Nilt’s Techdirt Profile

nilt

About Nilt




Nilt’s Comments comment rss

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 11:09am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Well, assuming we aren't speaking about invention as patent law defines it, it actually is rather subjective. Sure, we can say Ayyadurai wasn't the sole inventory, but any analysis of the facts leaves it clear that who invented email as we now define it is a subjective matter.

    The reason that's important to state in the filing is if a fact cannot be proven true, it may well be more a matter of opinion. As opinion cannot be defamatory, that's actually a key point moving forward, assuming it does so.

  • Mar 20th, 2017 @ 10:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    There are two problems with that. First, it would cost a hell of a lot more money than summary judgement motions. Second, by not following procedure precisely with regard to every particular, it leaves a possibility that the plaintiff will prevail on facts or motions where they would otherwise have lost.

    People often talk about winning or losing on a technicality, and that's exactly what they mean. You can have the best case in the world but if your attorney screws up on one minor point of procedure, you may as well have hired JoeBob the DOllar Attorney instead.

  • Mar 14th, 2017 @ 9:10pm

    Odd bit I haven't seen mentioned

    Something I haven't seen mentioned in most of the coverage of this is that Mr Ayyadurai, by his own admission, was directed to create his "EMAIL" (it's actually capitalized in the filing) program by Les Michelson.

    As a high school student, Les Michelson, the Director of the Computer Laboratory at UMDNJ challenged me to create an "Electronic MAIL" system, one that would convert the paper transmittal of MEMOS with an electronic equivalent for UMDNJ.

    Justice Roberts, in US v Dubilier, stated the following on the act of invention.

    It is the result of an inventive act, the birth of an idea and its reduction to practice; the product of original thought; a concept demonstrated to be true by practical application or embodiment in tangible form.

    So, granting his assertion for the sake of argument alone, Mr Ayyadurai can be at most no more than one of the inventors of email. And, to get back to reality here, he was in truth no more than an inventor of that particular implementation of the abstract concept of mail on a computer. As the Alice decision made clear, an abstract concept cannot be an invention under the law (as in qualifying for the grant of a patent) just because it's "done on a computer".

    Heck, this is almost the quintessential example of that very problem! In my opinion, the fact that Mr Ayyadurai has not brought forward any evidence that he ever sought a patent for this implementation f the abstract idea of "mail on a computer" means he probably recognized at the time that there was no real invention as the US Government would see it. It was only many years later when the bogus issuance of many patents on software had created the problem the Alice decision set right that he seems to have thought he could try and make such a sweeping claim.

    But, and again we must assume his position as true for the sake of argument alone here, he can at most be one of the two inventors of email on a computer since he did not have the actual idea at all! Moreover, since it's obvious that the legal definition of an invention under a patent does not apply, it would be by Mr Ayyadurai's own admission, Les Michelson who "invented" email since it was he who apparently came up with the idea for it and essentially directed Mr Ayyadurai to code up an implementation of that concept!

    Anyhow, it's interesting to me that I haven't seen this line of reasoning ever really discussed much. Obviously, I do not believe either Mr Ayyadurai or Mr Michelson actually invented email, as such. At most they may have independently came up with the idea but it was an obvious one anyhow. For the many reasons others have so well covered, any assertion to the contrary flies in the face of reasonable discussion and any realistic view of the history of the idea. But the fact that Mr Ayyadurai seems to claim he alone invented it when the reality was he was at most one of two persons involved is telling of his grandiose view of his own importance.

    My personal opinion, based on the facts as presented by Mr Ayyadurai himself at the URL above is that it's much more likely Les Michelson was a teacher who saw a fairly brilliant 14 year old and tasked him with a project to stretch his skills somewhat. This was no more an inventive act inherent there than a woodshop teacher assigning a particularly skilled student to craft a nice inlaid box would have been an example of wither said woodshop teacher or said skilled student had created the concept of an inlaid wooden box.

    It is, to me, truly sad to see Mr Ayyadurai stake his own personal reputation so firmly on this specific issue. He was apparently, by any reasonable measure, quite brilliant as a 14 year old. That said, many 14 year olds are pretty smart for being 14 years old. This does not, however, a modern Da Vinci make.

  • Mar 3rd, 2017 @ 12:27pm

    (untitled comment)

    I say this as a professional geek myself. It's long past time we started rooting out this sort of BS. Breaking rules is not somehow inherently good. While some deserve to be abandoned, by and large we have rules in society for damned good reasons. All it takes is to witness the cluster-fuck that is Uber to see what ignoring the rules in the interest of money does. Silicon Valley is not some paragon of virtue. Sure, there are some great folks there many of whom do cool stuff, but they need to wake up and realize they do not live in their own little bubble of reality.

  • Jan 19th, 2017 @ 4:09pm

    Not so simple, in my view

    It is not so clear that these consumers could be considered owners of the devices at this point. These are devices that are under a very well publicised recall. Verizon has already refunded the purchase price of these devices to these consumers. Verizon almost certainly cannot be reimbursed for their costs for the recalled devices until they return them to the manufacturer.

    Thus, Verizon is financially damaged in the situation, aside from being a third party with deep pockets who will absolutely be sued by anyone injured by these devices. I see this as a no-brainer on Verizon's part. You don't get to endanger the public by carrying around a small incendiary device just because you think you're entitled to keep a phone you didn't actually pay for.

  • Jan 13th, 2017 @ 5:31pm

    Re: Re: Just 'Unreasonable'?

    Obviously not. This is clearly asking why the behavior is described only as unreasonable instead of in stronger terms condemning it.

