And I owned a Diamond Rio. I remember MP3 players from before the iPod, and I owned a minidisc player as well. The comparison is apt, in my experience.
Apple had to produce a DRM that was acceptable to the music industry, or else iTunes would never exist. MP3 players would still be gimmicks, much like minidisk players, and the advances we have seen across all brands of MP3 players never would have happened. Instead, Apple came up with a solution that appeased the music industry, and which doesn't remove that many rights from consumers. The really brilliant thing Apple did was allow FairPlay to be so easily cracked by burning the music to CD's. I find it interesting that the article complains about Apple locking in consumers, but the far more interesting thing is how they have locked in the music industry. The music industry would love to raise prices, make all services subscription, and restrict our rights in more and more ways. Instead, Apple is strong enough that not only can it maintain the status quo (which they improved by allowing us to buy single songs, instead of CD's with a decent song and 9 crappy ones), they are extending it to other music labels and now movies. They have created a means for more independent artists to make a living without giving into the labels (not as good as eMusic, true, but they had to give up something to get the major labels.), allowed consumers to buy music ala carte, and are changing the face of the industry. There are the vocal few who claim that all DRM is evil, and refuse to buy anything from the music labels. I admire both your stance and your dedication to it. However, most of the public do not understand the issues, and they provide enough revenue for the labels to ignore you. Apple is a middle ground now. Hopefully in the future, we will be able to move to an even better situation. However, without this middle ground, we would all be talking about buying music in a hopelessly outdated, unfair manner, or stealing it.
The politicians don't have to worry about that. They just have to pass the bill, and tell the radio stations to figure it out. Maybe that's part of the point, to make compliance impossible and greatly reduce the amount of stations in the US.
I believe most radio royalty contracts take into account some piracy, as it can't be prevented, just like some blank CDs have a surcharge tacked on. I wonder if radio stations will be able to re-negotiate if this bill passes, based on a reduction in piracy. Probably not.
Very good point, but it talks about some of the error in numbers. I wonder where those errors come from, and if the scarcity is artificially limited. Also, all three have features that haven't really caught on, such as Blu-Ray movies for the PS3, the full library of classic games for the WII, and Halo 3 for the Xbox360. There is still too many unknowns to make a decent prediction.
Its not really fair to make any comparison right now. Until all produces can ship to meet or exceed demand, its impossible to make any kind of accurate comparison. Also, initial success doesn't necessarily mean long term success. The WII may appeal to people now because its unique, but it has to show that its control scheme is more than just a gimmick to hold onto its appeal. I certainly hope that it does, as it would encourage more innovation in general, but its far to early to crown a champion, or even a leader, at this point. Wait until at least next Jan, if not the year after that.
Orginally, the FCC was set up to regulate the radio spectrum. Radio stations were interfering with each other, and only through government regulation could radio become useful to the public. Since the spectrum was a scarce and limited resource, and was allocated by the FCC, the FCC was given certain powers that were deemed in the public's best interests. Examples include a requirement to provide opposition the opportunity to respond (The Fairness Doctrine, now largely discredited) and the requirement to inform viewers who is sponsoring certain news stories. The government felt that it was important that the public was well informed, to the extent they were willing to hedge the first amendment rights of editors in certain ways, such as by forcing them to publish responses to attacks and opinions. However, as news sources become more and more available, the public's ability to get other sides of the story are better than ever, without the FCC. If you don't agree with something on CNN, you can go watch Fox. Or you can look around the Internet. No longer are you restricted to a few radio stations and a newspaper or two. The FCC is still needed for deconflicting spectrums, but its content oversight role is really becoming less and less important, and should be reeled in. Of course, the FCC is currently trying to expand its content oversight role. The get back on topic, if the broadcast flag can somehow help the FCC regulate the spectrum in a more efficient manner and provide more content providers in the same amount of bandwidth, then maybe its ok. However, if its the FCC trying to dictate technology, then it needs to be prevented. Remember, the FCC is just as open to bribes as Congress is. Just because they are making the rules doesn't mean that they will be any more pro-consumer.
