Statutory damages are per work, not per act of infringement. So they get a minimum of $750 (to a maximum of $100,000, but only the RIAA's attack lawyers get that). Woo-hoo. And that's if they registered their copyright; if they didn't, they get actual damages only.
I see your point, but I guess one problem is that the RIAA can argue (reasonably if mendaciously) that they can't bring the John Doe cases in an appropriate venue because they don't know where they are.
Part of it may be people who used OS X previously but not recently. Font smoothing has improved considerably since 10.0. It certainly started as a blurry mess which I'd hack to disable, but it's quite readable now above 12 point or so.
Rebuild FreeType with the bytecode interpreter enabled, disable anti-aliasing, install the Microsoft Core Fonts, and reconfigure your desktop & apps to use those fonts.
Yep, pretty much the same as I do. It ain't a Mac but it's better than those crap free fonts which are included and look like blocky and misshapen messes. Ubuntu has had the interpreter enabled since at least 6.10, too. I guess Apple's lawyers can't figure out who to sue, the distributor being out of the country and Apple being not stupid enough to sue the end users.
As he explained it, they were instructed to be very lenient on accepting patents, because it was simply taken for granted that any complaints or problems would be handled in the courts.
The courts, on the other hand, assume the patent office has done its job and apply a strong presumption of validity to patents.
Those two situations together are sufficient to provide clear and convincing evidence that Google is right and Apple is wrong (and I'm a Mac owner from the beginning)
well, if the guy had demanded to speak to the manager and then made a huge deal about it
Then he would have gotten the runaround. No one would admit to making the policy, no one would admit to being able to change it. That's the way it nearly always is with unpopular policies. If you try to follow the chain of responsibility, it either loops (someone lied) or trails off (e.g. "for insurance reasons", but you can't find anyone at the insurance company who will discuss it).
If he was demanded to do so, it's not poor human behavior, it's called "doing your job".
I was "just following orders" is as inadequate an excuse for minor bad behavior as it is for major bad behavior, though the consequences are of course far less in the minor case.
Allowing "just following orders" lets the decisionmakers leave nobody to answer for the trouble their decisions cause -- they are insulated by their underlings, and their underlings are protected because they didn't make the decision, so those subject to the decision must suffer in silence.
Now, please remember I am working class and white and grew up in the suburbs in the midwest. Neither I nor anyone I hung around with were wealthy or even well off. Here is my limited observation: Of the people I know who had children early (not just sex) none of their lives were ruined. They all have steady jobs, roofs over their heads, interesting social lives, and a normal relationship with thier children.
Well, sure. Assuming these people stayed together, this was in fact pretty much normal for a while, particularly in working class households. Have kids early, one parent (traditionally the father) works at a skilled job (but one which doesn't require college), the other parent stays home with the kids. It's harder to do nowadays with less of that sort of work available.
This is the worst case scenario.
The worst case scenario is to have kids (worse, 'special needs' kids) early, the father(s) skip out (or don't even know they're fathers), and the mother can't even finish high school.
The daughters are the beautiful women willing to marry you. The dowry is "satisfaction with your marriage". Then you have to estimate 'n' by the number of beautiful women willing to marry you who have presented so far; this is the most difficult part of the task, particularly if it's been only one so far.
Note that thinking about the problem this way is a pretty good bar to sex OR marriage, particularly if you try to explain it to your potential mates.
high iq people/kids generally subconsciously shun many segments of the population, and therefore do not go into social interaction. once they are in a crowd that they think they are worth, they go out blazing.
There is a deep satisfaction to finally nailing down that piece of code, or finally grokking what's going on in that core dump, or putting the finishing touches on your life-size popsicle-stick replica of the Death Star - and I've been able to enjoy all but one of those (I'll let you guess which) - it is really, really no replacement for good sex.
You actually built DEEP SPACE 9 out of popsicle sticks, didn't you, you dang Trekkie!
Incidentally, the feeling you got when completing it is a minor "Tarak Norgasm".
In Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM, 5000 year history), mouth breathing is considered indicative of the central & governing meridians being 'unhooked'.
Here in the 21st century, I've come up with a simpler explanation (actually I came up with it in the 20th century): mouth breathing is indicative of a stuffed-up nose, often resulting from allergies. Since IQ and hay fever are correlated, it follows that more mouth breathers are smart than stupid.
The modern solution to allergetic mouth-breathing is pseudoephederine, which is why many govts have taken it off the shelves -- they hate smart people and want them to look dumb.
Yes, why shouldn't some loser-ish bum get to have sex and make children, so I can abstain and take their progeny off their hands. If I'm raising kids in my own image, they're for damn sure going to be my own bloodline as long as it's physically possible...
If you have a twin brother who was dropped on his head, you can have that too!
Get these terrorists hooked on WoW, and they'll lose their will to do REAL terrorism. Even if they don't, their loss of muscle tone and weight gain will make them quite ineffective, barely able to hold an AK-47 much less fire it. Suicide bombers will be too weak to stand with their bombs on. And their pale skin will make them the laughingstock of all the other Arabs.
You only get your right to an attorney in crimes which carry 6 months of imprisonment or more (don't bother checking the Constitution, it ain't there... it's something the Supreme Court fabricated from whole cloth). So they'll make borrowing a CD carry 5 months + 3 weeks penalty... but it'll be a separate count for each instance of borrowing a CD, and the terms will be served consecutively.
Apple used to specifically claim their products were not certified for use in weapons systems (one of the disclaimers in MPW), so there may not be a 10.5 for ICBMs.
