In civil trials, you have a pre-trial period called discovery. In big, complex trials like these, discovery lasts for many months. During the discovery process, each side is entitled to ask for, and required to provide, evidence from the other side. In addition to this, each side is required to provide to the opposing counsel all of the evidence they might bring up at trial. This is intended to allow both sides plenty of time to investigate the opposing evidence and prepare their responses.
Samsung's attorneys failed to produce the evidence about the design of the F700 during the discovery period. This is in spite of it being around for several years before the lawsuit was even filed by Apple. By holding it back until just before the trial, Apple's counsel didn't get the time to investigate the evidence and prepare their responses. Because we have an adversarial legal system, one in which two parties fighting over the truth before an independent jury, it's important that the rules guarantee both parties a fair fight.
Judge Koh decided that holding back that evidence until after discovery broke the rules required for a fair fight, especially considering that 1) Samsung had the evidence available for years, and 2) if the evidence is actually the smoking gun that they claim, it should have been presented during discovery to give Apple the right to examine it and prepare a response. I think this was a reasonable decision by the judge. To be fair, consider how you would have reacted if the roles had been reversed and Apple had tried to introduce such important evidence so late.
All that said, and knowing how some lawyers can be, I suspect the evidence is being overblown by the Samsung attorney because he wants a path to appeal. Improperly denied evidence could give rise to an entire retrial. But I suspect:
someone on Samsung's legal team screwed up and didn't include the evidence in discovery
the Samsung attorneys realized the screw up and are now trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear
the evidence is actually quite weak (See this excellent takedown of how the F700 is not much like the iPhone at all.)
by releasing the evidence in a press release, the attorney is trying to manipulate the judge, not get a fair outcome.
Combined with the evidence destruction by Samsung, they've really been screwing this one up.
In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.
I think it would help for you to understand the law better. In jury trials, judges determine issues of law and juries determine issues of fact. Whether or not evidence should be barred because Samsung failed to produce it (their own design they had for years) during a months-long discovery period is an issue of law determined soley by the judge.
The Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod. The Pre is specificaly pretending to be a trademarked device that it isn't. Apple will be and probably already has been dealing with confused people when Pre syncing bonks out because of Pre errors relative to iTunes. This is clearly trademark infringement.
Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.
Not if you're using their software in ways that violate the license agreement. You agreed to this license when you first launched iTunes. The hardware may belong to you, but the software copy you have is subject to the terms you agreed to abide by.
Good grief. Educate yourself. There have been dozens of comments already pointing out that Apple provides a simple way to access its iTunes library that is free to third-party developers. RIM uses this method for its Blackberry devices.
Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.
Actually, irrationality in finance is not only prominent, it's rampant. It was certainly at play in this latest bubble and burst. For example, most bankers peddling the toxic CDOs were using a model that relied on only about ten years of economic data. This is the byproduct of the Availability Heuristic. Additionally, their models often excluded the possibility of such a huge decline in housing prices because there had never been one like it before. The Representativeness Heuristic induces this kind of behavior, in spite of the warnings from others.
None of this is rational behavior. The idea you proposed that this is some sort of Prisoner's Dilemma situation ignores the fact that there are two sides to every transaction. Any of the people who rationally cashed out did it with the money of the irrational people buying their toxic instruments. The Prisoner's Dilemma falls short as an analogue because it doesn't require a buyer for the players to make their decisions. No one has to take the other side of their decisions, which is the case in a market.
For a great review of the hundreds of ways we behave irrationally in financial markets, I highly recommend BehaviouralFinance.net.
I had an awesome experience with O'Reilly for my book iMovie '09 & iDVD: The Missing Manual. (Working with David Pogue was obviously super cool.) My editor, Pete Meyers was great: helpful, responsive, and professional. The publishing deal was good, especially considering it was my first book. O'Reilly also has excellent resources once the book is out, including a web site for authors that has promotion tools and up-to-date information on book sales. It's hard to imagine a publisher reasonably doing more than O'Reilly does.
A car is basically a buggy with a different propulsion system and a steering wheel.
But I agree, a lot of people are making Wave sound a lot more complicated to the user than it actually is. In my example, email is the buggy. People will learn to use Wave just fine.
Worse - with Wave *entire conversations* will be converted to chinese link spam, because it lets anyone edit anyone elses posts
Actually, users can only edit waves they've been invited to. This means you'd need to invite a spammer to the discussion before they could make changes to it.
If they convert blogger to this (which I expect they will at some point) I'll give it 24 hours before there's no an unmodified posts on it.
