If the story was that the the RIAA was winning 75% of their alleged cases in a courtroom this would be news. That they are settling 25% for $3000 on average is exactly the sort of scare campaign they are wanting.
The RIAA doesn't want you to go to court, they want you to realize you can settle for $3000 instead of what would surely be multiple times that in legal fees.
I quickly read through the patent that appears to be at issue here (6430275) and I don't think it's purely the connection from a VOIP connection to a PSTN/POTS line (although that's covered I don't think it passes muster from a non-obviousness/prior art standpoint). The meat of this patent deals with call tracking and billing (starting at around page 5) and to me it stands out as the most reasonable area to pursue vonage.
I could be wrong too. =)
Nothing in the application struck me as terribly original.
That's just silly to assume that because your state does not observe DST, you don't have to fix your servers...
What exactly is silly about it? If your servers are all set to be in MST there is no need to patch. Is it silly for the good folks in Switzerland to not patch their TZ info because of this? How about any other country in the world that didn't and won't change? It's not, for the same reason it's not silly in Arizona.
FTA Lucent and Fraunhofer worked together to develop a patent suite for MP3. The question is raised ITA regarding whether ALU should be seeking its cut of the revenue stream on MP3 licensing from Thomson and not from M$.
I presume M$ will prevail on appeal, hard to root for them but it's hard to root for a broken patent system that rewards "Intellectual Property Portfolios" (also FTA Lucent was looking to sue on their patent portfolio to shore their finances up...)
As one poster above put it, Dish is doing the right thing. Viacom is in the wrong and Dish is not caving to their demands. I am a Dish customer and will remain one because I respect their commitment to the customer.
In Minnesota we are facing a similar soap opera with the adoption (or non-adoption) of Victory Sports network. Carl Pohlad (the owner of the Twins) figured he could charge outrageous carriage fees for his untested new product and the carriers wouldn't balk at either the fees or the requirement that VS be carried on "basic" and not be offered as part of a premium package. Boy did he underestimate the resolve of stubborn minnesotans. I think Viacom is playing their hand just as poorly.
From the posted information...$4.3 million patent infringement suit over pop-under...
It was clearly established in the last discussion (as well as in the original article) that this was not a patent infringement suit but a case of a business simply not settling its advertising debt.
Did you read it?
Is that SCOX is up around 17.80 on this news today, which is actually linked from all major financial sites and brokerage houses in their SCO coverage. On none of these places can you find links to the German gag order, the fine issued to SCO, or any other material that (in my opinion) would help some of these sorry folks interested in buying SCOX to keep from making a mistake.
Scum.
The complainant states that they are an authorised agent of the copyright holder, under penalty of perjury. They do not make the rest of the claims under such restrictions. This is an important distinction obviously.
From the DMCA (section 3A):
`(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed
The penalty of perjury clause only applies to the predicate. I deal with these every day as astound's DMCA agent.
I shorted at 10.69 and 13.93, almost shorted again at 15 but was getting a little nervous about my paper loss in case my broker recalled the shares (and forced a cover at a loss).
I'm surfing the pipeline until the wave crashes against the shore.
If the stock is trading above 10.25 (his exercise price) his options are in the money. He will likely be exercising to cover (which means he exercises and sells immediately to cover the transaction costs). With SCOX recently trading at around 11.75 he'll make a tidy 1.50 per share. Not as good as the 11.00 per share that the other execs are getting. =)
Slashdot Mirror
If the story was that the the RIAA was winning 75% of their alleged cases in a courtroom this would be news. That they are settling 25% for $3000 on average is exactly the sort of scare campaign they are wanting.
The RIAA doesn't want you to go to court, they want you to realize you can settle for $3000 instead of what would surely be multiple times that in legal fees.
I quickly read through the patent that appears to be at issue here (6430275) and I don't think it's purely the connection from a VOIP connection to a PSTN/POTS line (although that's covered I don't think it passes muster from a non-obviousness/prior art standpoint). The meat of this patent deals with call tracking and billing (starting at around page 5) and to me it stands out as the most reasonable area to pursue vonage. I could be wrong too. =) Nothing in the application struck me as terribly original.
That's just silly to assume that because your state does not observe DST, you don't have to fix your servers... What exactly is silly about it? If your servers are all set to be in MST there is no need to patch. Is it silly for the good folks in Switzerland to not patch their TZ info because of this? How about any other country in the world that didn't and won't change? It's not, for the same reason it's not silly in Arizona.
FTA Lucent and Fraunhofer worked together to develop a patent suite for MP3. The question is raised ITA regarding whether ALU should be seeking its cut of the revenue stream on MP3 licensing from Thomson and not from M$. I presume M$ will prevail on appeal, hard to root for them but it's hard to root for a broken patent system that rewards "Intellectual Property Portfolios" (also FTA Lucent was looking to sue on their patent portfolio to shore their finances up...)
TFA recommends taking a look at your record and understanding what's there. How would anyone go about doing this?
Then it would probably work.
As one poster above put it, Dish is doing the right thing. Viacom is in the wrong and Dish is not caving to their demands. I am a Dish customer and will remain one because I respect their commitment to the customer. In Minnesota we are facing a similar soap opera with the adoption (or non-adoption) of Victory Sports network. Carl Pohlad (the owner of the Twins) figured he could charge outrageous carriage fees for his untested new product and the carriers wouldn't balk at either the fees or the requirement that VS be carried on "basic" and not be offered as part of a premium package. Boy did he underestimate the resolve of stubborn minnesotans. I think Viacom is playing their hand just as poorly.
From the posted information ...$4.3 million patent infringement suit over pop-under...
It was clearly established in the last discussion (as well as in the original article) that this was not a patent infringement suit but a case of a business simply not settling its advertising debt.
Did you read it?
Is that SCOX is up around 17.80 on this news today, which is actually linked from all major financial sites and brokerage houses in their SCO coverage. On none of these places can you find links to the German gag order, the fine issued to SCO, or any other material that (in my opinion) would help some of these sorry folks interested in buying SCOX to keep from making a mistake. Scum.
Trolltech, sister company to SCO in the Canopy Group's myriad collection of companies...
I for one will stop exhaling and would ask everyone else to join me in stopping the irresponsible release of Co2.
The complainant states that they are an authorised agent of the copyright holder, under penalty of perjury. They do not make the rest of the claims under such restrictions. This is an important distinction obviously. From the DMCA (section 3A): `(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed The penalty of perjury clause only applies to the predicate. I deal with these every day as astound's DMCA agent.
I shorted at 10.69 and 13.93, almost shorted again at 15 but was getting a little nervous about my paper loss in case my broker recalled the shares (and forced a cover at a loss). I'm surfing the pipeline until the wave crashes against the shore.
If the stock is trading above 10.25 (his exercise price) his options are in the money. He will likely be exercising to cover (which means he exercises and sells immediately to cover the transaction costs). With SCOX recently trading at around 11.75 he'll make a tidy 1.50 per share. Not as good as the 11.00 per share that the other execs are getting. =)