Inkjets? You're talking about a device which deliberately aerosolizes and ionizes organic and inorganic solvents containing toxic pigments and dyes. Stuff's deadly. Stay away. Best just to use pencil and paper... uhh, wait, using a pencil releases carbon microparticles.... better skip the hardcopy entirely.
To be perfectly honest, I don't understand why they're suing Sony and not IBM.
IBM has been involved in the parallel processing field for a long time. I'm sure they have plenty of patents which pre-date and overlap this one and probably quite a few that International Parallel Machines is arguably infringing on.
The stuff in Claim 1 of the patent (5,056,000) is basic multi-processor stuff which certainly wasn't actually novel in 1989 (when the patent was filed). And the Cell doesn't seem to violate it anyway. It appears to be Claim 6 they are suing over. Claim 6 describes a particular way of partitioning processing power in a MIMD system, but again I doubt it was novel in 1989.
They may not be trolling. But if they go against IBM, or if IBM intervenes, I don't think they can win.
Slashdot Mirror
Statutory damages are per work, not per act of infringement. So they get a minimum of $750 (to a maximum of $100,000, but only the RIAA's attack lawyers get that). Woo-hoo. And that's if they registered their copyright; if they didn't, they get actual damages only.
I'd tell you to just F*(&'n Google it!
I see your point, but I guess one problem is that the RIAA can argue (reasonably if mendaciously) that they can't bring the John Doe cases in an appropriate venue because they don't know where they are.
Part of it may be people who used OS X previously but not recently. Font smoothing has improved considerably since 10.0. It certainly started as a blurry mess which I'd hack to disable, but it's quite readable now above 12 point or so.
The courts, on the other hand, assume the patent office has done its job and apply a strong presumption of validity to patents.
Those two situations together are sufficient to provide clear and convincing evidence that Google is right and Apple is wrong (and I'm a Mac owner from the beginning)
Then he would have gotten the runaround. No one would admit to making the policy, no one would admit to being able to change it. That's the way it nearly always is with unpopular policies. If you try to follow the chain of responsibility, it either loops (someone lied) or trails off (e.g. "for insurance reasons", but you can't find anyone at the insurance company who will discuss it).
I was "just following orders" is as inadequate an excuse for minor bad behavior as it is for major bad behavior, though the consequences are of course far less in the minor case.
Allowing "just following orders" lets the decisionmakers leave nobody to answer for the trouble their decisions cause -- they are insulated by their underlings, and their underlings are protected because they didn't make the decision, so those subject to the decision must suffer in silence.
Um, the RIAA hasn't been using criminal courts in the US to go after file sharers. So the situation isn't at all analagous.
IIRC, the keyloggers involved there were _hardware_, installed surreptitiously by the FBI.
It seems this is a real life application of the "Sultan's Dowry problem"
h tml
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SultansDowryProblem.
The daughters are the beautiful women willing to marry you. The dowry is "satisfaction with your marriage". Then you have to estimate 'n' by the number of beautiful women willing to marry you who have presented so far; this is the most difficult part of the task, particularly if it's been only one so far.
Note that thinking about the problem this way is a pretty good bar to sex OR marriage, particularly if you try to explain it to your potential mates.
Like Columbine?
Here in the 21st century, I've come up with a simpler explanation (actually I came up with it in the 20th century): mouth breathing is indicative of a stuffed-up nose, often resulting from allergies. Since IQ and hay fever are correlated, it follows that more mouth breathers are smart than stupid.
The modern solution to allergetic mouth-breathing is pseudoephederine, which is why many govts have taken it off the shelves -- they hate smart people and want them to look dumb.
Should have gone to Princeton instead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Shields
Get these terrorists hooked on WoW, and they'll lose their will to do REAL terrorism. Even if they don't, their loss of muscle tone and weight gain will make them quite ineffective, barely able to hold an AK-47 much less fire it. Suicide bombers will be too weak to stand with their bombs on. And their pale skin will make them the laughingstock of all the other Arabs.
Substantive due process... in THIS Supreme Court? That's a mighty weak peg to be hanging your hat on, IMO.
You only get your right to an attorney in crimes which carry 6 months of imprisonment or more (don't bother checking the Constitution, it ain't there... it's something the Supreme Court fabricated from whole cloth). So they'll make borrowing a CD carry 5 months + 3 weeks penalty... but it'll be a separate count for each instance of borrowing a CD, and the terms will be served consecutively.
Easily solved with an affordably priced surgical procedure?
Apple used to specifically claim their products were not certified for use in weapons systems (one of the disclaimers in MPW), so there may not be a 10.5 for ICBMs.
Inkjets? You're talking about a device which deliberately aerosolizes and ionizes organic and inorganic solvents containing toxic pigments and dyes. Stuff's deadly. Stay away. Best just to use pencil and paper... uhh, wait, using a pencil releases carbon microparticles.... better skip the hardcopy entirely.
Polaroid v. Kodak. All of Kodak's infringing cameras had to be recalled and destroyed.
IBM has been involved in the parallel processing field for a long time. I'm sure they have plenty of patents which pre-date and overlap this one and probably quite a few that International Parallel Machines is arguably infringing on.
The stuff in Claim 1 of the patent (5,056,000) is basic multi-processor stuff which certainly wasn't actually novel in 1989 (when the patent was filed). And the Cell doesn't seem to violate it anyway. It appears to be Claim 6 they are suing over. Claim 6 describes a particular way of partitioning processing power in a MIMD system, but again I doubt it was novel in 1989.
They may not be trolling. But if they go against IBM, or if IBM intervenes, I don't think they can win.