|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
A couple interesting quotes from the article:
Abraham Lincoln: Never stir up
litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. A moral
tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of
it.
Sadly, I think with what we see today is a failure to have
infused said moral tone.
Long before the emergence of our modern
class-action lawsuit, the future President also knows well that some quarrels
arise only because lawyers have dreamed them up.
We see such
happening in both the Patent and Copyright worlds. As Exhibit A, I
present:
E=MC2
A patent Lawyer is willing to write that
as:
A method for determining the energy equivalent of a mass
comprising:
determining the mass;and
multiplying the mass by the
square of the speed of light, thereby determining
the energy
equivilent.
And I have no doubt, if a patent were granted on that, it would
be used to demand fees and sue everyone that's practicing what Einstein
taught.
There is at least one patent Lawyer willing to obfuscate math in
order to get math patentable - because the Lawyer believes math should be
patentable and the Supreme's have been clear that it is not. A dishonest
application of the practice of Law in my very humble, non Legal opinion.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
Article link.
It
comes as no surprise Microsoft ignored that.
It would also come as no
surprise if the particular thread somehow "disappeares" from the Microsoft
Answers site.
I am still surprised at Microsoft's response to the
situation coming to the attention of the EU Commission though. They don't
usually respond that..... amicably - for lack of a better defining term.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Microsoft ignored tip that it botched browser choice in Windows 7 SP1 - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 03:39 PM EDT
- That part I'm not surprised at - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- They believe they are running the world - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- I see lots of US misunderstanding - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:32 PM EDT
- Eggsackerly - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT
- Eggsackerly - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 07:15 AM EDT
- Eh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 08:56 AM EDT
- Eh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 01:55 PM EDT
- Eh? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 03:10 PM EDT
- I see lots of US misunderstanding - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT
- End of the rope - Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- Would needing to provide choice apply to Cell PHONEs too (they are computers)? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 12:03 PM EDT
- Question of scale - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT
- Public Tenders - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- Public Tenders - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 04:50 AM EDT
- Putting Europe in its place - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 18 2012 @ 04:55 PM EDT
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 05:38 AM EDT |
I would never condone indecency per se, but do admire his courage in
making an apt form of protest in the circumstances. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Anyone care to summarise what was said in this news pick? I got lost halfway
through the second paragraph...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 19 2012 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
I haven't read the full article, but the idea that Facebook can legitimately
"opt-in its users" to anything is either a blatant misstatement or
total ignorance of the subject. Only a user can opt-in; what Facebook has
implemented is an opt-out system that forces FB's users to decline to
participate, and using the term "opt-in" in its context is clearly
wrong.
Is the fault Sottek's? Does he really not know what he's talking about, to the
point that he just parrots FB's absurd newspeak?
I'm skeptical enough of what I'll find on the website to not particularly want
to visit it, but I may have to do that when I get a free minute today to see for
myself how bad things are there.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|