The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.
That's the problem. In UK law, it is murder if you intended to kill or cause serious injury to someone, and someone dies as a result (may be another person). If some bloody idiot hacks into a hospital's computer system "for the lulu" (Safari replaces a z with an u, and I find it actually more appropriate that way), and as a result people die without any intent to cause death, then apparently this isn't murder currently.
What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.
Having skimmed the article and knowing little about law in the USA I'm not sure who the money is going to. The state or the couple. Or if the couple will lose out on other support but it does seem like a way of making this situation a little bit more sensible
To be fair, both sides are submitting a lot of evidence right? So it takes time to prepare, submit and present each and every item, and as the AC pointed out and the article hints at, it was a response to Apple's evidence, I think from the previous day (I might be misreading that).
Nice rhetoric though. I like the part with the astronauts.
"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.
In the same link you submitted it says the patent of the F700 was submitted in December '06. Prior to the announcements of the iPhone in Jan '07. Before said announcement, the looks of the iPhone were kept very secretive (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm). I think the main point Samsung is making, is that they could not of copied the iPhone for its F700. Essentially, its the would be ace in Samsung's hand for that point, they just wanted a way to play the card.None of this is info that isn't already in the public domain so IMO the judge was unfair to dismiss it (although it maybe a case of rules are rules), but more so to get angry about Samsung's actions. I think the whole counter claims and back and forth are primarily to add pressure to the legal teams.
Slashdot Mirror
I should learn to RTFA... Sorry
It wasn't Snowden making the joke, it was Barlow
The first part 'loss of life' should already be covered by simply applying murder and/or manslaughter charges. There is no reason to invent a new law for this, only because it's done with a computer.
That's the problem. In UK law, it is murder if you intended to kill or cause serious injury to someone, and someone dies as a result (may be another person). If some bloody idiot hacks into a hospital's computer system "for the lulu" (Safari replaces a z with an u, and I find it actually more appropriate that way), and as a result people die without any intent to cause death, then apparently this isn't murder currently.
In the UK, I'm, fairly sure this would currently be classed as Involuntary manslaughter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
What if someone cuts the water or power to the hospitol and mixes suger in the gas of the generator? There is no reason this should specifically include computers and not other attacks.
As would this
Having skimmed the article and knowing little about law in the USA I'm not sure who the money is going to. The state or the couple. Or if the couple will lose out on other support but it does seem like a way of making this situation a little bit more sensible
By "stopped" they mean, didn't press the go button
Must resist modding down this insightful post. Must resist modding down this insightful post must resist
Anyways, I'd be curious to see the list of songs - just to see where those songs are in the charts / profit margins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_v._Tenenbaum#31_songs
To be fair, both sides are submitting a lot of evidence right? So it takes time to prepare, submit and present each and every item, and as the AC pointed out and the article hints at, it was a response to Apple's evidence, I think from the previous day (I might be misreading that).
Nice rhetoric though. I like the part with the astronauts.
"The first iPhone was unveiled by Steve Jobs, then CEO of Apple, on January 9, 2007, and released on June 29, 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone
"Using Vodafone as its network provider, the phone was first introduced at the 3GSM World Congress that was held in February 2007. Sales to the European market started November 2007."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_SGH-F700
The iPhone was announced a month prior to the F700, it had a real smartphone OS, a full fledged browser and email client, no slide-out keyboard. So is Samsung saying that Apple used a time machine because the iPhone was in development long before 2006 and was in customers hands 4 months before the Samsung device.
In the same link you submitted it says the patent of the F700 was submitted in December '06. Prior to the announcements of the iPhone in Jan '07. Before said announcement, the looks of the iPhone were kept very secretive (http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm). I think the main point Samsung is making, is that they could not of copied the iPhone for its F700. Essentially, its the would be ace in Samsung's hand for that point, they just wanted a way to play the card.None of this is info that isn't already in the public domain so IMO the judge was unfair to dismiss it (although it maybe a case of rules are rules), but more so to get angry about Samsung's actions. I think the whole counter claims and back and forth are primarily to add pressure to the legal teams.