This reminds me of the plot to Cryptonomican, by Neal Stephenson. If this really is a micronation, and the pirate file sharing thing works out, I wonder if they will expand to hosting other files for money in return for a promise of absolute privacy, i.e., no court orders to turn files over. I think they would make up the money spent buying the 'country' rather quickly. Of course, their servers would be a target for the NSA and every equivalent hunting for files from terrorist and criminal organizations.
It derives from common law, but has been codified as statutory law, at least in federal court. And yes, you have to make the motion before to preserve the right to make the motion after, but the ability of the judge to disregard a jury verdict if it is contrary to law, either by making his own verdict or ordering a new trial, is a part of the civil litigation system in this country. It doesn't matter how likely or often it is, if a jury completely ignores the law because they have their own ideas of what justice is, there is a chance their verdict will be vacated.
There is no federal law, but the FRCP aren't common law. They have the weight of statutes, and therefore apply in federal court, according to Erie. A judge can overturn a verdict for a lot of other reasons. For instance, in some states, if a juror is willing to present an affadavit about what happened in the juror's room. Although more than likely, the judge would grant a new trial instead, there is room for him to vacate the verdict and substitute his own. If I weren't busy researching some other topics, I would pull a couple of examples off of Westlaw. However, I wasn't arguing the amount that it happens, just that it can happen if the jury ignores the law to substitute what they believe justice should be, as the link in the first response in this thread advocates.
The reported cost of the batteries is $10,000 for a car slightly smaller than a Prius. I wonder what they will have to sacrifice to make a car that is price competitive with Toyota's and Honda's offerings. Regardless, I am rooting for them. It would be nice to see an American car company innovating in such a dramatic manner.
I probably shouldn't respond to such an obvious troll, but what the heck. Where to start?
Before we vilify all lawyers, we should probably look at your sample size versus the population, and the number of lawyers who do good works. Like the public defenders, who despite no thanks, low pay, and crushing law school debt, work insane hours to defend the poorest of us. Or the brilliant attorneys of the civil rights movement in the 60's who worked to change the system through the judiciary when they could have made small fortunes in the private sector. Or any of the pro bono attorneys working for free (losing billable hours) to support causes for the sake of the cause. Yeah, lets kill all of them.
Secondly, our system isn't that bad compared to some of the others. Having spent some time in Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the justice our legal system upholds is better than what they have. Now, admittedly, being the smartest kid with down syndrome isn't something to brag about, but maybe it speaks to the difficulty of creating a great system. Speaking of creating the system that all of these horrible lawyers take advantage of, who does that? The legislatures, who are elected by the public. Yeah, yeah, the public doesn't have a say anymore because of lobbyists, etc. Or maybe because more people vote for American Idol than for the American President.
Third, there is oversight. Judges are either elected or appointed. They are subject to being voted out or impeachment. However, again, that takes some work by either the populace or the legislature.
Justice is a relative term. For the vast majority of cases, the lawyers get together and work it out without even going to court. Court is dangerous because it is unpredictable and expensive. Only cases where each side has a different view of the "right" outcome generally come to court. The lawyers are supposed to represent their client's view of justice to the best of their ability within the confines of the justice system. They have been given certain tools to do so. Should they not because you say so? How do you determine a good juror? If there is a test, why not test them and create a minmum standard, as you suggest. If there isn't a test, why not let lawyers who are on opposite sides decide whose best? If they both agree on a juror, isn't it a wash?
Actually, the definition of a profession involves providing its own oversight. There are only four professions by the sociolgical definition, and doctors do fall into that category. Generally, if a doctor follows custom, he can't be sued for malpractice. Who sets the custom? Doctors. Who must testify to show a violation of custom? Another doctor in the same specialty. So the doctors do have broad latitude to self-regulate.
