The judge hasn't dismissed any case. He denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that an injunction would not serve the public interest. In order to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the party making the motion (in this case Apple) must prove (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Since the judge found that an injunction would not be in the public interest, and that Motorola was likely to suffer irreparable harm, the motion was denied.
You realize the mayor of New York City is Michael Bloomberg, right? From the wiki:
In March 2009, Forbes reported Bloomberg's wealth at $16 billion, a gain of $4.5 billion over the previous year, enjoying the world's biggest increase in wealth in 2009.[21] At that time, there were only four fortunes in the U.S. that were larger (although the Wal-Mart family fortune is split among four people). He moved from 142nd to 17th in the Forbes list of the world's billionaires in only two years (March 2007 – March 2009).[22][23] In March 2011, his total wealth had increased to $19.5 billion, ranking 12th in the Forbes 400 and 30th in the world.[3] As of 2012, Forbes ranks his fortune at $22 billion
That is only if you use the low estimate, which the UN is no longer advocating. They now advocate using a middle estimate which provides:
The medium-variant projection for 2050 is more certain than for 2100 because people
who will be 40 years and older in 2050 are already born. According to the medium
variant, it will take 13 years to add the eighth billion, 18 years to add the ninth billion and
40 years to reach the tenth billion. According to the high variant, an additional billion
would be added every 10 or 11 years for the rest of this century.
Yes, it's likely that the national paper with the third highest circulation* is of interest to no one.
*Data is admittedly out of date, thought I'm confident the premise still stands.
Exactly what I was thinking. I'd much rather have a few cents deducted from my Google Subscription account for each article I'd like to read in multiple publications than have to pay full price to subscribe to each of the publications when they put their content behind the inevitable pay wall. The alternative, which is never seeing the content, would be very satisfying.
Google is becoming quite the content aggregator these days, isn't it...
That's a good point. I did want to point that that PACER doesn't charge for "every page downloaded from it." It caps it at something like 20 pages per document. So, assuming my 20 page cap is correct, if I pull up a 25 page memo of law, I only get charged for the first 20 pages.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Some courts scan the initiating documents (the complaint, corporate disclosures, etc.) More importantly, it's always the court that posts decisions and orders, which is, arguably, the most important part of what's available on PACER/ECF.
Haven't RTFA, but it seems that this is more complicated. Accepting your argument that an IP address identifies a Network (really an endpoint as indicated below), and the fact that multiple computers may reside on that network, you have to also accept the fact that more than one operating system may be running on each of the computers located on that network (or even more than one OS per computer). Therefore, since the plaintiffs are looking to recover damages from Microsoft, you can't say that you are entitled to a damages award just because you were assigned an IP address on a given date, and that IP address is reflected in Microsoft's logs for that date. What may really have happened is that multiple Win OS boxes may have been affected, or none at all (if the network was populated by computer running only OS X or Linux). You can't look at the IP address and determine what was happening on the network behind that IP, and that should be the reason why using an IP address as a basis for determining damages is flawed.
Here's a thought: Why not structure the pricing differently? Give it away for free or ~$50 to those who want it only to read the paper, and the device is locked down for those users. If you want to read other sources (Gutenberg, other publishers, etc.) you have to pay full price for the device? That way, the barrier to entry for people who might not otherwise want the devise is low, but it is still attractive to those who understand the benefit of an unlocked device.
It's always bothered me that my tax dollars were going to subsidize the business model of a publicly held company. Even if they fix their envelopes, they're still benefiting from using the low cost delivery provided by the federally subsidized postal service.
I contacted them for my Get Out of DMCA Jail Free Card. This was the email I was sent. (NB: I used a jetable.org email address.)
Said email:
Your ticket $ticket has been Answered
Thank you for contacting us, $name. We appreciate your purchase of the $CD and apologize for any inconvenience.
Please follow the instructions below in order to move your content into iTunes and onto an iPod:
If you have a Mac computer you can copy the songs using your iTunes Player as you would normally do.
If you have a PC place the CD into your computer and allow the CD to automatically start. If the CD does not automatically start, open your Windows Explorer, locate the drive letter for your CD drive and double-click on the LaunchCD.exe file located on your CD.
Once the application has been launched and the End User License Agreement has been accepted, you can click the Copy Songs button on the top menu.
Follow the instructions to copy the secure Windows Media Files (WMA) to your PC. Make a note of where you are copying the songs to, you will need to get to these secure Windows Media Files in the next steps.
