I think the unstated implication that comes from comparing the two long running studies on this in Rhesus Monkeys is that it's not so much that calorie restriction v maintenance requirement extends your life, but that caloric intake above maintenance shortens it. The key is in the differences between the two "non-restricted" treatments used I the different studies.
One used ad Libitum access to feed (eat as much as you want) and saw a benefit to restricting by 30% vs maintenance requirement. The other used maintenance v 30% restriction and saw no difference. Seems to me the two Positive Control treatments are what really should be compared (all other things being equal).
Watch this video (you can skip to the 7 min mark) where the Jury Foreman describes how the 1 billion dollar figure was calculated. It sounds pretty much how I described
A better analogy would be her stealing $2 from her mother's purse. Returning the $2 would hardly be a punishment.
An even better analogy would be if she'd used the money to purchase a toy, and I made her give sell/return that toy in order to give her mother the $2 back. Still not technically a punishment, but I expect it would be perceived that way none-the-less.
I notice that you failed to similarly emphasize the point that they didn't want the damages to be unreasonable. The purpose of punitive damages (as described on the relevant wikipedia page) is precisely to be unreasonable. It is to fine the offender above and beyond what can be determined the actual damages. I again point out that jurists are not PR specialist with practice using legally correct terminology. They wanted to calculate damages they determined to be fair and selected something between that claimed by the prosecution and the defendant, but closer to that claimed by the defendant. I fail to see, non-lawyer speech by non-lawyer jurists aside, how that can be considered punitive.
I made no mention of feelings, emotion, or any other related synonym. Looks like both of us could stand to improve our reading comprehension skills.
As far as I know, jurist comments after a verdict has been delivered cannot be used to overturn or set aside a verdict unless it is obvious that they've dome something wrong. As I explained, based on the difference between Apple's and Samsung's damages estimates and what the jury actually recommended, it appears as though their award recommendation is not punitive. The fact that the jurist used the word Punishment instead of something more legally accurate doesn't necessarily mean that the damages estimate is inappropriate or punitive. Last I check, jurists are not lawyers, nor are they usually PR specialists with practice saying exactly what they mean in an interview with the media.
Furthermore, the 1billion is a recommendation. I've seen plenty of write-ups claiming that Samsung could face up to triple damages for much of the infringement because it was determined by the jury to be willful. If I'm not mistaken the judge can revise (up or down), but is simply supposed to use the jury number as a starting point.
To my mind (IANAL), paying damages is a punishment of sorts, whether that fits with the legal definition or not. No verbal legerdemain intended.
They are paying money that up until now they had not been forced to pay. Maybe I've just been arguing with my 3 year old too much. My "Failure to eat dinner = no desert" policy is not a punishment from my perspective but a failure to earn a reward. However, it most definitely is a punishment from hers. Along that logic (which I battle EVERY night) any time you are forced to pay money you don't want to pay is a punishment.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the 1 billion is actually intended by the Jury to be punitive. If it was, then I would expect the number would have been much closer to the ~2.5 to 2.75 billion that Apple claimed, not the 500 million that Samsung estimated. That it was barely twice Samsung's number and less than half of Apples suggests that they took both companies estimates of damages with grain of salt (each has an obvious interest in minimizing or maximizing their respective calculations) and calculated their own damages estimate, which was their prerogative to do (I assume, again IANAL).
Hate replying to my own post, but since I'm unaware of a way to edit a post...
I've learned that the "Rounded Rectangles" patent was the ONE patent that was NOT upheld. So the jury agreed with the wise old patent veterans of/. on that particular point, but slammed Samsung on ALL OF THE OTHER PATENTS.
Every case I'm aware of like this asks the jury to make a recommendation regarding damages. Where did you read that they are specifically told NOT to determine damages. I've seen scans of the jury form from this case and there was a line for them to insert their estimate of damages, so I'd be surprised if they weren't supposed to provide one.
Claiming that it's about "rounded rectangles" doesn't make it so. Plenty of phone do have rounded rectangle shapes and are not being sued. At most the Rounded Rectangle was a PART of the trademark being infringed, but so were color and iconography used for apps, layout of buttons on the screen, etc. It was the entire picture that had to be considered by the jury, not single elements.
