Interesting that it was Sony holding this up all along by refusing to sign an agreement to keep CoD on playstation, and yet at the same time complaining that MS wouldnt allow it on playstation.
Getting your news from the Today Show might just be worse than getting it from Facebook.
Literally nobody ingests information in the same way as everyone else. False dichotomy.
How do they still have control after they let it lapse?
Maybe Im misunderstanding. They had a warrant to search the phone but the warrant didnt include the password. Is that correct? Then Id think forcing him to give up the password would be like forcing someone to open their front door to officers that had a warrant to search the house. Its implied even if not openly stated.
This doesnt sound like so much of a "screwup" to me but a blatant case of bias on the bench. This judge made an extraordinary effort to rule in favor of the so called conservatives.
Selling malware should be illegal, and Israel should be ashamed.
The fact that MS already has inside info doesnt support Sony's argument that they need to hide info from MS. MS already has the info. That horse has already left the barn.
"So the end result is supposed to tax everyone sharing news links but exempt the big players via sweetheart contracts" No it was only the big 2 that were getting taxed. Not bing, not duck duck go, not yahoo. Not anyone but google and meta.
Im not seeing how obstructing a freeway leads to the negligence claim that he should have known someone might throw a brick.
Its a kind of exploit of a loophole in the trademark law. Pretty sure the law was not intended to allow this.
People at work used to laud in-n-out but I never thought they were very good. My guess is people like to talk it up as an alternative to mcdonalds but really they arent any better. 5 guys is much better and if you can find a TonyBurgers they are awesome.
I think its important to note that Genius tried to claim that google broke the TOS agreement, even though google never agreed to the TOS. Genius claimed that just by using the site it was an implied agreement. The court rejected that logic.
" and accounting for the payment of such annual bonuses" Im not an accountant, but that sounds like an implication that they listed the bonuses as a deduction.
"Given the current political and cultural moment where people are being murdered on doorstops and driveways by imbeciles, Amazon’s sensitivity here is somewhat understandable." How so? How does locking someone out of their controls in any way help someone that (maybe) thought he had been a victim of a slur??? Makes no sense to me. Even if there had been a slur it still would make no sense.
Im honestly not understanding why she sued Katy Perry in the first place. Its not hurting her. Its not close enough to weaken her trademark. So whats the point?
how much of a copy counts as infringement
These AI copy from a huge range of subjects. If its output contains 0.01% of your artwork is that infringement? If it was a human doing it it wouldnt be.