Their existing high speed rail lines are racking up serious debt. This plan to expand it is difficult to believe.
I was going to bring up the same point. I believe that the only profitable HSR line in the world is Paris-Lyon. So these lines are really much more expensive than they appear when sold to the taxpayers of the country.
I really hope that this idea doesn't spread to the USA in its present form. As Florida pointed out recently, even though the government was going to kick in a couple billion to get the thing built, Florida was going to be on the hook forever afterwards supporting it.
Until they can build a line that makes a profit AND gives me a reason to want to ride it in preference to other transportation alternatives, we shouldn't be building them at all. And artifically raising the price of gasoline to $10/gal is NOT a valid reason. That's just screwing us over because some Liberal Progressive politicians "feel" we should be in trains instead of cars.
The real question here is, why did it take the judge so long to reach such a common sense answer? A lot of people have been twisting in the wind waiting for this definitive slap-down.
You misunderstand this case. The actual publishers did not want their names associated with the law suit, so they set up a dummy company (Righthaven) to sue for them. This was not a case of a law firm bringing a case on behalf of the copyright holders. This was Righthaven bringing suit on behalf of themselves. If this had been what you understood it to be, the case would have been Las Vegas Review Journal vs. John Doe (or whatever the name of the defendant was) rather than Righthaven vs John Doe.
I'm guessing that this was done in an attempt to shield the actual Plaintiff from any liability if this all went wrong and damages were assessed against the Plaintiff of record in the suit.
I sure wish that the courts would stay out of business more. If AA doesn't want to sell their tickets through Orbitz, which previously generated a lot of business for them, that should be between AA, their customers, and their shareholders. Why is it the court's business to support Orbitz's business model over AA's?
I find it a likely story that someone would open-source Skype for the purposes of sending spam. That's an activity you keep secret and sell to spammers for big bucks. So without even knowing the motive we get this attack on the coder by none less than the VP of Skype's PR company. There should be a good libel suit in here somewhere.
I have no sympathy for Wikileaks when it comes to National Defense secrets. There is a whole magnitude of difference from corporate malfeasance in these leaks.
This means that MS can duke it out with Intel, who desperately needs better graphics than their vaunted R&D team seems able to develop in-house. AMD's acquisition of ATI is looking like genius in the future arena of merged CPU/GPU chips.
I'll respond to your proposal directly and point out the flaws. Patent trolls only exist because a) the patent system exists and b) it's not possible to differentiate the "trolls" from the legitimate inventors. Either you solve b) and remove this problem of trolls altogether, or any solution targeting patent trolls would altogether undermine a). So in short, your solution is the roundabout way of removing the patent system.
Or you apply the Troll Test. Is the potential Troll actually using the patented item. No = Troll.
I hope that Apple will step up, but I'm not sure there is anything in the iOS developers agreement that requires them to do so or guarantees any kind of protection against this kind of thing.. If anyone knows of one I would like to see it.
Apple had better step in, lest they be sued by their own developers for Fraud for requiring the use of an API that Apple either knew, or should have known, required the payment of undisclosed licensing fees to a third party (Lodsys).
IANAL, however, the very first thing I'd do is move for immediate dismissal with prejudice on the basis that the Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties (i.e. Apple) to the lawsuit. I don't see any way that Apple cannot be dragged into this suit and you just don't want a friend of the court brief from them.
Also, consider asking the judge to consolidate the cases so that you can pool your defenses.
And lastly, file immediate counterclaims for anything you can think of (vexatious litigation, harassment, extortion, barratry, perjury) so that they can't empty your pockets first and then just dismiss the case (w/o prejudice) and run away untouched. As long as you have counterclaims active Lodsys can't unilaterally end the case and leave you holding the bag for your legal expenses.
This case is far too much like someone finding something patented in MS Visual Studio.NET, and then suing application developers for using VS.NET to develop their own applications.
Of course, Apple should have already shown up for this just to prove that they're really not as Evil as many think them to be.
IANAL, but isn't there a Doctrine of First Sale that comes into effect here? As long as you're not promoting yourself to be in any way associated with Apple itself, you can pretty much do anything you want (except mod your game console) with your purchase once you own it. This seems like just another Apple power grab, enforced not by the law, but instead by their threat of legions of lawyers who will descent on to you the moment you offend King Jobs.
So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."
Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.
So far that also apparently describes the latest virus package installation. It Just Installs.
But what are they supposed to do? They're broke and raising taxes is apparently taboo over there, there's a limit to how much spending you can cut without severely impacting government services. Why should goods purchased over the Internet be exempt from taxes when goods purchased in a brick and mortar shop is not? Within the EU, we pay VAT in the country where the store is based, for goods purchased outside the EU, local VAT is imposed as part of import duties.
