The same reason they put in ethics laws. In the slight event that it looks like they might be losing their grip on power they'll reverse them so fast, you won't even have time to throw a pair of flipflops at them. You can be sure that if the Democrats do get control of the senate, by the time they get to sit down, they'll have to contend with filibusters again.
I agree that for once this tool really is a step in the right direction. Next time some mother sobs to the press about how she didn't know Grand Theft Auto was about stealing cars and wasn't for little kids, everyone can slap her and point to this software that would have done the job for idiots like her.
Wha? Huh? Do you even have a CLUE what you're talking about?
Obviously not, from the article: "Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia"
Oh, and before you accuse Time of being infected with lying liberal propagandists or something like that, lets look at the IATC website On its own main page, we see CITEL,an entity of the Organization of American States, is the main forum in the hemisphere in which the governments and the private sector meet to coordinate regional efforts. Of course, we just kicked the private sector out of our delegation.
No, government appointments are part of the "spoils system".
Banning Telecommunication companies from sending their engineers to an international commission because they supported the other guy is outright abhorrent.
Where is the line when you stop making a decision based on party affiliation?? Should it stop with the Department of Homeland Security?
Ideally, there would be no line. It would never happen. But hey, nepotism has been around so long its not even an English word, so expecting it to stop overnight certainly is asking too much, even for a party with *cough* prinicples and *snicker* values.
So then you're totally alright with the Republican administration's plan to start removing (the majority are Republican-appointed) federal judges because they're not Neo-con enough for the current Republican party too?
If their guy had been elected, a similar purge would occur going the other way.
Congratulations, your party is just as shitty as the other. Aren't you just so proud?
I'd like to believe that someone could start a third party that was somewhat sane, open to compromise, and totally honest, but it'd be like throwing people to sharks in today's climate, and even if that party could launch a candidate that was competitive enough, the media would kill it because it breaks their head-to-head competition ideals and they'd have to come up with new debate formats to deal with it.
The problem of dumping gallons of fertilizer and pesticide on each square foot of land?
The ideal purpose of GM (ie, when its not some company using it to sell farmers their "special" chemicals like the roundup-ready series) is not to create more food per acre, its to use less resources doing it.
Additionally in regions where there is a distribution problem, imagine being able to grow food in town, despite the poor land quality.
aside from marriage, but that's not the work place
Actually not really. A good number of (well... lets not call them rights, since this IS the workplace.) employee benefits are tied to marriage. For instance, investment/retirement plans that can't name a "significant other" as beneficiary in case of the employee's death. Same with health insurance.
*somewhere in a badly-dubbed Canon underground research base*
A: Sir! The decryption process is complete! We have their top secret white balance data!
Captain: Hurry up boy, we haven't got all day!
A: The numbers are... 32, 198, 53, 52, and 3.4253E-08!
B: My God! Thats --
Captan: Yes, its as I feared, the Japanese have mastered the ultimate ancient technique Silent White Tiger Balanced Fist of Left Justified Saturation. We must memorize these numbers so we may mimic their technique and use their own weapon against them in our final battle on the next episode.
*meanwhile, in reality...* Nikon most definitely has some juicy technology here and there that a competitor would want to know about.
Riiiight. And rather than take the camera apart and read the code straight off the ROM, they're going to stock up on AA's and take a thousand pictures and 2 thousand man-hours to figure out what that white balance data means.
So basically you're saying that its totally ok with you if I went around and put padlocks on all your stuff and you wouldn't cut them off because, hey, its my lock, my property, and you wouldn't want to go around "abolishing a whole class of property rights" now would you?
Just to sweeten the deal, I'll even give the key for free to any "bona fide locksmiths" who ask!
The singular of ancedotes may not be datum, but when you have multiple ancedotes, you start to get a trend.
Add in common sense, and its pretty obvious that when everyone predicts doom and gloom in IT in the US as India and China take over the world, nobody's interested in sinking $100,000 into a university degree for a career that may not exist when they get out.
The big question though, is whether interest in these degrees are returning to pre-.com era days, or if they're dropping even lower.
The purpose of this tax is to stop people from hoarding IP they aren't using. If you're not making $5M profit a year from your patent, you'd be stupid to value it at $50M. If we wanted to FORCE people to license their patents even when they're using it, then we'd just make a RAND requirement in patent/copyright law and deal with the hassles of that.
