|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
Article
link.
Jacobs fired back: "If they copied through Apache, that
doesn't excuse their copying. So it's not proper to look at all evidence in
the record."
Wow. That from MoFo's Jacobs.
Kinda leaves
me wondering if:
A: Has Jacobs given in to the BSF strategies as he's worked
closely with them over the time of this case?
or
B: Do MoFo Lawyers
exhibit the same strategies BSF does when they are representing someone with a
much tougher case in regards facts and Law?
I'd think it's the Judges
responsibility to decide whether or not certain evidence will be admitted to the
record... but once it's there, it's fair game for the Jury.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
Siding with Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom who
lashed out against
the Government earlier, the Prof. claims
that the shutdown of the world’s most
popular cyberlocker
was
a gift to the entertainment industry.
Link to
techdirt
article[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kjs on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
Wasn't this the source for the open source implementation of the skype protocol
and not something owned by Microshaft?
That's why I would never upload anything important to a US based server.....
>kjs
---
not f'd, you won't find me on farcebook[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
Look at that! The accused have declared themselves innocent. Close the courts
'cause they're not needed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cbc on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 03:45 PM EDT |
It could be that Target sees Amazon as a competitor and not a vendor or partner.
Browse-the-store-order-online is a real sore spot.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: vidstudent on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
Germany Bans the X-Box 360
Also affected would be the current releases
of Windows 7, Internet Explorer, and Windows Media Player. An appeal is
expected, and settlement talks are likely ongoing. ---
Nicholas Eckert
vidstudent [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- ...so, the X-Box 360 may soon be banned in Germany. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Misguided? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 04:33 PM EDT
- Lol - not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- Quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- Quite - Authored by: kjs on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 07:00 PM EDT
- Quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 04:31 AM EDT
- Hey folks - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT
- precedent set - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 10:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 05:35 PM EDT |
The linked video feed that's just popped up on News Picks has a fascinating
quote in the middle of an interview with Scott McNealy. He says,
"There's a difference between the application programmatic interface and
the specification that describes that interface - and it's the 1100 pages of
specification that describe that interface that's at issue here - even more than
the interface."
Did I step into an alternate universe, or did Mr McNealy just advance *yet
another* infringement theory in this case? He says [read the quote above] that
it's the *interface specification* that's at issue.
Oracle USA did not accuse Google with copying or reproduction of the *interface
specification*. Yet, if you take the above quote [and it's brief, but I haven't
taken it out of context] it seems as though Mr McNealy has a new infringement
theory. But if Google didn't re-publish the interface specification [all they
did was use it, as intended] then where's the harm?
Mr McNealy also mentions the TCK and the fact that the Compatibility Kit had
terms associated with it, but I think he fails to mention that Google have not
claimed that Android is an implementation of JAVA and thus don't feel the need
to subject Android to compatibility testing.
Did I put the wrong interpretation on what he said? Is this just another wriggle
in the endless BSF dance? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
"...we need to recoup some of the estimated $153 million that
was not paid by online merchants prior to the law being implemented," a
spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Revenue told Courthouse
News."
Uh-oh! Looks like someone hasn't read the US Constitution
law about no ex post facto laws. Sounds like the Illinios tax authority has a
plan for getting taxes for sales that have happened in the past before there was
a law to tax Internet businesses.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 02 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
Newspick
Ok,
so I looked at the list, and I found someone from AT&T, Lockheed Martin,
Verizon, Walt Disney, RTBF Belgium, Nokia Siemens Networks
Finland,
Intellectual Ventures Japan, Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual Property Jordan,
Netnod/Autonomica Sweden, Orange Uganda, making ten from
industry. If you count
the Finland and Japan reps as US stooges, note that there is a second candidate
from both those countries. There are also three
gray men, Together against
Cybercrime France, International Chamber of Commerce France, Childnet UK. Which
leaves thirty three academics and
policy wonks, the perfect mix for a UN
sinecure destined to never produce any worthwhile output, leaving the Internet
to substantially govern itself as
it has done in the past. I think Techdirt's
tinfoil hat must have tightened in the rain.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 03 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
http://dilbert.com/fast/2012-05-03/
Dilbert strips are drawn months in advance. So this is an interesting
coincidence, IMO. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
