Your argument is based on the premise of not falsely admitting guilt, which doesn't apply to Ravi because he KNEW he was guilty of the crime. Mind you, not the crime of making his roommate commit suicide, but the crime of invading his roommate's privacy. And then the crimes of destruction of evidence and witness tampering.
Oh, come on. Do you really see no difference between filming your roommate's gay sex and your roommate's straight sex?
To really believe that, you would have to believe that society sees no difference between gay sex and straight sex. To really believe that, you would have to believe that his roommate would have still set up the webcam if it was straight sex.
And all of that ignores the...you know...destruction of evidence and witness tampering, which are by themselves some pretty fucking serious crimes. Oh, and invading your roommate's privacy...some other posts below link to people who got put away for years because they invaded someone's privacy.
Notice how 600,000 is roughly in the middle of 22,000 and 4,500,000.
I bet if you come up with any range, most jurors would probably choose somewhere in the middle.
Besides, the damages that the law allows are clearly excessive in terms of the 8th amendment. We just need SCOTUS to grow some cojones and do their job, rather than taking the pussy way out and delegating such work to a corrupted Congress who will never fix the law.
Since their role is narrower than that of, say, the regular federal trial courts, and IP is specifically central to it, there's far more reason to expect that the ITC members are IP experts than that the federal judges and juries that would hear cases in Article III courts would be.
You mean "there's far more reason to suspect ITC members are former IP lawyers." It's quite possible the Article III court would be less beholden to industry interests.
FTFA: claims 1, 2, 5, or 6 of the United States Patent No. 6,370,566
FTFP:
1. A mobile device, comprising:
an object store;
an application program configured to maintain objects on the object store;
a user input mechanism configured to receive user input information;
a synchronization component configured to synchronize individual objects stored on the object store with remote objects stored on a remote object store;
a communications component configured to communicate with a remote device containing the remote object store; and
wherein the application program is further configured to generate a meeting object and an electronic mail scheduling request object based on the user input information.
2. The mobile device of claim 1 wherein the application program is configured to generate the meeting object with a global identifier property uniquely identifying the meeting object among a plurality of other objects.
5. The mobile device of claim 1 wherein the application program further comprises:
a contacts application program configured to maintain objects on the object store indicative of contact information wherein the contact information includes address information indicative of a fully qualified electronic mail addresses for individuals identified by the contact information; and
wherein the application program is configured to obtain the fully qualified electronic mail address of potential attendees identified by the contact information by interaction with the contacts application program.
6. The mobile device of claim 1 wherein the application program is configured to generate the meeting object and the electronic mail scheduling request object such that properties of the objects are compatible with at least a second application program associated with the remote object store and different from the application program.
It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.
I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not. I mean, remember, the other party to this suit is Microsoft.
And oh by the way Google doesn't own Motorola yet, and did not own Motorola when the devices in question were designed. But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your shilling or trolling or whatever it is that you're doing.
See, that's why we need better terms. There's fracking, the act of actually fracturing rock. And then there's fracking, the entire process; bringing chemicals in, shooting them into the ground, pulling them back out, and disposing of them. While the former might not be that dangerous, the devil is in the details of the latter.
They had a blowout. "The accident spilled thousands of gallons of salty, chemical-laced flowback water into fields and a stream." Shit happens.
Gee, isn't that kinda the point? GP says "there is no evidence it gets into the water table". And yet, when a blowout happens...it gets into the water table. Perhaps if there were any kinds of regulations, we could make sure blowouts don't happen, or are very rare, and when they do happen we can do something about it.
Could be many reasons. The entire article mentions "horses" twice, and provided no details.
Please, don't insult your own intelligence. What do you THINK would cause a bunch of horses and pets to start losing their hair in such close temporal and spatial proximity to the fracking? Here's the article that provided "no details".
The real shock that Dimock has undergone, however, is in the aquifer that residents rely on for their fresh water. Dimock is now known as the place where, over the past two years, people’s water started turning brown and making them sick, one woman’s water well spontaneously combusted, and horses and pets mysteriously began to lose their hair.
[...]