Engineers are perfect. Never in the history of engineering have any engineers cut corners because of cost, laziness or ignorance. No engineers were involved in creating weapons that kill millions of people. They are all saints. I will take your word that you have a soul and that you never compromise your work, but that doesn't mean that it applies to all engineers. Far from it. And the ones that you and I could agree on as being evil probably don't seem themselves that way, but have a different world view. Yeah, that weapon killed millions of people, but it helped protect my way of life. Yeah, I cut a corner, but it was small, and the money saved will keep my company solvent. Life isn't nearly as black and white as you seem to imply.
I hope that you do better work engineering than you do writing arguments. I am sure you do, as its your job. If creating a perfect system of justice was as easy as some engineering problems are (and there are definitely difficult engineering problems, I don't mean to demean the work of engineers in any way), I would love to have an engineer design it and force the lawyers to work within it. But its not. The system can be improved. It does get improved, incrementally, on an almost daily basis. Some lawyers take advantage of the system for selfish reasons. Others use the system to advance the common good. There is definitely plenty of blame to lay at the feet of lawyers. But they are far from the only ones who should shoulder some blame, and not all lawyers are the spawn of satan.
Thanks. Actually, a good number of states have adopted the FRCP in part or in whole, and more are looking at doing so. Also, a defendant will generally attempt to remove a case to federal court at the first opportunity. The Supreme Court has also examined this rule, found that it complies with the Constitution, so it can be adopted of its own in any state that chooses to. It makes sense, when talking about civil suits in general, to use the FRCP, because no set of rules applies everywhere, but the FRCP seems to have the broadest penetration. And in talking about personal injury, I would have used Cardozo, not Learned Hand. He seems to have had more impact across the board.
Yeah, but bad practitioners are a problem in every profession, and people taking advantage of the system happens everywhere. In programming, for instance, there will always people who will want to break into systems for fun or profit. Think about how much money is drained from the system by trying to increase security or repair problems. That doesn't by any means mean that programmers as a whole are the problem. And what's the best way to limit bad programmers? Users improve their personal security habits. Just as users shouldn't click yes on every pop-up they see, jurors shouldn't award money to every victim. And I didn't say lawyers were beyond blame. They do deserve an incredible amount. But, they are not the entire problem.
This is a common problem, and not just with immigrants. Look at all the laws we have that should cover issues if they were properly enforced. They aren't, but the problem still exists, so the legislature passes new laws, with make the statutes longer (try reading them sometime), and make is less likely that any individual statute will be enforced. I would love to see government at all levels prune back the laws, and enforce the important ones. A good place to start? Taxes. Imagine a consumption tax. It doesn't matter how much you make, but how much you spend. That would encourage saving money, the lack of loopholes would make wealthy people pay a fair amount of taxes, and lower taxes on essential goods would limit the tax liability of the poor. And, to bring it back on topic, illegal immigrants who jump the fence "to avoid taxes" would have the same tax liability as all of us, and since they aren't registered, they would get less benefits, like social security. Its not a perfect solution, as it would create a fertile black market for some goods, but it would be better than the entirely broken system we have now.
You are right, I should have provided more details as to the problem. It was a relatively minor back problem. However, having talked to doctors, many of them are getting out of practice because of malpractice insurance. Even making substantial amounts of money, they don't make a profit. Also, your numbers are based on health care as a whole. Certain segments are hit much harder than others. For intance, OB/GYN is almost impossible to practice anymore without other money coming in, or having a hospital subsidize the insurance. Plastic surgery, on the other hand, tends to have much lower rates. I know an OB/GYN who has started doing botox to balance things out so that she can keep her practice, and her next step is to trade in the OB part of her practice and begin offering lyposuction, as its the only way she can stay afloat.
The point was that there was no malpractice, but the jury decided to award a large settlement for a relatively minor problem (back ache, with minimal restriction on work), because they didn't understand either the law or the consequences of their actions. Its the same thing in product liability. The jurors feel bad for the "little guy" who microwaved his phone, the large company has insurance, so the award a verdict even if none is deserved. Then you see warning labels about placing phones in microwaves. The entire point of product liability is to force companies to make products safe when it is easy for them to do so, the consumer has no control over the product, and no way to check the quality of the product. The theory began with a cola bottle that exploded on its own. Obviously, there was a substandard bottle. The flaw was microscopic. The consumer had no way to check it. The company should be obligated to make bottles that don't explode, don't make bottles, or make the same bottle, and inform the consumer of the risk. In the cases where consumers put phones in microwaves or people in dryers, the company really has no control.
