No, you chose to see something in the sentence that you quoted where "No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview" would have been a legitimate response.
In fact, "No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview" is not a reasonable or legitimate response to "Actually, because of a combination of bad lawyering and bad judging (mostly the latter), we ended up seeing more evidence than the jury did." It makes no sense. It's stupid. And you should be embarrassed for hitting the "Submit" button. Next time, read, attempt to understand, and then reply.
I read, I understood. You just claim that you saw more evidence. Really? More? Did you see how many pages they had? And you saw more "evidence" (not opinion)? Take your own advice before posting.
The foreman drove the jury verdict, admitted it and exposed his own failure of logic. He made a giant spectacular leap of logic and ignored all directions given by the court. Usually that fits in the category of saying a jury has done a shit job.
That's not an ego issue, it's pretty much clear fact.
Hilarious irony in that you say "...giant spectacular leap...shit job" - very strong opinionated adjectives and then follow it up by saying it's "clear fact." Fail!
You don't read the news on the intarwebs much do you?
No, I'm just no so egotistical that I think I'm superior to a jury when I've only seen a tiny fraction of the evidence as presented on opinion sites.
Actually the jury was shown LESS than is available from "opinion sites" like little old slashdot. It's up to the judge to decide what's admissible (and for what reason) when it comes to the jury. When it comes to "opinion sites", anything goes. What sounds more thorough to you?
Firstly, a great deal of the stuff on opinion sites is not fact, it is opinion, so of course that's not admissible, as it shouldn't be. Secondly, It doesn't matter what is "more thorough" in your opinion. Lastly, the verdict is based on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE and should NOT BE based on some allegedly more thorough evidence on opinion sites, so OP is tainted by inadmissible evidence and is not qualified to reflect on idiocy of verdict.
True, he would not meet requirements for a recusal type 'conflict of interest' by a long shot.
I was more thinking of the defense team's right to exclude jury members who they feel would have a bias. As a patent holder it could be argued that he was in favor of patents being upheld. Though the more troubling element is it sounds like he was the one explaining 'what counts' in patent law to the jury (instead of a neutral patent lawyer) so it sounds like he was giving interpretations that were skewed (through personal opinion) in favor of patent holders, and as an authority figure (since no other jury member had that background) his personal biased opinion held additional sway.
Which doesn't make the outcome right or wrong, but it is a rather significant push that the defense attorney could have not allowed.
Wrong. Any patent holder would be conflicted. Prior art is typically the enemy to any patent holder. If this verdict is not overturned, it will be used as precedent in future trials to effortlessly dismiss prior art.
Being conflicted and having a conflict of interest are not the same thing. Use the interwebs if you are confused.
Why do you assert that he did not see the evidence? Perhaps the verdict is idiotic therefore he disagrees with it rather than the other way around that you suggest.
Because if he were on the jury, I'm sure he would have said so. Most of the anti-Apple camp here claim that with all the evidence, how could the jury find a verdict in one week. Yet they arrive at their verdict ("idiotic") without even faster and without even seeing that mound of evidence.
I would argue that Apple's biggest asset is the apple symbol they stamp on all their products. It seems to have magical properties to make the average consumer deaf to all other alternative products.
Yeah, right. Quality and user experience has nothing to do with it. There's just millions of blind idiot fanbois buying there stuff constantly. Sure.
My farts implement an abstract flower class. You can use any number of decorator "Petal" classes to configure to smell. I work well with people who like roses, tulips, chrysanthemums and many more.
OK, two big problems with that. First of all, the factors that keep third parties from gaining critical mass have nothing to do with the size of the HoR. Second, the US isn't a parliamentary democracy — the President doesn't need a majority in the HoR to govern.
That's not quite what I meant. I meant that with so many more representatives, and each representing smaller groups, I believe there would be a better chance of third party candidates getting into the HoR. If they were able to take enough seats, the major parties might not be able to railroad through their agenda without the support of another party. Also, as more Representatives were from 3rd parties, there would be a better chance for national 3rd parties.
My point was, that where things can get copied innovation happens. Innovation does not happen if ideas are protected. What would be the reason to innovate if only you can produce it.
I must say that your logic seems backwards. If you can't copy someone else, aren't you FORCED to innovate if you want to compete? And the reason to innovate if you can produce it is the whole reason behind the patent system. How do you not get that?
I actually agree that expanding the House of Representatives is a good idea, but I think expanding it to 32,000 people is impractical.
Perhaps. But I bet there would be third and fourth parties rising out of the process. Then we'd have the coalition governments like most western countries.
The Global Positioning System satellites (GPS) sends out the GPS signals, GPS devices only receive the signals, they do not emit them. Phones of course communicate via microwave EMFs with the cell towers and it is this which could be tracked.
