What impresses me the most about this is that you can replace NSA with almost anything here and there's no way it doesn't sound like a complete and total unsubstantiated waste. In addition to being completely intangible regarding something that shouldn't be 100% intangible - security in any form is not nebulous.
I get the point of the post here, and I agree that it's stupid of a company to do (gamestop potentially) - but I don't know if I would say that the ad was banned as it implies different things as opposed to the advertising company who banned it.
My first thought when I read this was that some random obscure US law was being used to prevent political games or equivalent, based on the title.
Who is this crazy guy? Oh, the son of Richard Posner? I guess bad apples don't fall far from the tree, so to speak. Why he got his son into law is anyone's guess, but clearly not the right decision.
How much does this guy pay to clean up his wikipedia profile? It seems like a lot of money, given how magically non-controversial it is (in comparison to his claims). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Posner
it's really all you can do in such a situation, since the government doesn't wish to be held accountable.
One can simply hope that this incenses the public enough for them to demand change. I can say this though, the chances of any business even considering doing business in any country that's a part of the five eyes process are now nonexistent, for the most part.
They're not asking for 2.25 % per product. They were asking for 2.25 % for their entire portfolio. Microsoft asks for around $15 per smartphone. That's around 5-10% of manufacturing cost or thereabouts.
You can't get rid of the question of "should stuff be patented in the first place"? at the same time as a judge is required to interpret existing law.
The most important part about rates is that they are negotiable. If it's too high? Work it out with the party, maybe even get it down to zero. The fact that such a thing did not occur is the fault explicitly of Microsoft. there was *no* negotiation. There was no discussion with Microsoft outside of the courts as to whether or not this should be license free or should be FRAND or shouldn't.
For these kinds of contract matters you are supposed to work it out with the party. when did that happen, again? It didn't.
They never got to asking for a rate, Mike. There was no negotiation. MS asked them for an offer and then sued, claiming the rate was exorbitant and in bad faith. Not only that, but it was the same rate they charged anyone else. The standards essential pricing. Oh, and MS got a judge so favorable to them that we have to wait until appeals to get rid of the biased guy. Did I mention the judge tried to decide on what Motorola can do internationally in germany?
John Yoo missed nothing. The only reason they want to call "Traditional press" press, for the purposes of free speech protection is because you can shake down traditional press. You can't shake down wikileaks.
It wasn't about legitimacy and never was - it was all about "who can be controlled".