|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 06 2013 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
An interesting turn of events. If this goes to trial I hope Groklaw covers
it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 03:31 AM EDT |
I must have misunderstood the question,
"How big of a problem is China?" 10'56"
Gates
had been talking about the big names in the business, software in depth,
services in depth, then
when asked about China he goes off on a rant about
bashing down the piracy numbers. Which I take to
mean it hasn't entered his
head that China could come out with products, hardware and software, that will
pull the rug out from under some of those big companies, his
included.
As for the iPad users not being able to type, it's obvious
he's jealous the iPad box is so light because
Apple don't ship a keyboard with
every one, and their margin goes up by selling them as separates.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 09:12 AM EDT |
A harsh fact-finding
At a hearing last month, the lawyers behind Prenda finally showed in court up as
Wright ordered them to. But when they were confronted with Wright's questions,
they clammed up and pled the Fifth Amendment. They wouldn't answer simple
questions, like who owned their shell companies and where the settlement money
(rumored to be in the millions) was going.
"Well, if you say answering those kinds of questions would incriminate him,
I'll take you at your word," Wright said to Hansmeier's lawyer at the
time.
The three lawyers Wright refers to as the "Principals"—lawyers Paul
Hansmeier, John Steele, and Paul Duffy—refused to describe their own behavior in
court. Now, just as he said he would, Wright has assumed the worst.
In today's order, Wright finds that:
Prenda shell companies like AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13 were created
"for the sole purpose of litigating copyright-infringement lawsuits."
They have no assets other than the pornographic movies they sue over. And
despite their legal trickery using offshore vehicles, "the Principals
[Steele, Hansmeier, and Paul Duffy] are the de facto owners and officers."
Their strategy of identifying IP numbers, issuing subpoenas to ISPs, and
sending demand letters offering to settle for about $4,000 "was highly
successful because of statutory-copyright damages, the pornographic subject
matter, and the high cost of litigation." Steele, Hansmeier and Duffy got
"proceeds of millions of dollars due to the numerosity of Defendants."
And Wright added, "No taxes have been paid on this income."
The Prenda lawyers engaged in "vexatious litigation designed to coerce
settlement." They showed little desire to actually fight when a
"determined defendant" showed up. "Instead of litigating, they
dismiss the case," notes Wright. "When pressed for discovery, the
Principals offer only disinformation—even to the Court."
Local California lawyer Brett Gibbs sued on behalf of Prenda and then tried
to back away from their scheme to testify against them, but he's still in
trouble. Wright states, "Though Gibbs is culpable for his own conduct
before the Court, the Principals directed his actions. In some instances, Gibbs
operated within narrow parameters given to him by the Principals, whom he called
'senior attorneys.'"
Finally, the allegations of identity theft look legitimate. Steele,
Hansmeier, and Duffy conspired to fraudulently sign the copyright assignment for
the adult movie Popular Demand using Alan Cooper's signature, pretending he was
an officer of AF Holdings.
Wright concludes: "Plaintiffs’ representations about their operations,
relationships, and financial interests have varied from feigned ignorance to
misstatements to outright lies. But this deception was calculated so that the
Court would grant Plaintiffs’ early-discovery requests, thereby allowing
Plaintiffs to identify defendants and exact settlement proceeds from them. With
these granted requests, Plaintiffs borrow the authority of the Court to pressure
settlement."
Sanctions range from merely expensive to criminal
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/prenda-hammered-judge-sends-porn-trol
ling-lawyers-to-criminal-investigators/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
Something that jumps out at me here is this line:
"to think of things as not being innovations is mind blowing."
You don't patent an "innovation" you patent an *invention*
"Innovation" is a word that has entered the language recently to mean:
"I can't call this an invention with a straight face, but I want people to
think I called this an invention, so I'll use a made-up word that sounds like
invention instead."
And then there was this bit:
"If it’s part old stuff, even reconstituted in a way that does something
newly magical"
Does this guy, who's calls himself an expert, believe that anything computers do
is magical?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 03:51 PM EDT |
Newspick
Radio New Zealand
interview with Robert Amsterdam.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
Article
link.
Makes one wonder how a scan of Microsoft code would
compare.
Of course, with my biases, I expect MS code to ring in as much
lower quality.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 07 2013 @ 05:44 PM EDT |
Was
he thinking through the implications of this other
Newspick?
"You may send the court order. However, because of
you, we are
relocating to Germany so it must be from a German court. That was
your choice.
... Lawyers and police told Go Public there is little
recourse for victims
in Clayworth's shoes, because his court orders are from
Malaysia. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 12:56 AM EDT |
"Google Glass Gets Smeared: 11 Improvement
Ideas" (InformationWeek.com article, 7 May 2013)
The thing
that is missing from the above article and others is a reference to a television
precursor. Over forty (40) years ago there was a pilot called Probe (IMDB entry) and a
series called Search
(IMDB entry). The operatives wore a sensor disk that could be mounted on a ring,
tie bar/tack, or a necklace. The sensors included audio, video (visible and IR),
and RF. The return channel was audio only to an implant behind one ear. Head
colds could really gum up the works.
The above precursor leads me to
believe that the Google Glass ® product isn't a giant leap into the unknown.
Besides the usual "Young Turks" going for the latest gadget there will older
people who will remember the Search series and make the connection. Think
what a police or FBI crime scene team could do with a data van, a Wi-Fi relay,
and Google Glass ®'s that have LIDAR (Wikipedia article)
capabilities.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
Link
EFF
The U.S. Congress is beginning to take a serious look
at copyright law, with the first hearing scheduled for May 16th. Lawmakers must
keep in mind how privileges given to copyright owners can be used as tools of
abuse as Prenda Law has done. And anyone who comes to Congress asking for
expanded rights and powers for rightsholders should be prepared to explain how
the public will be protected against the abuse of those rights.
Let's celebrate
today. But let's keep our eyes on the ball.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 08 2013 @ 09:41 AM EDT |
Steele attacked US District Judge Otis Wright's order publicly,
telling adult-industry publication XBIZ (NSFW) that he intends to appeal
it.
"Obviously we don't agree on the ruling," Steele said. "Judge
Wright based his order on an eight-minute hearing where there was no testimony,
no evidence introduced. Clearly Judge Wright does not like this type of
litigation and he's no fan of intellectual property law." - Joe Mullin, ars
technica
The hearing was only 8 minutes long because everyone
associated with Prenda Law refused to say anything, citing their fifth amendment
rights. So the only facts in evidence that the judge had to go on were the facts
presented by the defendant, and so his only choice was to believe those facts.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: FrankH on Saturday, May 11 2013 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
The "Accidentally Released..." story about Goldman Sachs and naked
short selling isn't exactly news. It is dated May 15th. Comments go back a year.
---
All right now, baby it's all right now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|