Also, your example shows an "all or nothing" outlook that rarely happens in the real world. People don't all drive Fords. A latecomer isn't going to steal 100% of the market out from under you. More likely brand awareness and using what you've always used, they'd probably only get 25% of the market, leaving most for the original inventor.
Besides, if you're valuing the patent at $50M just to keep competition down, you'd keep it there until the opposition licensor reached 50% of the market, since you'd still be making a profit on the patent and presumably keeping other licensors out of the market.
Mail and Usenet are the two hardest things to backup. A large mail system or a usenet feed can have hundreds of thousands of tiny files being added and removed per minute (if you use a single mail file, a few kilobytes written to the end of the file every couple of seconds, followed by 1 GB of data being copied over itself because the user finally erased that first email from the head of the file since they were over quota.
Seriously attempting to keep a backup of this mess means mailservers that refuse to delete a message that hasn't been on the server for more than one backup cycle. It means using either a checkpoint/snapshot filesystem or mirrored RAID array then pulling out one of the drives to perform the backup from, then putting it back and hoping that it synchs up before it's time for the next backup.
This is why nobody bothers doing this for usenet. Too much work just to save some porn.
Does the price of toilet paper motivate people not to use it?
That depends. In the real world, you pay some small fee per roll of toilet paper, maybe a discount for buying in bulk.
In Bizarro Patent World, Joe pays $0.50 per sheet, and will certainly minimize the number of sheets he uses. Jim paid $50 for a lifetime supply of toilet paper. John doesn't use any toilet paper, he was told that he'd have to pay $50,000 per roll because the CEO of Toilet Paper, Inc. didn't like his tie.
Iff the idea is shitty, its dollar value will take on an an appropriate value.
So basically you're saying that bad ideas can be had cheap, while good ideas will be priced out of the reach of common man. Tell us all again how this encourages the public to use the technology?
Now THIS is the start of a good idea. I would modify it a little though:
instead of if, in the next 12 months from valuation, they are paid the amount of their valuation (from any source), the IP becomes public domain, the valuation is simply the license price of the patent. Anyone offering that price must receive a license to that patent.
Practically speaking, nobody would want to use your system if the major companies could simply buy all their competitors' patents into the public domain leaving them with nothing but PD technology (and wads of cash, which could in turn be used to develop even more technology, hmm... this might have more merit than I originally thought). It also ties in better with the nature of IP... it isn't a physical object that is transferred, but an idea that is copied with each transaction.
The 3-5 years of (optional, since the patent would be unlicensable at $+inf value) "protection" will definitely be a must to gain support of the smaller critters out there.
It still breaks a lot of current licensing practice though, especially per-unit pricing and hardcore monopolists who refuse to license to everyone.
what if they're right and you have a billion-dollar idea?
As some people would put it: "tough". In case you haven't noticed, all the other taxes we have in force now don't say "oh, well, you're poor so we won't make you pay". For instance, HGTV has had a yearly "dream home" giveaway for a little more than a decade now. All but one person who won a home so far has had to sell the home in order to pay the enormous income and property tax hit a new $1.5 million dollar home brings. Some "dream", huh?
Most others would tell you that if your idea really is a billion dollar idea, you'd take your patent, find yourself a VC who will cover the cost of the development and tax, and get rich. Or just get a loan.
But the biggest problem is the Orwellian creepiness of it. Taxing thoughts!
As opposed to banning thoughts? After all, thats what patents are about these days. Whoever thinks of something first gets to keep anyone else from doing something even if they think it up by themselves for years. If you think your idea is valuable enough to merit banning other people from thinking of it, then surely you can see that your local government (the federal government doesn't have a property tax on individuals, but many local governments do) would think it valuable enough to tax, no?
I still contend that the plan is unworkable simply due to the task of assigning values to the patents in order to tax them.
So you and I will be even less able to compete with the big companies.
Huh? What is that supposed to mean?
You ARE making money from your various copyrights and patents commensurate with the value of the patent, no? If not, then can you demonstrate your copyrights and patents have advanced the arts and sciences at all?
If you say "what if you donate them?" then the answer is obvious: a deduction equal to the value that would be affixed to the property by this tax.