  • Oct 21st, 2016 @ 6:42am

    Re: pick and choose

    Frankly, I don't know that I've really seen all that many videos of white folks getting shot by the police. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I can't recall any off the top of my head. I'm a white guy too, so this isn't some sort of confirmation bias. I've always been fortunate enough to have decent interactions with law enforcement but I darned well recognize that were I a minority, this very likely wouldn't be the case.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Taking lessons from the Erdogan School of Thin-Skin I see

    The issue with that position is Washington State has very clear and very strict guidelines about public disclosure. Once something becomes a contract with a government agency, it is subject to release almost without exception. This is simply a cost of doing business with a government agency in this state and was entirely foreseeable.

  • May 3rd, 2016 @ 2:38pm

    Re:

    This si what I was wondering as well. I know I personally agreed to certain obligations, even as I was signing discharge paperwork from my military service. I can't see how the government can force a company to be obligated, however, when they don't wish to be. To me, that is a huge issue all by itself and seems to fly in the face of the First Amendment. If all the government need to to bypass First Amendment protections is classify some information, they're going to start classifying everything, a practice which appears to be well under way.

  • Apr 6th, 2016 @ 1:21pm

    (untitled comment)

    I'm struggling to figure out why a guy could get it to work with the operating system that over a third of PC users are still using, but a giant company couldn't. Oh well.


    My guess would be that a company like Sony would work with Microsoft in order to have it officially sanctioned, possibly even available in the Microsoft Store. A one-man shop, so to speak, almost certainly wouldn't bother due to the expense alone, let alone anything else involved.

  • Mar 28th, 2016 @ 7:22pm

    (untitled comment)

    The FDA can claim that all they like, but the fact is you can still be allergic to these substances. My wife is allergic to Red Dye 40, for example, and it's in all sorts of things from white pills to hamburger, of all things. Getting such things out in any way possible can only bebe a good thing.

    This isn't to say other ingredients can't have the same issue, of course, but why anyone wants a petroleum based Dye in their FOOD is beyond me.

  • Aug 3rd, 2015 @ 2:24pm

    (untitled comment)

    I wouldn't be terribly surprised to learn a malware-related bad actor (as opposed to Rightscorp themselves) had infected the site with actual malware. I mean, what better target could you ask for than someone not well educated enough to consider paying them? This is assuming, for the moment, that Rightscorp themselves hadn't placed suspicious looking code on the site themselves. I can easily envision some tracking garbage they may have thought to be a good idea being placed live on there ...

  • Jun 11th, 2015 @ 9:38pm

    (untitled comment)

    The Northeast Ohio Media Group investigated the backgrounds of the parents and found the mother and father both have violent pasts.


    That sort of thing pisses me off. I have a violent past, for crying out loud! Of course, the relevant bit is mine was done in service to this country, but the facts are the same! Does this mean my kid's somehow "bad"? Heck no. I know I'm biased, but even his girlfriends' parents have all liked him and commented on how gentle a guy he is. Yet a "journalist" might uncover my previous military history and the fact that his mother (my ex) owns guns and use that against him? Hell no, I say. Anyone tried that and I'd be suing their asses for libel so fast their heads would spin.

  • May 5th, 2015 @ 10:52am

    (untitled comment)

    Pity them? I have no pity for a group of corrupt attorneys who've collectively engaged in a criminal conspiracy to extort money from the public. No pity whatsoever.

  • Mar 25th, 2015 @ 7:59am

    (untitled comment)

    The company is willing to share details on who its viewers are, what they watch and when they watch it to entice broadcast networks and others to go along with the service, sources said...Apple, which is known for tightly controlling its ecosystem, is taking a more hands-off approach with programmers, such as letting them decide whether they want to air ads. "They’re allowing a lot more decision-making by the content owner," said one source familiar with the talks, adding that Apple has told potential partners, "It’s up to you, whatever you guys want to do."


    Wow, there's not a chance I'd sign up for that service. Half the reason I don't have cable now is because of the constant barrage of ads and invasive marketing such as direct mail sent by Comcast and their "partners". Sure, Apple makes pretty good products, generally speaking. That doesn't make the invasion into my personal viewing habits acceptable.

  • Mar 13th, 2015 @ 2:47pm

    Re: getting a clearance

    The filling out of the application takes some time especially if you have moved a lot but it could be done in a few days.


    The forms are basically a day by day breakdown of you life for a number of years. For an executive, especially, this is a royal pain to get together.

    Depending on what is found in your background you may have to talk with FBI agents or have people that know you talk to agents. For some people the investigation can be done in 4-6 months for others a year or more.


    More like FBI agents WILL talk to everyone you know and often everyone they know as well. This usually comes as a bit of a shock and can be quite scary for those interviewed, at first. Last time mine was up for renewal, I had to explain to my girlfriend's grandmother why several government agents would be coming by to speak with her. That was a little weird, I assure you.

    That's all aside from the issues surrounding over-classification.

  • Mar 11th, 2015 @ 12:23pm

    Re: Re:

    In fairness, the place is hardly a pigsty. It's brand new and the guy originally reporting this to Ars is the only one to have ever lived in the unit. Not that this excuses the stupidity, but ...

  • Mar 11th, 2015 @ 11:57am

    (untitled comment)

    What's interesting to me, at least, is that the "consideration" for this transfer of copyright is the apartment owner condescending to lease the apartment. Is the rent somehow unrelated to that act?! I'd love to see a legal analysis of if that's even actually consideration, under the law, at all.