The problem is that if a jury does not follow the law, the judge can vacate their verdict and replace it with his own. FRCP 50. Juries do have to follow the law, and should only rule on questions of fact. However, the reasonableness of warnings is a question of fact.
The law generally is that the company must warn against unintended uses that a reasonable person would forsee. The problem is the reasonable person standard is determined by a jury. If juries would stop awarding such verdicts, then lawyers would stop suing. As long as juries continue to say a reasonable person would forsee someone putting a wet cell phone in a microwave, lawyers will continue to file suit. Talking to one juror about a malpractice case, they said they really didn't see that the doctor was negligent, but the plaintiff was suffering, the insurance was the only one who was going to pay, the insurance company had money, so why not give the plaintiff $400,000? The thing they didn't see (other than their conduct being against the law) was that everyone pays increased medical costs to cover the increase in malpractice insurance that the doctor must pay. If jurors were more responsible and more intelligent as to the consequences of their actions, the legal culture would have to change. Don't expect the lawyers to change the system, they have too much of a vested interest, and they are legally bound to look after their client's best interests within the law. People need to change the system.
I also think the quality of the bugs will be interesting. If all 30 bugs are show stoppers, then there are some serious underlying issues that should be addressed. If, however, they are insignificant or extremely contrived (this application can install malware if the user types in the admin password), then won't it really be an admission that the parties involved can't find critical security holes? (Not that they don't exist, its almost impossible to prove a negative in general one, and that one specifically.) It should be good for Apple regardless, in that major holes are id'd and can be fixed, or their security reputation is improved.
Slashdot Mirror
And I owned a Diamond Rio. I remember MP3 players from before the iPod, and I owned a minidisc player as well. The comparison is apt, in my experience.
And if so, why would anyone rely on AOL to make something on the web work?
Apple had to produce a DRM that was acceptable to the music industry, or else iTunes would never exist. MP3 players would still be gimmicks, much like minidisk players, and the advances we have seen across all brands of MP3 players never would have happened. Instead, Apple came up with a solution that appeased the music industry, and which doesn't remove that many rights from consumers. The really brilliant thing Apple did was allow FairPlay to be so easily cracked by burning the music to CD's. I find it interesting that the article complains about Apple locking in consumers, but the far more interesting thing is how they have locked in the music industry. The music industry would love to raise prices, make all services subscription, and restrict our rights in more and more ways. Instead, Apple is strong enough that not only can it maintain the status quo (which they improved by allowing us to buy single songs, instead of CD's with a decent song and 9 crappy ones), they are extending it to other music labels and now movies. They have created a means for more independent artists to make a living without giving into the labels (not as good as eMusic, true, but they had to give up something to get the major labels.), allowed consumers to buy music ala carte, and are changing the face of the industry. There are the vocal few who claim that all DRM is evil, and refuse to buy anything from the music labels. I admire both your stance and your dedication to it. However, most of the public do not understand the issues, and they provide enough revenue for the labels to ignore you. Apple is a middle ground now. Hopefully in the future, we will be able to move to an even better situation. However, without this middle ground, we would all be talking about buying music in a hopelessly outdated, unfair manner, or stealing it.
By admitting DRM is useless and treating customers like clients instead of criminals? Only in my mind, only in my mind....
The politicians don't have to worry about that. They just have to pass the bill, and tell the radio stations to figure it out. Maybe that's part of the point, to make compliance impossible and greatly reduce the amount of stations in the US.
I believe most radio royalty contracts take into account some piracy, as it can't be prevented, just like some blank CDs have a surcharge tacked on. I wonder if radio stations will be able to re-negotiate if this bill passes, based on a reduction in piracy. Probably not.
Which is illegal as well, they just never had the means to enforce it.
Generally, the courts have held that length of time of imprisonment is not "cruel and unusual."
