Posts by Handle This

Re: Presidential vetoes are usually empty threats

Understanding that no politician ever seems to feel beholden to prior statements or proclamations, I would lean on the side of Obama actually issuing a veto if this bill ever got to him in a form aligned with its current construction. The fact that he is in his last term and has less incentive to "play nice" with the opposition could be a significant factor. Of course, preemptive action by the FCC could render this moot entirely.

The Stanford Law Review article was a good read (the beer is for them), and very insightful to what the proposed bill actually says and would accomplish. At heart, as the authors say, it places a tremendous amount of discretion in the ISP's regarding the definition of core phrases, the real catch being that any correction of ISP misbehavior would only be in the form of after the fact, case-by-case, review and comment. That really is totally different from any meaningful enforcement power. That, and the whole "ISP will decide what the user asked for" bit, places a good light on where this bill really came from.

Worth the Wait

"Geriatric Douche Canoes." That, my friends, is why I read the Register, and why it is worth wading through pages of troll comments (and even sage responses) to get to the real gold.

It is now a part of my standard repertoire. You're never too old to learn.

Re: So to summarise:

Dude (Philip Lewis),

If you need to collect pieces of paper or Mensa membership numbers to tell you how smart you are, guess what? You really aren't that smart. (Mensa? Really?) You need only be smart enough to succeed. You'll know when you've gotten there, without the papers or memberships. Honest.

Re: Google Glass...no one knows

Jobs wouldn't be so short sighted . . . I see what you did there.

Re: Not a good day for apple

Thanks for that - I hadn't seen it before. Interesting that Apple would make the representation that a sheet of paper that says applications for Android can be had at one location, and applications from Apple may be had at another, is accused of intentionally misleading a reader that the two are the same. Oh, I know that the argument really points to use of the term "AppStore" and that Apple accuses Amazon of trying to mislead consumers into believing that the service is the same in each location, but that's a very uphill battle. Refreshing to see a common-sense approach to such arguments. I have a feeling that Apple has much more to its argument than was presented in the article.

Re: Called it

I agree. The judge's opinion of "cool" is not a part of the Court Opinion - it is something called "dicta" and has no force for enforcement purposes; it quite literally is not a part of the ruling. On the other hand, the judge's perception that Apple had engaged in extra-judicial name-calling and media engagement so as to warrant the presentation of a correction is a part of the decision. It occurs relatively frequently when a party has introduced misleading or flat-out incorrect info in a perceived attempt to manipulate the court or the public. That part is not ridiculous or so very unusual. The unusual part is that Apple should have left itself open to such an order, a d then displayed such open passive-aggressiveness more common to a kindergarten schoolyard. When you play with the big boys you don't always get to make your own rules. That expectation is a fail.

Re: Swiss Neutrality ?

"The Arms of Krupp," by William Manchester, an interesting history of Germany's largest and most thoroughly integrated cannon and munitions manufacturer, provides some relevant tidbits on this and many other subjects dealing with Germany's relationships with other nations in the pre-war runups and post-war rundowns of that nation's history. I only read it because it detailed an extremely distant part of our family, but I re-read it twice because I believe it is an execeptional, well-researched and informative read.

Re: Umm, so which is it?

Contrary to what seems to be a firm belief in forums, there is no law or even rule against the placing of jurors in a panel with relevant experience with the issues in the case being tried. The general preference of trial lawyers (both defense and plaintiff) is to have a blank slate upon which to write their own opinions and facts, and not have to worry about a juror realizing that there is more to an issue than they are being told, or that the party (or attorney) is not telling them the truth. Having said that, such a preference is obviously not always practical - you have a limited pool of people from which to pull jurors, and even in a case like this a judge will not allow unlimited peremptory (without cause) removal of a prospective juror. The determining factor is whether a juror can be fair with the knowledge presented at trial, based on that juror's own life experience, not whether a juror will put aside his/her own real experience and indulge in accepting only the arguments presented while ignoring what they know to be true in the "real world." Given that, it is not unusual to assume that both technical knowledge, economic experience and basic common sense all found their way into the jury room for deliberations. Even given a lawyer's preference for a jury having minimal opinions of their own, no one wants a bunch of idiots making decisions for their clients. (I realize this is a great set-up line - swing away!)

You can argue with a jury's decision based on a lot of factors, but you should be able to count on a certain amount of garden-variety common sense being applied. If it doesn't appear to have been so, I would suggest looking a little closer at the arguments and exhibits permitted or denied at trial or the jury instructions presented to the jury. That is usually the source of the public's true disagreement with trial results. Of course, it is always possible for juries to mistake instructions and misinterpret evidence or argument, but again, it sometimes depends on the perspective of the observer or comment.

Re: Still nonsense Apple bashing...

Joerge: Dude, you really don't get this stuff at all, do you? I am a California lawyer, but I don't specialize in intellectual property so I largely stay out of these discussions. Some of the comments here are insightful, some are rather amusing, but yours is just clueless. I suggest sticking with what you are good at, and give it another try after you have taken an opportunity to educate yourself. The documents in this case are interesting reading, and can be a real education.

I would not bother commenting, but by my opposable thumbs, sometimes you reach a point . . .

Re: USA:most valuable and influential smartphone market in the world

Wow! You know, as an American I resent that . . . and I really wish it weren't true.

Here's To . . .

. . . da beers!

(Oh please, you knew it was coming!)

+1

For reminding me how bodily-function-loosening funny Harvey Korman was.