Likely, the summary is dumbed down from "the GPS location data (determined by receiving signals from satellites) that is transmitted to the carriers' cell towers." But I, too am tired of that portrayal of GPS; thank you TV shows.
a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.
Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.
I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.
If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.
Yes, it never ceases to amaze me that most of the populace things that GPS is something your phone/mapper TRANSMITS. The damn TV shows are no help at all.
Only the densely populated areas are blue. When people are packed densely, competition for housing drives up rents and prices, competition for jobs drive down wages. Those who cannot compete cry for government intervention to distort the market in their favor. Politicians who seek to secure voting blocs are all too eager to dole out OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. It is easier to be lazy than to be ambitious.
Actually, it's more like when people are sparsely populated they have no compassion for their neighbors and are uneducated and that's why they're red. See, I can make shit up and generalize as well as you can. Also, please note that, for the most part, Red states get more from the feds than the give, and Blue states give more then they receive. Yes, that's a fact. Look it up. It's easy.
I have a potential answer. Expand the size of the House of Representatives. Now, before you go off on me, hear me out. Each member of the house used to represent about 10,000 people. Now they represent 750,000. That's way too many. You can't know your rep. If each rep'd only 10,000, not only might you know him, he might be your neighbor. Now that's representation.
Slashdot Mirror
He is a big share holder in patent trolling though...of which Apple is also a big share holder.
Baloney.
Considering the time they took to judge it, the jury read far less evidence than we did, rest assured, Mr Troll.
"We" did? So you and 10,000 other apple-haters got together, discussed the evidence and came to a unanimous solution? I didn't think so, Mr Troll Jr.
Well then, I guess nobody should ever have an opinion on what happens in the judicial system then.
I never said no one should have an opinion. I most certainly do not think that. It's just that opinion is just that and isn't evidence.
No, you chose to see something in the sentence that you quoted where "No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview" would have been a legitimate response.
In fact, "No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview" is not a reasonable or legitimate response to "Actually, because of a combination of bad lawyering and bad judging (mostly the latter), we ended up seeing more evidence than the jury did." It makes no sense. It's stupid. And you should be embarrassed for hitting the "Submit" button. Next time, read, attempt to understand, and then reply.
I read, I understood. You just claim that you saw more evidence. Really? More? Did you see how many pages they had? And you saw more "evidence" (not opinion)? Take your own advice before posting.
The foreman drove the jury verdict, admitted it and exposed his own failure of logic. He made a giant spectacular leap of logic and ignored all directions given by the court. Usually that fits in the category of saying a jury has done a shit job.
That's not an ego issue, it's pretty much clear fact.
Hilarious irony in that you say "...giant spectacular leap...shit job" - very strong opinionated adjectives and then follow it up by saying it's "clear fact." Fail!
Actually, because of a combination of bad lawyering and bad judging (mostly the latter), we ended up seeing more evidence than the jury did.
No, you just chose to see evidence that supported your worldview.
You don't read the news on the intarwebs much do you?
No, I'm just no so egotistical that I think I'm superior to a jury when I've only seen a tiny fraction of the evidence as presented on opinion sites.
Actually the jury was shown LESS than is available from "opinion sites" like little old slashdot. It's up to the judge to decide what's admissible (and for what reason) when it comes to the jury. When it comes to "opinion sites", anything goes. What sounds more thorough to you?
Firstly, a great deal of the stuff on opinion sites is not fact, it is opinion, so of course that's not admissible, as it shouldn't be. Secondly, It doesn't matter what is "more thorough" in your opinion. Lastly, the verdict is based on the ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE and should NOT BE based on some allegedly more thorough evidence on opinion sites, so OP is tainted by inadmissible evidence and is not qualified to reflect on idiocy of verdict.
Quantity of evidence is meaningless, the only thing that matters is relevance of evidence. Remember that faggot.
Hey, stupid name-calling troll. Quantity makes it hard to discern quality - you are supporting my point.
You agree with the verdict, therefore out is not idiotic, and anybody that disagrees is at fault.
Another great leap of logic. I did not indicate if I agreed or not, just that his evaluation of idiotic was not evidence-based.
True, he would not meet requirements for a recusal type 'conflict of interest' by a long shot. I was more thinking of the defense team's right to exclude jury members who they feel would have a bias. As a patent holder it could be argued that he was in favor of patents being upheld. Though the more troubling element is it sounds like he was the one explaining 'what counts' in patent law to the jury (instead of a neutral patent lawyer) so it sounds like he was giving interpretations that were skewed (through personal opinion) in favor of patent holders, and as an authority figure (since no other jury member had that background) his personal biased opinion held additional sway. Which doesn't make the outcome right or wrong, but it is a rather significant push that the defense attorney could have not allowed.
We are now in agreement.
