On the campaign trail, Trump promised to not only block AT&T's $100 billion acquisition of Time Warner, but even went so far as to claim he'd somehow break up the already completed Comcast NBC merger, completed back in 2011.
Hey, if he manages to pull this off, I'll vote to reelect him. That merger should never have happened in the first place and everyone knows it.
As the article from the Irish Times explains, the US is not alone: also keen to see the framework upheld are the British, Dutch, and French governments, as well as Microsoft and the Business Software Alliance, all of whom have applied separately to join the action.
They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. I say it's not just men. If Microsoft and the BSA (a notorious Microsoft front group whose main purpose in life is promoting the progress of copyright abuse, particularly by Microsoft) think it's such a good idea, that's at the very least, a good reason to wonder if we might not be better off without it.
Just because a patent is acquired does not mean the company obtaining it has the means to put it to use. Nor does it indicate it ever plans to put the patent to use. It's an exclusionary process meant to keep others locked out for a certain period of time more than a leading indicator of any company's immediate plans for the future.
And that's the biggest problem in all this. How does it make any sense to grant a patent to an applicant in the first place if they don't have an actual working model?
> [M]ontgomery’s defiant mayor announced that the city would continue to operate the program. Curiously, he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions.
If complying with a contractual obligation would place you in violation of the law, doesn't that make the contract itself legally indefensible and therefore void?
It doesn't seem like he's trying to say "the Obama administration actively encouraged the Washington Post to trip over its own shoelaces and perform an epic, journalistic face-plant" in this particular case, but rather that because of the Obama administration pushing the "Russian hacking" narrative so hard, with so little evidence, they created the climate where the Washington Post had a strong incentive to want to put out a story like this. And in that, he's absolutely right.
Sing it with me, folks: correlation is not causation. After all, the number of works of visual art copyrighted in the US similarly has an inverse correlation to the number of females in NY who slipped or tripped to their death (really!). It doesn't mean it's a causal relationship where more of one means less of the other.
In this particular case, though, there absolutely is a causal relationship. Technology companies are out-competing them by having a better product, and are ending up eating their lunch.
Thing is, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Sucks to be the guys who failed to compete, but that's their problem. They have no right to make it Google's problem.
These guys have been blatantly disregarding any and every law they find inconvenient from the very beginning, and now they're running red lights, making hook turns through bike lanes, and completely disregarding requirements for proper registration of their autonomous vehicles.
I really hope this case gives some agency an excuse to shut them down completely, because this just raised the stakes. Before, their lawless attitude only screwed people out of money and dignity. Now, they could kill someone.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship is rarely does.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also on what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship -->is rarely does.
No, I specifically and quite clearly meant "the Republican party and not simply the Republican presidential candidate." Please look over what I wrote again, with a bit more reading comprehension this time, as I was clearly referring to all the elections rather than simply the one that you're focusing on.