On the other hand:
Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Actually, I don't think that would be legal, and there is clearly established law that the cuffing is at least a detention requiring reasonable suspicion. It's been well established that they can pat the guy down for weapons legally, and that should be sufficient to assuage their concerns - cuffing someone simply because they refuse to give their ID would be unreasonable.
In this particular case, you'll note that the officers actually won the appeal (affirming qualified immunity) on the first amendment claim and the fourth amendment claim for unlawful detention, but lost on the fourth amendment claim for unlawful arrest. As the court noted, "an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” Specifically:
... the officers were not taking investigative steps to determine who he was (aside from repeatedly asking him for identification) or what threat he might have posed. Neither does anything in the amended complaint suggest that Turner had a weapon, was using his hands in a threatening way, or otherwise posed a threat that required such restraint. The officers’ handcuffing Turner and placing him in the patrol car, as alleged in the amended complaint, were not reasonable under the circumstances. We conclude that a reasonable person in Turner’s position would have understood the officers’ actions “to constitute a restraint on [Turner’s] freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.”
In your hypothetical, the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps to determine who he is or what threat he might have posed, and he hasn't done anything to indicate he poses a threat. Just like in this case, handcuffing the guy would be unreasonable, and would likely be considered retaliation for 'being uppity' and 'contempt of cop' for daring to ask for a supervisor.
What's wrong with that? Does she want this guy immediately fired no question asked? If it really is a first offence tell him to knock it off and move on from there,
You did not read the article, did you?
It wasn't his first offence, although HR lied about this, claiming that it was.
He didn't knock it off. Also, her career at the company was affected because she made the report.
What he did should have resulted in an instant dismissal. Retaliation should have resulted in dismissals. Covering up the prior acts by the man should have resulted in dismissals in HR.
Yep. Heck, even if it was his first offense, the subsequent retaliation is where the company crashed and burned.
IAAL, and I've studied sexual harassment law. Contrary to popular belief, it's actually really difficult to prove harassment, since you need a repeated series of events. Even if the same guy propositions a bunch of different people, if he only does it once to each, it's arguably not harassment, since he's apparently taking no for an answer from each of them and just being persistent generally. However, where companies end up killing themselves is the subsequent retaliation. Here, they explicitly told her that she could keep working for the guy, but he would give her bad reviews and there's nothing she could do. They also berated her for reporting things to HR, which is another no-no. A harassment suit might not succeed, but a retaliation suit is a slam dunk.
For example, one of my professors in law school was the attorney for a group of city employees bringing a harassment and discrimination suit against their boss. The suit initially ended in a deadlocked jury... however, every time the boss had to do something related to the suit - answer discovery questions, give a deposition, even talk to his lawyer - he'd do something nasty, like move someone's office to the basement or strip someone of a project they'd be working on. It was like clockwork.
So, after the deadlock, they amended the complaint to add retaliation claims. Next trial, got a unanimous verdict on those and judgement for $8 million.
In remarks made to the North American Broadcasters Association yesterday, Pai said that it's a public safety issue... Although Pai thinks smartphones should have the FM chip turned on, he doesn't think the government should mandate it: "As a believer in free markets and the rule of law, I cannot support a government mandate requiring activation of these chips. I don't believe the FCC has the power to issue a mandate like that, and more generally I believe it's best to sort this issue out in the marketplace."
It's a public safety issue, but it should be left to the marketplace, and if you can't afford an extra $10 per month for this "public safety" feature, then you deserve to die in an emergency?
Frankly, I'd rather have police accountability than privacy from having people see my face while I'm in public.
You realize that this is not an either/or choice right? We can give police body cameras & get the associated enhanced accountability and put safeguards in to prevent it turning to ubiquitous surveillance,
What effective safeguards can you propose that allow us to have full police accountability through body cameras, but don't let the police look at the faces in the videos? Doesn't blocking that impair the effectiveness of the accountability?
Seems odd skimming the patent to apply this to offline video caching. It seems fairly specific to a method of automating the process of ordering, duplicating and shipping CD media. There is some ambiguous text in there about "digital media". But it also has claims such as:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said first module is configured to send at least one signal to at least one printing device to create mailing address labels for each of said requests.
Which, I'm sure netflix is not doing. Seems like an attempt to broadly use a patent that's not really related to the actual process being used.
Shocking...