Wrong. Any patent holder would be conflicted. Prior art is typically the enemy to any patent holder. If this verdict is not overturned, it will be used as precedent in future trials to effortlessly dismiss prior art.
Being conflicted and having a conflict of interest are not the same thing. Use the interwebs if you are confused.
Why do you assert that he did not see the evidence? Perhaps the verdict is idiotic therefore he disagrees with it rather than the other way around that you suggest.
Because if he were on the jury, I'm sure he would have said so. Most of the anti-Apple camp here claim that with all the evidence, how could the jury find a verdict in one week. Yet they arrive at their verdict ("idiotic") without even faster and without even seeing that mound of evidence.
You don't read the news on the intarwebs much do you?
No, I'm just no so egotistical that I think I'm superior to a jury when I've only seen a tiny fraction of the evidence as presented on opinion sites.
I am kinda caught between 'shouldn't being a patent holder be considered a conflict of interests and caused the defense to disqualify the person?'
Most definitely not a conflict of interest. If he was a huge shareholder in Apple or Samsung, that would be a conflict of interest.
I would argue that Apple's biggest asset is the apple symbol they stamp on all their products. It seems to have magical properties to make the average consumer deaf to all other alternative products.
Yeah, right. Quality and user experience has nothing to do with it. There's just millions of blind idiot fanbois buying there stuff constantly. Sure.
I almost wish I was in the jury. Maybe I could have prevented the idiotic verdict.
They saw the evidence; you did not. You disagree with verdict, therefore it is idiotic. Yes, logic at its best.
My farts implement an abstract flower class. You can use any number of decorator "Petal" classes to configure to smell. I work well with people who like roses, tulips, chrysanthemums and many more.
FTFY
OK, two big problems with that. First of all, the factors that keep third parties from gaining critical mass have nothing to do with the size of the HoR. Second, the US isn't a parliamentary democracy — the President doesn't need a majority in the HoR to govern.
That's not quite what I meant. I meant that with so many more representatives, and each representing smaller groups, I believe there would be a better chance of third party candidates getting into the HoR. If they were able to take enough seats, the major parties might not be able to railroad through their agenda without the support of another party. Also, as more Representatives were from 3rd parties, there would be a better chance for national 3rd parties.
My point was, that where things can get copied innovation happens. Innovation does not happen if ideas are protected. What would be the reason to innovate if only you can produce it.
I must say that your logic seems backwards. If you can't copy someone else, aren't you FORCED to innovate if you want to compete? And the reason to innovate if you can produce it is the whole reason behind the patent system. How do you not get that?
I actually agree that expanding the House of Representatives is a good idea, but I think expanding it to 32,000 people is impractical.
Perhaps. But I bet there would be third and fourth parties rising out of the process. Then we'd have the coalition governments like most western countries.
GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone
The Global Positioning System satellites (GPS) sends out the GPS signals, GPS devices only receive the signals, they do not emit them. Phones of course communicate via microwave EMFs with the cell towers and it is this which could be tracked.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gps
Likely, the summary is dumbed down from "the GPS location data (determined by receiving signals from satellites) that is transmitted to the carriers' cell towers." But I, too am tired of that portrayal of GPS; thank you TV shows.
Shame on people who think otherwise. You don't deserve the vote in a free society.
I always prefer that sentiment in the original German.
a federal appeals court ruled that law enforcement is allowed to track the GPS signal coming from a suspect's prepaid phone without a warrant.
Somehow I suspect even non-technical appeals court judges know that GPS signals do not originate on a phone.
I suspect either the summary or ARS has things a bit confused. The ruling had to do with location data from cellular providers which they collect in order to provide you service, and which is regarded as pen register data, merely which towers you are pinging off of at any given time. This is how calls are routed.
If your phone also reports your precise GPS location to your carriers, then we need legislation to prevent that, unless or until the user places a 911 call.
Yes, it never ceases to amaze me that most of the populace things that GPS is something your phone/mapper TRANSMITS. The damn TV shows are no help at all.
Only the densely populated areas are blue. When people are packed densely, competition for housing drives up rents and prices, competition for jobs drive down wages. Those who cannot compete cry for government intervention to distort the market in their favor. Politicians who seek to secure voting blocs are all too eager to dole out OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. It is easier to be lazy than to be ambitious.
Actually, it's more like when people are sparsely populated they have no compassion for their neighbors and are uneducated and that's why they're red. See, I can make shit up and generalize as well as you can. Also, please note that, for the most part, Red states get more from the feds than the give, and Blue states give more then they receive. Yes, that's a fact. Look it up. It's easy.
I have a potential answer. Expand the size of the House of Representatives. Now, before you go off on me, hear me out. Each member of the house used to represent about 10,000 people. Now they represent 750,000. That's way too many. You can't know your rep. If each rep'd only 10,000, not only might you know him, he might be your neighbor. Now that's representation.