[ClueStick]This IS raising taxes - on everyone in the state who buys from Amazon. Duh![/ClueStick]
I can't think of a good reason why online purchases SHOULD be exempt while things you buy in a store should have the tax.
1: Amazon isn't using any state services such as street lighting, sewers, electricity, police protection, and the like that your state taxes pay for.
2: You don't get instant delivery the way you will from a local merchant (i.e. the playing field isn't totally tilted towards Amazon).
3: You have a much smaller carbon footprint buying from Amazon verses driving your car to the mall (a plus to the environment).
4: You have to pay shipping on top of your purchase costs (the unfair Amazon discount over not paying local taxes is substantially offset by this.)
5: If states get this tax, how long before they start trying to tax Amazon profits from every individual state?
6: Without Amazon and the like, your local stores have a virtual monopoly over providing you these items. How much do you think that is a good thing for the consumer?
This is such an over-the-top privacy violation (all those unavoidable permissions) that the privacy watchdogs should be salivating at eating up Sprint over this one.
I did note with interest and disappointment, that the latest version of I-Heart-Radio doesn't even show up on the ATK screen for killing any longer.
If Paypal had anything worth protecting they they should have patented it. No patent - no protection.
But it's a Secret, they whine in return. (def. secret: Something that you tell one person at a time.)
And what if someone else comes up with your "secret" independently? Can you sue them for (re)discovering your Trade Secret?
The only reason for Trade Secrets is, unlike patents, they never run out.
eBay essentially says that they own your mind even after you leave their overly restrictive, underpaid, job. That's right out of Total Recall and should be shot down by any court hearing this case before the gallery has even settled down into their seats.
Can we get the Global Warming scientists next? After all, we're set to spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting Global Warming over the next decades. If they're wrong, can we get a refund?
Slashdot Mirror
Their existing high speed rail lines are racking up serious debt. This plan to expand it is difficult to believe.
I was going to bring up the same point. I believe that the only profitable HSR line in the world is Paris-Lyon. So these lines are really much more expensive than they appear when sold to the taxpayers of the country.
I really hope that this idea doesn't spread to the USA in its present form. As Florida pointed out recently, even though the government was going to kick in a couple billion to get the thing built, Florida was going to be on the hook forever afterwards supporting it.
Until they can build a line that makes a profit AND gives me a reason to want to ride it in preference to other transportation alternatives, we shouldn't be building them at all. And artifically raising the price of gasoline to $10/gal is NOT a valid reason. That's just screwing us over because some Liberal Progressive politicians "feel" we should be in trains instead of cars.
So what's next? Playing an air guitar?
Of course, a law that would have put Milli Vanilli in jail can't be all bad.
It's a shame that we're getting all of the government that we're paying for.
The real question here is, why did it take the judge so long to reach such a common sense answer? A lot of people have been twisting in the wind waiting for this definitive slap-down.
You misunderstand this case. The actual publishers did not want their names associated with the law suit, so they set up a dummy company (Righthaven) to sue for them. This was not a case of a law firm bringing a case on behalf of the copyright holders. This was Righthaven bringing suit on behalf of themselves. If this had been what you understood it to be, the case would have been Las Vegas Review Journal vs. John Doe (or whatever the name of the defendant was) rather than Righthaven vs John Doe.
I'm guessing that this was done in an attempt to shield the actual Plaintiff from any liability if this all went wrong and damages were assessed against the Plaintiff of record in the suit.
I sure wish that the courts would stay out of business more. If AA doesn't want to sell their tickets through Orbitz, which previously generated a lot of business for them, that should be between AA, their customers, and their shareholders. Why is it the court's business to support Orbitz's business model over AA's?
I find it a likely story that someone would open-source Skype for the purposes of sending spam. That's an activity you keep secret and sell to spammers for big bucks. So without even knowing the motive we get this attack on the coder by none less than the VP of Skype's PR company. There should be a good libel suit in here somewhere.
I have no sympathy for Wikileaks when it comes to National Defense secrets. There is a whole magnitude of difference from corporate malfeasance in these leaks.
This means that MS can duke it out with Intel, who desperately needs better graphics than their vaunted R&D team seems able to develop in-house. AMD's acquisition of ATI is looking like genius in the future arena of merged CPU/GPU chips.
What a Lodsys of bullshit. I hope these guys die horrible deaths.
Mod Popular +1.
Everyone knows it, but I'll state the obvious: The US patent system is badly broken.
Mod Obvious -1.
I'll respond to your proposal directly and point out the flaws. Patent trolls only exist because a) the patent system exists and b) it's not possible to differentiate the "trolls" from the legitimate inventors. Either you solve b) and remove this problem of trolls altogether, or any solution targeting patent trolls would altogether undermine a). So in short, your solution is the roundabout way of removing the patent system.
