It's good because it means companies now will have a reason to try to develop new things, instead of just copying the successful product and racing to the bottom.
The finding that these products infringe on Apple's patents means that they can be banned from the US market. That's what Apple's after, they have no interest in collecting royalties.
I don't think Apple's in it to recover lost money anyway. I think they just want to stem the tide of Android knock-off phones so they can reclaim their brand image (which is very valuable to them, probably worth several hundred billion dollars). Winning this case will make it easier to get injunctions against infringing products, and should encourage Google, Samsung, HTC and others to redesign their products to be less apple-like and avoid the lawsuits and injunctions.
A change is an invention. Imagine you invent a new kind of steam engine. Would you tell me it can't be patented because there are already steam engines? That makes no sense. It's not like the patent would cover all the other types of steam engine that already exist. What if I invented a new type of airplane that can fly without wings? Would you tell me I can't patent that because there are already airplanes?
Now imagine you invent an new kind of smart phone that has touch based user interface which includes a number of new paradigms, such as bounce back during scrolling, and pinch to zoom. These interface features, which did not exist in smart phones previously, make the phone better suited to viewing web based content, thereby making the smart phone superior to previous smart phones. Can you explain to me how that is different from the steam engine or airplane example?
I know it's been said before, but design patents are meant to preserve trade dress, and cover non-functional parts of the design. They aren't meant to cover things that are new, or innovative, or technology. They's just meant to prevent copycats from making cheap knock-offs of premium items.
Steve Jobs had four children. His first, Lisa, he had with his girlfriend, and he denied being her father for a long time. He named the Lisa computer after her. They didn't have a good relationship early on, but eventually made up and she lived with him for several years. He had three other children (Reed, Erin, and Eve) with his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs.
Pinch and zoom is a hack. A temporary measure to allow people to view standard webpages on mobile devices. In a few years it won't matter because there'll be practically no need for it.
Maybe things will change now that Jobs is out of the picture, but Apple's never been much of a team player. I'd be really surprised if they partnered up.
Apple has 100 billion dollars in the bank, they can afford to pay their lawyers up-front, so of course the lawyers won't be getting a cut of the settlement.
No, this is supposedly a reanalysis of data from old samples. An actual laboratory reanalysis has not been performed. And they say the results are "consistent" with EPO use or transfusions (they haven't released the data, so we just have to take their word for it) which is something expert witnesses say of forensic evidence which has not been scientifically vetted in order to avoid liability.
Anyone else ever been in a situation where you knew you were right, had the evidence mostly on your side, and give up? Yeah, me neither.
That reminds me of the time they kicked me out of church for political reasons. I knew that if I was given a fair hearing I'd be fine, but I also knew I would never get one.
This is already the standard for criminal law in many cases. It's common for police to catch a criminal and do a deal in exchange for him selling out co-conspirators. That seems to be exactly what's happened with Lance Armstrong. All the witnesses have been accused of doping themselves or have other quasi legal entanglements that they are getting help with in exchange for their testimony. It's true that contradictory physical evidence will override witness testimony, how many of us can really physically prove we haven't committed a crime? All these people have to say is that Lance cheated on the blood/urine tests, and that's exactly what they've said.
I hear there's a shortage of engineers in the US. Maybe we should grant asylum to women seeking engineering degrees over here and kill two birds with one stone.
If taphas refers to rape in this verse, then it is the only instance in the bible where it is used in that context. Here, in Numbers 5:13, it is clearly used to refer to consensual sex:
If any mans wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, and she be not taken(taphas) in the act
All of the passages your source has cited refer to people who have been captured, or cities which have been overthrown (implying the use of force). But there are also the passages I cited where a person plays a harp, or where the men took war upon themselves, or where a women cheated on her husband and ran away with the man she cheated with, which do not imply the use of coercive force. This means taphas applies to things or people who have been taken by any means, not simply forcefully. The verse I cited above should be sufficient to prove that.
As the author noted, cases that definitely describe rape use the word 'anah. So there is no reason to believe that rape is implied in this verse. Indeed, given the verses preceding it, and the Bible's general prescription for the treatment of rapists, it would be bizarre if it were condoning rape in this instance. And there is no reason to believe that it is.