Personally, I doubt this will happen. The Blogger functionality was just a Wave extension you could use if you wanted to. To replace Blogger, they'd have to do all the other stuff Blogger does in the Wave interface (elements management, rights management, templates, etc.). I just can't see all of that working in a Wave client.
Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."
The same basic argument has already been made by churches many times. The answer by the Supreme Court has always been, "Endorse anyone you want, just don't expect the Federal government to subsidize it with a tax expenditure." Seems like a reasonable outcome to me.
Without comment about the moral arguments for or against porn, the idea that it's just pictures is tough to justify. Porn is designed to produce a very specific neurochemical response in people, a response powerful enough to lead to irrational decision-making (See Airley's book, Predictably Irrational).
The fact that people can (not necessarily will) get addicted to this neurochemical response is not only unsurprising, but well documented.
I also suggest you read what you wrote again. Sacrificing valuable personal relationships for something of lesser value is a textbook element of addiction, established by people who study addiction for their careers. But you say that letting your marriage fall apart over porn, which happens to people who are addicted to it, is just a matter of priorities? Can we say the same thing then about the meth head or the alcoholic? If not, what makes porn different? (And again you'll have a hard time with the porn is just pictures argument.)
Your assumption that I am "controlling" my kids to the point that they can't learn self-control is also pretty speculative. Can you point to the specific things I'm doing? Do you even know who my kids are and how I am raising them? The only thing you know right now is that I think filtering porn from their web browsing experience is good parenting. (For the record, my kids are 7, 5, and 2.)
Finally, I'll just ask the question directly. Do you have kids?
First, the parent post implied that bad things happen in the world so you might as well let them happen in your house. He started off implying pornography was bad.
Second, pornography has the same to do with addiction that alcohol does. Many people don't get addicted while many people do. Marriages get wrecked because a husband loses interest in his wife since she doesn't look like a porn star. That's not just about "pictures of boobies."
If you were married (and you may be) and your wife asked you to stop looking at porn, would you do it even if you thought her request was unreasonable? There are a lot of men out there who would keep looking at porn at the cost of their marriage. That's a textbook example of addiction.
This all relates to kids because many such addictions are developed during teenage years when kids are still learning self-control skills. Is it really unreasonable of me to try and help my kids develop these skills before they get exposed to this stuff?
Do you have kids? If not, then you ought to shut up before you make yourself look even more stupid.
Just because bad stuff exists in the world doesn't mean I have to let it into my house. Should I invite crack whores and rapists over to hang out with my kids just because they exist? The nature of addiction, with pornography or whatever, pretty much puts the burden on me to teach and protect my kids while they are still learning basic skills like self-control.
And some parents may "kick them out" (their kids) at age 18, but most hard-working, caring parents plan on being there as a resource to their kids for the rest of their lives, not just until they become legal adults.
Hehe. This is a great story, especially the bit about the iced tea. I am sure the Mormons in your group appreciated the sentiment, but the vast majority of Mormons wouldn't have held it against you.
What people don't get is that within Mormonism there are mostly mainstream Mormons and then a handful of dogmatic Mormons. Just like in the Catholic church, in Judaism, in Islam, etc. Utah's legislature gets populated with these kinds of people for the same reason Congress does.
Techincally, a "tax expenditure" is when the government forgoes revenue on something in order to protect or promote it (ex. the 501(c)(3) tax exemption is a tax expenditure on charitable activities). See this definition: Tax Expenditure
The federal government "spends" vast amounts of money by specially exempting certain things from taxation. (This is not to be confused with the stuff government doesn't have a right to tax to begin with.)
I agree that his ploy was like a social honeypot, but I don't think that makes it okay. The intentional damage it did to actual relationships makes it different enough, in my opinion, to be wrong.
I'm also not sure I agree that these wives are glad it all happened. It's one thing to have your husband cheat on you privately and another to humiliate you publicly.
This was really just a form of vigilante entrapment. It's not okay for the police to engage in entrapment, so why is it okay for Fortuny to do it?
That is exactly right, and exercising that clause would fulfill the ethical duty you have under the contract.
As another poster pointed out elsewhere, it costs you $175, which makes the iPhone $199+$175 if you want it contract free. In other words, it's $25 cheaper than it was before.
Slashdot Mirror
IAAL, too, and I completely agree.
Samsung's attorneys failed to produce the evidence about the design of the F700 during the discovery period. This is in spite of it being around for several years before the lawsuit was even filed by Apple. By holding it back until just before the trial, Apple's counsel didn't get the time to investigate the evidence and prepare their responses. Because we have an adversarial legal system, one in which two parties fighting over the truth before an independent jury, it's important that the rules guarantee both parties a fair fight.
