Specifically, the term "colorably different" means:
"The phrase “colorable differ-ences” refers to alterations that do not essentially change the nature of the device, and are made only to evade the permanent injunction.17 Language enjoining adjudged infringers from producing products that are “only colorably different” from the infringing devices is typical in patent injunctions."
Nathan Ingham, Recording over Old Standards: TiVo’s “More Than Colorably Different” Standard for Patent Injunction Contempt Proceedings, 53 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 47 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.ed...
So, the injunction is very narrow. Basically for the phones specifically listed and minor variants that doesn't change the nature of the device and only made to evade a permanent injunction (i.e. a slightly modified model with a minor workaround).
Apple's specific argument was: "Samsung's claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple's need for injunctive relief... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."
However, even here, the argument is pretty darn weak. Apple only requested a number of devices plus any variants of those devices that are practically the same as those devices.
Essentially, they're asking an injunction against, say, a Galaxy S or a Galaxy S2 and any minor variants on them. But nobody sells them anymore except for a few ebay sellers. Samsung is not going to start reselling Galaxy S or S2 phones.
I don't understand the request for injunction against the Samsung phones in question. At this point, the Samsung phones are several years old and absolutely nobody short of a few ebay sellers are still selling them. What do they get out of asking for an injunction? They're spending millions of dollars in attorney fees and, for what, a meaningless "moral victory"?
Actually, the handover of USSR's stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine wasn't in exchange for defense, but rather in exchange for a promise from Russia that Russia will never use its military weapons to attack or intimidate the Ukraine. (See the Budapest Memorandum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... )
Clearly, that agreement has been broken by Russia. Of course, I doubt any powers are going to try to exacerbate the situation by either providing the Ukraine with nuclear weapons or suggesting that Ukraine should acquire nuclear weapons, but based on my understanding of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is well within its rights to do so now that Russia has breached the agreement.
If the Russians wish to engage in this kind of conduct, then the rest of the world should hit them where it hurts the most - their treasury.
We should deny all Russian lenders (not just the 5 picked out for sanctions so far) from being able to access US and European bond markets to raise capital. We should indefinitely sanction any transfer of petrochemical technology by US and European companies to any Russian firm. And we should sanction any credit transactions between American/European credit companies and Russian banks (i.e. cut off Mastercard, Discover, Visa, AmEx, etc.).
If they wish to engage to aggression against other country's sovereignty, they should do it without the rest of the world helping fund them.
And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.
Ah, so you take random Youtube comments as fact, but the death threats against her (which were made on Twitter, so you can just go and see for yourself) are automatically "lies" in your mind.
It seems to me that the first few comments made to Slashdot about this story is indicative of the problem at large. The first comments (made by anonymous cowards) immediately conjectured that Sarkeesian is to blame, that she concoted the death threats as a publicity stunt.
You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
Just because a display is integrated into the car itself doesn't make it any less of a distraction from driving. Anything that requires you to take your eyes off the roads to look down and to your right distracts you.
Russia isn't using this to leverage information or to influence Snowden. Russia is using this to stick it to the US. And if, every once in a while, they can trot him out like a useful puppet (like they did during Putin's televised Q&A), then all the better
Yes, but the terms of the ToS also generally states that you wouldn't misuse their services. For instance, Google Drive's ToS states:
"You may use our Services only as permitted by law, including applicable export and re-export control laws and regulations."
Using Google Drive for child porn obviously violates this clause of the ToS, and once that happens, you are at the mercy of the Cloud provider on the basis of you having agreed to the terms of the Terms of Service.
I don't understand the surprise people are experiencing from the revelation that Google and Microsoft scans the stuff you upload to their cloud storage systems.
You are literally giving them a copy of your files, and generally speaking, you also agreed to allow them to allow them to scan your stuff. Google Drive's terms of service explicitly states that your stuff will be scanned:
"Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored. "
Why would anyone reasonably think that their stuff is somehow private when it's in the cloud?
