|
Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 02:01 PM EST |
A Michigan search
warrant details all of the information police were able to extract from one
woman’s iPhone seized from her bedroom last September. --- The
following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 02:45 PM EST |
My brain fizzled and briefly interpreted the string of words ending with
"wordperfect" as a standalone phrase:
"Novell Files Its Reply Brief ... in WordPerfect."
Sorry counselor, you're going to have to open that .wpd if you want to read the
plaintiff's reply.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 03:01 PM EST |
The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld provisions against hate
speech in the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, but struck down some of the code's
wording in a case prompted by flyers handed out by a religious anti-gay
activist, William Whatcott.
The court found that most of the code is
constitutional. Although the legislation infringes the rights to free expression
and free religion, the court is allowing most of it as reasonable
limits.
Laura Payton, CBC
Decision - Saskatchewan (Human
Rights Commission) v. Whatcott
http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12876/index.do [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, February 27 2013 @ 05:54 PM EST |
I have appended a comment to the Groklaw thread on the recen
t Markman hearing in Apple v. Samsung.
In summary, the '647
patent was included in the Apple v. Motorola litigation that Judge Posner
famously dismissed with prejudice last year. Judge Posner thought that (with
his claim construction) Motorola could invent around the patent relatively
easily, and therefore damages would have been modest.
And the wording of
the '959 patent claim 1 has the same features as that of the 8086604 patent
claim 6 - where the CAFC determined that Apple had little likelihood of
success.
I would add that, in view of the previous Groklaw article,
there is a lot of stuff in both the Posner and the CAFC opinions explaining why
injunctive relief is inappropriate (for Apple as well as for Motorola). [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 12:54 AM EST |
Link
The insanity continues.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 12:58 AM EST |
Link
Against this backdrop, Pandora has pressed for
federal legislation that could help ease its burden. Mr. Westergren has touted
the Internet Radio Fairness Act, which could change the way Internet radio
royalty rates are set, as a way to level the playing field with other industries
like satellite radio.
The legislation is pending reintroduction in Congress,
the Pandora spokeswoman said.
And pending, and pending, and
pending.
With a leaderless House, whose leader is probably
going to play
golf tomorrow, instead of leading.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 09:45 AM EST |
Nonetheless, some industry observers are
questioning whether
Samsung’s perfectly legal decision to
retain the former judge is a road to PR
problems, with FOSS
Patents’ Florian Mueller suggesting there is potential for
allegations that the Korean firm is somehow “rewarding” Sir
Jacob for his
earlier decision. Given that the tensions
between the Apple and Samsung camps
seldom run quiet, it’s
likely to be further grist for the controversy mill.
That’s
not least because Mueller is himself a point of contention,
since he
has previously been retained by both Oracle and
Microsoft, Groklaw reported
back in August 2012,
while still commenting regularly on cases involving
each
company.
Link [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 01:29 PM EST |
AT&T has a sneaky plan.
It wants to exploit a loophole in
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s rules to kill what remains of the
public telecommunications network — and all of the consumer protections that go
with it. It’s the final step in AT&T’s decade-long effort to end all
telecommunications regulation, and the simplicity of the plan highlights a
dysfunction unique to the American regulatory system.
AT&T and other big
telecom carriers want to replace the portions of their networks that still use
circuit-switching technology with equipment that uses Internet Protocol (IP) to
route voice and data traffic. But because the FCC previously decided that it has
no direct authority over communications networks that use IP, this otherwise
routine technological upgrade could lead to a state of total
deregulation.
Derek Turner, Wired[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 01:47 PM EST |
Something smelly going on here ...
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/28/uk-judge-who-chastised-apple-
over-samsung-apology-now-consulting-as-patent-expert-for-samsung/
A UK judge who was involved in a case in which Apple was ordered to publish
a notice on its website saying that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not copy the
registered design for the iPad has been hired by Samsung as a patent expert
in a separate legal battle with Ericsson, reports software patent blog FOSS
Patents. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: designerfx on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 02:25 PM EST |
so much for their Google fines, huh.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-eu-microsoft-
idUSBRE91R18720130228
also, what the heck is up with this? original link (clicked
from RSS) says this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/28/us-eu-microsoft-
idUSBRE91R18720130228?
feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_
medium=twitter&dlvrit=56505
so I'v enever heard of dlvr.it before, and why does google
reader = twitter? is this how people drive "Twitter
traffic"?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 02:49 PM EST |
Link
So true. So true.
And Linus
gets it too, when it comes to Microsoft and UEFI.
And when the public gets
it regarding software patents,
the world will be a better place.
If you
don't get it, and allow
the attacks to continue,
then *YOU* are aiding the
enemy.
Pogo was right.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 07:44 PM EST |
Microsoft is out as a heavyweight contender in online advertising – and Facebook
continues its efforts to go all in.
That's the upshot of Microsoft selling
Atlas Advertising Suite to Facebook; the widely expected deal was announced
Thursday afternoon. The price was undisclosed. But Advertising Age has estimated
its value at $30 million to $50 million.
Thus Microsoft completely
sheds its costly, ill-fated acquisition of online advertising company aQuantive,
of which the Atlas tools were a part. Microsoft snapped up aQuantive for
$6.3 billion in 2007, paying more than twice what Google did for rival
agency DoubleClick just a few weeks earlier.
Facebook buying Atlas ad business from
Microsoft [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 28 2013 @ 11:36 PM EST |
If you want to read more about this, the most detailed coverage is
in the publication Food Safety News, which has been covering the PCA
situation since the beginning. (NB: FSN’s operations are backed by the
food-safety attorney Bill Marler, but its reporters are independent.) This
weekend, they have put together a long analysis of the charges in the
indictment, a comprehensive timeline, and
an essay by editor Dan Flynn, recalling how he crept up a disused rail line to report on the plant in 2009 because
local sheriffs were protecting the company’s front door.
If you care
about food safety, this is an important case to watch. First, because the
existence of the case is so unusual; second, because (according to the
indictment), the behavior that prompted it was so egregious. As presented by the
feds, this was not accidental contamination, or sales of a product in which
contamination could not have been controlled. It was, in their 52-page telling,
deliberate and repeated, and apparently indifferent to the harm it might cause.
If behavior such as they describe can’t be called to account, it would be worth
asking why we have food-safety laws at all.
Maryn
McKenna, Wired[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|