That's a dependent claim (you can tell because it refers to another claim). It's like an include statement, so the invention recited in claim 4 is everything that's in claim 1, plus the added limitation about the first module. Even if Netflix isn't doing that added step, they could be doing everything that's in claim 1 and infringe the patent.
I actually had to look it up. And I would indeed consider myself an avid gamer. Actually, currently it's likely I spend more time playing games than working (if that's possible). And I haven't heard about it until recently, and I looked it up... and I don't get it.
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
"Not disabling" isn't the same as "enabling".
More importantly, the bigger point is that Consumer Reports dismissed the fact that battery tests with Chrome on the Macbook were both consistent and long with "we use the default browser on the operating system" as a justification for not updating their review, but now we find out that they also modify the default browser from its default mode... something they didn't report at the time.
So, which is it, default or not? They can have it both ways if they report all of the details of their tests, but they can't simply say "we always use the default (except when we don't)" while retaining any sort of credibility. The fact that they refused to repeat the tests with witnesses present, and now we find out that they changed an additional variable without telling anyone means that we can't trust them, at least until they've built that credibility back up from scratch.
Some things we do know: John Podesta had an extremely insecure password, and that's how his email leaked.
Although I agree with the rest of your points, this one is only partly correct. Podesta had an extremely insecure password, but that's not how his email leaked. It wasn't brute forced or anything - he got a phishing email, his IT guy said "that's legitimate, you should totally click it," and he did and entered his password. He could've had the most complex password in the world and he still would've given it away.
I did not realize that. No need to be a complete dick about it.
Sorry, I was trying to be nice. As I said, it was in my earlier post.
It's yet another design flaw in our patent system.. patents are a type of intellectual property, and patent rights are usually analogized to property rights. If I own have the deed for my house free and clear, it means I have complete control over my house (notwithstanding laws)... not just that I can keep other people off, but I have positive control over it as well. You're saying patents are negative only. That totally runs counter to the common understanding of it.
Nope, and with all due respect, you may misunderstand your property rights over your house. Your deed gives you the right to exclude others from your land - same as a patent allows one to exclude others from their invention. Your deed, however, does not give you the right to, say, operate a business in a residential zone; or build a tower beyond height limits; or freely tap into water lines running under the property; or practice nude sunbathing on your front lawn; or start a sweatshop, etc., etc.
Specifically, property rights in real estate are frequently discussed as a bundle of rights, with the right to exclude others being prime. There's also a right to quiet enjoyment and right of control that come in with real property, but that's a result of the fact that real property is physical... someone cannot be on the same land without intruding on your land... By contrast, with intellectual property, one can freely occupy the same idea without intruding on your right to enjoy your idea. Like, if you have a house and I park my car on your lawn, you can't enjoy your lawn. If you have an idea for something and I too think of that idea, I'm not diminishing your enjoyment of it except through your loss of exclusivity, unlike real property. Accordingly, the only real right that attaches in intellectual property is the exclusive right.
Do you mean "ability" instead of "right?" Because Apple does have the right to build a lockout system.
Says who? If they can't build that lockout system without infringing someone else's patent, then no, they do not have the right to build it. I repeat, having a patent doesn't give you the right to manufacture something, it only gives you the right to exclude others from manufacturing, using, selling, or importing. That's it. You can stop others, but that doesn't automatically mean no one can stop you.
And if they lack the ability, is the patent valid? Are you saying I can patent something I don't actually know how to do and then if someone figures it out I can prevent them from doing it?
Nope. Go back and read my post. Come back if you're still having difficulties.
I'll say it again. Sex is not a contract. Hugging is not a contract. Helping someone carry a box is not a contract. Sitting down on a chair is not a contract.
If you're going to have sex with inanimate objects like boxes and chairs, then consent is not an issue, so... good for you?
This is fucking awesome... using patent system against it's own masters.
Yes, patent is proof of substantial invention, so it was conscious choice not to use it as described.
Except, no, a patent does not give you the right to manufacture something. It's a right to exclude others from manufacturing your invention (or selling, or using, or importing it). For example, say I get a patent on a chair - seat, 4 legs, and a back. I can sue you if you make a chair. But can I make one? What if some AC has a patent on a stool - seat, 4 legs? I can't build chairs without infringing his patent. So my patent doesn't give me a right to make anything.
Apple's patent doesn't give it a right to make a lockout system, just prevent others from doing so - not that they've done such. So, no, the family has no claim whatsoever. This is just a money grab by some lawyer who thinks he can make headlines to extort a big settlement.
