Yes that would be correct but for a couple of important considerations. Patent law, unlike common law is statute driven. The legislature promulgates the law that they want to be followed. Common law, read judge created law, is far more malleable. If a past case (written by a previous judge) says so and so judges are bound by a principle called stare decisis, to stand by previous decisions. But Judges can, and often do, find justification to ignore or change precedent. This is what we see in the abortion cases Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood, et. al. But statutory law cannot be ignored so easily. And if a judge does it will be appealed and then overturned. [Judges fear getting overturned because it makes them look bad] And unlike the common law with hundreds and thousands of cases statutory law is relatively (from a legal perspective) black and white.
The legislature says they can do this therefore they can do this. Judges can gripe and try to shame attorneys not to bring these actions, but ultimately they have to accept them or be overturned by a higher judge. Of course, the Attorney bringing the case might be in the dog-house with the judge, but what does he care. His client is the one putting food on his table and judges good graces don't pay the bills.
Yeah, sorry, meant to put a K there. It should read $50k dollars in legal fees.
In general different firms have different tiers for billing. (Yes it is all about the money) The associate who will bill around $300-$400 an hour will be the workhorse putting in the most time. The partner (read supervisor) will bill $700-1000 and hour. While I don't do patent litigation myself, my colleagues who do, tell me that around $50k can at least get you a good first shot. Of course that will not take you through litigation. But it will be enough to fire a shot across the bow and maybe even get them to settle. As with most things the ones with the money can afford to have rights, whether they be civil or intellectual property, those without must find other means.
I figured it would have to have an RJ-45. But I am going off of what the article said:
I found this mode all right for everyday work, though slightly sluggish (but still perfectly acceptable) when surfing the Web using the built-in 802.11n wireless (there is no Ethernet port). Could this unit be a newer version, which will forgo the port? If so then my objection still applies.
While judges complain it will still not stop the problem. Judges complain all the time. They complain about silly discovery disputes that they think should not be in their courtroom. But there are still discovery disputes everyday. The bar does have a way of self regulating and keeping the most egregious ones out of court. But the lawyer is still driven by the client. And the client (the business) is driven by simple capitalism. $50 dollars in legal fees for a chance to win millions in licensing. Hell even the threat of a lawsuit might just get them to settle. In sum, judges can complain all they want but ultimately the legislature needs to step up and fix this mess.
All that money for a laptop that does not have a Ethernet jack??? I am all for saving space but that is silly. I can't tell you how many times I have rolled into an office only to be told wireless is forbidden because of confidentiality, sensitivity, concrete, security, etc. I need access to the data not the Internet. I need to do searches in the database with the tiff's optically connected to the CoLo site. Who in their right mind would leave that open on a simple WPA or WEP access point for any Jack or Jill who wanted to play 133t hax0r?? Also setting up would be a nightmare. It would take downloading a program (VPN) configuring all the settings, etc. etc. With cable just plug in. In fact, the only time I ever use the wireless is at the hotel.
I fail to understand how the "road warrior's dream" laptop requires another piece just to get Ethernet to work. Are we reverting back to the dongle?? Oh how we all loved those times!
I have two laptops side by side - XP v. Vista. Both playing, in Windows Media Player, same exact video, xvid, XP comes up after half a second. Vista...sadly takes 4-5 seconds. Strange because XP laptop is older and Vista is new XPS with all that Duo core loving. This becomes very problematic when stringing together multiple videos since you have to wait 4-5 seconds for each one.
Absolutely. I would like to add a few points.
This is all a discovery dispute for a CIVIL case. I know that many people have been conflating: civil and criminal; trial and discovery; and even stupid and lawyers. But while I am sure that each and everyone of you laugh when a user asks you "why is it this way wouldn't it be easier if I didn't have to log in?" Of course, you KNOW all of the considerations that must be taken into account. All of the horror stories that need to be avoided. The same is true with the law.
The idea is that no one should be able to hide the truth. (By the way 5th Amendment protection only applies if there are criminal charges) The point is the law says very clearly BOTH sides get to see everything the other side has. (There is no litigation by ambush) Neither side may hide anything. Cost cannot be an excuse to hide something. (In some cases the party requesting the information will just have to pay the costs). So if there exists a way for the opposing side to have the requested information, then they are required to provide it. The same rules cut both sides and it is fair. (Note: Just because the other side can discover it during pre-trial doesn't mean that it will be allowed into trial as evidence). That is governed by a whole other set of rules; you know like hearsay, objection, etc.
