That's a circular argument you've got there. Your opinion is that any information the jury needs should be provided by one of the parties. So any evidence the jury might need -- clarification of medical terminology, what the weather was like on a certain date -- just proves your point.
The question is whether justice is better served by punishing a party for failing their burden in the courtroom, or by getting an outcome that's more congruent with the happenings that are in dispute.
You're clearly in the camp that the courtroom matters more than the underlying case, which is your prerogative. But I hope you can see how that prejudices you so you'll just see any situations someone posts as further confirmation of your already-held belief.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ugh. The Techdirt decline continues.
Nobody but you is talking about FAULT. This entire post (read it again) is about intent, and Mike ascribes intentionality ("you would think legit companies would have learned") where there is only negligence and clumsiness. It's sloppy thinking at best, and more than a little dishonest.
As others have noted, while Energizer shipped the software, nobody thinks for a second that the inclusion of the rootkit was intentional or corporate policy. That's in contrast to Sony and other DRM abuse cases which were clearly designed and implemented as policy.
The *rootkit* is malicious, of course. Energizer, as a company, was the victim of a sloppy or malicious contractor as well as their own negligence. Surely you can see the distinction there?
Ok, I can deal with the constant breathless outrage over the stupid things media companies do. And I can deal with the sometimes over-clever hindsightical analysis of PR blunders that lawyers and companies make.
But this? Really? A quality control and PR disaster for Energizer, sure. A lesson in the dangers of outsourcing software development? Sure.
But an intentionally nefarious move designed to mess with consumers? A comparison to the Sony debacle? Really?
That's just flat out dishonest, Mike. Either produce some evidence that it was intentional, which nobody but you has suggested, or take a deep breath and consider the possibility that not every corporate mistake is with malicious intent.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but it's important to understand why Apple thinks they can get away with this kind of thing (and why they are probably right).
Apple is 100% focused on consumer value. Anything that devalues the platform in consumers' eyes must go, even if it means hurting developers. Think about it: this is the exact opposite of what made Microsoft successful in the 90's. Microsoft focused on making the platforms attractive to developers, and trusting that customers would follow a thriving development ecosystem.
Apple is betting that other platforms, like Android, will become so full of junk apps, security threats, porn, and generally low quality development work that it will drive consumers to Apple's offerings, and therefore make the platforms attractive to "real" developers.
I'm a FOSS guy myself and I think it's probably a mistake on Apple's part. I expect Google to make efforts to separate wheat from chaff in the Android market, and for third parties to help. But it's not a foregone conclusion that that will work.
Well said, Mike. I had been a regular reader of ARS for a few years, and it was one of my favorite sites.
But I do use an ad blocker because I find I simply can't pay attention to content if there's even a subtly animated ad on the same page. It makes it just not worth visiting the page in the first place.
So I took ARS' request to heart and will stop visiting the site. That means I won't send their links by Twitter or post them via Facebook, either, and I had been doing a fair amount of both, driving traffic and helping to build their brand.
More power to 'em; they are married to the advertising revenue model and want to get rid of readers who aren't a good fit for that model. My guess is that it turns out poorly in the long run, but who knows? Maybe they can be more profitable with a smaller audience of less tech-savvy readers. It seems a little odd for ARS, but I'm all for market experimentation.
It clearly says "send no money". If and when they actually start collecting $5 from people, then *maybe* there's an issue here. Likely not even then, depending on structure.
If they were accepting actual money, and if they were promising partial ownership in return for that money, and if they didn't screen for "sophisticated investors" first, then there might be something to see here.
...the more draconian and reactionary ACTA turns out to be, and the greater the proportion of everyday internet usage it criminalizes, the more people will disregard it.
Peoples' behaviour isn't going to change. And while ISP's might be willing to cut off 0.1% of their subscribers, they're simply not going to terminate 20% or 50% of their subscribers. So let industry over-reach and go after every instance where someone emails an MP3 to a friend.
All this is going to do is push people to anonymous network layers like TOR, and to further hide their activity from their ISP. That, in turn, complicate network management and increases expense (by preventing compression, for instance).
They might as well pass laws against gravity, for all the good it's going to do. And if they push hard enough, it'll just hasten the day they drive themselves out of business, making more room for your companies willing to work within the bounds of reality.
Mike, you're so used to arguing with everyone that you seem to have missed the fact that Damian is entirely in agreement with you here.
That last point you're "qubbling" with? His original point says exactly what you are attempting to dispute: by prohibiting embeds, EMI could have made at most $5400, which is a pathetically small figure and far less than that much promotion should generate.
