In other words, using the machine was a solution looking for a problem
E-voting machines definitely solve a problem. It's just that the public's definition of a problem, and a politician's definition of a problem aren't the same thing.
For example, if you want to steal an election, physical paper voting/counting makes it very difficult to effect a large number of votes without having a lot of different people involved (greatly increasing the risk of the public finding out). E-voting machines definitely solve that problem.
You're assuming they didn't "do it properly". I don't mean in the sense of following proper procedure, but in the sense of achieving their real goals. Maybe they didn't really care whether or not it got thrown out of court, but wanted to "throw their weight around" in order to ruin his business and intimidate others into shutting down out of fear that they would be next. If that was their goal, then it worked out perfectly.
Except that the coke logo is relatively specific compared to drawings that are nothing more than a rectangle with rounded corners and a rounded bottom. If all we're basing the comparison on are the elements in the drawings, most of the current tablets I've seen have those same elements. The only thing that differentiates them are the dimension/aspect ratios. However, if that was enough to prevent infringement, then the Samsung wouldn't infringe either since it doesn't have the same aspect ratio as the iPad.
The Kindle Fire, Asus Transformer Prime, Nexus 7 all match those design patent drawings about as closely as the Samsung does, as far as I can tell.
Yes, 9 images. 4 of them are a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. 4 of them are a side view showing that the top is flat and the bottom is rounded (Wow!). 1 of them is an illustration of a user holding the device.
Of course the patent doesn't state it's a patent for a rectangle with round corners, it doesn't state anything at all. Design patents are drawings, not statements/claims.
The lawsuit is not over the fact that Samsung made a tablet with rounded corners. That is just one small aspect of the overall design.
The injunction was made based on the D'889 patent. That patent is a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. What other aspects are you talking about with regards to the D'889 design patent?
Is it really necessary to go through all this to prevent people from stealing songs worth $.99?
No, but that's not what the RIAA/MPAA are really worried about. Their model is based on the power that being a distribution monopoly gives them. It is necessary to them to go through all of this to prevent any threat/competition to that monopoly, such as P2P.
Not so - MediaSentry downloaded from Thomas, and recorded it. There's plenty of proof that she uploaded.
What about contributory infringement? If the only proof of an upload was induced by an agent working on behalf of the copyright owner, is that really infringement?
That's one of the problems though. The entire system is rigged so that there really aren't any other choices beyond the two parties with all the power. It's a two team game, and a significant percentage of the voters don't care who the candidates are, they just want to vote so that "their" team wins. Not to mention that any third team is rendered nearly invisible and can't even get on the field of play.
Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
Could you please google for "design patent"? It covers ANY laptop that is a copy of the MacBook Air, which probably includes every model created by the "designers" of some companies, but it doesn't cover all laptops that are thinner on one edge.
That's a nice theory, but given Apple's recent behavior I would not be surprised if they started using this patent to sue the manufacturer of any laptop that is thinner on one edge.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, using the machine was a solution looking for a problem
E-voting machines definitely solve a problem. It's just that the public's definition of a problem, and a politician's definition of a problem aren't the same thing.
For example, if you want to steal an election, physical paper voting/counting makes it very difficult to effect a large number of votes without having a lot of different people involved (greatly increasing the risk of the public finding out). E-voting machines definitely solve that problem.
It seems like this is something that engineers could have designed to be foolproof by now
Are you sure they're supposed to be foolproof?
any pretense that the Feds adhered at all to the supposed limited power granted to them under the constitution is shredded.
It was shredded long before this mandate issue.
how many more times will NZ or other small powers accommodate American expeditions of this type so willingly?
That sounds like a significant gain to me.
You're assuming they didn't "do it properly". I don't mean in the sense of following proper procedure, but in the sense of achieving their real goals. Maybe they didn't really care whether or not it got thrown out of court, but wanted to "throw their weight around" in order to ruin his business and intimidate others into shutting down out of fear that they would be next. If that was their goal, then it worked out perfectly.
Except that the coke logo is relatively specific compared to drawings that are nothing more than a rectangle with rounded corners and a rounded bottom. If all we're basing the comparison on are the elements in the drawings, most of the current tablets I've seen have those same elements. The only thing that differentiates them are the dimension/aspect ratios. However, if that was enough to prevent infringement, then the Samsung wouldn't infringe either since it doesn't have the same aspect ratio as the iPad.
The Kindle Fire, Asus Transformer Prime, Nexus 7 all match those design patent drawings about as closely as the Samsung does, as far as I can tell.
Yes, 9 images. 4 of them are a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. 4 of them are a side view showing that the top is flat and the bottom is rounded (Wow!). 1 of them is an illustration of a user holding the device.
Of course the patent doesn't state it's a patent for a rectangle with round corners, it doesn't state anything at all. Design patents are drawings, not statements/claims.
The lawsuit is not over the fact that Samsung made a tablet with rounded corners. That is just one small aspect of the overall design.
The injunction was made based on the D'889 patent. That patent is a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. What other aspects are you talking about with regards to the D'889 design patent?
Apples design patent is a drawing of a rectangle with rounded corners. What other "total design" are you referring to?
Actually there is some evidence that heavy cell phone use may increase the odds of developing some forms of in-skull tumors
Nonsense. Where is this "evidence"?
Does that mean that you believe you can cook your dinner with a cell phone?
I imagine there's also some effect on your hip, as the phone is hanging there ~15 hours a day, and broadcasting.
Just make sure to wear tinfoil underwear, and you'll be fine.
You're right, there isn't a consensus:
Sane people: There is no danger.
Insane people: OMG, my cell phone is frying my brain! Hold on... I need to answer this call.
Honest politicians can't get elected.
You don't think "defense contractors" means they only defend, do you?
What makes you think they're being hired for defense?
Is it really necessary to go through all this to prevent people from stealing songs worth $.99?
No, but that's not what the RIAA/MPAA are really worried about. Their model is based on the power that being a distribution monopoly gives them. It is necessary to them to go through all of this to prevent any threat/competition to that monopoly, such as P2P.
Not so - MediaSentry downloaded from Thomas, and recorded it. There's plenty of proof that she uploaded.
What about contributory infringement? If the only proof of an upload was induced by an agent working on behalf of the copyright owner, is that really infringement?
That's one of the problems though. The entire system is rigged so that there really aren't any other choices beyond the two parties with all the power. It's a two team game, and a significant percentage of the voters don't care who the candidates are, they just want to vote so that "their" team wins. Not to mention that any third team is rendered nearly invisible and can't even get on the field of play.
I'm sure choosing Palin did a lot more than just giving the fence sitters a nudge.
Harrassment and libel have real victims and even if you do not agree with how easy libel actions are brought to the courts in England and Wales, you would agree with the need for some sort of law prohibiting people from causing harm in these ways.
There are already laws prohibiting that.
If you really have a critical service then you're not going to be putting it on "the cloud" anyway.
You're assuming they read them. Personally, I think they just blindly rubber stamp everything that comes across their desk.
How broad are design patents, generally?
That all depends on how much money you have for lawyers. They can be as broad as you can afford.
Could you please google for "design patent"? It covers ANY laptop that is a copy of the MacBook Air, which probably includes every model created by the "designers" of some companies, but it doesn't cover all laptops that are thinner on one edge.
That's a nice theory, but given Apple's recent behavior I would not be surprised if they started using this patent to sue the manufacturer of any laptop that is thinner on one edge.