Now, I'm not sure they should have won, but a jury decided the case, and an appeal is a certainty. Being trollish about the facts of the case is just silly at this point. Especially since both companies can be accused of being bad actors, and don't really need fans sniping on their behalf.
1. Samsung presented a LOT of prior art and the Jury was not convinced that it was relevant.
2. They most definitely did NOT ignore the prior art. They skipped some of it and then came back to it later. The quote to which you are referring (and several sensationalist write ups based entire screeds on) was taken out of context. They were talking about the order in which the address the different points on the 30ish page form, not whether they simply decided to ignore evidence as has been claimed.
3. Yes, the jury did decide to punish Samsung, but only becuase they believed that Samsung wilfully violated Apples IP, but that was their job to decide. It is worth pointing out that they went with 1Billion instead of the 2+ billion that Apple was requesting, so they obviously put some thought of their own into the punishment. Keep in mind that Samsung cleared at least twice that in PROFIT last year alone, but the fine is supposed to cover several years of infringement. Therefore, if you annualze the fine over the total time of infringement covered by this case, it comes down to an even smaller proportion of their current profits. If Samsung is forced to pay it'll hurt, but they still will be the most (only?) profitable Android manufacturer as long as they can address the issues presented or secure some licensing moving forward.
I agree though, this case is far from over. Samsung will appeal and use the Korean case (both found to infringe, not just Samsung) to try and get this verdict changed, or the fines revised downward at least. I don't expect a final settlement anytime this year or possibly next.
IIRC, Xerox lost it's suit for the same reason Apple lost to MS. They both had a poorly worded licensing deal that gave away more than they thought it did.
I think these changes could be a step on the path to solving the "acquiring top calliber talent" problem. There was mention of recruiting google staff, whom would expect these policies, but there is also the competition factor. If I'm offered a job at google and Yahoo both, who do I go with? Minimizing your disadvantages as much as possible is a good move in that context, as long as free lunches aren't your only selling point.
My impression was that they kicked him out for submitting the app to the store (for customers to purchase), not for finding the vulnerability. I know it's a bit of splitting hairs, but I suspect no penalty would have occured had he limited his actions to telling apple about the problem. Still think it was a bad response though.
If Apple wants to seriously engage the security community there ought to be a way for the researchers to submit proof of concept apps to the app store to see if their current review process can catch them (obviously the reviewers would need to be blinded as to the identity of the submitter). They could improve their review process, catch security issues, AND avoid the negative press of booting a developer like this.
Apple has basically said, we don't give a fuck about the environment and try to hide it by saying they are better but in areas nobody measures.
Please explain how this is accurate in light of the fact that Apple will recycle your machine for free, and even pay YOU for the opportunity if your machine is recent enough? I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see how their recycling policy squares with your conclusion. Presumably they do enough volume with a limited number of body types, and obviously are very familiar with the manufacturing techniques involved, that they could concievably make it more efficient. If not, they are still willing to eat the added inefficiency costs to do the recycling themselves so where is the problem?
This is the one point I've not been able to find ANY explanation for, nevermind a satisfactory one. It costs them nothing to allow EPEAT ratings to stand for products already rated. They could simply have decided to stop submitting new models for rating, and saved themselves the hassle of negative PR, and grandstanding announements like this from the city of SF (how many macs are purchased by SF right now anyway?).
Since Apple will recycle your Apple machine for free, I fail to see how the economics of it are really relevant. They will even pay YOU for your machine, depending on just how old it is.
There are a million miscarriages of justice a day in this country alone. I can't get furious over every single one of them. I place being falsely convicted of DUI pretty low on the list considering it includes false convictions in Murder cases, rape cases, child molestation cases, etc. where the entire life of the falsely convicted is destroyed, sometimes literally (death row). I suspect that in most first time DUI convictions the penalty is a stiff fine, maybe a revocation of driving for a subsequent offense. That sucks, and isn't fair, but its hard for me to get too worked up over it in light of greater miscarriages. I've only got so much righteous anger to go around, and this just isn't important enough to me. If you want to picket the judges house, then feel free. I'll even agree with your motivation, but you won't see me there.
