenses attached.
I agree with you that the infrastructure costs for all the rest go into the stratosphere, although we have a 10GE network already in place and amortize that to our customers a different way. We don't use FC, though, but rather a combination of IB (Xsigo, this is a VMware shop) and vanilla 10GE. All of our storage is redundant, but again, I'm not factoring redundant networking into any of these costs, nor floor space, nor power/cooling, nor power/cooling infrastructure (transformers, etc), nor staffing, nor design, etc.
I don't think it's correct to say it was misleading. Most of the tack-ons you're mentioning are O&S (OPEX) costs, not CAPEX costs, caveat of course the SAN, which I very much think you can do without. 10GE will handle anything except the most intensive of environments.
I suspect that from your type-up, that you and I both very much know what we're doing (I agree with you on the cost big picture), but just miscommunicating a bit and doing the standard internet-disagreement thing.:-)
Well, why would I want to build a SAN composed entirely of FC/SAS drives when I can do automated tiering inside a SAN from Compellent, 3PAR, Oracle Open Storage, recently EMC, and soon to include NetApp?
And you are right, I am not counting the FC network. Increasingly I don't have to, as iSCSI is just fine for most applications, unless you are trying something high end like CC transactions for a bank or what not.
For NAS, I can do $1.35/GB **USABLE** (not raw!), from upper right corner Gartner companies. Like I said though, this when you are regularly buying by the rackful. Keep in mind that I am a petascale buyer. Your mileage will certainly very quite a lot for smaller procurements.
For SAN, I can do $2/GB pretty easily. Again at the petascale.
For VTL, there is at least one trustable vendor doing $0.60/GB raw.
I'd give you the names of these vendors, but pricing data is NDA. I'll just say this; there are only so many trustable storage vendors, you know?
$40/gig is way more than the capital costs of the storage.
I can buy highly available (clustered) SAN or NAS from upper right corner Gartner companies (read: NetApp and EMC) at sub $4/GB any day of the week, and beat $2/GB if one is willing to buy by the rack load.
Of course if you want that replicated, you'll need to more than double all that (twice the storage, plus additional replication licenses).
If this is SAN, we'll need to account for amortizing the cost of the SAN itself. Personally, I say forget it, and use iSCSI, but then you'll have to pay for the 10GE network somehow...
Somewhere in there, you'll have to factor in a fractional storage engineer. That won't be pretty. Figure an annual cost of maybe $50K for that. Obviously, more storage is better, because you can amortize out the engineer better.
Slashdot Mirror
Linda Stevens, an intellectual property attorney at Schiff Hardin, said California courts have not been receptive to the doctrine of so-called "inevitable disclosure." "It's pretty clear in California now that the courts are hostile to and have not adopted and in fact have rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine," she said.
Basically the legal opinion is against HP. My guess is that the lawsuit, as is, will be tossed without prejudice before ever getting to trial.
I don't get my information about non competes in California from Slash. I have now read the lawsuit, most relevantly the Prayer for Relief reading in part "That Hurd be enjoined by... permanent injunction... from holding a position with a competitor".
This is a direct attempt to bypass the legality of non competes in California in my opinion, albeit I admit that I am not aware of case law in this situation. I would be surprised, however, if a judge ruled that California law be stricken null for all cases where an employee has trade secret information for their employer. That's many employees, albeit we can admit that Mr. Hurd has lots more than most.
C//
The arrangement was they PAID him millions of dollars to be "fired".... go away and don't cause trouble is implict.
But illegal, if the "agreement" is to not work for a competitor.
C//
Are you an attorney, specialized in this field of law?
If there is even ONE email between Hurd and Oracle, ONE phone call - he's dead meat.
I doubt it very much. It's as much a contract of bad faith for HP to offer this contract as it is for him to take it. The contractual term is illegal in California. There are two parties to this contract, not the one. Are they both in bad faith? Not sure what the courts do in that circumstance... but it may be that Mr. Hurd does not care about the $12M. Ellison may have taken care of the issue.
As for the trade secrets thing, you cannot try a person in a civil court for something they MIGHT do.
C//
If he breeches the contract in that jurisdiction,...
The contract is a California contract. There is only one venue for it.
It's a contract, and it applies like any other.
This statement cannot be taken at purely face value. Contracts cannot have illegal terms. For example, you cannot "sell yourself into slavery".
C//
The treatment of Julian Assange, the person, but as conducted by the government in question, is without a shadow of a doubt a subject of public interest. There may be other interests, such as his right to privacy, but the public interest is certainly there, on several levels.
Are you sure? The Enterprise's phasers are, I would assume, more powerful than simply redirecting the matter-energy conversion of their transporters at a target. The transporters convert the transported material to energy, and using an E=MC**2 calculation, I'm able to calculate that a few thousand pounds of transported matter are many gigatons-nuclear-equivalent of energy... :-)
Well. I looked just now. I remember that this was an OSHA issue, but can find no evidence of it. I must admit, it may be possible that I am misremembering the internal review of safety at McDonald's for OSHA violations.
Still, in reading updated information, it does seem fairly well a good claim for negligence. Even McDonald's admitted in Court that they would not have expected their own customers to know that they could receive 3rd degree burns so quickly from the coffee, and other establishments do not serve it so hot.
C//
Your telling of the McDonalds' events is, unfortunately, false. What happened is that McDonalds' sold coffee, repeatedly and unrepentantly, at temperatures higher than the local law would allow. They were fined for it on numerous occasions, deciding that the fine was less troublesome than changing. When faced with such a sentiment, and confronted with a woman who had to have skin grafts on her vagina from being burned as a consequence of their brazen and open flouting the law, the jury was rather decidedly pissed. Thank God for the legal system.