As for why this verse is different from Exodus 22:16, the Bible repeats many things in slightly different terms. This repetition was useful for memorization. There is no reason to believe that each thing written in the Bible has to be new and different.
As for your claim that the world means child, your definition includes "marriageable young woman." As with all words, meaning is often contextual. By taking it to mean "girl" here, you are reading something into the passage that it doesn't mean.
They, like most other people, simply looking at things without really understanding how to question them. The only difference is that somewhere along the way, they figured out they were being lied to and now they don't know what to believe. So they simply grasp at anything that they are afraid might be true, or hope will be true. And as for being out of touch with physics, they are in good company.
The actual word used in Hebrew is tâpha which, like most hebrew words, can mean a lot of things. Here are some other contexts in which it is used:
Genesis 4:21 to play a harp Genesis 39:12 Potiphar's wife caught Joseph by his cloak Numbers 5:13 If any mans wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, and she be not taken in the act Numbers 31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
It would be hard to take words written in a certain time and place and language and figure from that what would have been written here, today, in english. It's better to look at it and try to imagine what it meant in the context at the time. If you aren't willing to do that, you really shouldn't bother reading verses from the Bible at all, because all you'll do is get the wrong impression and read things into it that it was never meant to say.
But to say that rape was acceptable is ignorant. Rape was an extremely unacceptable thing. There are at lest three stories in the bible where entire cities were laid to waste because their men raped people and the city did nothing about it or protected the rapists.
It's wrong to cite islamic tradition in reference to the old testament of the Bible, as it adds a great deal to the practices described therein. But even so, the article you posted contains this little tidbit:
Abdelaziz Nouaydi, who runs the Adala Assocation for legal reform, said a judge can recommend marriage only in the case of agreement by the victim and both families.
So in this case, the victim's family pressured her into getting married. Clearly, even that law was never meant to make a girl marry her rapist.
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance.
Slashdot Mirror
It's good because it means companies now will have a reason to try to develop new things, instead of just copying the successful product and racing to the bottom.
But Samsung has merely copied. . .
The finding that these products infringe on Apple's patents means that they can be banned from the US market. That's what Apple's after, they have no interest in collecting royalties.
I don't think Apple's in it to recover lost money anyway. I think they just want to stem the tide of Android knock-off phones so they can reclaim their brand image (which is very valuable to them, probably worth several hundred billion dollars). Winning this case will make it easier to get injunctions against infringing products, and should encourage Google, Samsung, HTC and others to redesign their products to be less apple-like and avoid the lawsuits and injunctions.
A change is an invention. Imagine you invent a new kind of steam engine. Would you tell me it can't be patented because there are already steam engines? That makes no sense. It's not like the patent would cover all the other types of steam engine that already exist. What if I invented a new type of airplane that can fly without wings? Would you tell me I can't patent that because there are already airplanes?
Now imagine you invent an new kind of smart phone that has touch based user interface which includes a number of new paradigms, such as bounce back during scrolling, and pinch to zoom. These interface features, which did not exist in smart phones previously, make the phone better suited to viewing web based content, thereby making the smart phone superior to previous smart phones. Can you explain to me how that is different from the steam engine or airplane example?
I know it's been said before, but design patents are meant to preserve trade dress, and cover non-functional parts of the design. They aren't meant to cover things that are new, or innovative, or technology. They's just meant to prevent copycats from making cheap knock-offs of premium items.
Steve Jobs had four children. His first, Lisa, he had with his girlfriend, and he denied being her father for a long time. He named the Lisa computer after her. They didn't have a good relationship early on, but eventually made up and she lived with him for several years. He had three other children (Reed, Erin, and Eve) with his wife, Laurene Powell Jobs.
Pinch and zoom is a hack. A temporary measure to allow people to view standard webpages on mobile devices. In a few years it won't matter because there'll be practically no need for it.
You can be convicted entirely on witness testimony. There is no need for physical evidence.
Many of the patents were violated by Android (pinch to zoom, bounce back and a few others) so in a way this is about Android.
But the one iPhone guy was probably very fanatical about it.
Maybe things will change now that Jobs is out of the picture, but Apple's never been much of a team player. I'd be really surprised if they partnered up.