Very good point, but it talks about some of the error in numbers. I wonder where those errors come from, and if the scarcity is artificially limited. Also, all three have features that haven't really caught on, such as Blu-Ray movies for the PS3, the full library of classic games for the WII, and Halo 3 for the Xbox360. There is still too many unknowns to make a decent prediction.
Its not really fair to make any comparison right now. Until all produces can ship to meet or exceed demand, its impossible to make any kind of accurate comparison. Also, initial success doesn't necessarily mean long term success. The WII may appeal to people now because its unique, but it has to show that its control scheme is more than just a gimmick to hold onto its appeal. I certainly hope that it does, as it would encourage more innovation in general, but its far to early to crown a champion, or even a leader, at this point. Wait until at least next Jan, if not the year after that.
Orginally, the FCC was set up to regulate the radio spectrum. Radio stations were interfering with each other, and only through government regulation could radio become useful to the public. Since the spectrum was a scarce and limited resource, and was allocated by the FCC, the FCC was given certain powers that were deemed in the public's best interests. Examples include a requirement to provide opposition the opportunity to respond (The Fairness Doctrine, now largely discredited) and the requirement to inform viewers who is sponsoring certain news stories. The government felt that it was important that the public was well informed, to the extent they were willing to hedge the first amendment rights of editors in certain ways, such as by forcing them to publish responses to attacks and opinions. However, as news sources become more and more available, the public's ability to get other sides of the story are better than ever, without the FCC. If you don't agree with something on CNN, you can go watch Fox. Or you can look around the Internet. No longer are you restricted to a few radio stations and a newspaper or two. The FCC is still needed for deconflicting spectrums, but its content oversight role is really becoming less and less important, and should be reeled in. Of course, the FCC is currently trying to expand its content oversight role. The get back on topic, if the broadcast flag can somehow help the FCC regulate the spectrum in a more efficient manner and provide more content providers in the same amount of bandwidth, then maybe its ok. However, if its the FCC trying to dictate technology, then it needs to be prevented. Remember, the FCC is just as open to bribes as Congress is. Just because they are making the rules doesn't mean that they will be any more pro-consumer.
This reminds me of the plot to Cryptonomican, by Neal Stephenson. If this really is a micronation, and the pirate file sharing thing works out, I wonder if they will expand to hosting other files for money in return for a promise of absolute privacy, i.e., no court orders to turn files over. I think they would make up the money spent buying the 'country' rather quickly. Of course, their servers would be a target for the NSA and every equivalent hunting for files from terrorist and criminal organizations.
It derives from common law, but has been codified as statutory law, at least in federal court. And yes, you have to make the motion before to preserve the right to make the motion after, but the ability of the judge to disregard a jury verdict if it is contrary to law, either by making his own verdict or ordering a new trial, is a part of the civil litigation system in this country. It doesn't matter how likely or often it is, if a jury completely ignores the law because they have their own ideas of what justice is, there is a chance their verdict will be vacated.
There is no federal law, but the FRCP aren't common law. They have the weight of statutes, and therefore apply in federal court, according to Erie. A judge can overturn a verdict for a lot of other reasons. For instance, in some states, if a juror is willing to present an affadavit about what happened in the juror's room. Although more than likely, the judge would grant a new trial instead, there is room for him to vacate the verdict and substitute his own. If I weren't busy researching some other topics, I would pull a couple of examples off of Westlaw. However, I wasn't arguing the amount that it happens, just that it can happen if the jury ignores the law to substitute what they believe justice should be, as the link in the first response in this thread advocates.
The reported cost of the batteries is $10,000 for a car slightly smaller than a Prius. I wonder what they will have to sacrifice to make a car that is price competitive with Toyota's and Honda's offerings. Regardless, I am rooting for them. It would be nice to see an American car company innovating in such a dramatic manner.