I am not arguing that this is a good decision. In fact, I think this will open the flood-gates to more silly e-discovery disputes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes that would be correct but for a couple of important considerations. Patent law, unlike common law is statute driven. The legislature promulgates the law that they want to be followed. Common law, read judge created law, is far more malleable. If a past case (written by a previous judge) says so and so judges are bound by a principle called stare decisis, to stand by previous decisions. But Judges can, and often do, find justification to ignore or change precedent. This is what we see in the abortion cases Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood, et. al. But statutory law cannot be ignored so easily. And if a judge does it will be appealed and then overturned. [Judges fear getting overturned because it makes them look bad] And unlike the common law with hundreds and thousands of cases statutory law is relatively (from a legal perspective) black and white. The legislature says they can do this therefore they can do this. Judges can gripe and try to shame attorneys not to bring these actions, but ultimately they have to accept them or be overturned by a higher judge. Of course, the Attorney bringing the case might be in the dog-house with the judge, but what does he care. His client is the one putting food on his table and judges good graces don't pay the bills.
Yeah, sorry, meant to put a K there. It should read $50k dollars in legal fees. In general different firms have different tiers for billing. (Yes it is all about the money) The associate who will bill around $300-$400 an hour will be the workhorse putting in the most time. The partner (read supervisor) will bill $700-1000 and hour. While I don't do patent litigation myself, my colleagues who do, tell me that around $50k can at least get you a good first shot. Of course that will not take you through litigation. But it will be enough to fire a shot across the bow and maybe even get them to settle. As with most things the ones with the money can afford to have rights, whether they be civil or intellectual property, those without must find other means.
While judges complain it will still not stop the problem. Judges complain all the time. They complain about silly discovery disputes that they think should not be in their courtroom. But there are still discovery disputes everyday. The bar does have a way of self regulating and keeping the most egregious ones out of court. But the lawyer is still driven by the client. And the client (the business) is driven by simple capitalism. $50 dollars in legal fees for a chance to win millions in licensing. Hell even the threat of a lawsuit might just get them to settle. In sum, judges can complain all they want but ultimately the legislature needs to step up and fix this mess.
All that money for a laptop that does not have a Ethernet jack??? I am all for saving space but that is silly. I can't tell you how many times I have rolled into an office only to be told wireless is forbidden because of confidentiality, sensitivity, concrete, security, etc. I need access to the data not the Internet. I need to do searches in the database with the tiff's optically connected to the CoLo site. Who in their right mind would leave that open on a simple WPA or WEP access point for any Jack or Jill who wanted to play 133t hax0r?? Also setting up would be a nightmare. It would take downloading a program (VPN) configuring all the settings, etc. etc. With cable just plug in. In fact, the only time I ever use the wireless is at the hotel. I fail to understand how the "road warrior's dream" laptop requires another piece just to get Ethernet to work. Are we reverting back to the dongle?? Oh how we all loved those times!
I have two laptops side by side - XP v. Vista. Both playing, in Windows Media Player, same exact video, xvid, XP comes up after half a second. Vista...sadly takes 4-5 seconds. Strange because XP laptop is older and Vista is new XPS with all that Duo core loving. This becomes very problematic when stringing together multiple videos since you have to wait 4-5 seconds for each one.
Absolutely. I would like to add a few points. This is all a discovery dispute for a CIVIL case. I know that many people have been conflating: civil and criminal; trial and discovery; and even stupid and lawyers. But while I am sure that each and everyone of you laugh when a user asks you "why is it this way wouldn't it be easier if I didn't have to log in?" Of course, you KNOW all of the considerations that must be taken into account. All of the horror stories that need to be avoided. The same is true with the law. The idea is that no one should be able to hide the truth. (By the way 5th Amendment protection only applies if there are criminal charges) The point is the law says very clearly BOTH sides get to see everything the other side has. (There is no litigation by ambush) Neither side may hide anything. Cost cannot be an excuse to hide something. (In some cases the party requesting the information will just have to pay the costs). So if there exists a way for the opposing side to have the requested information, then they are required to provide it. The same rules cut both sides and it is fair. (Note: Just because the other side can discover it during pre-trial doesn't mean that it will be allowed into trial as evidence). That is governed by a whole other set of rules; you know like hearsay, objection, etc. I am not arguing that this is a good decision. In fact, I think this will open the flood-gates to more silly e-discovery disputes.