China might not be a technically a "free market," but if there's any bit of electronics you want to buy there, it's available for sale even if it is officially banned.
Video game consoles in China have been officially banned since 2001. Guess what I see when I go to the mall in China? Xbox 360s, Playstation 3s, Wiis. I've been told that even next gen consoles like the PS4 has made it to storefronts in China before the official launch date (through gray market means via Hong Kong).
At a macro level, China is not a "free market" but rather a managed economy. At the micro level, though, everything is for sale.
Wait, which "best selling car" in China are you talking about? Because Buick has consistently been one of the best (if not the best) selling car manufacturers in China since before WWII.
I am really looking forward to the Oculus' public release, but I really hope they fix the lag in head tracking that results in motion sickness or dizziness in the users. As a guy who used to get nauseous after a few hours of Duke Nukem or Doom, that'd be a pretty major negative in determining whether I will buy one or not.
Also, I'm glad we've finally hit Johnny Mnemonic levels of tech in real life. Bring on the talking dolphins.
FTA: "For Chinese immigrants in the United States, speaking to a Chinese (vs. Caucasian) face reduced their English fluency, but at the same time increased their social comfort, effects that did not occur for a comparison group of European Americans (study 1)."
In my experience as a native speaker of Chinese, the reduced fluency in English when speaking with another Chinese person is due to the fact that in the back of my head, I'm trying to determine whether I should use English or Chinese to express an idea and it usually expresses itself as Chinglish. If the other person is Chinese but doesn't speak the same dialect as I do and I am using purely English to communicate, I don't get the same effect.
I second the pen and paper note-taking suggestion. I've found that if I type my notes in class, I spend more time transcribing every word the lecturer says instead of paying attention to the lecture and noting down the points that are important. Of course, you can always ask the lecturer if you can record the class if you need the crutch.
Wouldn't giving Apple a 30% cut only come into play if OnLive is making subscriptions available via in-app purchases? If OnLive is able to get people to sign up for their service on a website (like, say, Netflix) and set up subscriptions there, I don't see how Apple would be able to take a piece of their revenues that way.
There is a growing number of games on Android that provide controller support already, so it's not absolutely required that an Android game MUST utilize touchscreen technology. Besides, the Ouya controller will have an integrated touchpad on the face of the controller so you can use the controller even while you're playing a game that might require some aspect of touch.
I've never gotten the appeal of the Playstation Home - it always felt like a heavily commercialized and far more limited version of Second Life. Personally, I wish Sony would prioritize their approach with their PS3. Rather than offering something gimmicky like Home, why not upgrade the ancient browser? How about having an app store for cool PS3 apps? How about putting a few bucks towards real security?
The PS3 always feels like a machine with a lot of potential. But Sony's obsession with locking down and controlling the experience meant that the PS3's potential will go untapped. And when Sony does decide to do something, it's usually something nobody wants.
I think it's much more than merely developing an affinity for products we choose over alternatives. The mark of a fanboy isn't that they like something better, it's that they've literally coalesced into miniature tribes where their preferred product (Apple being the obvious example) becomes the culture and any alternative culture (say, Windows PCs or Linux) are intruders or the enemy. But that's not really a surprise. Humans love tribes. We've loved them when we were tree-dwelling primates.
That's pretty dumb. As far as I know, LegalZoom isn't practicing law so much as providing people with templates for documents where they can fill in bits that they want and delete other bits they don't want. This is not the same as giving people legal advice, or engaging in an attorney-client relationship with anyone.
Besides, if this is successful, it'll have a detrimental effect to authors and publishers who publish books with legal templates (Draft your own Will books, for instance), most of which are for really simple stuff like wills or simple contracts. It's going to deny the poorest people access to making these documents because it's going to force them to seek attorneys who are often too expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
Specifically, the term "colorably different" means:
"The phrase “colorable differ-ences” refers to alterations that do not essentially change the nature of the device, and are made only to evade the permanent injunction.17 Language enjoining adjudged infringers from producing products that are “only colorably different” from the infringing devices is typical in patent injunctions."
