A lot of things can mess up a radar gun's reading. For example, if the gun was not calibrated recently or calibrated incorrectly. Another issue is the amount of traffic. If the traffic was heavy, then the radar could have easily hit another car that was traveling faster. This is why most tickets have a "Traffic: Light, Medium, Heavy" checkbox section on them. Most officers will default to the light checkbox to help them in court. That's why you bring a camera with you and take pictures of the traffic (assuming it's heavy and helps your case).
"Flying unmanned is harder than sitting in the seat. Among other things, you can't feel the aircraft moving around(wind gusts), and you can't hear the change in engine sounds, and your vision is limited to what is on the monitor."
I blame the design of the system for that fault. The plane should know if the input it is getting will make it crash. The pilot station and engine also should not shutdown mid-flight. The Predators keep crashing and they keep blaming the pilots. At some point, the pilot is no longer at fault. They should be able to design this thing to take bad inputs from the pilot so the thing doesn't go into a dying spin to the ground.
Predators are known for not doing so well during bad weather. A large number of them have crashed actually. That is a big reason why using unmanned airplanes in US airspace has been getting a lot of bad press lately. One crashed in southern Arizona last year during a border search. I think it was just a few miles from some homes.
Not only are many EULA's supposedly unenforcable (I am neither a lawyer, nor caring enough to research properly
Multiple appellate courts have held that EULAs are enforceable. It's pretty much set in stone now. If you want examples, just ask. I'm a law student and I've read about 4 cases on this subject this semester.
I haven't read the claims and I only skimmed the abstract. You have to read the claims to determine what the patent really covers because the abstract is not part of it. Since I haven't read them and have little knowledge of PCMCIA, I can't tell you whether this is obvious or not. But I can tell you, just cause something seems similar, it doesn't mean it's obvious.
These days, almost no business is started patent first
Wrong.
patents only come after the fact as "protection" from other patents.
What are you trying to say here? A patent does not "protect" you from another patent.
Almost any respectable economist will tell you that patents overall promote innovation. A lack of IP protection in third world countries is also a large reason those countries continue to stay third world.
Actually it's called the doctrine of laches and you made a good point that the first guy didn't. The patent owner has to have been aware of the infringement for a certain amount of time before laches kicks in. It is possible that SanDisk just recently came aware of the infringement. There are very little details here but seeing as how there are some big name defendants in this case, SanDisk is going to have a hard time trying to prove that they were not aware of the defendants' products.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. If I had points, I would mod you down.
Does this explain the fact that Mexico does not put out fires like they do in SoCal yet their fires never burn out of control like they do in SoCal...??
Actually it does happen all the time. It's called personal jurisdiction. Look it up. If the court finds that the site had the "minimum contacts" in the US, then they'd have jurisdiction over them. Do you not think that the U.S. should be able to target people who illegally import goods to the U.S.? Why should we prejudice our own citizens who are harmed by those outside the U.S. if those that did the harm were purposely targeting Americans? How do you think the victims of bombings that took place outside the U.S. were able to sue Osama bin Laden in a U.S. court? (yes, kind of a pointless suit on other grounds) Every country does have laws like this. Why do you think the U.S. was able to have that British hacker who hacked in the DOD systems a couple years back?
In fact, it's happening a lot write now in Britain where people who don't like books that are written about them are suing the author in court in Britain for defamation, even though the book was never sold and never intended to be sold in Britain. The people bringing the suit simply go to Amazon and buy a few copies. Read about it here.
The reason I said "it depends on how the site works" is because the Supreme Court has already looked at the issue of personal jurisdiction and websites in the Pavlovich case, the guy who made the LiVid website that dealt with DeCSS and DVDs with Linux. There was no jurisdiction in that case but the court said if the website was more interactive and targeted people in California then there would have been. So, if this site had targeted Americans, then yes, they could have had PJ in the U.S.
With all that said, i think it's pretty shitty to do that to this guy.
even when they have no legal standing in the country
I never went to the site but depending on how it worked, the labels could have had a strong argument to take the owner to court in the U.S. They'd probably use the importing the works into the U.S., "targeting" consumers that in the U.S., etc. I'm sure Canada and the U.S. have agreements to enforce judgments over the borders.
You have to read the claims to know exactly what the patent covers. (I don't know what you read but stating that you are unprofessional makes me think you may not know this.) The specification (everything else in the patent) can say whatever it wants but only the claims can be infringed. It often does take a patent professional to tell you exactly what the claims are claiming though.
To prevent this from happening any more, labels will just probably try to force even longer contracts onto their new artists. I wouldn't be surprised if from this day forth, new bands are forced to sign a 10-12 album deal, which would force them to stay with the label forever basically.
The law does have that "duh" clause. It's called an implied license. Their publication of the site on the internet is their implied license for you to view the site and source. They obviously don't realize that viewing the site requires you to have a copy of the source.
From other news I've read about this law firm, I've gathered that don't have a very good grasp on copyright law. I'm currently a law student who is about halfway through his copyright course and I feel like I know 200 times more about copyright than these douche bags. I've read a few quotes from the Dozier guy and he kept quoting English law about copyright. I think he forgot that he lives in the US. It might be time for him to retire and check into a psych ward.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft purposely keeps IE from following the standards so more websites are developed for only IE. Doing this makes most of the web require Windows for correct viewing of it.
nor did you see abortion or any other right that has been read into the constitution. 14th amendment was written for slaves/blacks but has been applied to all races and even women.
Slashdot Mirror
How about the source code of the software on the radar gun? How do we know that works correctly?
A lot of things can mess up a radar gun's reading. For example, if the gun was not calibrated recently or calibrated incorrectly. Another issue is the amount of traffic. If the traffic was heavy, then the radar could have easily hit another car that was traveling faster. This is why most tickets have a "Traffic: Light, Medium, Heavy" checkbox section on them. Most officers will default to the light checkbox to help them in court. That's why you bring a camera with you and take pictures of the traffic (assuming it's heavy and helps your case).