Craig and Julie Sautner moved to Dimock from a nearby town in March 2008. They were in the process of renovating their modest but beautifully situated home on tree-canopied Carter Road when land men from Houston-based Cabot Oil & Gas, a midsize player in the energy-exploration industry, came knocking on their door to inquire about leasing the mineral rights to their three and a half acres of land. The Sautners say the land men told them that their neighbors had already signed leases and that the drilling would have no impact whatsoever on their land. (Others in Dimock claim they were told that if they refused to sign a lease, gas would be taken out from under their land anyway, since under Pennsylvania law a well drilled on a leased piece of property can capture gas from neighboring, unleased properties.) They signed the lease, for a onetime payout of $2,500 per acre—better than the $250 per acre a neighbor across the street received—plus royalties on each producing well.
Drilling operations near their property commenced in August 2008. Trees were cleared and the ground leveled to make room for a four-acre drilling site less than 1,000 feet away from their land. The Sautners could feel the earth beneath their home shake whenever the well was fracked.
Within a month, their water had turned brown. It was so corrosive that it scarred dishes in their dishwasher and stained their laundry. They complained to Cabot, which eventually installed a water-filtration system in the basement of their home. It seemed to solve the problem, but when the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection came to do further tests, it found that the Sautners’ water still contained high levels of methane. More ad hoc pumps and filtration systems were installed. While the Sautners did not drink the water at this point, they continued to use it for other purposes for a full year.
“It was so bad sometimes that my daughter would be in the shower in the morning, and she’d have to get out of the shower and lay on the floor” because of the dizzying effect the chemicals in the water had on her, recalls Craig Sautner, who has worked as a cable splicer for Frontier Communications his whole life. She didn’t speak up about it for a while, because she wondered whether she was imagining the problem. But she wasn’t the only one in the family suffering. “My son had sores up and down his legs from the water,” Craig says. Craig and Julie also experienced frequent headaches and dizziness.
By October 2009, the D.E.P. had taken all the water wells in the Sautners’ neighborhood offline. It acknowledged that a major contamination of the aquifer had occurred. In addition to methane, dangerously high levels of iron and al
But seriously. You have a talent for vulgarity and that's more rare than you'd think. I bet had you not included the wishing of death, you wouldn't have got modded flamebait, though you can take heart in not being down to -1.
And I totally agree that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the services that are provided from taxes. For instance, welfare prevents some people from stealing in order to feed themselves; thus, crime is down. Who are the victims of crime usually? Those who have things to steal...
They also need to consider economies of scale. Do you think there would be wide screen TVs if there weren't a thriving middle class with enough disposable income to purchase enough quantity that the R&D costs can be amortized to reasonable levels? Samsung would never make an HDTV if there were only 50 households that could afford them, because those 50 households aren't going to pony up the millions of dollars of R&D needed. And even if they did, Comcast wouldn't find it profitable enough to send HD content to just those 50 households. And so there wouldn't be any HD television stations, either...
Without the middle class, would Wal-Mart have anyone to sell crap to? Without those highways and local roads, would there be any way for them to ship their goods all over the US? Without the local police force, would it be safe enough to sell things without the risk of being looted?
And what happens to the chemicals *after* they're pulled out of the ground? Sometimes they just dump it, like the case of Josh Foster.
Fracking can be done right. But it's expensive and requires the cooperation of many disparate companies and enforcement of regulations (or any regulations at all; I'm looking at you, Halliburton Loophole). And expensive is not profitable.
Re:how'bout u first prove beyond doubt that its sa
on
Vermont Bans Fracking
·
· Score: 2
The CO2 that comes from our breathing is already a part of the Carbon Cycle and therefore does not "add" to the total CO2.
The CO2 trapped in oil and coal has not been a part of the Carbon Cycle for millions of years. It has been sequestered. Or rather, it was sequestered...and now all that CO2 is being released at least four orders of magnitude faster than it was captured.
But your example is totally faulty. Saverin wasn't born in the US. His work on Facebook that will be the source of his wealth was done entirely within the jurisdiction that seeks to tax his gains. This is nothing like your "anyone from China owes taxes to China even if they left when they were a baby and never moved back".
Ordinary income is the reward you get for working hard to produce something of value to society. Working hard provides society with products and services that improve society.
Hard work is not something that should be discouraged, unless your myopia extends to economics.
(i.e. perhaps we should tax all income the same, rather than taxing capital gains differently from ordinary income)
All the Europeans/Asians/etc who lost the moral high ground centuries/millenia ago *have died*. I wouldn't hold their descendents hostage to a crime their ancestors committed.
In contrast, all the Americans who cheered wars and torture *are still alive* (most likely because they were too much of a chicken shit to go fight that war themselves).
