Green Bay Packers do not own the trademark "Titletown Tech". They only have "Titletown" and other variations of it but not "Titletown Tech" specifically. If Green Bay is allowed to do that then they are allowed to take Titletown Brewing which is located in Green Bay and as far as I know has no affiliation with the Packers.
For Intel they don't make their CPUs in China from what I know. They make their NAND chips in China which would affect SSD prices. As far as I know China is big producer of silicon for solar panels by not high purity silicon used for chips.
That's a problem for the industry in general as many parts come from China. Intel has one fab and one assembly plant in China but the fab makes NAND chips for their SSDs. Intel's problem isn't helped by tariffs but the bulk of their CPU problem right now is in other countries.
Worse than that was it wasn't the first incident that MS didn't renew their registration on time. I remember another story where a 3rd party developer saw it had lapsed and registered it but promptly gave it back to MS.
How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
It depends on what is on the site and what the fans added to make their creation different or transformative. For example JK Rowling sued one Harry Potter encyclopedia fan site a few years back but whole heartedly endorses two others. So she's not against fan site but why did sue that one site?
The site that was sued just quoted her book for nearly all of their articles. Many times, the articles didn't properly use quotation marks or attributions to note that the entirety of the text came from one of her books. Without any original text, it's hard to argue that that site didn't infringe. In this case, other than remaking it in another format, what original work was contributed?
No both copyright holders and trademark holders must defend their IP. The difference is trademark holders must be more active in their defense. This makes sense as it is far easier to determine at a glance if some other party might be infringing on trademarks.
With copyrights it may be harder to tell immediately whether it is a violation and courts give holders a little more leeway and time to pursue action. That however does not mean that a copyright holder can just sit on a violation. Generally, plaintiffs must take steps to mitigate any damages.
Typically, companies that make other parts inside smart phones unrelated to Qualcommâ(TM)s patents, such as graphics chips or audio decoders, license any relevant patents themselves and pay the royalties directly to the patent owners. The cost of the licensing is based on the price of the particular component, not the overall phone price.
By refusing to make deals directly with mobile chipmakers and forcing smartphone makers to engage, Qualcomm can make it financially difficult for competing chipmakers to displace its chips. Smart phone makers apparently have to pay patent royalties to Qualcomm regardless of which company makes the chips. Thatâ(TM)s the move that the Federal Trade Commission dubbed a âoetaxâ by Qualcomm on all cellphones.
When asked who was responsibility for the discrepancy between 75x and 2x, the lead scientist Michael Bolton confessed, "Oh shit, I always do that! I always mess sup some mundane detail.":P
Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.
Except that's not what Qualcomm demanded. Normally for these kind of chip royalties, a company pays the license then manufactures the chip OR they buy a chip from a licensee. In the case of Apple, they bought chips with Qualcomm tech from another company but Qualcomm also wanted royalties on top of what Apple bought. It's called double dipping and Apple isn't the first company that's accused Qualcomm of doing this.
First of all you are assuming that Moore's law actually means the actual computing power increases by same amount of cores. None of which is actually a correlation. Moore's law deals with transistors not cores. And increasing the number of cores (and in this case CUDA cores) means increase in actual performance by the same rate.
With all that said and done, congrats you've reduced the computational time from many exponents of lifetime of the universe to fewer exponents of lifetime of the universe. And even if you could break the encryption in 2 years time, how valuable would that particular piece of information be? Congrats you've gotten a credit card that someone may not be using anymore.
You do understand that Enterprise is entirely overkill for most small businesses right like a one person law office. You do understand that Enterprise is per year licensing right? Please tell me why a lawyer in a one person law firm should get Enterprise over Pro.
In year 100,000 what is the value of the secret that was locked by encryption? Congrats you can spoof my credit card now that I'm long dead. And second, aren't you assuming that new encryption techniques to locking secrets hasn't been developed in 99,882 years?
That assumes that porn was the only deciding factor and also assumes an exclusive binary choice in formats. Back in the era of the VCR format wars, the problem with supporting both was barrier to entry. It was expensive for electronic manufacturers and content makers to support both formats. Very few consumers could afford both machines.
Today what is the barrier to supporting Apple's streaming service and another one like Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc? An app and creating a subscription account. Consumers can choose all or none or somewhere in between.
Technically this proof will make asymmetric keys like RSA easier to solve but by a very tiny amount. The computational requirements to brute force attack will still be many multiples of the lifetime of the universe though.
Also the point of the 90s lawsuit wasn't that MS included IE but some of the tactics it did to prevent Netscape from getting installed. Like bribing/threatening OEMs not to install Netscape or their prices would go up.
So a home business or small office professional (lawyers, accountants, etc) have to buy Enterprise even if they have little need for many of the features?
From what I remember about Wiles' proof, it's like 200+ pages long and uses a lot different areas and techniques of math. Because of this, peole doubt that if Fermat has a proof, it certainly wasn't the same one Wiles published.
I too think this is more likely. Take the case of Andrew Wiles who thought he had proved Fermat's Last Theorem until it was checked and there was a flaw in his proof. It took him and Richard Taylor a year to fix it.
Slashdot Mirror
Green Bay Packers do not own the trademark "Titletown Tech". They only have "Titletown" and other variations of it but not "Titletown Tech" specifically. If Green Bay is allowed to do that then they are allowed to take Titletown Brewing which is located in Green Bay and as far as I know has no affiliation with the Packers.