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
So when I take a girl home from a bar and fuck her, only to wake up the next day and find the makeup, pushup bra, high heels were all part of a fraud, and my princess is actually a monster can I claim rape?
No, because you're desperate enough that you'd still have banged the monster, so there was no fraud.
That's my thinking too - how in hell could a patent ever be granted for this, given such obvious prior art? The fact that a company would even be bothered to apply for such a patent is proof positive that the patent system is horribly broken. But then, everybody here already knew that.
It's not a patent, it's a patent application. Your outrage is misplaced, but oddly ironic considering you're complaining about the patent system's ignorance, without actually knowing what you're talking about.
Second, they're not simply claiming a magnet connected to something for your ear, but a very specific implementation. But realizing that requires reading the application, and again, you thought it was a patent, so... yeah.
Third, even aside from that, there are some obvious difficulties incorporating a strong magnet next to (i) an aural transducer that requires (wait for it) a magnet to function, and (ii) a Bluetooth antenna that requires (wait for it) a stable EM field to function. Simply gluing a magnet to your Bluetooth earbuds is likely not going to work well.
Disclaimer: while I haven't looked into this particular patent beyond the above info, I'm an audio engineer, former exec of a chapter of the Audio Engineering Society, and a patent attorney who regularly deals with earbud design.
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.
Except that CR ran the tests with Chrome and the battery life was both long and consistent. So, no, it couldn't be that the battery life is actually inconsistent - there's nothing wrong with the hardware, and it's a software issue, probably due to some caching behavior. So, there's either a flaw in Safari, or a flaw in their testing software. But they won't reveal details about the latter.
On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.
There isn't - apparently, some people did think it was confusing to have the estimated time remaining go up when your usage goes down. Hey, people are stupid - don't ascribe to malice what may be adequately explained by idiocy.
Problem with disclosing your full test protocol is it tends to result in producers making their item specially tuned to look good for your protocol--while still being bad in actual use.
OTOH, if you don't disclose it, then it's no more reputable than Rossi's E-Cat or any other "you just have to trust me that it works" test.
The customer is not your QA lab. CR ran their tests, and saw what they saw.
Then why haven't they disclosed the full test protocol so that Apple could repeat it? If I test your product, publish a review saying it catches fire, and never mention that my test protocol was throwing it on a fire, are you really to blame? And is my excuse that I'm not your QA lab at all reasonable?
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
CR hasn't disclosed the full protocol of their test, and now refuses to reconduct it, despite getting wildly inconsistent results. If there's nothing suspicious about that, I've got an eCat reactor to sell you.
It's not CR's job to find out why the product isn't working as expected/advertised. Their only job is to test the system in controlled and repeatable ways that can be demonstrated and are consistent with current quality assurance methods, and then to report on those tests to their paying subscribers. CR does not take money from anyone but their subscribers and buys off-the-shelf/lot products in order to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety.
In this case, they were comfortable enough with their results, even after Apple contacted them, to keep them. If they felt that the consistency was in issue with the tests (the same tests/test-systems that are run/used on other computer systems) then they would have stated that and reworked the tests. They have done this in the past when their tests were not working as expected.
They're getting inconsistent results here, so either there's a flaw in the test, or there's a very intermittent issue. And given that (i) CR hasn't disclosed their full test protocol, and (ii) CR apparently did a second test using Chrome on the Mac and got consistently high results (ruling out hardware issues), there are very good reasons to suggest there's a flaw in the test.
I'm not sure how fraud can possibly apply to sex unless there is a quid pro quo involved in the sex, in which case it's not consensual sex but prostitution, sex in exchange for something.
Well, you see, when a boy and a girl wuv each other vewwy much, sometimes, they want to have sex. And they both decide, mutually, to do so. This is what's called "consent". Without "consent", it's illegal. If there's fraud, then the consent is void. Void means that it's legally "not there". So if there's fraud, there's no consent, and if there's no consent, they can't has legal sex.
HTH. HAND.
Most of the plausible situations which might involve "fraud" seem to center around therapists or other medical practitioners who claim that sex is somehow necessary for treatment, and that's already covered by laws regulating professional conduct or the inherent coercive relationship involved.
"Sorry, that wasn't rape with a punishment of 15-to-life, that was professional misconduct, which means, uh... we remove his license for a year or two? Lolz."