I suspect that the judge placed some emphasis on the cost of re-trying all of the cases that are based on this piece of equipment, in light of its obsolescence moving foreword. As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.
Maybe my response lacked the kind of hostility normally present on the internet, but I clearly stated a lack of approval.
At what point did I say their convictions shouldn't be overturned? I made a GUESS at the JUDGES reasoning, and then said I DON'T APPROVE. The rest was my supposition as to how great a miscarriage of justice this was. My conclusion was "relatively minor" since the majority probably were guilty. Additional mitigation includes the low penalty for a first time DUI conviction (usually just a fine) as compared with the potential penalties for a false conviction in other cases with more on the line (prison time, death penalty, etc.). I never said I was happy with it.
It's not an either/or scenario you are describing. All tests (which a court case can be described as) have a two types of errors. Type 1 errors are false negatives and Type 2 are false positives. Decreasing one usually does increase the other, but you can never eliminate either of them. In this case the consequence of a false conviction is relatively minor as compared with the consequence of a false conviction in a murder case. 1st offense DUI convictions frequently don't even end up in a suspended drivers license, just a fine. That sucks, but it's not the same thing as the state executing a falsely convicted death row inmate as a previous commenter used as a comparison. Also keep in mind that most sobriety tests are administered AFTER the driver has given the police probable cause to request one (driving recklessly, speeding, swerving, smelling of alcohol, presence of an open container, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I think the unstated implication that comes from comparing the two long running studies on this in Rhesus Monkeys is that it's not so much that calorie restriction v maintenance requirement extends your life, but that caloric intake above maintenance shortens it. The key is in the differences between the two "non-restricted" treatments used I the different studies.
One used ad Libitum access to feed (eat as much as you want) and saw a benefit to restricting by 30% vs maintenance requirement. The other used maintenance v 30% restriction and saw no difference. Seems to me the two Positive Control treatments are what really should be compared (all other things being equal).
-A Nutritionist
The sad part is that you don't
- A Nutritionist
Watch this video (you can skip to the 7 min mark) where the Jury Foreman describes how the 1 billion dollar figure was calculated. It sounds pretty much how I described
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/28/jury-foreman-in-apple-vs-samsung-case-speaks-to-rationale-for-verdict/
A better analogy would be her stealing $2 from her mother's purse. Returning the $2 would hardly be a punishment.
An even better analogy would be if she'd used the money to purchase a toy, and I made her give sell/return that toy in order to give her mother the $2 back. Still not technically a punishment, but I expect it would be perceived that way none-the-less.
I notice that you failed to similarly emphasize the point that they didn't want the damages to be unreasonable. The purpose of punitive damages (as described on the relevant wikipedia page) is precisely to be unreasonable. It is to fine the offender above and beyond what can be determined the actual damages. I again point out that jurists are not PR specialist with practice using legally correct terminology. They wanted to calculate damages they determined to be fair and selected something between that claimed by the prosecution and the defendant, but closer to that claimed by the defendant. I fail to see, non-lawyer speech by non-lawyer jurists aside, how that can be considered punitive.
I made no mention of feelings, emotion, or any other related synonym. Looks like both of us could stand to improve our reading comprehension skills.
As far as I know, jurist comments after a verdict has been delivered cannot be used to overturn or set aside a verdict unless it is obvious that they've dome something wrong. As I explained, based on the difference between Apple's and Samsung's damages estimates and what the jury actually recommended, it appears as though their award recommendation is not punitive. The fact that the jurist used the word Punishment instead of something more legally accurate doesn't necessarily mean that the damages estimate is inappropriate or punitive. Last I check, jurists are not lawyers, nor are they usually PR specialists with practice saying exactly what they mean in an interview with the media.