C//
...it's going to develop into an increasingly serious problem that will need addressing at some point...
A "problem," if we to accept that it is indeed one, cannot feel. Therefore it cannot "need."
If you would say, however, that you personally feel such a need, I could accept that.
This is a foolish need. But be that as it may.
C//
your "ie" should read "if you disobey a direct fucking order from God he gets pissed and will slay you"
Well, at least we've established that Christians imagine that the creator is one narcisstic bastard. LOL.
I've found a number of Christians who think the Bible was originally written in English, but that doesn't make them right. :-)
I'm pretty sure that the biblical definition of adultery included all sex (or sexual activity) outside of marriage
While you will indeed find that some modern interpretations of the bible are a bit loose, you will not find translators historically missing that much meaning in mistranslation into English.
C//
When I said that "the sentiment is true," what I meant was that the sentiment, that the Christian church teaches that masturbation is "wrong," is true. That was his sentiment, and the sentiment is correct. As far as this being a wrong thing to teach, I will side with the vast corpus of evidence from the psychology community, of course. And before you ask, no, I won't cite it for you. Children have to grow up on their own sometimes; I have no interest in being a tool for your emerging adulthood. That is for you to find on your own.
C//
He knows that. He's being figurative. You, however, aren't getting the message. Because while it is not literally true, the sentiment is entirely true.
We all are born with the ability to walk to a copy machine and make copies. Without the law, we are born to this right. In the interest of "promoting progress in the arts," congress takes that right away from us and leaves it, to the exclusion of everyone but the author, to the author (or his assignee) alone. Copyright isn't so much about the granting of a right, as the taking it away from everyone else. This is why the word "exclusive" is used in the law. It excludes.
C//
>And the mechanism for achieving that is the granting of rights.
Well, no, not really. It's more about taking away rights.
C//
*shrug*
From the various stories and statements, what happened was this: he asked her out, probably more than once. Not a crime, and not really against policy in any corporation. Here's where it gets fuzzy, though. He's the boss-man, and she works for them. It will start to stress a girl out, knowing that he can terminate the business relationship. From her own statement, she did not want him fired, and probably went to HR in order to make the complaint formal so no reprisals would occur. HR isn't always the best way, but some times a girl will feel pressured. Someone in any management position should take great care of asking out anyone over whom one has management influence over, and when making the decision to do so should probably never make a second attempt if the answer is "no".
If you RTFA, you'll see he wasn't fired for any of this, regardless. It was something else, with finances.
C//
Your browser has a search function. Please learn to use it before accusing someone else of not reading. That was just stupid.
Tab is tab, space is space. It matters a lot, because if you use tabs, but they set the distance to 8, and someone else converts a tab to fill-based-spaces to the next tab alignment, you'll get cosmetic mismatches.
The costs I gave you were exclusively for the primary storage system itself. To wit: quoted price for fully licensed, redundant HA system from vendor with appropriate licenses attached.
I agree with you that the infrastructure costs for all the rest go into the stratosphere, although we have a 10GE network already in place and amortize that to our customers a different way. We don't use FC, though, but rather a combination of IB (Xsigo, this is a VMware shop) and vanilla 10GE. All of our storage is redundant, but again, I'm not factoring redundant networking into any of these costs, nor floor space, nor power/cooling, nor power/cooling infrastructure (transformers, etc), nor staffing, nor design, etc.
I don't think it's correct to say it was misleading. Most of the tack-ons you're mentioning are O&S (OPEX) costs, not CAPEX costs, caveat of course the SAN, which I very much think you can do without. 10GE will handle anything except the most intensive of environments.
I suspect that from your type-up, that you and I both very much know what we're doing (I agree with you on the cost big picture), but just miscommunicating a bit and doing the standard internet-disagreement thing. :-)
C//
Well, why would I want to build a SAN composed entirely of FC/SAS drives when I can do automated tiering inside a SAN from Compellent, 3PAR, Oracle Open Storage, recently EMC, and soon to include NetApp?
And you are right, I am not counting the FC network. Increasingly I don't have to, as iSCSI is just fine for most applications, unless you are trying something high end like CC transactions for a bank or what not.
For NAS, I can do $1.35/GB **USABLE** (not raw!), from upper right corner Gartner companies. Like I said though, this when you are regularly buying by the rackful. Keep in mind that I am a petascale buyer. Your mileage will certainly very quite a lot for smaller procurements.
For SAN, I can do $2/GB pretty easily. Again at the petascale.
For VTL, there is at least one trustable vendor doing $0.60/GB raw.
I'd give you the names of these vendors, but pricing data is NDA. I'll just say this; there are only so many trustable storage vendors, you know?
C//
$40/gig is way more than the capital costs of the storage.
I can buy highly available (clustered) SAN or NAS from upper right corner Gartner companies (read: NetApp and EMC) at sub $4/GB any day of the week, and beat $2/GB if one is willing to buy by the rack load.
Of course if you want that replicated, you'll need to more than double all that (twice the storage, plus additional replication licenses).
If this is SAN, we'll need to account for amortizing the cost of the SAN itself. Personally, I say forget it, and use iSCSI, but then you'll have to pay for the 10GE network somehow...
Somewhere in there, you'll have to factor in a fractional storage engineer. That won't be pretty. Figure an annual cost of maybe $50K for that. Obviously, more storage is better, because you can amortize out the engineer better.
C//