Despite all this, I looked for ways to feel human. I have always loved animals. I started hiding a piece of bread from my meals and feeding the iguanas that came to the fence. When officials discovered this, I was punished with 30 days in isolation and darkness.
[...]
After two and a half years at Guantánamo, in 2004, I was brought before what officials called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, at which a military officer said I was an “enemy combatant” because a German friend had engaged in a suicide bombing in 2003 — after I was already at Guantánamo. I couldn’t believe my friend had done anything so crazy but, if he had, I didn’t know anything about it.
A couple of weeks later, I was told I had a visit from a lawyer. They took me to a special cell and in walked an American law professor, Baher Azmy. I didn’t believe he was a real lawyer at first; interrogators often lied to us and tried to trick us. But Mr. Azmy had a note written in Turkish which he had gotten from my mother, and that made me trust him. (My mother found a lawyer in my hometown in Germany who heard that lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights represented Guantánamo detainees; the center assigned Mr. Azmy my case.) He did not believe the evidence against me and quickly discovered that my “suicide bomber” friend was, in fact, alive and well in Germany.
This is the kind of shit you see in movies (movies like Rendition, which was based on Khalid el-Masri's experience). It's almost hard to believe that my government can do this sort of thing to innocent people.
Your characterization of American justice is incorrect. You seem to be talking about the dangerously-close-to-entrapment behavior that the FBI engages in, cooking up plots and luring idiots into taking the bait, and then waving them around as evidence that the FBI is protecting us.
What about foreign nationals like Kahlid el-Masri? He was some innocent German guy who the CIA had kidnapped. The CIA agent who recommended his detention wasn't punished; she was promoted!
Or Maher Arar? Kidnapped and rendered to Syria for torture. The Canadian government paid him restitution for their part in his detention, rendition, and torture. But when he tried to sue the US? Nope, sorry, State Secrets.
Or perhaps Lakhdar Boumediene? He was a member of the Red Crescent (think of it like the Muslim version of the Red Cross) He was held for 7 years until a federal judge finally ruled that the government had no evidence. When one side of his nose was broken, US personnel force fed him (twice a day) through the other nostril. Sometimes they missed his stomach and the tube went into his lungs instead. Oops.
Murat Kurnaz? Another German, held for five years in Gitmo. There's a DoD memo stating that he was cleared for release about one year about his detention, and yet he languished for four more years anyway.
What about the Uighurs? Everyone admits they aren't guilty of any crimes, and yet many are still stuck in Gitmo after nearly a decade.
These are ALL perfectly fucking innocent human beings, who were never charged or tried despite spending years and years in detention, sometimes almost as long as this student has been sentenced. There was no plot. There was hardly an investigation.
I say again, at least this student was given a sham trial before being imprisoned. That sham trial is more than any of those folks I listed above got before they were imprisoned and tortured. The difference between a sham trial with no evidence and no trial at all is in practice negligible.
What's the difference between a trial with no evidence, and a trial with classified evidence that the defense is not allowed to see or contest?
What's the difference if you're held in prison for "indefinite detention", and you have never been charged, and you cannot file a habeas corpus petition to determine if the government even has any evidence to justify imprisoning you? At least in this case, there was a trial. That's more than some folks at Gitmo get.
Slashdot Mirror
You can invade someone's privacy, tamper with witnesses, destroy evidence, and only get a month in the slammer.
Your argument is based on the premise of not falsely admitting guilt, which doesn't apply to Ravi because he KNEW he was guilty of the crime. Mind you, not the crime of making his roommate commit suicide, but the crime of invading his roommate's privacy. And then the crimes of destruction of evidence and witness tampering.
Oh, come on. Do you really see no difference between filming your roommate's gay sex and your roommate's straight sex?
To really believe that, you would have to believe that society sees no difference between gay sex and straight sex. To really believe that, you would have to believe that his roommate would have still set up the webcam if it was straight sex.
And all of that ignores the...you know...destruction of evidence and witness tampering, which are by themselves some pretty fucking serious crimes. Oh, and invading your roommate's privacy...some other posts below link to people who got put away for years because they invaded someone's privacy.
Notice how 600,000 is roughly in the middle of 22,000 and 4,500,000.
I bet if you come up with any range, most jurors would probably choose somewhere in the middle.