Or you apply the Troll Test. Is the potential Troll actually using the patented item. No = Troll.
You are both wrong. Yes, Apple takes 30% of REVENUE. Not 30% of profit (as original poster stated). Not a bad deal since they are agent.
Not a bad deal for Apple, that is, since most "agents" take 10%, and managers only take 15%.
I hope that Apple will step up, but I'm not sure there is anything in the iOS developers agreement that requires them to do so or guarantees any kind of protection against this kind of thing.. If anyone knows of one I would like to see it.
Apple had better step in, lest they be sued by their own developers for Fraud for requiring the use of an API that Apple either knew, or should have known, required the payment of undisclosed licensing fees to a third party (Lodsys).
IANAL, however, the very first thing I'd do is move for immediate dismissal with prejudice on the basis that the Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties (i.e. Apple) to the lawsuit. I don't see any way that Apple cannot be dragged into this suit and you just don't want a friend of the court brief from them.
Also, consider asking the judge to consolidate the cases so that you can pool your defenses.
And lastly, file immediate counterclaims for anything you can think of (vexatious litigation, harassment, extortion, barratry, perjury) so that they can't empty your pockets first and then just dismiss the case (w/o prejudice) and run away untouched. As long as you have counterclaims active Lodsys can't unilaterally end the case and leave you holding the bag for your legal expenses.
This case is far too much like someone finding something patented in MS Visual Studio.NET, and then suing application developers for using VS.NET to develop their own applications.
Of course, Apple should have already shown up for this just to prove that they're really not as Evil as many think them to be.
IANAL, but isn't there a Doctrine of First Sale that comes into effect here? As long as you're not promoting yourself to be in any way associated with Apple itself, you can pretty much do anything you want (except mod your game console) with your purchase once you own it. This seems like just another Apple power grab, enforced not by the law, but instead by their threat of legions of lawyers who will descent on to you the moment you offend King Jobs.
Apple truly is becoming The Evil Empire.
So far, I'd disagree with that. The malware detection is built into the system, invisible, automatic, and self updating. So the user doesn't have to do X, Y, or even Z at all. We're still at "It just works."
Not saying that couldn't change in the future, but we're not there yet.
So far that also apparently describes the latest virus package installation. It Just Installs.
But what are they supposed to do? They're broke and raising taxes is apparently taboo over there, there's a limit to how much spending you can cut without severely impacting government services. Why should goods purchased over the Internet be exempt from taxes when goods purchased in a brick and mortar shop is not? Within the EU, we pay VAT in the country where the store is based, for goods purchased outside the EU, local VAT is imposed as part of import duties.
[ClueStick]This IS raising taxes - on everyone in the state who buys from Amazon. Duh![/ClueStick]
I can't think of a good reason why online purchases SHOULD be exempt while things you buy in a store should have the tax.
1: Amazon isn't using any state services such as street lighting, sewers, electricity, police protection, and the like that your state taxes pay for.
2: You don't get instant delivery the way you will from a local merchant (i.e. the playing field isn't totally tilted towards Amazon).
3: You have a much smaller carbon footprint buying from Amazon verses driving your car to the mall (a plus to the environment).
4: You have to pay shipping on top of your purchase costs (the unfair Amazon discount over not paying local taxes is substantially offset by this.)
5: If states get this tax, how long before they start trying to tax Amazon profits from every individual state?
6: Without Amazon and the like, your local stores have a virtual monopoly over providing you these items. How much do you think that is a good thing for the consumer?
This is such an over-the-top privacy violation (all those unavoidable permissions) that the privacy watchdogs should be salivating at eating up Sprint over this one.
I did note with interest and disappointment, that the latest version of I-Heart-Radio doesn't even show up on the ATK screen for killing any longer.
If Paypal had anything worth protecting they they should have patented it. No patent - no protection.
But it's a Secret, they whine in return. (def. secret: Something that you tell one person at a time.)
And what if someone else comes up with your "secret" independently? Can you sue them for (re)discovering your Trade Secret?
The only reason for Trade Secrets is, unlike patents, they never run out.
eBay essentially says that they own your mind even after you leave their overly restrictive, underpaid, job. That's right out of Total Recall and should be shot down by any court hearing this case before the gallery has even settled down into their seats.
Can we get the Global Warming scientists next? After all, we're set to spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting Global Warming over the next decades. If they're wrong, can we get a refund?
Have you ever noticed how often you fall in to that famous "small percentage" of users?
Lotteries also only pay off a "small percentage" their players, but somehow I don't end up in that small percentage group nearly as often.
Moderation hint: Insightful+1.
What I'd like to see is a British super-injunction to up against Wikileaks. That would be worth tossing a bag of popcorn into the microwave to enjoy.
Just another reason to not have given Twitter this information in the first place.