As I understand it, the senate intelligence committee has the legal authority in it's own right to declassify the report. Technically it's only a courtesy, not a requirement, that the White House and CIA are getting a chance to vet and redact the report.
Therefore the committee could formerly, officially and legally release the full unredacted report let alone just the summary.
Therefor the retailer will get a pattern of spending, because customer 56*39(1 purchased a tooth-brush on Monday at the supermarket. On Tuesday they purchased some condoms at the supermarket. on Wednesday they purchased some flowers at the florist who's owned by the same company that owns the supermarket, later that same day they purchased a super vibrating extreme speed dildo at the sex shop chain also owned by the same parent company. The following Monday they went back to the sex shop seeking a refund of the defective dildo, which required them to provide their name, address and telephone number as well as 'waving' the NFC device over the sensor to authorise the refund to Apple Pay.
Now mega-corp AllKnowingMart knows who customer 56*39(1 is and can link all of their purchases to that person.
The token itself should also be encrypted (using a different key each time) so that the retailer can't build up a database of purchases.
that if you do what the patent says, then you are logically "infringing" on the patent,
This is what I don't understand.
If a patent is not valid, it is not a patent. It is a document describing something, it is not a patent. Therefore you can't be "doing what the patent says" because there is no patent. You can be doing what the document describes, but that document is not a patent. It might be a FORMER patent.
A patent is (blatantly copied from USPTO)
a property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time...
If a patent is invalid, then there is no property grant, therefore there is no patent, therefore it is not possible to infringe.
IANAL, however if malice can include "a deliberate attempt to harm the professional reputation of a party in an effort to get them dismissed by their employer" then surely this would qualify?
A lawyer retained by a defendant is accused of criminal acts of bribery by the plaintiff with no basis in law (i.e. the bribery laws don't apply at all as the target of the bribery is not covered by the bribery laws - they are not a public official nor were they a member of the legislature at the time of the actions).
I auto-report ALL his comments now (ar;dr) *because* of all his many, many PREVIOUS trollish comments.
This is bad behaviour and in some ways supports antidirts position.
Each and every comment should either be: 1) read; 2) ignored.
And only in the case of 1 should a determination be made whether to 'report' the comment or not.
While most of antidirts comments are trollish personal attacks, a few, a very few, are valid, insightful comments.
A good, insightful post is still a good, insightful post even if made by a crack-pot reactionary loon who I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire on the footpath in front of me while I had a full bladder and was desperately trying to find a toilet to take a piss in.
Just to be devil's advocate here, and not saying this is likely, BUT could it be a case of not corruption, but one of the many methods Intelligence Agencies use to hide intelligence-related expenses for (legitimate) clandestine funding?
For example, maybe these are actually fronts for NSA/CIA operations and ways of funneling payments to agents/spies/operations?
Sure, these people may not be that far removed from the NSA, but it could just be the start of a long chain to hide US Government funding of clandestine operations.
If I want to make a startup and sell it to Google or Microsoft or Apple or whoever, I'll do whatever's necessary (and within the law) to make it an attractive purchase for one of those giants. If it means lock-in, then you bet your ass I'll implement lock-in.
Once that company's sold (if it does) and the non-compete has expired, and I'm rich enough to not care about 'making' any more money, I'll contribute anything I can to the open standards open-source equivalent.
But I also think some of it may be due to the oft-promoted confusion vis'a'vis plagiarism and copyright.
In my university days it was often cited that if you copied more than 10% of a work into an assignment then it was plagiarism.
This then became twisted to mean that any copying of more than 10% was ALSO copyright infringement, and ANY copying less than 10% WASN'T copyright infringement.
The confusion still frequently persists today. Therefore the judge may not even have been aware of why they chose the arbitrary 10%, but it probably 'felt' right to them and their subconscious because that's the benchmark for plagiarism.
The appeals court overturned some of the reasoning used by the district court judge. It made no decision on whether or not the materials (or any specific material) was or was not in breach of copyright. It merely overturned the district court judges ruling and told them to try again. It did not say the district court judge couldn't reach the same conclusion again, just that they had to use different reasoning.
And if the parents can provide evidence that THEY TRIED and were rebuffed by Facebook, then they'd be golden.
They can produce said evidence, yes? You know, maybe even a single email to Facebook support outlining the situation and asking for the removal, with Facebook's reply to go get knotted?
Or perhaps even better, they can produce evidence they instructed their child (the owner of the account) to go and delete the account, but he refused? That would also probably help them out. Because at least they tried.