Besides, the damages that the law allows are clearly excessive in terms of the 8th amendment. We just need SCOTUS to grow some cojones and do their job, rather than taking the pussy way out and delegating such work to a corrupted Congress who will never fix the law.
Since their role is narrower than that of, say, the regular federal trial courts, and IP is specifically central to it, there's far more reason to expect that the ITC members are IP experts than that the federal judges and juries that would hear cases in Article III courts would be.
You mean "there's far more reason to suspect ITC members are former IP lawyers." It's quite possible the Article III court would be less beholden to industry interests.
I know. I got modded off-topic for mentioning that this is kdps first and only post. I didn't even look at the timestamps.
FTFA: claims 1, 2, 5, or 6 of the United States Patent No. 6,370,566
FTFP:
Claim 1: A mobile device.
Claim 2: Using a GUID.
Claim 5: And an address book.
Claim 6: Which talks to a remote server.
...
We're fucking doomed.
This is called a Straw Man Fallacy.
Note OP said "when those devices were made". Note how your reply says "before the lawsuit".
Do you see how you altered firesyde's argument so that you could refute it?
Go look at kdps' profile.
This comment is the ONLY comment by kdps. Ever.
Geeze, the least you shills could do is make a few other comments to some other posts, so that it wasn't so fucking obvious.
It is time to step up and show Google the door. If you cannot do business honestly, don't do it at all.
I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic or not. I mean, remember, the other party to this suit is Microsoft.
And oh by the way Google doesn't own Motorola yet, and did not own Motorola when the devices in question were designed. But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your shilling or trolling or whatever it is that you're doing.
See, that's why we need better terms. There's fracking, the act of actually fracturing rock. And then there's fracking, the entire process; bringing chemicals in, shooting them into the ground, pulling them back out, and disposing of them. While the former might not be that dangerous, the devil is in the details of the latter.
They had a blowout. "The accident spilled thousands of gallons of salty, chemical-laced flowback water into fields and a stream." Shit happens.
Gee, isn't that kinda the point? GP says "there is no evidence it gets into the water table". And yet, when a blowout happens...it gets into the water table. Perhaps if there were any kinds of regulations, we could make sure blowouts don't happen, or are very rare, and when they do happen we can do something about it.
Could be many reasons. The entire article mentions "horses" twice, and provided no details.
Please, don't insult your own intelligence. What do you THINK would cause a bunch of horses and pets to start losing their hair in such close temporal and spatial proximity to the fracking? Here's the article that provided "no details".
But seriously. You have a talent for vulgarity and that's more rare than you'd think. I bet had you not included the wishing of death, you wouldn't have got modded flamebait, though you can take heart in not being down to -1.
And I totally agree that the wealthy benefit disproportionately from the services that are provided from taxes. For instance, welfare prevents some people from stealing in order to feed themselves; thus, crime is down. Who are the victims of crime usually? Those who have things to steal...
They also need to consider economies of scale. Do you think there would be wide screen TVs if there weren't a thriving middle class with enough disposable income to purchase enough quantity that the R&D costs can be amortized to reasonable levels? Samsung would never make an HDTV if there were only 50 households that could afford them, because those 50 households aren't going to pony up the millions of dollars of R&D needed. And even if they did, Comcast wouldn't find it profitable enough to send HD content to just those 50 households. And so there wouldn't be any HD television stations, either...
Without the middle class, would Wal-Mart have anyone to sell crap to? Without those highways and local roads, would there be any way for them to ship their goods all over the US? Without the local police force, would it be safe enough to sell things without the risk of being looted?
His point is that there is no evidences that any of t is getting into the water table
If it can't possibly affect the water table, why do drilling companies end up shipping water to people such as Mr. Ira Haire, who live near their fracking sites?
Why are the horses and pets in Dimock, PA, losing their hair?
Why is the EPA detecting fracking chemicals in the aquifers of Pavillion, Wyoming?
How about this Oklahoma Geological Survey report (PDF) that suggests the recent uptick in earthquakes were caused by fracking?
What about waste treatment plants that fail to successfully reduce the levels of contaminants before discharging the water into a river?
How about the President of the Marcellus Shale Coalition admitting that fracking has contaminated the drinking water in PA?
And what happens to the chemicals *after* they're pulled out of the ground? Sometimes they just dump it, like the case of Josh Foster.