I probably shouldn't respond to such an obvious troll, but what the heck. Where to start? Before we vilify all lawyers, we should probably look at your sample size versus the population, and the number of lawyers who do good works. Like the public defenders, who despite no thanks, low pay, and crushing law school debt, work insane hours to defend the poorest of us. Or the brilliant attorneys of the civil rights movement in the 60's who worked to change the system through the judiciary when they could have made small fortunes in the private sector. Or any of the pro bono attorneys working for free (losing billable hours) to support causes for the sake of the cause. Yeah, lets kill all of them. Secondly, our system isn't that bad compared to some of the others. Having spent some time in Iraq, I'm pretty sure that the justice our legal system upholds is better than what they have. Now, admittedly, being the smartest kid with down syndrome isn't something to brag about, but maybe it speaks to the difficulty of creating a great system. Speaking of creating the system that all of these horrible lawyers take advantage of, who does that? The legislatures, who are elected by the public. Yeah, yeah, the public doesn't have a say anymore because of lobbyists, etc. Or maybe because more people vote for American Idol than for the American President. Third, there is oversight. Judges are either elected or appointed. They are subject to being voted out or impeachment. However, again, that takes some work by either the populace or the legislature. Justice is a relative term. For the vast majority of cases, the lawyers get together and work it out without even going to court. Court is dangerous because it is unpredictable and expensive. Only cases where each side has a different view of the "right" outcome generally come to court. The lawyers are supposed to represent their client's view of justice to the best of their ability within the confines of the justice system. They have been given certain tools to do so. Should they not because you say so? How do you determine a good juror? If there is a test, why not test them and create a minmum standard, as you suggest. If there isn't a test, why not let lawyers who are on opposite sides decide whose best? If they both agree on a juror, isn't it a wash? Actually, the definition of a profession involves providing its own oversight. There are only four professions by the sociolgical definition, and doctors do fall into that category. Generally, if a doctor follows custom, he can't be sued for malpractice. Who sets the custom? Doctors. Who must testify to show a violation of custom? Another doctor in the same specialty. So the doctors do have broad latitude to self-regulate. Engineers are perfect. Never in the history of engineering have any engineers cut corners because of cost, laziness or ignorance. No engineers were involved in creating weapons that kill millions of people. They are all saints. I will take your word that you have a soul and that you never compromise your work, but that doesn't mean that it applies to all engineers. Far from it. And the ones that you and I could agree on as being evil probably don't seem themselves that way, but have a different world view. Yeah, that weapon killed millions of people, but it helped protect my way of life. Yeah, I cut a corner, but it was small, and the money saved will keep my company solvent. Life isn't nearly as black and white as you seem to imply. I hope that you do better work engineering than you do writing arguments. I am sure you do, as its your job. If creating a perfect system of justice was as easy as some engineering problems are (and there are definitely difficult engineering problems, I don't mean to demean the work of engineers in any way), I would love to have an engineer design it and force the lawyers to work within it. But its not. The system can be improved. It does get improved, incrementally, on an almost daily basis. Some lawyers take advantage of the system for selfish reasons. Others use the system to advance the common good. There is definitely plenty of blame to lay at the feet of lawyers. But they are far from the only ones who should shoulder some blame, and not all lawyers are the spawn of satan.
Thanks. Actually, a good number of states have adopted the FRCP in part or in whole, and more are looking at doing so. Also, a defendant will generally attempt to remove a case to federal court at the first opportunity. The Supreme Court has also examined this rule, found that it complies with the Constitution, so it can be adopted of its own in any state that chooses to. It makes sense, when talking about civil suits in general, to use the FRCP, because no set of rules applies everywhere, but the FRCP seems to have the broadest penetration. And in talking about personal injury, I would have used Cardozo, not Learned Hand. He seems to have had more impact across the board.
Yeah, but bad practitioners are a problem in every profession, and people taking advantage of the system happens everywhere. In programming, for instance, there will always people who will want to break into systems for fun or profit. Think about how much money is drained from the system by trying to increase security or repair problems. That doesn't by any means mean that programmers as a whole are the problem. And what's the best way to limit bad programmers? Users improve their personal security habits. Just as users shouldn't click yes on every pop-up they see, jurors shouldn't award money to every victim. And I didn't say lawyers were beyond blame. They do deserve an incredible amount. But, they are not the entire problem.