I think a good number of women would LIKE it to be rape if a sex partner who says he cares for them and then turns out not to, but of course how would you handle the cases where a man decided he didn't like you AFTER having sex?
This is really very simple. When something occurs AFTER, then it doesn't travel back in time to BEFORE. When you have sex, you need consent then. If you have consent then, then "regret" the next day is irrelevant. But the consent has to be legally valid. So if it was obtained fraudulently, there is no consent. So don't have sex without real, honest, legal consent.
If this is at all difficult for you to understand, you're not mature enough to have sex.
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
You didn't answer the question.
The (rhetorical) question was "I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?" I explained how fraud removes consent, and so sex-by-fraud is sex-without-consent.
Besides, sex is not a contract. Sex is an action.
So is punching you in the face. But I still need your consent to a boxing match or I've committed battery.
Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "fraudulent sex".
"there's some question if the ladies claimed rape only after the fraud"
Wait, if it's rape by fraud, wouldn't you expect the ladies to complain only after they became aware of the fraud?
I'm curious about this "rape by fraud" thing.
Are you saying that someone who is convinced to have sex by fraudulent means, and who later finds out that there was fraud involved, can claim it was "rape" by reason of the fraudulent circumstances?
I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
Slashdot Mirror
there is a shitton of evidence
Blog posts are not evidence. If you are aware of any actual evidence point it out.
Sure, they are. They're rebuttable evidence, and she can be cross-examined about them, but they're certainly evidence.
On the other hand: Two weeks after a police station in Dallas is shot at, a guy is hiding in bushes across the street from a police station near Dallas. Cops approach to see what's going on. The guy is filming the police station (casing it?). Cops ask for ID. The guy asks to speak to a supervisor. The cops call their supervisor to come over, handcuffing the guy for five minutes until the supervisor arrives. Did they violate his Constitutional rights? Maybe. Does every reasonable officer *know* that what they did violates his civil rights? No, an officer might reasonably *think* it's okay to cuff the guy for five minutes. There's not *clearly established law* that in the situation described, they can't cuff him while awating the supervisor he requested. Therefore he can sue the city the cops work for, but can't sue the individual cops personally.
The second scenario above, in which a reasonable cop might mistakenly think cuffing him for a minute is okay, is patterned after the actual events in this case. In reality, he wasn't hiding in the bushes. I added that to make it a better example, an example of a scenario where a reasonable cop might be unsure of what they can and can't legally do.
Actually, I don't think that would be legal, and there is clearly established law that the cuffing is at least a detention requiring reasonable suspicion. It's been well established that they can pat the guy down for weapons legally, and that should be sufficient to assuage their concerns - cuffing someone simply because they refuse to give their ID would be unreasonable.
In this particular case, you'll note that the officers actually won the appeal (affirming qualified immunity) on the first amendment claim and the fourth amendment claim for unlawful detention, but lost on the fourth amendment claim for unlawful arrest. As the court noted, "an investigative detention must be temporary and last no longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop.” Specifically:
... the officers were not taking investigative steps to determine who he was (aside from repeatedly asking him for identification) or what threat he might have posed. Neither does anything in the amended complaint suggest that Turner had a weapon, was using his hands in a threatening way, or otherwise posed a threat that required such restraint. The officers’ handcuffing Turner and placing him in the patrol car, as alleged in the amended complaint, were not reasonable under the circumstances. We conclude that a reasonable person in Turner’s position would have understood the officers’ actions “to constitute a restraint on [Turner’s] freedom of movement of the degree which the law associates with formal arrest.”
In your hypothetical, the cops handcuff the guy while waiting for the supervisor that he asked for. They're not taking further investigative steps to determine who he is or what threat he might have posed, and he hasn't done anything to indicate he poses a threat. Just like in this case, handcuffing the guy would be unreasonable, and would likely be considered retaliation for 'being uppity' and 'contempt of cop' for daring to ask for a supervisor.
Imagine if those who have taken a vow of celibacy had to fornicate just one little time to assert their right to remain celibate.
That's called seminary school, and apparently, what happens there, stays there.
You did not read the article, did you?
It wasn't his first offence, although HR lied about this, claiming that it was.
He didn't knock it off. Also, her career at the company was affected because she made the report.
What he did should have resulted in an instant dismissal. Retaliation should have resulted in dismissals. Covering up the prior acts by the man should have resulted in dismissals in HR.
Yep. Heck, even if it was his first offense, the subsequent retaliation is where the company crashed and burned.