Furthermore, the 1billion is a recommendation. I've seen plenty of write-ups claiming that Samsung could face up to triple damages for much of the infringement because it was determined by the jury to be willful. If I'm not mistaken the judge can revise (up or down), but is simply supposed to use the jury number as a starting point.
To my mind (IANAL), paying damages is a punishment of sorts, whether that fits with the legal definition or not. No verbal legerdemain intended.
They are paying money that up until now they had not been forced to pay. Maybe I've just been arguing with my 3 year old too much. My "Failure to eat dinner = no desert" policy is not a punishment from my perspective but a failure to earn a reward. However, it most definitely is a punishment from hers. Along that logic (which I battle EVERY night) any time you are forced to pay money you don't want to pay is a punishment.
That being said, I'm not convinced that the 1 billion is actually intended by the Jury to be punitive. If it was, then I would expect the number would have been much closer to the ~2.5 to 2.75 billion that Apple claimed, not the 500 million that Samsung estimated. That it was barely twice Samsung's number and less than half of Apples suggests that they took both companies estimates of damages with grain of salt (each has an obvious interest in minimizing or maximizing their respective calculations) and calculated their own damages estimate, which was their prerogative to do (I assume, again IANAL).
Hate replying to my own post, but since I'm unaware of a way to edit a post...
/. on that particular point, but slammed Samsung on ALL OF THE OTHER PATENTS.
I've learned that the "Rounded Rectangles" patent was the ONE patent that was NOT upheld. So the jury agreed with the wise old patent veterans of
Every case I'm aware of like this asks the jury to make a recommendation regarding damages. Where did you read that they are specifically told NOT to determine damages. I've seen scans of the jury form from this case and there was a line for them to insert their estimate of damages, so I'd be surprised if they weren't supposed to provide one.
Claiming that it's about "rounded rectangles" doesn't make it so. Plenty of phone do have rounded rectangle shapes and are not being sued. At most the Rounded Rectangle was a PART of the trademark being infringed, but so were color and iconography used for apps, layout of buttons on the screen, etc. It was the entire picture that had to be considered by the jury, not single elements.
Now, I'm not sure they should have won, but a jury decided the case, and an appeal is a certainty. Being trollish about the facts of the case is just silly at this point. Especially since both companies can be accused of being bad actors, and don't really need fans sniping on their behalf.
1. Samsung presented a LOT of prior art and the Jury was not convinced that it was relevant.
2. They most definitely did NOT ignore the prior art. They skipped some of it and then came back to it later. The quote to which you are referring (and several sensationalist write ups based entire screeds on) was taken out of context. They were talking about the order in which the address the different points on the 30ish page form, not whether they simply decided to ignore evidence as has been claimed.
3. Yes, the jury did decide to punish Samsung, but only becuase they believed that Samsung wilfully violated Apples IP, but that was their job to decide. It is worth pointing out that they went with 1Billion instead of the 2+ billion that Apple was requesting, so they obviously put some thought of their own into the punishment. Keep in mind that Samsung cleared at least twice that in PROFIT last year alone, but the fine is supposed to cover several years of infringement. Therefore, if you annualze the fine over the total time of infringement covered by this case, it comes down to an even smaller proportion of their current profits. If Samsung is forced to pay it'll hurt, but they still will be the most (only?) profitable Android manufacturer as long as they can address the issues presented or secure some licensing moving forward.
I agree though, this case is far from over. Samsung will appeal and use the Korean case (both found to infringe, not just Samsung) to try and get this verdict changed, or the fines revised downward at least. I don't expect a final settlement anytime this year or possibly next.
IIRC, Xerox lost it's suit for the same reason Apple lost to MS. They both had a poorly worded licensing deal that gave away more than they thought it did.
I think these changes could be a step on the path to solving the "acquiring top calliber talent" problem. There was mention of recruiting google staff, whom would expect these policies, but there is also the competition factor. If I'm offered a job at google and Yahoo both, who do I go with? Minimizing your disadvantages as much as possible is a good move in that context, as long as free lunches aren't your only selling point.
