I think you are exactly right. The offer was very high for Yahoo, whose stock is considered garbage by most stock analysts. The people who should be upset are Yahoo shareholders. It is unlikely that its stock price will reach what Microsoft offered for it in the next five years.
The alternative to the stun gun is a 9mm bullet. If stun guns infrequently cause deaths, bullets quite frequently do. The taser is intended as a non lethal alternative to a pistol. If it is, in actuality, merely a much less lethal alternative, then it still has value in law enforcement and personal protection.
Tends to detract from the persuasiveness of the presentation. I agree with the earlier poster regarding name calling. If there is concrete facts to back up that statement, then why detract from the facts and bring the focus language most judges will simply gloss over?
Is "protecting children from game content" the equivalent to "game censorship"?
I have no problem with game designers putting any content whatsoever into their games, but I don't necessarily want my children playing those games.
Circuit City had a number of sales employees who were paid far in excess of industry standards, and not based on commission. Circuit City shouldn't be expected to pay its employees far in excess of industry standards. Many of those salespeople were hired back at lower pay.
The bonuses now being paid to executives is a completely separate issue. As noted in the post, Circuit City is struggling. After two of their top executives left, the board decided that drastic measures were necessary to keep the rest in place.
I find the cowardice suggestion highly unlikely. It makes absolutely no difference that Harvard has a law school. Yale's is arguably better. Sometimes you make strategic decisions in litigation. If there is one defendant who is going to fight very hard, and has let you know as much, sue the other defendants first and create precedent. Not suing Harvard now doesn't mean Harvard won't be sued.
for a patent defendant such as Microsoft, it doesn't always pay to become a plaintiff. They may win a battle but lose a war -- you do not want to create precedent that can be used against you by others.
1) RIAA lawsuits are civil suits, not criminal, and therefore not prosecutions. Prosecutions of children for crimes or misdemeanors is severely limited with special rules and courts.
2) Even in civil suits, minors are legally incompetent to be parties to lawsuits. I'm sure that if you look a little closer, if the RIAA is suing a minor directly, then it can only be because they did not know the person's age. They will either have their case dismissed, or will amend their complaint to sue the child's parent, who would be vicariously liable.
The attorneys' fees and other expenses that will be expended on this case are substantial, but not significant enough to challenge the resourcefulness of either company.
A high powered New York Law Firm might charge 750 an hour for a partner, 275 for an associate, and 150 for a paralegal. Even if they have a staff of 3 partners, 6 associates, and 18 paralegals putting all their time on this case, then they will be paying around 15-20 million in fees a year. Their total legal budgets are probably well over that as it stands, although probably not including this litigation.
would work here. How are you compensated for your testimony? How many times have you testified on behalf of the RIAA? How many times have you been asked to analyze users' systems? How often do you find that no sharing occurred? How much total compensation have you recieved from the RIAA?
This line of questioning is almost automatic with expert witnesses, I'm sure they will be asked.
what comes to my mind is another blow at Red Hat's business coming on the heels of Oracle's announcement that it would undercut Red Hat's linux support pricing. I've got three words for Red Hat stock holders, sell, sell, sell.
Red Hat really needs to enter a joint venture with or sell out to nother bigger company who is or wants to get into the linux business.
There is no such right. Nobody has any inherent right to be able to speak publically but anonymously, thus not taking responsibility for their words, through a third party.
Having said that, I can see a governmental interest to protect or reward such speech in certain circumstances, such as with wistleblowers. However, such protection, under our Constitution, should come from the legislature, not the Courts.
that most people do not associate the term spam with the spicy canned meat? I think we are still far away from that actually occurring. They may have a point internationally. However, the term "spam" is still strongly associated with both unsolicited email and the ham product in most English speaking person's minds. That google has more hits for uncolicited email is irrelevant.
Nevertheless, I do not think Hormel's mark has been diluted because this use is so completely different that has no real affect on its product.
for all the cracking attempts our own guys have launched against China. I'd be schocked if we (the United States) haven't been doing this type of thing against China, North Korea, Iran, or just about anybody all long.
Isn't Mickey trademarked? Doesn't that stop other companies from commercially utilising the Mickey Mouse name and image as long as Disney says in business and protects its mark?
...that the value of intellectual property in the United States either has or soon will surpass the value of real and personal property. Our economy has become based more and more on our ideas rather than our industrial or commercial power. If we can enforce our intellectual property rights globally, then the United States can keep its economic power and leadership position much longer as conditions around the world improve and the entire globe moves into first world status.
"Especially from people making artifically broad and vague descriptions of the privacy invasion in order to justify them."
In the interest of clarity, what privacy invasion do I describe vaguely? The only vaguely described privacy invasion here is in somebody finding out what the molecular properties of my personal property are. How is that analogous to listening devices?
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are exactly right. The offer was very high for Yahoo, whose stock is considered garbage by most stock analysts. The people who should be upset are Yahoo shareholders. It is unlikely that its stock price will reach what Microsoft offered for it in the next five years.