Apple has 100 billion dollars in the bank, they can afford to pay their lawyers up-front, so of course the lawyers won't be getting a cut of the settlement.
No, this is supposedly a reanalysis of data from old samples. An actual laboratory reanalysis has not been performed. And they say the results are "consistent" with EPO use or transfusions (they haven't released the data, so we just have to take their word for it) which is something expert witnesses say of forensic evidence which has not been scientifically vetted in order to avoid liability.
I'm pretty I read somewhere that it does.
That reminds me of the time they kicked me out of church for political reasons. I knew that if I was given a fair hearing I'd be fine, but I also knew I would never get one.
This is already the standard for criminal law in many cases. It's common for police to catch a criminal and do a deal in exchange for him selling out co-conspirators. That seems to be exactly what's happened with Lance Armstrong. All the witnesses have been accused of doping themselves or have other quasi legal entanglements that they are getting help with in exchange for their testimony. It's true that contradictory physical evidence will override witness testimony, how many of us can really physically prove we haven't committed a crime? All these people have to say is that Lance cheated on the blood/urine tests, and that's exactly what they've said.
That's the perception, but no constitutional ban on abortion has passed yet, and I'd be really surprised if one did since most people oppose it.
I hear there's a shortage of engineers in the US. Maybe we should grant asylum to women seeking engineering degrees over here and kill two birds with one stone.
Intellectual Ventures has continued their work as a patent troll. Tony Stark stopped making weapons before he became Iron Man.
If taphas refers to rape in this verse, then it is the only instance in the bible where it is used in that context. Here, in Numbers 5:13, it is clearly used to refer to consensual sex:
All of the passages your source has cited refer to people who have been captured, or cities which have been overthrown (implying the use of force). But there are also the passages I cited where a person plays a harp, or where the men took war upon themselves, or where a women cheated on her husband and ran away with the man she cheated with, which do not imply the use of coercive force. This means taphas applies to things or people who have been taken by any means, not simply forcefully. The verse I cited above should be sufficient to prove that.
As the author noted, cases that definitely describe rape use the word 'anah. So there is no reason to believe that rape is implied in this verse. Indeed, given the verses preceding it, and the Bible's general prescription for the treatment of rapists, it would be bizarre if it were condoning rape in this instance. And there is no reason to believe that it is.
As for why this verse is different from Exodus 22:16, the Bible repeats many things in slightly different terms. This repetition was useful for memorization. There is no reason to believe that each thing written in the Bible has to be new and different.
As for your claim that the world means child, your definition includes "marriageable young woman." As with all words, meaning is often contextual. By taking it to mean "girl" here, you are reading something into the passage that it doesn't mean.
They, like most other people, simply looking at things without really understanding how to question them. The only difference is that somewhere along the way, they figured out they were being lied to and now they don't know what to believe. So they simply grasp at anything that they are afraid might be true, or hope will be true. And as for being out of touch with physics, they are in good company.
The actual word used in Hebrew is tâpha which, like most hebrew words, can mean a lot of things. Here are some other contexts in which it is used:
Genesis 4:21 to play a harp
Genesis 39:12 Potiphar's wife caught Joseph by his cloak
Numbers 5:13 If any mans wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, 13 and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and she be defiled, and there be no witness against her, and she be not taken in the act
Numbers 31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
It would be hard to take words written in a certain time and place and language and figure from that what would have been written here, today, in english. It's better to look at it and try to imagine what it meant in the context at the time. If you aren't willing to do that, you really shouldn't bother reading verses from the Bible at all, because all you'll do is get the wrong impression and read things into it that it was never meant to say.
But to say that rape was acceptable is ignorant. Rape was an extremely unacceptable thing. There are at lest three stories in the bible where entire cities were laid to waste because their men raped people and the city did nothing about it or protected the rapists.
It's wrong to cite islamic tradition in reference to the old testament of the Bible, as it adds a great deal to the practices described therein. But even so, the article you posted contains this little tidbit:
So in this case, the victim's family pressured her into getting married. Clearly, even that law was never meant to make a girl marry her rapist.
You can tell if they are out of touch with convention. Convention has little to do with reality.