Planck said that, about science advancing because earlier scientists die off. Well, I say Planck's full of crap.
James Clerk Maxwell is remembered today as the scientist who discovered the physical laws behind light and electromagnetism. He's known today as one of the most brilliant physicists in history. Unfortunately, he died an untimely death in 1879, of stomach cancer. He was less than 50 years old.
It was decades before anyone else as brilliant as him came along. People looking back at his work say he was on a direct course to Relativity... but then his light was snuffed out. If he hadn't died, we might not even know Einstein's name today. (Or we might remember him for discovering something even cooler, because he would have had all that extra progress to build on, had Maxwell's death not set physics back by decades!)
But it's noting that as a risk factor -- because, as Sirius has pointed out in its own response to the similar lawsuit, decades have gone by and the labels have never been asking for licenses for performances of pre-1972 works. And those works have been used for years, license free, by TV and radio broadcasters, bars, restaurants and a variety of other places.
Pandora is paying nothing for playing these songs... and neither is anyone else, because that's how the law works in this specific case.
The authorities trying to make the drug no longer be an approved medicine? Where do you get that from?
What it says in the complaint is that competitors attacked the patent on grounds that it is "not useful" so that they could turn around and sell it themselves, which (if true, and I'm not accepting this whole thing uncritically) is about the most disingenuous thing ever.
I'm all for doing away with bad patents, but have a look at the actual letter, specifically the 4th paragraph. If the claim made here is true, (which is not necessarily the case, of course, but if it is...) then this issue is not nearly as black-and-white as it is being presented here.
Not just boring; the ending to ME3 was outright insulting, as no matter which of the three choices you choose, they're 90% identical and all three end up literally nullifying everything you've worked to accomplish over the course of the entire trilogy.
Even if you've taken the time and put in the hard work to peacefully resolve both of the central conflicts of the game, (Krogan vs. Salarian and Geth vs. Quarian,) which would have proven that the point being made at the end is invalid, Shepard never has the opportunity to present this line of reasoning. (You know, the sort of thing Paragon Shepard has been doing FOR THREE ENTIRE GAMES NOW?!?)
And then when enough fans complained, they released an updated version where Shepard gets to reject this line of reasoning... for an even stupider and more pointless ending that basically says "screw you, fans, you'll accept what we're doing and like it!"
Mass Effect 3, more than anything else they do or have done, is the reason why I'll never buy anything else from EA.
EPIC's FOIA lawsuit over similar information revealed last year that the FBI's facial recognition software (as of 2010) had an acceptable margin of error of 20%. With a 1-in-5 chance of "recognizing" the wrong person, the accuracy of the database had nowhere to go but up.
That's actually really good. Do you ever randomly see somebody (who you don't interact with on a daily basis) and think "that looks just like so-and-so that I used to know." And how often does it turn out to actually be that person, after your brain "identified" them?
What's somewhat incredible is that the David Nimmer that Posner relies on above to highlight that a performance itself is not copyrightable is one of the few "copyright experts" to claim that Kozinski's bizarre interpretation makes sense.
For some reason, I found this sentence difficult to parse and I had to read it several times before I got it. I would have phrased it like so:
What's somewhat incredible is that David Nimmer, who Posner relies on above to highlight that a performance itself is not copyrightable, is one of...