Nathan Ingham, Recording over Old Standards: TiVo’s “More Than Colorably Different” Standard for Patent Injunction Contempt Proceedings, 53 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 47 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.ed...
So, the injunction is very narrow. Basically for the phones specifically listed and minor variants that doesn't change the nature of the device and only made to evade a permanent injunction (i.e. a slightly modified model with a minor workaround).
Apple's specific argument was: "Samsung's claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple's need for injunctive relief... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
However, even here, the argument is pretty darn weak. Apple only requested a number of devices plus any variants of those devices that are practically the same as those devices.
Essentially, they're asking an injunction against, say, a Galaxy S or a Galaxy S2 and any minor variants on them. But nobody sells them anymore except for a few ebay sellers. Samsung is not going to start reselling Galaxy S or S2 phones.
I don't understand the request for injunction against the Samsung phones in question. At this point, the Samsung phones are several years old and absolutely nobody short of a few ebay sellers are still selling them. What do they get out of asking for an injunction? They're spending millions of dollars in attorney fees and, for what, a meaningless "moral victory"?
Actually, the handover of USSR's stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine wasn't in exchange for defense, but rather in exchange for a promise from Russia that Russia will never use its military weapons to attack or intimidate the Ukraine. (See the Budapest Memorandum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... )
Clearly, that agreement has been broken by Russia. Of course, I doubt any powers are going to try to exacerbate the situation by either providing the Ukraine with nuclear weapons or suggesting that Ukraine should acquire nuclear weapons, but based on my understanding of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is well within its rights to do so now that Russia has breached the agreement.
If the Russians wish to engage in this kind of conduct, then the rest of the world should hit them where it hurts the most - their treasury.
We should deny all Russian lenders (not just the 5 picked out for sanctions so far) from being able to access US and European bond markets to raise capital. We should indefinitely sanction any transfer of petrochemical technology by US and European companies to any Russian firm. And we should sanction any credit transactions between American/European credit companies and Russian banks (i.e. cut off Mastercard, Discover, Visa, AmEx, etc.).
If they wish to engage to aggression against other country's sovereignty, they should do it without the rest of the world helping fund them.
And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.
Ah, so you take random Youtube comments as fact, but the death threats against her (which were made on Twitter, so you can just go and see for yourself) are automatically "lies" in your mind.
I watched some of her videos last night. I don't see where she insulted a gender at all. At most, she takes game developers to task for using cheap, clichéd tropes about women as decorative or damsel in distress because they want an easy (or lazy) shorthand for character development or to get a cheap emotional response from the gamer.
It seems to me that the first few comments made to Slashdot about this story is indicative of the problem at large. The first comments (made by anonymous cowards) immediately conjectured that Sarkeesian is to blame, that she concoted the death threats as a publicity stunt.
You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?
Just because a display is integrated into the car itself doesn't make it any less of a distraction from driving. Anything that requires you to take your eyes off the roads to look down and to your right distracts you.
Russia isn't using this to leverage information or to influence Snowden. Russia is using this to stick it to the US. And if, every once in a while, they can trot him out like a useful puppet (like they did during Putin's televised Q&A), then all the better
Yes, but the terms of the ToS also generally states that you wouldn't misuse their services. For instance, Google Drive's ToS states:
"You may use our Services only as permitted by law, including applicable export and re-export control laws and regulations."
Using Google Drive for child porn obviously violates this clause of the ToS, and once that happens, you are at the mercy of the Cloud provider on the basis of you having agreed to the terms of the Terms of Service.
I don't understand the surprise people are experiencing from the revelation that Google and Microsoft scans the stuff you upload to their cloud storage systems.
You are literally giving them a copy of your files, and generally speaking, you also agreed to allow them to allow them to scan your stuff. Google Drive's terms of service explicitly states that your stuff will be scanned:
"Our automated systems analyze your content (including emails) to provide you personally relevant product features, such as customized search results, tailored advertising, and spam and malware detection. This analysis occurs as the content is sent, received, and when it is stored. "
Why would anyone reasonably think that their stuff is somehow private when it's in the cloud?