The alternative to the stun gun is a 9mm bullet. If stun guns infrequently cause deaths, bullets quite frequently do. The taser is intended as a non lethal alternative to a pistol. If it is, in actuality, merely a much less lethal alternative, then it still has value in law enforcement and personal protection.
Tends to detract from the persuasiveness of the presentation. I agree with the earlier poster regarding name calling. If there is concrete facts to back up that statement, then why detract from the facts and bring the focus language most judges will simply gloss over?
That is one bankers box. Not many lawyers would be intimidated by ten bankers boxes these days.
Is "protecting children from game content" the equivalent to "game censorship"? I have no problem with game designers putting any content whatsoever into their games, but I don't necessarily want my children playing those games.
Circuit City had a number of sales employees who were paid far in excess of industry standards, and not based on commission. Circuit City shouldn't be expected to pay its employees far in excess of industry standards. Many of those salespeople were hired back at lower pay. The bonuses now being paid to executives is a completely separate issue. As noted in the post, Circuit City is struggling. After two of their top executives left, the board decided that drastic measures were necessary to keep the rest in place.
I find the cowardice suggestion highly unlikely. It makes absolutely no difference that Harvard has a law school. Yale's is arguably better. Sometimes you make strategic decisions in litigation. If there is one defendant who is going to fight very hard, and has let you know as much, sue the other defendants first and create precedent. Not suing Harvard now doesn't mean Harvard won't be sued.
for a patent defendant such as Microsoft, it doesn't always pay to become a plaintiff. They may win a battle but lose a war -- you do not want to create precedent that can be used against you by others.
1) RIAA lawsuits are civil suits, not criminal, and therefore not prosecutions. Prosecutions of children for crimes or misdemeanors is severely limited with special rules and courts.
2) Even in civil suits, minors are legally incompetent to be parties to lawsuits. I'm sure that if you look a little closer, if the RIAA is suing a minor directly, then it can only be because they did not know the person's age. They will either have their case dismissed, or will amend their complaint to sue the child's parent, who would be vicariously liable.
The attorneys' fees and other expenses that will be expended on this case are substantial, but not significant enough to challenge the resourcefulness of either company.
A high powered New York Law Firm might charge 750 an hour for a partner, 275 for an associate, and 150 for a paralegal. Even if they have a staff of 3 partners, 6 associates, and 18 paralegals putting all their time on this case, then they will be paying around 15-20 million in fees a year. Their total legal budgets are probably well over that as it stands, although probably not including this litigation.
there is no alternative to Vista on new computers as there was for OS/2.
would work here. How are you compensated for your testimony? How many times have you testified on behalf of the RIAA? How many times have you been asked to analyze users' systems? How often do you find that no sharing occurred? How much total compensation have you recieved from the RIAA? This line of questioning is almost automatic with expert witnesses, I'm sure they will be asked.
This sounds like a high level form of champerty to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champerty
what comes to my mind is another blow at Red Hat's business coming on the heels of Oracle's announcement that it would undercut Red Hat's linux support pricing. I've got three words for Red Hat stock holders, sell, sell, sell. Red Hat really needs to enter a joint venture with or sell out to nother bigger company who is or wants to get into the linux business.
There is no such right. Nobody has any inherent right to be able to speak publically but anonymously, thus not taking responsibility for their words, through a third party. Having said that, I can see a governmental interest to protect or reward such speech in certain circumstances, such as with wistleblowers. However, such protection, under our Constitution, should come from the legislature, not the Courts.
that most people do not associate the term spam with the spicy canned meat? I think we are still far away from that actually occurring. They may have a point internationally. However, the term "spam" is still strongly associated with both unsolicited email and the ham product in most English speaking person's minds. That google has more hits for uncolicited email is irrelevant. Nevertheless, I do not think Hormel's mark has been diluted because this use is so completely different that has no real affect on its product.
they invented the Sudoku satellite. But what does that have to do with black holes?
for all the cracking attempts our own guys have launched against China. I'd be schocked if we (the United States) haven't been doing this type of thing against China, North Korea, Iran, or just about anybody all long.
Isn't Mickey trademarked? Doesn't that stop other companies from commercially utilising the Mickey Mouse name and image as long as Disney says in business and protects its mark?
...that the value of intellectual property in the United States either has or soon will surpass the value of real and personal property. Our economy has become based more and more on our ideas rather than our industrial or commercial power. If we can enforce our intellectual property rights globally, then the United States can keep its economic power and leadership position much longer as conditions around the world improve and the entire globe moves into first world status.
Maybe I should simplify: What information does this technology its user to acquire that should be protected as private?
"Especially from people making artifically broad and vague descriptions of the privacy invasion in order to justify them." In the interest of clarity, what privacy invasion do I describe vaguely? The only vaguely described privacy invasion here is in somebody finding out what the molecular properties of my personal property are. How is that analogous to listening devices?
The government should regulate our ability to use reflected energy to identify and examine objects.
I'd guess he has something in the range of a 1995-1998 model. Gateway still sold some quality machines during that time.
Why do I want to partition my disk in Windows XP? It seems to be taken for granted that this is a weakness of the operating system.