I forget whether it was 60 minutes or 20/20 that ran a story about a dozen guys with the same (common) name (Robert Johnson) who had all run afoul of the no-fly list, and couldn't get their names removed, let alone their presence on the list explained, even though it seemed patently obvious that none of them were a threat (heck, the youngest one was something like 6 years old -- when they filmed the episode).
Of course, if I were a terrorist, and my name was Robert Johnson, I would just use an alias.
> Judge Alsup should get ready to get taken off the case for appearance of impropriety.
I've been wondering if this was the DOJ strategy -- get Alsup so incensed that he can be over-ridden on the basis of lacking impartiality.
(IIRC, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson had his remedies (ie. the break-up of Microsoft) over-ruled in the Microsoft anti-trust trial, in very large part because he made the mistake of commenting, outside the court, on the utterly atrocious and blatant misconduct which Microsoft had displayed during the trial. It's a shame to see what the DoJ appears to have learned from that experience).
Police officers have a difficult and sometimes dangerous job, often under the scrutiny of the general public.
But cab drivers are actually much more likely to be wounded, or killed, by violence committed with a knife or gun or other weapon, on the job, than police officers are.
We admire diligent and professional officers of the Law, and depend on them in many ways. Police are granted special permissions and allowances to enable them to do their job properly. But at the same time as we grant these privileges -- because we grant them these privileges -- we demand the aforesaid competence and professionalism, and inevitably and rightly despise those who act like thugs or clowns, yet expect to still receive special treatment and undue allowance for bad behaviour..
... is that the DOJ lawyers apparently seem to believe that they can get away with this sort of thing -- that federal judges (after perhaps a token objection or smack-down) will just compliantly roll over, credulously swallow any blatantly ridiculous, patently self-serving excuse that the government presents under the colours of "national security".
Perhaps because that is, in their experience, what generally happens?
Actually, I believe it was right here on Techdirt that I first learned how actual artists (especially Hip-hop and Rap) were using locker services as their preferred distribution channel and business model -- they could upload their music to a popular locker service, and their fans would buy subscriptions to be able to download it (legitimately) and support their favourite artists. The artists got paid *by the locker service* on this basis.
The argument that Hotfile deserves to be assumed to be up to no good because they encouraged uploads/downloads with financial incentives is deeply flawed.
Stephen Harper is an Ideologue? Matter of public record.
Stephen Harper is a covert religious fundamentalist wacko? Well, yes -- but in the press and in public debate it's generally swept under the carpet, at least in the anglophone parts of the country. It may be true, but bringing it up will probably hurt the one who brings it up more than it will hurt Harper.
Stephen Harper is a Pedophile? Wait, what? First I've heard it even hinted at. And pedophilia is the one crime that is inexcusable and reviled across the entire political spectrum -- if there was anything to it, someone would be making hat out of it.
I should do a better job of proof reading before I hit the "Submit" button..
The argument appears to be that (a) Diffie's patent was valid, because the prior art (government secret programs) was secret, and not knowable -- and similarly, (b) TQP/Jone's patent was valid, because the prior art (Diffie's, and others) was effectively "secret" (not widely known) at the time.
The problem is that while point (a) is clearly true, point (b) is not quite true (though the lawyer tried to flim-flam that the specific, relevant details).
In the end, the jury decision will probably turn on how closely they were paying attention, and on whether they liked one side's particular witnesses and/or lawyers much better than they liked the other side's.
The argument appears to be that (a) Diffie's patent was valid, because the prior art (government secret programs) was secret, and not knowable -- and similarly, (b) TQP/Jone's patent was valid, because the prior art (Diffie's, and others) was effectively "secret" (not generally known) at the time.
The problem is that while point (a) is clearly (despite the TQP lawyer's attempt to fudge the issue) true, point (b) is not quite true (though the lawyer tried to flim-flam that as well)
In the end, the jury decision will probably turn on how closely they were paying attention, and on whether they liked one side's particular witnesses and/or lawyers much better than they liked the other's.
The really sad thing is that I'm inclined to actually believe your story.
I've seen stuff like this before -- new hires hiding the fact that they already know how to use the new system because the manager is clearly threatened by the possibility (despite being hired precisely because they'd taken training courses), people being sabotaged by co-workers because they were "too" competent, etc...
Isn't the most likely decision that NewEgg isn't infringing, therefore the question of the patent's validity would be moot?
And wouldn't that then leave this troll in position of still being able to wield it against relatively small defendants who can't afford to fight the thing in court? (And also against defendants who aren't privately owned, and thus have a harder time justifying the inherent risk?)
"The building is not made of stone. It's made of ice. And flammable materials including cigarettes are strictly forbidden."
And why, exactly, do you suppose such things are forbidden? After all, the ice-hotel is soooo safe.
And if you've ever worked in any sort of service industry job (including hotel, staff accommodation, student accommodation or residential program) you would appreciate that just because something is "against the rules" doesn't mean nobody will do it (and in fact, often the subterfuges employed to circumvent the rules are even more problematic than whatever was banned in the first place).