Fracking can be done right. But it's expensive and requires the cooperation of many disparate companies and enforcement of regulations (or any regulations at all; I'm looking at you, Halliburton Loophole). And expensive is not profitable.
The CO2 that comes from our breathing is already a part of the Carbon Cycle and therefore does not "add" to the total CO2.
The CO2 trapped in oil and coal has not been a part of the Carbon Cycle for millions of years. It has been sequestered. Or rather, it was sequestered...and now all that CO2 is being released at least four orders of magnitude faster than it was captured.
A very vulgar way to say "I stand on the shoulders of giants".
Granted, I like a little vulgarity here and there. But wishing death on someone is really pushing it.
But your example is totally faulty. Saverin wasn't born in the US. His work on Facebook that will be the source of his wealth was done entirely within the jurisdiction that seeks to tax his gains. This is nothing like your "anyone from China owes taxes to China even if they left when they were a baby and never moved back".
I own shares in some Russian companies - does this mean that Russia is entitled to tax my American income?
When the income being taxed is from selling your stake in that Russian company in Russia, then yes.
I'm sure if Saverin made money in Singapore waiting tables in Singapore, the US wouldn't be asking for taxes on that money.
Ordinary income is the reward you get for working hard to produce something of value to society. Working hard provides society with products and services that improve society.
Hard work is not something that should be discouraged, unless your myopia extends to economics.
(i.e. perhaps we should tax all income the same, rather than taxing capital gains differently from ordinary income)
All the Europeans/Asians/etc who lost the moral high ground centuries/millenia ago *have died*. I wouldn't hold their descendents hostage to a crime their ancestors committed.
In contrast, all the Americans who cheered wars and torture *are still alive* (most likely because they were too much of a chicken shit to go fight that war themselves).
Free board? Like the board that they were beaten with?
Free lodging? Like being hung by your wrists for days?
Yeah, I know, right?
It's not like there was a law passed that allowed the executive to hold prisoners indefinitely. (NDAA)
It's not like there were multiple inmates from Gitmo who have Supreme Court rulings bearing their name. (Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene)
What the fuck, indeed. You should read Boumediene's op-ed in the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/my-guantanamo-nightmare.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
Also, I forgot a bit about Kurnaz
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/notes-from-a-guantanamo-survivor.html
This is the kind of shit you see in movies (movies like Rendition, which was based on Khalid el-Masri's experience). It's almost hard to believe that my government can do this sort of thing to innocent people.
Your characterization of American justice is incorrect. You seem to be talking about the dangerously-close-to-entrapment behavior that the FBI engages in, cooking up plots and luring idiots into taking the bait, and then waving them around as evidence that the FBI is protecting us.
What about foreign nationals like Kahlid el-Masri? He was some innocent German guy who the CIA had kidnapped. The CIA agent who recommended his detention wasn't punished; she was promoted!
Or Maher Arar? Kidnapped and rendered to Syria for torture. The Canadian government paid him restitution for their part in his detention, rendition, and torture. But when he tried to sue the US? Nope, sorry, State Secrets.
Or perhaps Lakhdar Boumediene? He was a member of the Red Crescent (think of it like the Muslim version of the Red Cross) He was held for 7 years until a federal judge finally ruled that the government had no evidence. When one side of his nose was broken, US personnel force fed him (twice a day) through the other nostril. Sometimes they missed his stomach and the tube went into his lungs instead. Oops.
Murat Kurnaz? Another German, held for five years in Gitmo. There's a DoD memo stating that he was cleared for release about one year about his detention, and yet he languished for four more years anyway.
What about the Uighurs? Everyone admits they aren't guilty of any crimes, and yet many are still stuck in Gitmo after nearly a decade.
These are ALL perfectly fucking innocent human beings, who were never charged or tried despite spending years and years in detention, sometimes almost as long as this student has been sentenced. There was no plot. There was hardly an investigation.
I say again, at least this student was given a sham trial before being imprisoned. That sham trial is more than any of those folks I listed above got before they were imprisoned and tortured. The difference between a sham trial with no evidence and no trial at all is in practice negligible.
What's the difference between a trial with no evidence, and a trial with classified evidence that the defense is not allowed to see or contest?
What's the difference if you're held in prison for "indefinite detention", and you have never been charged, and you cannot file a habeas corpus petition to determine if the government even has any evidence to justify imprisoning you? At least in this case, there was a trial. That's more than some folks at Gitmo get.