Once the WMA files are on your PC you can open and listen to the songs with Windows Media Player 9.0 or higher. You may also play them in any compatible player that can play secure Windows Media files, such as MusicMatch, RealPlayer, and Winamp, but it will require that you obtain a license to do so. To obtain this license, from the Welcome Screen of the user interface, click on the link below the album art that says If your music does not play in your preferred player, click here. Follow the instructions to download the alternate license.
Using Windows Media Player only, you can then burn the songs to a CD. Please note that in order to burn the files, you need to upgrade to or already have Windows Media Player 9 or greater.
Once the CD has been burned, place the copied CD back into your computer and open iTunes. iTunes can now rip the songs as you would a normal CD.
Please note an easier and more acceptable solution requires cooperation from Apple, who we have already reached out to in hopes of addressing this issue. To help speed this effort, we ask that you use the following link to contact Apple and ask them to provide a solution that would easily allow you to move content from protected CDs into iTunes or onto your iPod rather than having to go through the additional steps above. http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html
Slashdot Mirror
Text of full order is here: http://nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=300
The judge hasn't dismissed any case. He denied Apple's motion for a preliminary injunction on the ground that an injunction would not serve the public interest. In order to establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, the party making the motion (in this case Apple) must prove (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Since the judge found that an injunction would not be in the public interest, and that Motorola was likely to suffer irreparable harm, the motion was denied.
Original source here: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Other-Information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf More data here: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/P-WPP/htm/PWPP_Total-Population.htm
Thanks Arthur. Looking to pay it forward now.
Much appreciated at gregory -dot- a -dot- brown -at- gmail -dot- com
Yes, it's likely that the national paper with the third highest circulation* is of interest to no one.
*Data is admittedly out of date, thought I'm confident the premise still stands.
There's a some more background in this article from the New Yorker. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/05/31/100531fa_fact_groopman?currentPage=all
Exactly what I was thinking. I'd much rather have a few cents deducted from my Google Subscription account for each article I'd like to read in multiple publications than have to pay full price to subscribe to each of the publications when they put their content behind the inevitable pay wall. The alternative, which is never seeing the content, would be very satisfying. Google is becoming quite the content aggregator these days, isn't it...
Sorry, try this link: https://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/menu.pl
That's a good point. I did want to point that that PACER doesn't charge for "every page downloaded from it." It caps it at something like 20 pages per document. So, assuming my 20 page cap is correct, if I pull up a 25 page memo of law, I only get charged for the first 20 pages.
I used to think that too, but you're confusing PACER and CM/ECF. If you go to PACER, you can search all districts at the same time. https://pacer.login.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl
It depends on the jurisdiction. Some courts scan the initiating documents (the complaint, corporate disclosures, etc.) More importantly, it's always the court that posts decisions and orders, which is, arguably, the most important part of what's available on PACER/ECF.
Haven't RTFA, but it seems that this is more complicated. Accepting your argument that an IP address identifies a Network (really an endpoint as indicated below), and the fact that multiple computers may reside on that network, you have to also accept the fact that more than one operating system may be running on each of the computers located on that network (or even more than one OS per computer). Therefore, since the plaintiffs are looking to recover damages from Microsoft, you can't say that you are entitled to a damages award just because you were assigned an IP address on a given date, and that IP address is reflected in Microsoft's logs for that date. What may really have happened is that multiple Win OS boxes may have been affected, or none at all (if the network was populated by computer running only OS X or Linux). You can't look at the IP address and determine what was happening on the network behind that IP, and that should be the reason why using an IP address as a basis for determining damages is flawed.
Here's a thought: Why not structure the pricing differently? Give it away for free or ~$50 to those who want it only to read the paper, and the device is locked down for those users. If you want to read other sources (Gutenberg, other publishers, etc.) you have to pay full price for the device? That way, the barrier to entry for people who might not otherwise want the devise is low, but it is still attractive to those who understand the benefit of an unlocked device.
That's about to change. See this product, for example. It does crowns and veneers the same day. Ultimately, it will likely drive costs down.
Huh. I feel much better now. Thanks for the clarification.
It's always bothered me that my tax dollars were going to subsidize the business model of a publicly held company. Even if they fix their envelopes, they're still benefiting from using the low cost delivery provided by the federally subsidized postal service.
Said email:
Saw this ID yesterday, but couldn't connect. I guess they'd been hacked one too many times.