|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 10 2013 @ 05:01 PM EDT |
I'm confused. Bloomberg and others had these documents
already, they just didn't release them because Goldman
claimed confidentiality. But it sure sounds like the
documents show that Goldman was engaged in criminal violation
of securities law, not to mention simple fraud. There's no
confidentiality protection for criminal conspiracy. Why not
make that argument, or at least turn over the documents to
prosecutors?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 02:28 AM EDT |
The linked article is 1 year old. May 15th. So where are all the criminal
proceedings resulting from this?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 01:49 PM EDT |
http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/05/08/new-
zealand-government-announces-that-software-will-no-longer-be-
patentable/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
"May"???
Talk about clueless!
---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 01:23 PM EDT |
Supreme Court opinion
for Bowman vs Monsanto.
Side note: I love the fact that the Supreme Court
has been creating public pdf's and making them available - for free - to the
public.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Monsanto Wins Case on Genetically Altered Soybeans
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-c
ase.html?_r=0[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
| clicky
As there is not 5G standard how do they know that
'theirs' will be anything like what is adopted by the ITU?
How Do they know
that the various Governments around the world will open up this frequency to
them and others to use?
Won't they be patenting the bejabbers out of this
tech so we will be into all the FRAND law suits again?
I'm not berating the
progress but frankly putting dates against the introduction of the technology
is doomed to failure. The capital investiment that will need to go hand in hand
with this is HUGE, really HUGE. Unless they start buying the major carriers
around the world they can't be sure that 1) their tech will be used and 2) the
backhaul networks can handle this speed.
I think that you can add another
5-8 years from their planned introduction.
The carriers are going to have to
rethink their pricing as well. It is not use exhausting a monthly/daily download
quota in a few seconds.
All in all, there are a lot of really big hurdles to
overcome before this can be introduced.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Samsung & 5G - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 07:34 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 13 2013 @ 04:02 PM EDT |
The article is a bit
misleading.
First misleading item: the Title. They didn't grind to a
halt, they reversed the decision of the Appeal and decided the District Court
was correct - the patents are invalidated.
Second misleading item: the
Decision. It speaks to a 5-5 split (which would normally indicate no change)
and says:
the lower court decision will stand
After
moments previously having read the Appeal reversed and found the patents valid,
unless one is paying attention one won't realize this means the first Appeal was
reversed.
Of course - not being part of the Legal field - I could easily
be wrong on the second misleading item. Is En Banc decision considered merely a
review of the Appeal Court decision? Or is it considered an official "third
ruling" in the process?
If it's an official "third ruling" then
presenting it as a 5-5 split without clarifying it was not a split and it was
sufficient to reverse the Appeal ruling - is misleading.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