My impression was that they kicked him out for submitting the app to the store (for customers to purchase), not for finding the vulnerability. I know it's a bit of splitting hairs, but I suspect no penalty would have occured had he limited his actions to telling apple about the problem. Still think it was a bad response though.
If Apple wants to seriously engage the security community there ought to be a way for the researchers to submit proof of concept apps to the app store to see if their current review process can catch them (obviously the reviewers would need to be blinded as to the identity of the submitter). They could improve their review process, catch security issues, AND avoid the negative press of booting a developer like this.
Apple has basically said, we don't give a fuck about the environment and try to hide it by saying they are better but in areas nobody measures.
Please explain how this is accurate in light of the fact that Apple will recycle your machine for free, and even pay YOU for the opportunity if your machine is recent enough? I'm not saying you are wrong, just that I don't see how their recycling policy squares with your conclusion. Presumably they do enough volume with a limited number of body types, and obviously are very familiar with the manufacturing techniques involved, that they could concievably make it more efficient. If not, they are still willing to eat the added inefficiency costs to do the recycling themselves so where is the problem?
www.apple.com/recycling
This is the one point I've not been able to find ANY explanation for, nevermind a satisfactory one. It costs them nothing to allow EPEAT ratings to stand for products already rated. They could simply have decided to stop submitting new models for rating, and saved themselves the hassle of negative PR, and grandstanding announements like this from the city of SF (how many macs are purchased by SF right now anyway?).
Since Apple will recycle your Apple machine for free, I fail to see how the economics of it are really relevant. They will even pay YOU for your machine, depending on just how old it is.
www.apple.com/recycling
if you say so. That was not my intent.
People I know who've been convicted. Maybe my anecdotal experience isn't representative.
There are a million miscarriages of justice a day in this country alone. I can't get furious over every single one of them. I place being falsely convicted of DUI pretty low on the list considering it includes false convictions in Murder cases, rape cases, child molestation cases, etc. where the entire life of the falsely convicted is destroyed, sometimes literally (death row). I suspect that in most first time DUI convictions the penalty is a stiff fine, maybe a revocation of driving for a subsequent offense. That sucks, and isn't fair, but its hard for me to get too worked up over it in light of greater miscarriages. I've only got so much righteous anger to go around, and this just isn't important enough to me. If you want to picket the judges house, then feel free. I'll even agree with your motivation, but you won't see me there.
you clearly implied it.
I suspect that the judge placed some emphasis on the cost of re-trying all of the cases that are based on this piece of equipment, in light of its obsolescence moving foreword. As a minnesotan, I don't necessarily approve, but I would expect that the majority of those covicted with this equipment truely were drunk.
Maybe my response lacked the kind of hostility normally present on the internet, but I clearly stated a lack of approval.
That was not, in-fact, my argument but feel free to make this about me and not the judge or the case.
At what point did I say their convictions shouldn't be overturned? I made a GUESS at the JUDGES reasoning, and then said I DON'T APPROVE. The rest was my supposition as to how great a miscarriage of justice this was. My conclusion was "relatively minor" since the majority probably were guilty. Additional mitigation includes the low penalty for a first time DUI conviction (usually just a fine) as compared with the potential penalties for a false conviction in other cases with more on the line (prison time, death penalty, etc.). I never said I was happy with it.
It's not an either/or scenario you are describing. All tests (which a court case can be described as) have a two types of errors. Type 1 errors are false negatives and Type 2 are false positives. Decreasing one usually does increase the other, but you can never eliminate either of them. In this case the consequence of a false conviction is relatively minor as compared with the consequence of a false conviction in a murder case. 1st offense DUI convictions frequently don't even end up in a suspended drivers license, just a fine. That sucks, but it's not the same thing as the state executing a falsely convicted death row inmate as a previous commenter used as a comparison. Also keep in mind that most sobriety tests are administered AFTER the driver has given the police probable cause to request one (driving recklessly, speeding, swerving, smelling of alcohol, presence of an open container, etc.).
An how many states use the death penalty as a punishment for DUI?
Their are degrees that your oversimplification ignore. Most first offense DUI convictions don't even end up in a suspended license, just a fine.