Also obvious, such a plan would not work with our current system of IP licensing. If Company A licensed patent #1 to Company B for $5 per unit, to Company C for $50,000/year, and offered it to Company D for $10 million a year plus $5k per unit then took kickbacks from B and C for keeping D out of the market, what would the value of that patent be? We'd need to establish mandatory RAND licensing for IP first, opening up the argument of "how much is reasonable"
This lack of a platform test matrix is pretty common amongst smaller F/OSS apps, even when they say "works on *nix" they mean "works on the distribution of linux i run at home".
Switch to Debian. Oh wait, all the crybabies whining about how long it takes to make sure every package builds and runs on every platform when all it needs to do is "run on the box I have at home" is ruining it for us.
Ah it seems I was off. The blu-ray site uses "data rate" in their tables for both "per layer capacity" and the actual "data rate".
Still, broadcast HDTV uses 24mbps and is only able to broadcast up to 1080i. A 1080p encoding would likely max out the HD-DVD's capabilities, and that's before we start adding in alternate audio tracks, angles, and subtitles, which when using mpeg or another multiplexed codec all have to be read into the player in real time, then demuxed to get the appropriate video, audio, and subtitle streams for playback.
So by pointing out my error, you've upgraded HD-DVD from "crippled" to "mediocre", and I'm still glad the Blu-Ray physical spec won.
Hm, that Coby adapter seems to only output to one device at a time.
What if we made the submitters question easier? I have 2 identical ethernet switches that use identical power. Can you get a wall wart that has multiple "tails" for providing identical voltage to multiple identical devices?
I've thought about using some workbench DC powersupplies around the house, but these are a bit more expensive than what I'd be interested in buying, and wouldn't fit in a rack for work.
While I could care less what "data format" is used, the Blu-Ray disc itself is far superior in capacity and data rate, and I'm glad it won.
With a paltry 15mbit per second, HD-DVD's disc would not have a high enough data rate to encode 1080p video in MPEG4 (or any other codec) at any reasonable quality, essentially crippling HD until the next generation. (For comparison, the highest bitrate allowed in DVD video is 10mbit. D-VHS allows 30 mbit, Blu-Ray allows over 50mbit (section 3, bottom of page 5))
Of course, more space per disc is always nice. Whether you're just trying to cram the Janitor's Commentary track into the extras, or providing Star Trek with a Klingon subtitle track, every little bit helps. More space also allows for movies to use that 50mbps data rate for longer periods of time. Fans of superbit DVDs would drool all over the promise of superbit Blu-Ray discs.
when in fact they encourage technology through disclosure of new ideas.
Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahaha
I needed that laugh.
What is the point of disclosing new ideas when they're not usable for the next 16 years? In the computing field, those ideas are dead and buried two or three years after they were discovered. Remember Bresenham's Line Algorithm? In 1992 some people patented a "better" version. Of course, the patent still reads like a math textbook as it explains how to add numbers together in an "innovative" way.
Oh wait, we're supposed to reward people for inventing this by paying them. Uhoh, that "w" in wait used 4 lines! Oh shit, I just wrote more lines! Better check on my line-drawing license, the owner decided that I'd have to pay per line drawn! I hope you've paid up, after all you're using this patented line drawing algorithm while you're reading this post! You aren't? Odd, it looks like your computer is drawing lines to me, therefore it MUST be infringing on that patent. Lawyers! To battle! *blows trumpet*
And that, of course, is the other reason software patents are abhorrent. How do I know if your program is infringing on my line drawing algorithm or not? I could take apart an engine to determine if it used my patented fuel injectors or valve design, but with software, there is simply a black box with inputs and outputs... anyone patenting one process that accepts given inputs and produces given outputs is now free to sue everyone else with such a black box. So now I have the source code to your program. Ah, so sorry, I see you don't actually infringe on my patent, but I really like the way you dealt with this particular bit of code, it never did work well in our product, but I hear our next version will have a revolutionary new design to improve performance in that spot! Oh, and legal fees? Well, I explained to the judge that it was a mistake anyone could make, and the lawsuit was not malicious or unfounded in the least, so his honor decided that I'll pay my lawyers, and you pay yours. Have a nice day!
Slashdot Mirror
The same reason they put in ethics laws. In the slight event that it looks like they might be losing their grip on power they'll reverse them so fast, you won't even have time to throw a pair of flipflops at them. You can be sure that if the Democrats do get control of the senate, by the time they get to sit down, they'll have to contend with filibusters again.