IAAL, and I've studied sexual harassment law. Contrary to popular belief, it's actually really difficult to prove harassment, since you need a repeated series of events. Even if the same guy propositions a bunch of different people, if he only does it once to each, it's arguably not harassment, since he's apparently taking no for an answer from each of them and just being persistent generally. However, where companies end up killing themselves is the subsequent retaliation. Here, they explicitly told her that she could keep working for the guy, but he would give her bad reviews and there's nothing she could do. They also berated her for reporting things to HR, which is another no-no. A harassment suit might not succeed, but a retaliation suit is a slam dunk.
For example, one of my professors in law school was the attorney for a group of city employees bringing a harassment and discrimination suit against their boss. The suit initially ended in a deadlocked jury... however, every time the boss had to do something related to the suit - answer discovery questions, give a deposition, even talk to his lawyer - he'd do something nasty, like move someone's office to the basement or strip someone of a project they'd be working on. It was like clockwork.
So, after the deadlock, they amended the complaint to add retaliation claims. Next trial, got a unanimous verdict on those and judgement for $8 million.
In remarks made to the North American Broadcasters Association yesterday, Pai said that it's a public safety issue... Although Pai thinks smartphones should have the FM chip turned on, he doesn't think the government should mandate it: "As a believer in free markets and the rule of law, I cannot support a government mandate requiring activation of these chips. I don't believe the FCC has the power to issue a mandate like that, and more generally I believe it's best to sort this issue out in the marketplace."
It's a public safety issue, but it should be left to the marketplace, and if you can't afford an extra $10 per month for this "public safety" feature, then you deserve to die in an emergency?
Frankly, I'd rather have police accountability than privacy from having people see my face while I'm in public.
You realize that this is not an either/or choice right? We can give police body cameras & get the associated enhanced accountability and put safeguards in to prevent it turning to ubiquitous surveillance,
What effective safeguards can you propose that allow us to have full police accountability through body cameras, but don't let the police look at the faces in the videos? Doesn't blocking that impair the effectiveness of the accountability?
Frankly, I'd rather have police accountability than privacy from having people see my face while I'm in public.
Seems odd skimming the patent to apply this to offline video caching. It seems fairly specific to a method of automating the process of ordering, duplicating and shipping CD media. There is some ambiguous text in there about "digital media". But it also has claims such as:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein said first module is configured to send at least one signal to at least one printing device to create mailing address labels for each of said requests.
Which, I'm sure netflix is not doing. Seems like an attempt to broadly use a patent that's not really related to the actual process being used.
Shocking...
That's a dependent claim (you can tell because it refers to another claim). It's like an include statement, so the invention recited in claim 4 is everything that's in claim 1, plus the added limitation about the first module. Even if Netflix isn't doing that added step, they could be doing everything that's in claim 1 and infringe the patent.
This.
I actually had to look it up. And I would indeed consider myself an avid gamer. Actually, currently it's likely I spend more time playing games than working (if that's possible). And I haven't heard about it until recently, and I looked it up ... and I don't get it.
Then you should probably complain about this guy using your account who posted previously about Gamergate.
By not disabling the cache Safari will just reload the web page from disk, instead of downloading it all over wifi. In normal use you don't sit around reloading the same page all day, you surf to different web sites, so caching extends battery life to unrealistic levels.
"Not disabling" isn't the same as "enabling".
More importantly, the bigger point is that Consumer Reports dismissed the fact that battery tests with Chrome on the Macbook were both consistent and long with "we use the default browser on the operating system" as a justification for not updating their review, but now we find out that they also modify the default browser from its default mode... something they didn't report at the time.
So, which is it, default or not? They can have it both ways if they report all of the details of their tests, but they can't simply say "we always use the default (except when we don't)" while retaining any sort of credibility. The fact that they refused to repeat the tests with witnesses present, and now we find out that they changed an additional variable without telling anyone means that we can't trust them, at least until they've built that credibility back up from scratch.
Some things we do know: John Podesta had an extremely insecure password, and that's how his email leaked.
Although I agree with the rest of your points, this one is only partly correct. Podesta had an extremely insecure password, but that's not how his email leaked. It wasn't brute forced or anything - he got a phishing email, his IT guy said "that's legitimate, you should totally click it," and he did and entered his password. He could've had the most complex password in the world and he still would've given it away.
I did not realize that. No need to be a complete dick about it.
Sorry, I was trying to be nice. As I said, it was in my earlier post.
