Reading what the lawyers actually said, it's LG's claim that 'integer' has the ordinary meaning that's nonsense. The patent is talking about "an integer multiple of the transmission time interval", symbolically "n * TTI". While a negative multiple is mathematically possible, when dealing with data transmission it's excluded (if you transmit packet 1 and then packet 2, packet 2 can't be transmitted at a time prior to packet 1's transmission). Similarly for a zero multipler, a device can't normally transmit 2 packets at the same time (and if it can, that's explicitly spelled out which it isn't here). And as for n=1, the patent owner's lawyers note that the exact phrase in the patent specification is "The MAC-e PDU is sent to the physical layer every n*TTI, instead of once every transmission time interval (TTI).". That logically excludes n=1, since that would make the transmission once every TTI and the patent's talking about sending it at some interval other than every TTI.
So yes, it's clear from the language of the patent that they're talking about an integer n where n is greater than 1.
"Your ISP does not wish to carry traffic from Google on their network. Per their wishes, we are not sending traffic into your ISP's network. If you wish to receive traffic from Google, please contact your ISP about allowing traffic from Google."
The problem there is that any company wanting to market another version has to either prove their version is identical to Daraprim (right down to the impurities, by chemical analysis and comparison of the results to those from Daraprim) or go through the entire FDA approval process as a new formulation. And Shkreli locked down distribution of Daraprim so competitors can't get samples of it for the comparison (which is also making the FDA unhappy on top of everything else).
I think it's not that Smith got a warrant, but that the warrant was not supported by probable cause and Smith included no evidence in his application for the warrant to support a finding of probable cause. The second half of the 4th Amendment says that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause".
I think it's time for a little user engagement here, of the sort usually covered by "rules of engagement". :) First, prime a browser so AT&T's serving up the most offensive, undesirable ads possible. Then hit some major news sites like CNN or the New York Times. Screen-grab the ads. Send them and dumps of the web page source to the site's complaints or abuse department attached to a complaint about the ads they're serving up, and topping it off with a complaint about how your antivirus software complained about other pages on their site as well and you're afraid it's those ads since you only have the problem when those ads show up. Slip in a mention somewhere about how it only happens when you're using AT&T's WiFi and can they check if they're doing something special for AT&T customers. I'd think even a few dozen complaints about bad ads and malware would get some attention, and attention from major news sites'll be a lot harder for AT&T to ignore.
I dunno about that. If I say "automobile control interface", does anyone think I'm talking about an interface made out of automobile controls? No, people are more likely to think I'm talking about an interface to control automobiles.
Nobody would confuse the arrangement of the control pedals in a car with the mechanism used to link the gas pedal to the engine throttle setting. But mention software and everyone's brains turn to mush.
The controlling rule: you don't want critical military infrastructure to be controlled by your opponent. So any country who's not absolutely 100% positive their interests will always align perfectly with those of the US wants their own GPS system that the US can't interfere with or degrade at will. I consider it good, the more GPS networks there are the more redundancy there is and the harder it'll be for anyone to degrade/kill GPS capability without being forced to annoy someone big enough to swat them and willing to swat them.
All it'd take is a judicial rule that the plaintiff has to either present a trademark registration in the industry category the defendant operates in, or identify the specific activities or marketing of the defendant's product that encroaches on the industry category the plaintiff's mark is registered in. The PTO has standardized industry categories, so it shouldn't be that hard to nail down. It just requires judges who're willing to do their jobs even if it inconveniences the plaintiff.
Then again, a lot of cases could be readily dismissed if Iqbal standards were applied the way it's been ruled they should apply.
This is actually a good response to be able to give in general. Law enforcement may not understand tech or TOR exit nodes, but they understand "we don't have any records to give you, never had them". I've always thought that was a good reason to keep logs and such only for as long as you needed for technical reasons (eg. unless you have a problem you're troubleshooting you keep them for 24 hours at most) unless the law specifically requires you to keep certain logs longer than that and then you keep only what the law requires and dump the rest.
This is why I don't consider Github a primary repository for anything important. I don't trust any other party further than the explicit wording of my contract with them. Things like this just reinforce my reasons for that.
