|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:20 AM EDT |
What *are* the recoverable costs, especially in a case like this?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:30 AM EDT |
| Tetris Holding, LLC v. XIO Interactive, Inc.
The
“wholesale copying” of Tetris was troubling to the court, which found that the
Tetris design, movement, playing field dimensions, display of “garbage lines,”
appearance of “ghost” pieces, color changes and automatic fill-in of the game
board at the end of the game (all of which were copied by Xio) were aesthetic
choices, and were protected, original expressions of an idea. While the idea of
a game that required one to rotate figures into a field was not protectible, the
design of the component parts was. The court found that the overall look and
feel of the games were nearly identical and that any differences between the two
were “slight and insignificant.” The court concluded: “There is such similarity
between the visual expression of Tetris and Mino that it is akin to literal
copying. While there might not have actually been “literal copying” inasmuch as
Xio did not copy the source code and exact images from Tetris, Xio does not
dispute that it copied almost all of visual look of Tetris.”
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:20 PM EDT |
| Link
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
Do their competitors now show advertisements saying, "Our competitor
is no substance, all surface"?
Or say something like, "Finally our competitor, saying their product is
just surface, is being truthful in its advertising"?
Or do they refer to Windows 8 or Metro as the "oily sheen on the
surface"?
Or does Google come out with their new tablet, named "The Google
Substance"?
Seriously, I think the name Surface is ripe for all kinds of derision.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: DannyB on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- It's self-deriding n/t - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT
- What about Windows RT, which is not WinRT? n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Fox News does not like the Surface - Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? VaporMg (magnesium) case... not "will it blend", but "will it burn"? - Authored by: mirrorslap on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
- True Microsoft Innovation: Brilliant - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- Microsoft "Surface"? Ouch, whatta name - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 11:19 PM EDT
- Meh...netbook - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- Are they *trying* for an invalid trademark? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- Microsoft: We don't need no stinking partners - Authored by: complex_number on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
| Nvidia PR has responded to Mr. Torvald's latest not-quite-professional outburst.
Article at
Phoronix.
Ed L (not logged in).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 19 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
A note about Kerckhoff's Principle
The idea is that if any part of
a cryptosystem (except the individual secret key) has to be kept secret then the
cryptosystem is not secure. That's because if the simple act of disclosing some
detail of the system were to make it suddenly insecure then you've got a problem
on your hands.
You've somehow got to keep that detail secret and for that
you'll need a cryptosystem! Given that the whole point of the cryptosystem was
to keep secrets, it's useless if it needs some other system to keep itself
secret.
So, the gold standard for any secret keeping system is that all its
details should be able to be made public without compromising the security of
the system.
John
Graham-Cumming, CloudFlare[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 12:05 AM EDT |
|
Link
In the 1940s, Joseph Schumpeter said that the
capitalists would ultimately destroy capitalism by insisting that their existing
profitability models perpetuate themselves in the face of change. He said that
the capitalist class would eventually lose its taste for innovation and insist
on government rules that brought it to an end, in the interest of protecting
business elites.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: betajet on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT |
EFF Press Release
EFF has posted seven
proposals for software patent reform at defendinnovation.org, including
shortening the term for software patents from 20 years to no more than five
years, allowing winning parties in litigation to recover fees and costs, and
ensuring that infringers who arrive at a patented idea independently aren't held
liable, for example. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 20 2012 @ 12:24 PM EDT |
Shuttleworth said, “We’ve been working to provide an alternative to
the Microsoft key, so
that the entire free software ecosystem is not dependent
on Microsoft’s goodwill for access to modern PC hardware.
We originally
flagged the UEFI/Secure Boot transition as a major problem for free software, we
lead the efforts to shape the specification in a more industry-friendly way, and
we’re pressing OEM partners for options that will be more broadly acceptable
than Red Hat’s approach.”
[...]
“Secure Boot retains flaws in its design
that will ultimately mandate that Microsoft’s key is on every PC (because of
core UEFI driver signing). That, and the inability of Secure Boot to support
multiple signatures on critical elements means that options are limited but we
continue to seek a better result.”
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols , ZDNet
this
UEFI issue needs a preemptive antitrust lawsuit - why wait how much is Apple
going to pay MS so that OS X can run on UEFI gear? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