It's yet another design flaw in our patent system.. patents are a type of intellectual property, and patent rights are usually analogized to property rights. If I own have the deed for my house free and clear, it means I have complete control over my house (notwithstanding laws)... not just that I can keep other people off, but I have positive control over it as well. You're saying patents are negative only. That totally runs counter to the common understanding of it.
Nope, and with all due respect, you may misunderstand your property rights over your house. Your deed gives you the right to exclude others from your land - same as a patent allows one to exclude others from their invention. Your deed, however, does not give you the right to, say, operate a business in a residential zone; or build a tower beyond height limits; or freely tap into water lines running under the property; or practice nude sunbathing on your front lawn; or start a sweatshop, etc., etc.
Specifically, property rights in real estate are frequently discussed as a bundle of rights, with the right to exclude others being prime. There's also a right to quiet enjoyment and right of control that come in with real property, but that's a result of the fact that real property is physical... someone cannot be on the same land without intruding on your land... By contrast, with intellectual property, one can freely occupy the same idea without intruding on your right to enjoy your idea. Like, if you have a house and I park my car on your lawn, you can't enjoy your lawn. If you have an idea for something and I too think of that idea, I'm not diminishing your enjoyment of it except through your loss of exclusivity, unlike real property. Accordingly, the only real right that attaches in intellectual property is the exclusive right.
Do you mean "ability" instead of "right?" Because Apple does have the right to build a lockout system.
Says who? If they can't build that lockout system without infringing someone else's patent, then no, they do not have the right to build it. I repeat, having a patent doesn't give you the right to manufacture something, it only gives you the right to exclude others from manufacturing, using, selling, or importing. That's it. You can stop others, but that doesn't automatically mean no one can stop you.
And if they lack the ability, is the patent valid? Are you saying I can patent something I don't actually know how to do and then if someone figures it out I can prevent them from doing it?
Nope. Go back and read my post. Come back if you're still having difficulties.
I'll say it again. Sex is not a contract. Hugging is not a contract. Helping someone carry a box is not a contract. Sitting down on a chair is not a contract.
If you're going to have sex with inanimate objects like boxes and chairs, then consent is not an issue, so... good for you?
This is fucking awesome... using patent system against it's own masters.
Yes, patent is proof of substantial invention, so it was conscious choice not to use it as described.
Except, no, a patent does not give you the right to manufacture something. It's a right to exclude others from manufacturing your invention (or selling, or using, or importing it). For example, say I get a patent on a chair - seat, 4 legs, and a back. I can sue you if you make a chair. But can I make one? What if some AC has a patent on a stool - seat, 4 legs? I can't build chairs without infringing his patent. So my patent doesn't give me a right to make anything.
Apple's patent doesn't give it a right to make a lockout system, just prevent others from doing so - not that they've done such. So, no, the family has no claim whatsoever. This is just a money grab by some lawyer who thinks he can make headlines to extort a big settlement.
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
So when I take a girl home from a bar and fuck her, only to wake up the next day and find the makeup, pushup bra, high heels were all part of a fraud, and my princess is actually a monster can I claim rape?
No, because you're desperate enough that you'd still have banged the monster, so there was no fraud.
If only someone else had thought of a way to use magnets to attach things to your ear! This is courage taken to a new level, we're talking iCourage levels here...
That's my thinking too - how in hell could a patent ever be granted for this, given such obvious prior art? The fact that a company would even be bothered to apply for such a patent is proof positive that the patent system is horribly broken. But then, everybody here already knew that.
It's not a patent, it's a patent application. Your outrage is misplaced, but oddly ironic considering you're complaining about the patent system's ignorance, without actually knowing what you're talking about.
Second, they're not simply claiming a magnet connected to something for your ear, but a very specific implementation. But realizing that requires reading the application, and again, you thought it was a patent, so... yeah.
Third, even aside from that, there are some obvious difficulties incorporating a strong magnet next to (i) an aural transducer that requires (wait for it) a magnet to function, and (ii) a Bluetooth antenna that requires (wait for it) a stable EM field to function. Simply gluing a magnet to your Bluetooth earbuds is likely not going to work well.
Disclaimer: while I haven't looked into this particular patent beyond the above info, I'm an audio engineer, former exec of a chapter of the Audio Engineering Society, and a patent attorney who regularly deals with earbud design.
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.