I do see a difference here. Brooks was talking about used CDs, where the royalty had already been paid when it was first sold. Swift is talking about new sales/streams, where a royalty hasn't already been paid. Suppose I sign a contract with a publisher giving me an X% royalty per book on a fixed cover price, no exceptions and no terms allowing for any sort of distribution at a discounted price. Then one day I walk into a bookstore and find copies of my book being given away for free in a publisher-sponsored giveaway program, I haven't been asked to agree to this and I'm not being paid any royalty on the theory that X% of zero is zero. These aren't used copies, they're brand-new books. Am I not entitled to take the position that my publisher owes me royalties on those copies based on the agreed-on cover price and they'll just have to chalk those royalties up as a cost of running the promotion?
The software's probably DD-WRT like seemingly every consumer-grade router uses these days, and the ISP's just using the guest-network capability already built in. The VLAN separation's built into the switch hardware, so I wouldn't be so worried about that (any bugs there would also show up in the switch maker's managed switches and they couldn't let it go very long without sales tanking).
As secure as your regular router is. Bear in mind that if you dig into the technical internals your router does not have a WAN port and 4 LAN ports. What it has is a 5-port switch. The firmware just configures 2 VLANs on the switch, usually assigning the 4 LAN ports and the WiFi interfaces to VLAN 1 and the single WAN port to VLAN 2. If there's a way to breach the VLAN separation then your router's already vulnerable to someone outside doing that and gaining access to the local VLAN through the WAN port. Which VLAN they start from won't change the vulnerability.
Getting full control of this easily requires flashing DD-WRT, but since most router firmware's a modified version of DD-WRT anyway someone with enough knowledge and patience (or someone using a packaged exploit kit) can pull an NVRAM backup from the router, edit the VLAN setup and other configuration items and load in the new settings without having to flash new firmware. And if the router's running stock firmware it's probably outdated and has unpatched vulnerabilities in it.
I think the theory is that it worked to get the French aristocracy out of power so it's good enough for anything else. What's annoying is that often I find myself agreeing with the protester's points, but that agreement's overwhelmed by the desire to smack them up the side of the head for their idiotic antics.
All the service providers I use have an RSS feed of their blogs where they post information like this policy change. I subscribe to them and put them in a Providers feed so I can keep up with things I may need to know about. If someone owns a domain and isn't keeping up with what's required of a domain owner in some fashion... tough, that's what happens when you don't pay attention to your stuff.
As for scary emails, most of them are obvious fakes (I don't have an account there, wrong email address, obviously bogus source and so on). When I get one that isn't an obvious fake, yes I do check my account to make sure there isn't anything I need to take care of. It doesn't happen that often, maybe once every couple of months, so it's not a big deal.
I'd suggested one solution to EasyDNS: have a way to verify the information from the domain's information page in addition to the e-mail, so when you got one of those e-mails you could simply log in to EasyDNS as usual and check the domain information to see if verification was really required. That'd comply with ICANN's spec and allow those that care about it to avoid phishing attempts at the same time.
I'd've gotten a lawyer and seen about having him write a letter back including a copy of their letter plus screen and source captures of my Web site and what they presented showing that theirs is a modified version of mine, and asking essentially "Are you really admitting, publicly and in writing, to modifying and distributing a copyrighted work (my web site) for commercial gain without the permission of the copyright holder (me)?". I'd also send a counternotice to Github citing that I am the copyright holder of the Web page in question and that the code posted was a copy of the code for my page served to me from my server through complainant's network which I had not granted permission to modify my work and distribute the modified version.
Maybe a simple adjustment: set a statutory royalty rate, and say that anyone can use any work without a registered copyright owner merely by agreeing to pay the statutory rate per copy made up to the point where an owner registers the work, proves ownership and informs the user of the change or the user is informed through an annual check of the registration each user is required to make. No creator can sue for any relief other than the statutory rate for any use prior to registration. Give copyright owners 1 year to file registrations before this change goes into effect. That would seem to give at least clarity on how to go about using an orphan work without violating the Berne Convention (as far as I know) and without allowing copyright owners to ambush users nor users of a work to abuse claims that the work was orphaned.