I can only think that you read $5400 as a large figure and thought that Damian was saying that was an upside for EMI. In fact, he's saying the opposite, and you're somehow arguing a point where you two are in agreement.
1) They can *ask* friends, family, and employers, but generally speaking, those people are not compelled to answer.
2) Nobody's saying authorities need a warrant to know someone's location. People are saying that they need a warrant to compel a phone company to turn over that data.
3) Your link is specifically about pen registers, or lists of phone calls made and received. Location is not a pen register. That case has no relevance here.
4) You can't say it's OK to use location data without a warrant to locate someone, but that they need a warrant to use that legally-obtained data as evidence. What, are they supposed to go to the judge and say "we've got this info, and we used it to arrest the guy, but now that we're bringing him to trial, we need you to issue a warrant for the info we already have and used"? That makes no sense at all.
Sure, and once the school was alerted to the issue, it becomes willful infringement. As a parent or taxpayer, how would you feel about a school board spending money to defend a case that they are obviously in the wrong on and are equally obviously going to lose?
Sure, PR black eye for Dodge, probably a few lost sales in already hard times. Lots of wasted money for a school. And the school board gets to look like morons and spend their time on cute legal strategies and blame-shifting PR maneuvers rather than managing their school.
That's a preferable outcome to just accepting that everyone here made mistakes and moving on? That's the world you want to live in?
You're confusing the legal principle of trademark defense with the marketing proposition of brand dilution. And there is no "sue-it-or-lose-it" provision in the trademark statutes. There *are* court precedents that active control of proprietary marks is a defense against the claim that they have become generic.
Legally, Dodge can license it to everyone under the sun with no repercussions. Think about how many licensees Apple and Microsoft have -- hundreds of thousands each, generally at zero or minimal cost. You sign an agreement, you get to use their logo in your promotional materials, websites, business cards, and so on.
Whether it's smart to do so, and whether it weakens brand perception, is an issue for business people, not lawyers. The law is silent on the matter (and rightfully so). The issue is perceived affiliation and PR upside/downside, with absolutely zero legal or trademark implications.
So forcing the school to change the logo is a PR disaster of relatively known proportions in the short term. Maybe not a smart move.
Without defending it, I can tell you that the corporate/lawyer motive is to prevent a PR problem of unknown proportion at an unknown time in the future. There's a low but real probability that the school and its logo will get negative PR and Dodge's brand equity will suffer by the linkage.
From silly stuff like embarrassing photos being taken on the logo to serious stuff like school shootings, Dodge's lawyers are concerned that there *could* be a downside of unknown size.
Is it a smart choice? I'm skeptical. But painting it as somehow knee-jerk and obviously stupid displays a lack of understanding of the motivations and issues. Might as well have some idea of what you're talking about.
Yes, that is true in the U.S. as well. In fact, most states only require speedometer calibration to within 10%. If you start ticketing at 2% over the limit, you're getting to the area where overinflated (or even slightly larger) tires cause even the most law-abiding to speed.
So let's survey managers in general. From fast food to accounting to manufacturing.
What percentage of managers, do you think, will report being understaffed? Or not having a big enough budget?
I'm shocked that only 50% reported being understaffed. Clearly, data centers are being managed by relatively inexperienced people. That's probably more of a concern than the self-reported "understaffed" numbers.
Of course, lost in all of the attention over the FBI's process is the rather serious unanswered question of why the telcos didn't seem to push back when handed a bogus demand to hand over records that did not match the official process and violated the law.
Is that really an "unanswered question"? Really?
Let's role play: you're a major telco. Billions of dollars in revenue, hundreds of millions to billions in profit. Huge government-imposed barriers to entry. Huge switching costs and high prices, both of which are starting to come under government scrutiny. And practically every one of your users already hates you for poor service and high costs.
Now the government comes along. You're faced with a choice: stand up for your users, who already hate you and probably won't notice anyway, and piss off the government. Or go along with the government and make a tiny percentage of your users slightly more angry.
The article doesn't get at the specific claims in the patent, but if it truly is a recipe patent (as opposed to a patent on a manufacturing process used to make the product), it seems utterly ridiculous.
Even if the patent *is* on a manufacturing process, this sure doesn't help the system's image. Or the lawyers', for that matter. Can you imagine being at a cocktail party with a Nutriset lawyer? "Yeah, I'm working on a patent case, some American company is trying to use my company's patented process to feed starving children. I'm pretty sure we'll win."