Judge Koh decided that holding back that evidence until after discovery broke the rules required for a fair fight, especially considering that 1) Samsung had the evidence available for years, and 2) if the evidence is actually the smoking gun that they claim, it should have been presented during discovery to give Apple the right to examine it and prepare a response. I think this was a reasonable decision by the judge. To be fair, consider how you would have reacted if the roles had been reversed and Apple had tried to introduce such important evidence so late.
All that said, and knowing how some lawyers can be, I suspect the evidence is being overblown by the Samsung attorney because he wants a path to appeal. Improperly denied evidence could give rise to an entire retrial. But I suspect:
Combined with the evidence destruction by Samsung, they've really been screwing this one up.
In the US, it is up to the jury to decide who is right. Not the judge.
I think it would help for you to understand the law better. In jury trials, judges determine issues of law and juries determine issues of fact. Whether or not evidence should be barred because Samsung failed to produce it (their own design they had for years) during a months-long discovery period is an issue of law determined soley by the judge.
Can I ask how you make a living? Also, did you mean for the title of your post to be ironic relative to what you wrote?
The Pre shows up in iTunes as an iPod. The Pre is specificaly pretending to be a trademarked device that it isn't. Apple will be and probably already has been dealing with confused people when Pre syncing bonks out because of Pre errors relative to iTunes. This is clearly trademark infringement.
Apple doesn't own any portion of my computer. the USB-IF doesn't own any portion of my computer. It's 100% owned by me, and should behave the way I want it to behave.
Not if you're using their software in ways that violate the license agreement. You agreed to this license when you first launched iTunes. The hardware may belong to you, but the software copy you have is subject to the terms you agreed to abide by.
DRMed music doesn't play on the Pre, even with their current ID spoofing. Palm's solution is hardly complete.
Palm for whatever reason doesn't want to write its own software to access the iTunes library. (I think it's because they recognize how bad they've been at writing desktop software for their devices.) Palm instead has decided to improperly copy the USB Vendor ID in a way that violates agreements it's already made as a USB IF member and also violates Apple's iPod trademark. And they aren't doing it out of nobility or commitment to open access principles. At this point they're doing it because they know a big, fat class action lawsuit is coming from all the clients who bought Pres knowing Palm promised (stupidly) they could sync with iTunes.
Actually, irrationality in finance is not only prominent, it's rampant. It was certainly at play in this latest bubble and burst. For example, most bankers peddling the toxic CDOs were using a model that relied on only about ten years of economic data. This is the byproduct of the Availability Heuristic. Additionally, their models often excluded the possibility of such a huge decline in housing prices because there had never been one like it before. The Representativeness Heuristic induces this kind of behavior, in spite of the warnings from others.
None of this is rational behavior. The idea you proposed that this is some sort of Prisoner's Dilemma situation ignores the fact that there are two sides to every transaction. Any of the people who rationally cashed out did it with the money of the irrational people buying their toxic instruments. The Prisoner's Dilemma falls short as an analogue because it doesn't require a buyer for the players to make their decisions. No one has to take the other side of their decisions, which is the case in a market.
For a great review of the hundreds of ways we behave irrationally in financial markets, I highly recommend BehaviouralFinance.net.
I had an awesome experience with O'Reilly for my book iMovie '09 & iDVD: The Missing Manual. (Working with David Pogue was obviously super cool.) My editor, Pete Meyers was great: helpful, responsive, and professional. The publishing deal was good, especially considering it was my first book. O'Reilly also has excellent resources once the book is out, including a web site for authors that has promotion tools and up-to-date information on book sales. It's hard to imagine a publisher reasonably doing more than O'Reilly does.
A car is basically a buggy with a different propulsion system and a steering wheel.
But I agree, a lot of people are making Wave sound a lot more complicated to the user than it actually is. In my example, email is the buggy. People will learn to use Wave just fine.
Worse - with Wave *entire conversations* will be converted to chinese link spam, because it lets anyone edit anyone elses posts
Actually, users can only edit waves they've been invited to. This means you'd need to invite a spammer to the discussion before they could make changes to it.
If they convert blogger to this (which I expect they will at some point) I'll give it 24 hours before there's no an unmodified posts on it.
Personally, I doubt this will happen. The Blogger functionality was just a Wave extension you could use if you wanted to. To replace Blogger, they'd have to do all the other stuff Blogger does in the Wave interface (elements management, rights management, templates, etc.). I just can't see all of that working in a Wave client.
Isn't that abridging the freedom of the presses that want to make political statements endorsing candidates? It basically says, "Don't make political endorsements, or else we'll tax you."
