(1) The judges read the briefs and the trial transcripts (or (1.a)have their clerks read them, really), (2)figure out what they think the answer should be, then (3)go into oral argument usually looking to solidify the position they've decided upon.
The Judges could patent this method of hearing arguments.
Settling a debt for pennies on the dollar is only reckless, unconscionable, and irresponsible if the defendants have dollars. In most cases the RIAA is taking the defendants for basically everything they have and as such they are getting the most bang for their buck by settling for all of the defendants pennies. So, although I like the RICO idea I doubt the shareholder suit would fly.
The PG rating gives away the filmmakers strategy for this film. They are hoping that the film will be a hit with the older crowd that grew up watching the movie. But they are banking on children with short attention spans. If it doesn't strike a cord with the large?/small? speed racer cult following it will still be a hit with the kids. My son never sits through live action films (still at the cartoon stage) but he would probably sit through this. So all the discussion about disorienting CGI, poor scripts, or bad physics will probably have no bearing on the final box office numbers
This rule barring patentablity makes perfect sense. The act was passed in 1954 after much of the initial development work was performed. This would essentially lock the technology up by having all of the initial work covered by their modified patent system and then barring future patents in the area.
On second thought this rule barring patentablity makes perfect sense. The act was passed in 1954 after much of the initial development work was performed. This would essentially lock the technology up by having all of the initial work covered by their modified patent system and then barring future patents in the area.
I was always under the impression that inventions relating to nuclear weapons were unpatentable
706.03(b) Barred by Atomic Energy Act [R-2]
A limitation on what can be patented is imposed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Section 151(a) (42 U.S.C. 2181(a)>)
No patent shall hereafter be granted for any invention or discovery which is useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy in an atomic weapon.
The terms "atomic energy" and "special nuclear material" are defined in Section 11 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 2014).
If this is really just a contract matter... why can't NJ just breach the contract?
I seem to remember that there is a breach of contract defense available when the contract violates public policy. Does NJ recognize this defense? Do the terms of this license agreement rise to the level of a public policy violation as recognized in the courts?
Not to defend the bank, but a set of documents CAN be both legitimate and forged at the same time. Some can be real and some can be false. The problem that the bank could be in (if they aren't totally lying) is that only demanding the take down of the real documents in the C&D will expose which records are real, and as such need to be kept confidential. The ONLY thing the bank could do in that case is to BOTH deny any of the documents are true and demand that they all be taken down.
Of course the truly paranoid individual would realize that the backdoor in Dual_ECD_RBG was merely an "obvious" decoy designed to herd us all onto the other three which also have backdoors.;)
(not to make light of what Mr. Schneier's point - the NSA has every reason to deny others effective cryptographic tools)
Slashdot Mirror
(1) The judges read the briefs and the trial transcripts (or (1.a)have their clerks read them, really), (2)figure out what they think the answer should be, then (3)go into oral argument usually looking to solidify the position they've decided upon.
The Judges could patent this method of hearing arguments.
During my second interview at an intellectual property law firm, I drafted a writing sample in front of the interviewing attorney while he waited.
at least they are doing the stand up thing. However it would be better if it weren't opt-in.
Settling a debt for pennies on the dollar is only reckless, unconscionable, and irresponsible if the defendants have dollars. In most cases the RIAA is taking the defendants for basically everything they have and as such they are getting the most bang for their buck by settling for all of the defendants pennies. So, although I like the RICO idea I doubt the shareholder suit would fly.
The PG rating gives away the filmmakers strategy for this film. They are hoping that the film will be a hit with the older crowd that grew up watching the movie. But they are banking on children with short attention spans. If it doesn't strike a cord with the large?/small? speed racer cult following it will still be a hit with the kids. My son never sits through live action films (still at the cartoon stage) but he would probably sit through this.
So all the discussion about disorienting CGI, poor scripts, or bad physics will probably have no bearing on the final box office numbers
This rule barring patentablity makes perfect sense. The act was passed in 1954 after much of the initial development work was performed. This would essentially lock the technology up by having all of the initial work covered by their modified patent system and then barring future patents in the area.
On second thought this rule barring patentablity makes perfect sense. The act was passed in 1954 after much of the initial development work was performed. This would essentially lock the technology up by having all of the initial work covered by their modified patent system and then barring future patents in the area.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_706_03_b.htm
If this is really just a contract matter... why can't NJ just breach the contract?
I seem to remember that there is a breach of contract defense available when the contract violates public policy. Does NJ recognize this defense? Do the terms of this license agreement rise to the level of a public policy violation as recognized in the courts?
Not to defend the bank, but a set of documents CAN be both legitimate and forged at the same time. Some can be real and some can be false. The problem that the bank could be in (if they aren't totally lying) is that only demanding the take down of the real documents in the C&D will expose which records are real, and as such need to be kept confidential. The ONLY thing the bank could do in that case is to BOTH deny any of the documents are true and demand that they all be taken down.
Of course the truly paranoid individual would realize that the backdoor in Dual_ECD_RBG was merely an "obvious" decoy designed to herd us all onto the other three which also have backdoors. ;)
(not to make light of what Mr. Schneier's point - the NSA has every reason to deny others effective cryptographic tools)