For Intel they don't make their CPUs in China from what I know. They make their NAND chips in China which would affect SSD prices. As far as I know China is big producer of silicon for solar panels by not high purity silicon used for chips.
That's a problem for the industry in general as many parts come from China. Intel has one fab and one assembly plant in China but the fab makes NAND chips for their SSDs. Intel's problem isn't helped by tariffs but the bulk of their CPU problem right now is in other countries.
Worse than that was it wasn't the first incident that MS didn't renew their registration on time. I remember another story where a 3rd party developer saw it had lapsed and registered it but promptly gave it back to MS.
It doesn't matter. The problem with Green Bay's claim is that they should own the name "Titletown". Many sports teams can claim that name.
How is it cyber squatting? If they registered "GreenBayPackersTech" they might have an argument but "Titletown" does not belong exclusive to Green Bay. Many different sports teams can claim that nickname.
In the case of copyrights they don't lose their ability to sue others in the future. What it affects is the amount of damages if they wait.
And no one said that a copyright holder can lose their copyright by failing to mitigate. What was said is that generally plaintiffs must mitigate.
It depends on what is on the site and what the fans added to make their creation different or transformative. For example JK Rowling sued one Harry Potter encyclopedia fan site a few years back but whole heartedly endorses two others. So she's not against fan site but why did sue that one site?
The site that was sued just quoted her book for nearly all of their articles. Many times, the articles didn't properly use quotation marks or attributions to note that the entirety of the text came from one of her books. Without any original text, it's hard to argue that that site didn't infringe. In this case, other than remaking it in another format, what original work was contributed?
No both copyright holders and trademark holders must defend their IP. The difference is trademark holders must be more active in their defense. This makes sense as it is far easier to determine at a glance if some other party might be infringing on trademarks.
With copyrights it may be harder to tell immediately whether it is a violation and courts give holders a little more leeway and time to pursue action. That however does not mean that a copyright holder can just sit on a violation. Generally, plaintiffs must take steps to mitigate any damages.
Typically, companies that make other parts inside smart phones unrelated to Qualcommâ(TM)s patents, such as graphics chips or audio decoders, license any relevant patents themselves and pay the royalties directly to the patent owners. The cost of the licensing is based on the price of the particular component, not the overall phone price.
By refusing to make deals directly with mobile chipmakers and forcing smartphone makers to engage, Qualcomm can make it financially difficult for competing chipmakers to displace its chips. Smart phone makers apparently have to pay patent royalties to Qualcomm regardless of which company makes the chips. Thatâ(TM)s the move that the Federal Trade Commission dubbed a âoetaxâ by Qualcomm on all cellphones.
When asked who was responsibility for the discrepancy between 75x and 2x, the lead scientist Michael Bolton confessed, "Oh shit, I always do that! I always mess sup some mundane detail." :P
Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.
Except that's not what Qualcomm demanded. Normally for these kind of chip royalties, a company pays the license then manufactures the chip OR they buy a chip from a licensee. In the case of Apple, they bought chips with Qualcomm tech from another company but Qualcomm also wanted royalties on top of what Apple bought. It's called double dipping and Apple isn't the first company that's accused Qualcomm of doing this.
First of all you are assuming that Moore's law actually means the actual computing power increases by same amount of cores. None of which is actually a correlation. Moore's law deals with transistors not cores. And increasing the number of cores (and in this case CUDA cores) means increase in actual performance by the same rate.
With all that said and done, congrats you've reduced the computational time from many exponents of lifetime of the universe to fewer exponents of lifetime of the universe. And even if you could break the encryption in 2 years time, how valuable would that particular piece of information be? Congrats you've gotten a credit card that someone may not be using anymore.
You do understand that Enterprise is entirely overkill for most small businesses right like a one person law office. You do understand that Enterprise is per year licensing right? Please tell me why a lawyer in a one person law firm should get Enterprise over Pro.
Yep. So instead of assuming they have to try an estimated kajillion primes, now they'll know the exact number of kajillion primes they have to try.
In year 100,000 what is the value of the secret that was locked by encryption? Congrats you can spoof my credit card now that I'm long dead. And second, aren't you assuming that new encryption techniques to locking secrets hasn't been developed in 99,882 years?
That assumes that porn was the only deciding factor and also assumes an exclusive binary choice in formats. Back in the era of the VCR format wars, the problem with supporting both was barrier to entry. It was expensive for electronic manufacturers and content makers to support both formats. Very few consumers could afford both machines.
Today what is the barrier to supporting Apple's streaming service and another one like Netflix, Hulu, HBO, etc? An app and creating a subscription account. Consumers can choose all or none or somewhere in between.
Technically this proof will make asymmetric keys like RSA easier to solve but by a very tiny amount. The computational requirements to brute force attack will still be many multiples of the lifetime of the universe though.
Also the point of the 90s lawsuit wasn't that MS included IE but some of the tactics it did to prevent Netscape from getting installed. Like bribing/threatening OEMs not to install Netscape or their prices would go up.
So a home business or small office professional (lawyers, accountants, etc) have to buy Enterprise even if they have little need for many of the features?
From what I remember about Wiles' proof, it's like 200+ pages long and uses a lot different areas and techniques of math. Because of this, peole doubt that if Fermat has a proof, it certainly wasn't the same one Wiles published.
I too think this is more likely. Take the case of Andrew Wiles who thought he had proved Fermat's Last Theorem until it was checked and there was a flaw in his proof. It took him and Richard Taylor a year to fix it.
Glass houses and stones comes to mind.