China might not be a technically a "free market," but if there's any bit of electronics you want to buy there, it's available for sale even if it is officially banned.
Video game consoles in China have been officially banned since 2001. Guess what I see when I go to the mall in China? Xbox 360s, Playstation 3s, Wiis. I've been told that even next gen consoles like the PS4 has made it to storefronts in China before the official launch date (through gray market means via Hong Kong).
At a macro level, China is not a "free market" but rather a managed economy. At the micro level, though, everything is for sale.
I think you're the first to suggest that this article means that Apple is doomed.
Wait, which "best selling car" in China are you talking about? Because Buick has consistently been one of the best (if not the best) selling car manufacturers in China since before WWII.
I am really looking forward to the Oculus' public release, but I really hope they fix the lag in head tracking that results in motion sickness or dizziness in the users. As a guy who used to get nauseous after a few hours of Duke Nukem or Doom, that'd be a pretty major negative in determining whether I will buy one or not.
Also, I'm glad we've finally hit Johnny Mnemonic levels of tech in real life. Bring on the talking dolphins.
FTA: "For Chinese immigrants in the United States, speaking to a Chinese (vs. Caucasian) face reduced their English fluency, but at the same time increased their social comfort, effects that did not occur for a comparison group of European Americans (study 1)."
In my experience as a native speaker of Chinese, the reduced fluency in English when speaking with another Chinese person is due to the fact that in the back of my head, I'm trying to determine whether I should use English or Chinese to express an idea and it usually expresses itself as Chinglish. If the other person is Chinese but doesn't speak the same dialect as I do and I am using purely English to communicate, I don't get the same effect.
I second the pen and paper note-taking suggestion. I've found that if I type my notes in class, I spend more time transcribing every word the lecturer says instead of paying attention to the lecture and noting down the points that are important. Of course, you can always ask the lecturer if you can record the class if you need the crutch.
Wouldn't giving Apple a 30% cut only come into play if OnLive is making subscriptions available via in-app purchases? If OnLive is able to get people to sign up for their service on a website (like, say, Netflix) and set up subscriptions there, I don't see how Apple would be able to take a piece of their revenues that way.
There is a growing number of games on Android that provide controller support already, so it's not absolutely required that an Android game MUST utilize touchscreen technology. Besides, the Ouya controller will have an integrated touchpad on the face of the controller so you can use the controller even while you're playing a game that might require some aspect of touch.
I've never gotten the appeal of the Playstation Home - it always felt like a heavily commercialized and far more limited version of Second Life. Personally, I wish Sony would prioritize their approach with their PS3. Rather than offering something gimmicky like Home, why not upgrade the ancient browser? How about having an app store for cool PS3 apps? How about putting a few bucks towards real security?
The PS3 always feels like a machine with a lot of potential. But Sony's obsession with locking down and controlling the experience meant that the PS3's potential will go untapped. And when Sony does decide to do something, it's usually something nobody wants.
Thank you for proving my point.
I think it's much more than merely developing an affinity for products we choose over alternatives. The mark of a fanboy isn't that they like something better, it's that they've literally coalesced into miniature tribes where their preferred product (Apple being the obvious example) becomes the culture and any alternative culture (say, Windows PCs or Linux) are intruders or the enemy. But that's not really a surprise. Humans love tribes. We've loved them when we were tree-dwelling primates.
That's not poisoning the results. That's a feature.
That's pretty dumb. As far as I know, LegalZoom isn't practicing law so much as providing people with templates for documents where they can fill in bits that they want and delete other bits they don't want. This is not the same as giving people legal advice, or engaging in an attorney-client relationship with anyone.
Besides, if this is successful, it'll have a detrimental effect to authors and publishers who publish books with legal templates (Draft your own Will books, for instance), most of which are for really simple stuff like wills or simple contracts. It's going to deny the poorest people access to making these documents because it's going to force them to seek attorneys who are often too expensive.