I agree that for once this tool really is a step in the right direction. Next time some mother sobs to the press about how she didn't know Grand Theft Auto was about stealing cars and wasn't for little kids, everyone can slap her and point to this software that would have done the job for idiots like her.
these are employees of the State department
Wha? Huh? Do you even have a CLUE what you're talking about?
Obviously not, from the article: "Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia"
Oh, and before you accuse Time of being infected with lying liberal propagandists or something like that, lets look at the IATC website On its own main page, we see CITEL,an entity of the Organization of American States, is the main forum in the hemisphere in which the governments and the private sector meet to coordinate regional efforts. Of course, we just kicked the private sector out of our delegation.
Campaign contributions are public information thanks to campaign finance laws.
No, government appointments are part of the "spoils system".
Banning Telecommunication companies from sending their engineers to an international commission because they supported the other guy is outright abhorrent.
Where is the line when you stop making a decision based on party affiliation?? Should it stop with the Department of Homeland Security?
Ideally, there would be no line. It would never happen. But hey, nepotism has been around so long its not even an English word, so expecting it to stop overnight certainly is asking too much, even for a party with *cough* prinicples and *snicker* values.
So then you're totally alright with the Republican administration's plan to start removing (the majority are Republican-appointed) federal judges because they're not Neo-con enough for the current Republican party too?
If their guy had been elected, a similar purge would occur going the other way.
Congratulations, your party is just as shitty as the other. Aren't you just so proud?
I'd like to believe that someone could start a third party that was somewhat sane, open to compromise, and totally honest, but it'd be like throwing people to sharks in today's climate, and even if that party could launch a candidate that was competitive enough, the media would kill it because it breaks their head-to-head competition ideals and they'd have to come up with new debate formats to deal with it.
So tell me please - which problem das GM solve ?
The problem of dumping gallons of fertilizer and pesticide on each square foot of land?
The ideal purpose of GM (ie, when its not some company using it to sell farmers their "special" chemicals like the roundup-ready series) is not to create more food per acre, its to use less resources doing it.
Additionally in regions where there is a distribution problem, imagine being able to grow food in town, despite the poor land quality.
aside from marriage, but that's not the work place
Actually not really. A good number of (well... lets not call them rights, since this IS the workplace.) employee benefits are tied to marriage. For instance, investment/retirement plans that can't name a "significant other" as beneficiary in case of the employee's death. Same with health insurance.
Please let me know where I can get this gigabit service in the US, so I can buy a few lines and open a data center.
*somewhere in a badly-dubbed Canon underground research base*
A: Sir! The decryption process is complete! We have their top secret white balance data!
Captain: Hurry up boy, we haven't got all day!
A: The numbers are... 32, 198, 53, 52, and 3.4253E-08!
B: My God! Thats --
Captan: Yes, its as I feared, the Japanese have mastered the ultimate ancient technique Silent White Tiger Balanced Fist of Left Justified Saturation. We must memorize these numbers so we may mimic their technique and use their own weapon against them in our final battle on the next episode.
*meanwhile, in reality...*
Nikon most definitely has some juicy technology here and there that a competitor would want to know about.
Riiiight. And rather than take the camera apart and read the code straight off the ROM, they're going to stock up on AA's and take a thousand pictures and 2 thousand man-hours to figure out what that white balance data means.
So basically you're saying that its totally ok with you if I went around and put padlocks on all your stuff and you wouldn't cut them off because, hey, its my lock, my property, and you wouldn't want to go around "abolishing a whole class of property rights" now would you?
Just to sweeten the deal, I'll even give the key for free to any "bona fide locksmiths" who ask!
The singular of ancedotes may not be datum, but when you have multiple ancedotes, you start to get a trend.
Add in common sense, and its pretty obvious that when everyone predicts doom and gloom in IT in the US as India and China take over the world, nobody's interested in sinking $100,000 into a university degree for a career that may not exist when they get out.
The big question though, is whether interest in these degrees are returning to pre-.com era days, or if they're dropping even lower.
The purpose of this tax is to stop people from hoarding IP they aren't using. If you're not making $5M profit a year from your patent, you'd be stupid to value it at $50M. If we wanted to FORCE people to license their patents even when they're using it, then we'd just make a RAND requirement in patent/copyright law and deal with the hassles of that.