Except that CR ran the tests with Chrome and the battery life was both long and consistent. So, no, it couldn't be that the battery life is actually inconsistent - there's nothing wrong with the hardware, and it's a software issue, probably due to some caching behavior. So, there's either a flaw in Safari, or a flaw in their testing software. But they won't reveal details about the latter.
On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.
There isn't - apparently, some people did think it was confusing to have the estimated time remaining go up when your usage goes down. Hey, people are stupid - don't ascribe to malice what may be adequately explained by idiocy.
Problem with disclosing your full test protocol is it tends to result in producers making their item specially tuned to look good for your protocol--while still being bad in actual use.
OTOH, if you don't disclose it, then it's no more reputable than Rossi's E-Cat or any other "you just have to trust me that it works" test.
The customer is not your QA lab. CR ran their tests, and saw what they saw.
Then why haven't they disclosed the full test protocol so that Apple could repeat it? If I test your product, publish a review saying it catches fire, and never mention that my test protocol was throwing it on a fire, are you really to blame? And is my excuse that I'm not your QA lab at all reasonable?
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
CR hasn't disclosed the full protocol of their test, and now refuses to reconduct it, despite getting wildly inconsistent results. If there's nothing suspicious about that, I've got an eCat reactor to sell you.
It's not CR's job to find out why the product isn't working as expected/advertised. Their only job is to test the system in controlled and repeatable ways that can be demonstrated and are consistent with current quality assurance methods, and then to report on those tests to their paying subscribers. CR does not take money from anyone but their subscribers and buys off-the-shelf/lot products in order to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety.
In this case, they were comfortable enough with their results, even after Apple contacted them, to keep them. If they felt that the consistency was in issue with the tests (the same tests/test-systems that are run/used on other computer systems) then they would have stated that and reworked the tests. They have done this in the past when their tests were not working as expected.
They're getting inconsistent results here, so either there's a flaw in the test, or there's a very intermittent issue. And given that (i) CR hasn't disclosed their full test protocol, and (ii) CR apparently did a second test using Chrome on the Mac and got consistently high results (ruling out hardware issues), there are very good reasons to suggest there's a flaw in the test.
I'm not sure how fraud can possibly apply to sex unless there is a quid pro quo involved in the sex, in which case it's not consensual sex but prostitution, sex in exchange for something.
Well, you see, when a boy and a girl wuv each other vewwy much, sometimes, they want to have sex. And they both decide, mutually, to do so. This is what's called "consent". Without "consent", it's illegal. If there's fraud, then the consent is void. Void means that it's legally "not there". So if there's fraud, there's no consent, and if there's no consent, they can't has legal sex.
HTH. HAND.
Most of the plausible situations which might involve "fraud" seem to center around therapists or other medical practitioners who claim that sex is somehow necessary for treatment, and that's already covered by laws regulating professional conduct or the inherent coercive relationship involved.
"Sorry, that wasn't rape with a punishment of 15-to-life, that was professional misconduct, which means, uh... we remove his license for a year or two? Lolz."
I think a good number of women would LIKE it to be rape if a sex partner who says he cares for them and then turns out not to, but of course how would you handle the cases where a man decided he didn't like you AFTER having sex?
This is really very simple. When something occurs AFTER, then it doesn't travel back in time to BEFORE. When you have sex, you need consent then. If you have consent then, then "regret" the next day is irrelevant. But the consent has to be legally valid. So if it was obtained fraudulently, there is no consent. So don't have sex without real, honest, legal consent.
If this is at all difficult for you to understand, you're not mature enough to have sex.
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.
You didn't answer the question.
The (rhetorical) question was "I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?" I explained how fraud removes consent, and so sex-by-fraud is sex-without-consent.
Besides, sex is not a contract. Sex is an action.
So is punching you in the face. But I still need your consent to a boxing match or I've committed battery.
Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "fraudulent sex".
Legally speaking, you're wrong.
"there's some question if the ladies claimed rape only after the fraud"
Wait, if it's rape by fraud, wouldn't you expect the ladies to complain only after they became aware of the fraud?
I'm curious about this "rape by fraud" thing.
Are you saying that someone who is convinced to have sex by fraudulent means, and who later finds out that there was fraud involved, can claim it was "rape" by reason of the fraudulent circumstances?
I always thought rape was "sex without consent". Is that no longer true?
Fraud obviates consent. Or, to put it another way, if consent is obtained fraudulently, the consent is not legally effective. Accordingly, there was no legally effective consent to sex.