"Flying unmanned is harder than sitting in the seat. Among other things, you can't feel the aircraft moving around(wind gusts), and you can't hear the change in engine sounds, and your vision is limited to what is on the monitor."
I blame the design of the system for that fault. The plane should know if the input it is getting will make it crash. The pilot station and engine also should not shutdown mid-flight. The Predators keep crashing and they keep blaming the pilots. At some point, the pilot is no longer at fault. They should be able to design this thing to take bad inputs from the pilot so the thing doesn't go into a dying spin to the ground.
Predators are known for not doing so well during bad weather. A large number of them have crashed actually. That is a big reason why using unmanned airplanes in US airspace has been getting a lot of bad press lately. One crashed in southern Arizona last year during a border search. I think it was just a few miles from some homes.
The fact that twenty-or-so other companies seem to have independently come up with the process indicates that the process patented wasn't non-obvious.
Maybe they copied the invention after reading the patent or looking at SanDisk's products? It happens you know...
Not only are many EULA's supposedly unenforcable (I am neither a lawyer, nor caring enough to research properly
Multiple appellate courts have held that EULAs are enforceable. It's pretty much set in stone now. If you want examples, just ask. I'm a law student and I've read about 4 cases on this subject this semester.
large reason != only reason.
I haven't read the claims and I only skimmed the abstract. You have to read the claims to determine what the patent really covers because the abstract is not part of it. Since I haven't read them and have little knowledge of PCMCIA, I can't tell you whether this is obvious or not. But I can tell you, just cause something seems similar, it doesn't mean it's obvious.
These days, almost no business is started patent first
Wrong.
patents only come after the fact as "protection" from other patents.
What are you trying to say here? A patent does not "protect" you from another patent.
Almost any respectable economist will tell you that patents overall promote innovation. A lack of IP protection in third world countries is also a large reason those countries continue to stay third world.
Actually it's called the doctrine of laches and you made a good point that the first guy didn't. The patent owner has to have been aware of the infringement for a certain amount of time before laches kicks in. It is possible that SanDisk just recently came aware of the infringement. There are very little details here but seeing as how there are some big name defendants in this case, SanDisk is going to have a hard time trying to prove that they were not aware of the defendants' products.
Was it obvious to combine them? we're talking 1993 here. I don't think the result has anything to do with the obviousness determination.
I guess you've never seen Billy Madison...
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. If I had points, I would mod you down.
Does this explain the fact that Mexico does not put out fires like they do in SoCal yet their fires never burn out of control like they do in SoCal...??
There is a difference between being "targeted by Americans" and "targeting Americans."
Actually it does happen all the time. It's called personal jurisdiction. Look it up. If the court finds that the site had the "minimum contacts" in the US, then they'd have jurisdiction over them. Do you not think that the U.S. should be able to target people who illegally import goods to the U.S.? Why should we prejudice our own citizens who are harmed by those outside the U.S. if those that did the harm were purposely targeting Americans? How do you think the victims of bombings that took place outside the U.S. were able to sue Osama bin Laden in a U.S. court? (yes, kind of a pointless suit on other grounds) Every country does have laws like this. Why do you think the U.S. was able to have that British hacker who hacked in the DOD systems a couple years back?
In fact, it's happening a lot write now in Britain where people who don't like books that are written about them are suing the author in court in Britain for defamation, even though the book was never sold and never intended to be sold in Britain. The people bringing the suit simply go to Amazon and buy a few copies. Read about it here.
The reason I said "it depends on how the site works" is because the Supreme Court has already looked at the issue of personal jurisdiction and websites in the Pavlovich case, the guy who made the LiVid website that dealt with DeCSS and DVDs with Linux. There was no jurisdiction in that case but the court said if the website was more interactive and targeted people in California then there would have been. So, if this site had targeted Americans, then yes, they could have had PJ in the U.S.
With all that said, i think it's pretty shitty to do that to this guy.
even when they have no legal standing in the country
I never went to the site but depending on how it worked, the labels could have had a strong argument to take the owner to court in the U.S. They'd probably use the importing the works into the U.S., "targeting" consumers that in the U.S., etc. I'm sure Canada and the U.S. have agreements to enforce judgments over the borders.
You have to read the claims to know exactly what the patent covers. (I don't know what you read but stating that you are unprofessional makes me think you may not know this.) The specification (everything else in the patent) can say whatever it wants but only the claims can be infringed. It often does take a patent professional to tell you exactly what the claims are claiming though.
Who uses landlines? What a waste of money.
Anyone know the # of the patent?
To prevent this from happening any more, labels will just probably try to force even longer contracts onto their new artists. I wouldn't be surprised if from this day forth, new bands are forced to sign a 10-12 album deal, which would force them to stay with the label forever basically.
The law does have that "duh" clause. It's called an implied license. Their publication of the site on the internet is their implied license for you to view the site and source. They obviously don't realize that viewing the site requires you to have a copy of the source. From other news I've read about this law firm, I've gathered that don't have a very good grasp on copyright law. I'm currently a law student who is about halfway through his copyright course and I feel like I know 200 times more about copyright than these douche bags. I've read a few quotes from the Dozier guy and he kept quoting English law about copyright. I think he forgot that he lives in the US. It might be time for him to retire and check into a psych ward.
I'm pretty sure Microsoft purposely keeps IE from following the standards so more websites are developed for only IE. Doing this makes most of the web require Windows for correct viewing of it.
nor did you see abortion or any other right that has been read into the constitution. 14th amendment was written for slaves/blacks but has been applied to all races and even women.
not really. thanks for trying though