Also, your example shows an "all or nothing" outlook that rarely happens in the real world. People don't all drive Fords. A latecomer isn't going to steal 100% of the market out from under you. More likely brand awareness and using what you've always used, they'd probably only get 25% of the market, leaving most for the original inventor.
Besides, if you're valuing the patent at $50M just to keep competition down, you'd keep it there until the opposition licensor reached 50% of the market, since you'd still be making a profit on the patent and presumably keeping other licensors out of the market.
Exactly.
I was pointing out that the great-grandparent poster was wrong in insisting that "good ideas would be used no matter what the cost".
Does the price of toilet paper motivate people not to use it?
As we both showed, the answer is yes.
Mail and Usenet are the two hardest things to backup. A large mail system or a usenet feed can have hundreds of thousands of tiny files being added and removed per minute (if you use a single mail file, a few kilobytes written to the end of the file every couple of seconds, followed by 1 GB of data being copied over itself because the user finally erased that first email from the head of the file since they were over quota.
Seriously attempting to keep a backup of this mess means mailservers that refuse to delete a message that hasn't been on the server for more than one backup cycle. It means using either a checkpoint/snapshot filesystem or mirrored RAID array then pulling out one of the drives to perform the backup from, then putting it back and hoping that it synchs up before it's time for the next backup.
This is why nobody bothers doing this for usenet. Too much work just to save some porn.
Does the price of toilet paper motivate people not to use it?
That depends. In the real world, you pay some small fee per roll of toilet paper, maybe a discount for buying in bulk.
In Bizarro Patent World, Joe pays $0.50 per sheet, and will certainly minimize the number of sheets he uses. Jim paid $50 for a lifetime supply of toilet paper. John doesn't use any toilet paper, he was told that he'd have to pay $50,000 per roll because the CEO of Toilet Paper, Inc. didn't like his tie.
Iff the idea is shitty, its dollar value will take on an an appropriate value.
So basically you're saying that bad ideas can be had cheap, while good ideas will be priced out of the reach of common man. Tell us all again how this encourages the public to use the technology?
Now THIS is the start of a good idea. I would modify it a little though:
instead of if, in the next 12 months from valuation, they are paid the amount of their valuation (from any source), the IP becomes public domain, the valuation is simply the license price of the patent. Anyone offering that price must receive a license to that patent.
Practically speaking, nobody would want to use your system if the major companies could simply buy all their competitors' patents into the public domain leaving them with nothing but PD technology (and wads of cash, which could in turn be used to develop even more technology, hmm... this might have more merit than I originally thought). It also ties in better with the nature of IP... it isn't a physical object that is transferred, but an idea that is copied with each transaction.
The 3-5 years of (optional, since the patent would be unlicensable at $+inf value) "protection" will definitely be a must to gain support of the smaller critters out there.
It still breaks a lot of current licensing practice though, especially per-unit pricing and hardcore monopolists who refuse to license to everyone.
what if they're right and you have a billion-dollar idea?
As some people would put it: "tough". In case you haven't noticed, all the other taxes we have in force now don't say "oh, well, you're poor so we won't make you pay". For instance, HGTV has had a yearly "dream home" giveaway for a little more than a decade now. All but one person who won a home so far has had to sell the home in order to pay the enormous income and property tax hit a new $1.5 million dollar home brings. Some "dream", huh?
Most others would tell you that if your idea really is a billion dollar idea, you'd take your patent, find yourself a VC who will cover the cost of the development and tax, and get rich. Or just get a loan.
But the biggest problem is the Orwellian creepiness of it. Taxing thoughts!
As opposed to banning thoughts? After all, thats what patents are about these days. Whoever thinks of something first gets to keep anyone else from doing something even if they think it up by themselves for years. If you think your idea is valuable enough to merit banning other people from thinking of it, then surely you can see that your local government (the federal government doesn't have a property tax on individuals, but many local governments do) would think it valuable enough to tax, no?
I still contend that the plan is unworkable simply due to the task of assigning values to the patents in order to tax them.
So you and I will be even less able to compete with the big companies.
Huh? What is that supposed to mean?
You ARE making money from your various copyrights and patents commensurate with the value of the patent, no? If not, then can you demonstrate your copyrights and patents have advanced the arts and sciences at all?
