I suspect the real fear isn't about releasing the IP into the public domain, rather that it's being used as collateral for funding for another company / someone else. Should Faraday turn out to be a success then suddenly the Cayman company will turn round to enforce those patents against them i.e. heavy licensing fees. It's a very useful tool to manipulate profits and losses however you want to, and the suspicion seems to be that a Cayman registered company will mysteriously be the only one to end up with any profits, one way or another, while Faraday will have little to show for their work, and also be tied in to using those patents / IP.
I work in local government and there have been times I've had to give legal advice to senior management that what they want to do is quite simply wrong and legally unfounded. Occasionally (*very* occasionally) I've had attempts to lean on me to change / modify my advice but held firm. There has never been an attempt to try and "punish" me (possibly because I'm bloody-minded and anyone who thought of trying it was warned it might not be a good idea) but just *who* is giving this woman implied approval of her action by such idiotic advice, and why aren't they stopping matters from reaching this embarrassing stage? It's not just the Attorney-General I regard as an embarrassment, it's those supposedly giving her legal advice on the issue.
I agree with you. I doubt he's the least bit concerned about the impact of any of his statements, other than the immediate impact. His entire business career is one of "playing to the gallery" and then walking away from whatever results. But what he seems to fail to realise is that he's not in that position any more. He doesn't get to walk away. (And oh how I wish I was an alien who's just landed on earth because then I could leave... Anyone got some sleeping pills? That fifty year sleep / coma sounds awfully enticing)
Anyone in public life who fails to consider their response carefully, especially when it will be open to public scrutiny and reply, has an incredibly dangerous habit. Sooner or later something will be said that will have (serious) repercussions. As President-elect he needs to remember that. Failure to do so will eventually result in disaster. Then he'll either be quiet or try to respond further by raising the ante. Either way it'll be too late. Mud will stick and it will be his name people will remember, even if they can't remember what was actually said and by whom.
Late certainly, but not so late as to state the FCC's position and make it substantially harder for whoever is appointed as the new head to reverse it without making it clear that such a stance is wholly at odds with the public service ethos it's supposed to have...
I wouldn't be so sure there won't be repercussions against the reputation management companies. Courts take an extremely dim view of "abuse of process". If a judge is prepared to launch an investigation into such a case then we may see a number of attorneys fleeing for cover trying to exculpate themselves from any such wrongdoing, and that may involve them co-operating with the courts to show they were innocent and had been misled by their "clients".
While it's being played as an "anti-US" issue in some of the media the real issue is the Eire entered into a tax agreement with Apple which meant Apple paid a tax rate of 0.0005% in some years, while at the same time everyone else was being taxed at a higher rate. Had Eire given the same tax rate to all companies then they wouldn't have fallen foul of the state-aid provisions. But then they wouldn't have had any tax base. And yes, I would prefer it if multi-nationals of whatever origin operated on the basis of paying taxes of the country they're operating in, but while they get to shuffle funds around with "licensing" payments and such, setting those "paper" payments against local taxes I can't say I have any sympathy. I suggest those who feel like finding out more watch "The Town That Took On The Taxman" that was broadcast earlier this year. It will give you an unpleasant shock to learn how multi-nationals achieve their market dominance.
This would be the same NBC that managed to not show the 7/7 tribute section in the opening ceremony at the 2012 Olympics in order to show adverts would it? I have several friends living in the US who were (and still are) incandescent about that
Not quite as straightforward an argument as it seems. If I read the report correctly the argument put for forward by the defendant's own expert is that he cannot determine the accuracy of Chubb's system without having sight of the source code. But that's not really the issue here. What doesn't seem to be asked by the defendant is leave to carry out his *own* DNA testing using another system nominated by his expert. If there isn't a match then clearly he will have grounds to attack the state's expert testimony
Basic rules of life. If you go into something trying to win then you might just win. And if you do it hard enough then your opponent might well think again about trying something else later. If you go into something but don't even try to win then you've already lost. You do nothing, you lose.
If you read Amazon's terms and conditions for publishing you'll realise quickly enough that despite the title of the agreement Amazon *isn't* the publisher, it's a distribution system and nothing more, with certain terms and conditions to allow them to retain enough control to prevent self-publishing authors from carrying out acts likely to put the system into disrepute i.e. stupid pricing. Amazon make it clear that all rights in the book where held by third parties must be cleared by the author first. There are indemnity clauses but no more than would be involved in a distribution contract.
When I first read this story I wondered if perhaps someone considered reporting this woman to child services. Calling a child a "thief" in public when the child clearly did everything legally (with the exception of breaching Netflix's terms and conditions as to geographical boundaries for content) can hardly be said to be a rational response... more child abuse.
Having read the various articles it's clear that there's something going on here, but it doesn't seem quite as clearcut as it first seems that Prince is the responsible party.
Hill was signed to Cherry (the agent). Hill claims she asked Cherry for permission to work with Prince, and was refused.
Hill then claims that subsequently Cherry repudiated her contract by saying she was having nothing more to do with the music business. Cherry had first tried to release a purported (love?)song by Hill to Korea, presumably to tie in with "The Interview" leak. Hill states she never gave her agreement to that and that it damaged her reputation.
Hill treated Cherry's repudiation as the end of her contract with Cherry and then went on to make the album with Prince, which was then released as a free download.
Cherry then re-appears on the scene, claiming that Hill had breached her contract with her (the contract Hill alleges Cherry repudiated.)
The only real allegation of wrongdoing I see that involves Prince is Cherry alleging that Prince persuaded Hill to work with him in breach of her contract (the tortious interference). Serious if true, but there's a very real dispute as to events. Prince is certainly jealous of his rights, and is happy to use litigation in enforcing them, making him quite disliked by many. However, I don't really see him (knowingly) getting involved in such a dispute.
This seems little more than a spat between an artist and her agent, with one alleging there is an existing contract and the other saying there was a contract but it was later repudiated by the agent (and further, that the agent damaged her reputation by releasing a song that the agent changed without her permission).
However, as one of the parties involved (Prince) has money, I can see this one running on for quite a while
If memory serves me didn't the guy who devised the standard shipping containers let anyone use the designs for free. When he started there were all sorts of proprietary standards which no-one would use because they had to pay, and goods were transported on pallets or anything else to hand, taking days to unload a ship. Now those container designs are used everywhere and he is rather rich.....
I don't know what the law is in the US but I was always taught that before you could arrest someone for resisting arrest you had to be arrested for something first (I mean other than the charge of "resisting arrest") and then, only when you resisted arrest on that charge, could you be arrested for resisting arrest. Later on, even if the original charge was dropped, the charge of resisting arrest could still be pursued as a separate offence.
So, what was she actually arrested for in the first place?