|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:03 PM EST |
Chief high court judge Helen Winkelmann said the GCSB would
have to
"confirm all entities" to which it gave information sourced through its
illegal
interception of Dotcom's communications.
...
The police were ordered to
provide evidence from a senior New Zealand officer
in the US who told an
internal publication he "monitored" the raid from FBI
headquarters.
NZ Herald
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: charlie Turner on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:10 PM EST |
I know it's bad form to reply to myself, but I just noticed I became a member
here 9 years ago today. Yikes! Who would have thought/known the need for this
would still exist? Much thanks to pj for all the work along the way! Thanks for
allowing me the opperknockity to tune along! :D![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 07:56 PM EST |
After 18 months in court, a nine-person jury found Best Buy liable
for misappropriation of TechForward’s trade secrets and breach of contract, and
returned a verdict of $22 million in favor of TechForward.
[...]
Best Buy had:
- Internal emails that acknowledged
that it would “...be a couple of years before we [Best Buy] have a model that is
up and running…” and “...I’m not convinced we’d be able to organically duplicate
Tech Forward’s model in a reasonable period of time…” so they “…wanted an
opportunity to peek under the hood a little bit at their [Tech Forward’s]
modeling…”
- The models which Best Buy did build
internally were virtually identical to the models that Techforward had provided
them. And there were internal Best Buy emails asking Best Buy employees to
“…remove the Techforward reference in the file names…”
- While Best Buy promised to build a “brick wall” to
protect the information that Techforward provided them, they acknowledged that
they did not do so. And in fact, the same people that reviewed Techforward’s
model were the ones who built Best Buy’s model.
- My
favorite email is one from a Best Buy employee (I am using all my willpower
to not put his name here) who argued in favor of running the program
internally, saying that “I don’t think we should be making this company
[Techforward] rich…”
Josh Kopelman, Redeye VC[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, December 05 2012 @ 08:54 PM EST |
Link
The Federal Trade Commission filed an
amicus brief in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals explaining
that it is ordinarily inappropriate for a court to issue an injunction barring
the sale of products incorporating standardized, patented technology when the
patent holder has previously committed to license the patent on fair and
reasonable terms.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 12:05 AM EST |
CNET amongst others has a story about Microsofts recent marketing
failure. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 06 2012 @ 01:37 AM EST |
Google's CEO can't explain Apple's strategy of suing Google's partners rather
than suing Google itself.
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323717004578159481472653460-
lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|