If you say "what if you donate them?" then the answer is obvious: a deduction equal to the value that would be affixed to the property by this tax.
Also obvious, such a plan would not work with our current system of IP licensing. If Company A licensed patent #1 to Company B for $5 per unit, to Company C for $50,000/year, and offered it to Company D for $10 million a year plus $5k per unit then took kickbacks from B and C for keeping D out of the market, what would the value of that patent be? We'd need to establish mandatory RAND licensing for IP first, opening up the argument of "how much is reasonable"
This lack of a platform test matrix is pretty common amongst smaller F/OSS apps, even when they say "works on *nix" they mean "works on the distribution of linux i run at home".
Switch to Debian. Oh wait, all the crybabies whining about how long it takes to make sure every package builds and runs on every platform when all it needs to do is "run on the box I have at home" is ruining it for us.
Ah it seems I was off. The blu-ray site uses "data rate" in their tables for both "per layer capacity" and the actual "data rate".
Still, broadcast HDTV uses 24mbps and is only able to broadcast up to 1080i. A 1080p encoding would likely max out the HD-DVD's capabilities, and that's before we start adding in alternate audio tracks, angles, and subtitles, which when using mpeg or another multiplexed codec all have to be read into the player in real time, then demuxed to get the appropriate video, audio, and subtitle streams for playback.
So by pointing out my error, you've upgraded HD-DVD from "crippled" to "mediocre", and I'm still glad the Blu-Ray physical spec won.
Hm, that Coby adapter seems to only output to one device at a time.
What if we made the submitters question easier? I have 2 identical ethernet switches that use identical power. Can you get a wall wart that has multiple "tails" for providing identical voltage to multiple identical devices?
I've thought about using some workbench DC powersupplies around the house, but these are a bit more expensive than what I'd be interested in buying, and wouldn't fit in a rack for work.
While I could care less what "data format" is used, the Blu-Ray disc itself is far superior in capacity and data rate, and I'm glad it won.
With a paltry 15mbit per second, HD-DVD's disc would not have a high enough data rate to encode 1080p video in MPEG4 (or any other codec) at any reasonable quality, essentially crippling HD until the next generation. (For comparison, the highest bitrate allowed in DVD video is 10mbit. D-VHS allows 30 mbit, Blu-Ray allows over 50mbit (section 3, bottom of page 5))
Of course, more space per disc is always nice. Whether you're just trying to cram the Janitor's Commentary track into the extras, or providing Star Trek with a Klingon subtitle track, every little bit helps. More space also allows for movies to use that 50mbps data rate for longer periods of time. Fans of superbit DVDs would drool all over the promise of superbit Blu-Ray discs.
when in fact they encourage technology through disclosure of new ideas.
Ha. Ha ha. Hahahahahahahaha
I needed that laugh.
What is the point of disclosing new ideas when they're not usable for the next 16 years? In the computing field, those ideas are dead and buried two or three years after they were discovered. Remember Bresenham's Line Algorithm? In 1992 some people patented a "better" version. Of course, the patent still reads like a math textbook as it explains how to add numbers together in an "innovative" way.
Oh wait, we're supposed to reward people for inventing this by paying them. Uhoh, that "w" in wait used 4 lines! Oh shit, I just wrote more lines! Better check on my line-drawing license, the owner decided that I'd have to pay per line drawn! I hope you've paid up, after all you're using this patented line drawing algorithm while you're reading this post! You aren't? Odd, it looks like your computer is drawing lines to me, therefore it MUST be infringing on that patent. Lawyers! To battle! *blows trumpet*
And that, of course, is the other reason software patents are abhorrent. How do I know if your program is infringing on my line drawing algorithm or not? I could take apart an engine to determine if it used my patented fuel injectors or valve design, but with software, there is simply a black box with inputs and outputs... anyone patenting one process that accepts given inputs and produces given outputs is now free to sue everyone else with such a black box. So now I have the source code to your program. Ah, so sorry, I see you don't actually infringe on my patent, but I really like the way you dealt with this particular bit of code, it never did work well in our product, but I hear our next version will have a revolutionary new design to improve performance in that spot! Oh, and legal fees? Well, I explained to the judge that it was a mistake anyone could make, and the lawsuit was not malicious or unfounded in the least, so his honor decided that I'll pay my lawyers, and you pay yours. Have a nice day!