The same basic argument has already been made by churches many times. The answer by the Supreme Court has always been, "Endorse anyone you want, just don't expect the Federal government to subsidize it with a tax expenditure." Seems like a reasonable outcome to me.
Actually, Apple Support regularly kicks the crap out of PC companies in customer satisfaction surveys.
Nose-picking and porn are equivalent? That explains the mulit-billion dollar industry built up around nose-picking.
And I must have clicked the wrong reply button, but this question was intended for you:
Do you have kids?
Without comment about the moral arguments for or against porn, the idea that it's just pictures is tough to justify. Porn is designed to produce a very specific neurochemical response in people, a response powerful enough to lead to irrational decision-making (See Airley's book, Predictably Irrational).
The fact that people can (not necessarily will) get addicted to this neurochemical response is not only unsurprising, but well documented.
I also suggest you read what you wrote again. Sacrificing valuable personal relationships for something of lesser value is a textbook element of addiction, established by people who study addiction for their careers. But you say that letting your marriage fall apart over porn, which happens to people who are addicted to it, is just a matter of priorities? Can we say the same thing then about the meth head or the alcoholic? If not, what makes porn different? (And again you'll have a hard time with the porn is just pictures argument.)
Your assumption that I am "controlling" my kids to the point that they can't learn self-control is also pretty speculative. Can you point to the specific things I'm doing? Do you even know who my kids are and how I am raising them? The only thing you know right now is that I think filtering porn from their web browsing experience is good parenting. (For the record, my kids are 7, 5, and 2.)
Finally, I'll just ask the question directly. Do you have kids?
Do you have kids?
First, the parent post implied that bad things happen in the world so you might as well let them happen in your house. He started off implying pornography was bad.
Second, pornography has the same to do with addiction that alcohol does. Many people don't get addicted while many people do. Marriages get wrecked because a husband loses interest in his wife since she doesn't look like a porn star. That's not just about "pictures of boobies."
If you were married (and you may be) and your wife asked you to stop looking at porn, would you do it even if you thought her request was unreasonable? There are a lot of men out there who would keep looking at porn at the cost of their marriage. That's a textbook example of addiction.
This all relates to kids because many such addictions are developed during teenage years when kids are still learning self-control skills. Is it really unreasonable of me to try and help my kids develop these skills before they get exposed to this stuff?
Do you have kids? If not, then you ought to shut up before you make yourself look even more stupid.
Just because bad stuff exists in the world doesn't mean I have to let it into my house. Should I invite crack whores and rapists over to hang out with my kids just because they exist? The nature of addiction, with pornography or whatever, pretty much puts the burden on me to teach and protect my kids while they are still learning basic skills like self-control.
And some parents may "kick them out" (their kids) at age 18, but most hard-working, caring parents plan on being there as a resource to their kids for the rest of their lives, not just until they become legal adults.
Utah is one of the best run states in the country, from an egovernment and general management perspective.
At least, that's according to the Pew Center on the States. Compare states' report cards with that linked page.
But yeah, the keyword legislation is stupid.
Hehe. This is a great story, especially the bit about the iced tea. I am sure the Mormons in your group appreciated the sentiment, but the vast majority of Mormons wouldn't have held it against you.
What people don't get is that within Mormonism there are mostly mainstream Mormons and then a handful of dogmatic Mormons. Just like in the Catholic church, in Judaism, in Islam, etc. Utah's legislature gets populated with these kinds of people for the same reason Congress does.
Techincally, a "tax expenditure" is when the government forgoes revenue on something in order to protect or promote it (ex. the 501(c)(3) tax exemption is a tax expenditure on charitable activities). See this definition: Tax Expenditure
The federal government "spends" vast amounts of money by specially exempting certain things from taxation. (This is not to be confused with the stuff government doesn't have a right to tax to begin with.)
I agree that his ploy was like a social honeypot, but I don't think that makes it okay. The intentional damage it did to actual relationships makes it different enough, in my opinion, to be wrong.
I'm also not sure I agree that these wives are glad it all happened. It's one thing to have your husband cheat on you privately and another to humiliate you publicly.
This was really just a form of vigilante entrapment. It's not okay for the police to engage in entrapment, so why is it okay for Fortuny to do it?
Since we are inventing ethical duties, I guess we might as well invent laws, too.
There is no such law, at least not in the US in the way you described it.
That is exactly right, and exercising that clause would fulfill the ethical duty you have under the contract.
As another poster pointed out elsewhere, it costs you $175, which makes the iPhone $199+$175 if you want it contract free. In other words, it's $25 cheaper than it was before.