This is a common problem, and not just with immigrants. Look at all the laws we have that should cover issues if they were properly enforced. They aren't, but the problem still exists, so the legislature passes new laws, with make the statutes longer (try reading them sometime), and make is less likely that any individual statute will be enforced. I would love to see government at all levels prune back the laws, and enforce the important ones. A good place to start? Taxes. Imagine a consumption tax. It doesn't matter how much you make, but how much you spend. That would encourage saving money, the lack of loopholes would make wealthy people pay a fair amount of taxes, and lower taxes on essential goods would limit the tax liability of the poor. And, to bring it back on topic, illegal immigrants who jump the fence "to avoid taxes" would have the same tax liability as all of us, and since they aren't registered, they would get less benefits, like social security. Its not a perfect solution, as it would create a fertile black market for some goods, but it would be better than the entirely broken system we have now.
You are right, I should have provided more details as to the problem. It was a relatively minor back problem. However, having talked to doctors, many of them are getting out of practice because of malpractice insurance. Even making substantial amounts of money, they don't make a profit. Also, your numbers are based on health care as a whole. Certain segments are hit much harder than others. For intance, OB/GYN is almost impossible to practice anymore without other money coming in, or having a hospital subsidize the insurance. Plastic surgery, on the other hand, tends to have much lower rates. I know an OB/GYN who has started doing botox to balance things out so that she can keep her practice, and her next step is to trade in the OB part of her practice and begin offering lyposuction, as its the only way she can stay afloat.
The point was that there was no malpractice, but the jury decided to award a large settlement for a relatively minor problem (back ache, with minimal restriction on work), because they didn't understand either the law or the consequences of their actions. Its the same thing in product liability. The jurors feel bad for the "little guy" who microwaved his phone, the large company has insurance, so the award a verdict even if none is deserved. Then you see warning labels about placing phones in microwaves. The entire point of product liability is to force companies to make products safe when it is easy for them to do so, the consumer has no control over the product, and no way to check the quality of the product. The theory began with a cola bottle that exploded on its own. Obviously, there was a substandard bottle. The flaw was microscopic. The consumer had no way to check it. The company should be obligated to make bottles that don't explode, don't make bottles, or make the same bottle, and inform the consumer of the risk. In the cases where consumers put phones in microwaves or people in dryers, the company really has no control.
The problem is that if a jury does not follow the law, the judge can vacate their verdict and replace it with his own. FRCP 50. Juries do have to follow the law, and should only rule on questions of fact. However, the reasonableness of warnings is a question of fact.
The law generally is that the company must warn against unintended uses that a reasonable person would forsee. The problem is the reasonable person standard is determined by a jury. If juries would stop awarding such verdicts, then lawyers would stop suing. As long as juries continue to say a reasonable person would forsee someone putting a wet cell phone in a microwave, lawyers will continue to file suit. Talking to one juror about a malpractice case, they said they really didn't see that the doctor was negligent, but the plaintiff was suffering, the insurance was the only one who was going to pay, the insurance company had money, so why not give the plaintiff $400,000? The thing they didn't see (other than their conduct being against the law) was that everyone pays increased medical costs to cover the increase in malpractice insurance that the doctor must pay. If jurors were more responsible and more intelligent as to the consequences of their actions, the legal culture would have to change. Don't expect the lawyers to change the system, they have too much of a vested interest, and they are legally bound to look after their client's best interests within the law. People need to change the system.
If its for gamers, then why doesn't it have the XPS or Alienware logo? I think its a tweener.
I also think the quality of the bugs will be interesting. If all 30 bugs are show stoppers, then there are some serious underlying issues that should be addressed. If, however, they are insignificant or extremely contrived (this application can install malware if the user types in the admin password), then won't it really be an admission that the parties involved can't find critical security holes? (Not that they don't exist, its almost impossible to prove a negative in general one, and that one specifically.) It should be good for Apple regardless, in that major holes are id'd and can be fixed, or their security reputation is improved.