Similar? Court should propose statistically significant research asking people whether they find logos confusing or similar. The cost should go to the loser.
I assume not. I am pretty confidnet the whole purpose is for the cells to never grow.
It works by editing cell information. If you let original cells divide there will be more unedited cells. So the eariler in the development you apply modification the more prononuced the effect. I think I read somewhere that they could alter amount of pigmentation by timing application of treatment. So that would fit.
It doesnt work by killing existing cells. Maybe it could work if old cells died and new ones would be edited, so they could gradually replace original ones but I guess its pretty hard to deliver gene editor to so many cells.
Cells divide really slowly so if you could edit most cells in one day then only a negligible amount of new cells would be unedited.
* I guess its pretty hard to deliver gene editor to so many cells* this is the breakthrough waiting CRISPR and impossible to find a great up to date scientific resource on the technical issues and on the path towards progress.
"a prolific patent litigant" that should be urban dict definition for a patent troll. And with addition of "losing majority of actual trials" a regular dictionary.
I think it's becoming if not already became apparent that IP law is deeply flawed. The sole existence of legitimate business model of patent trolls is an indication as well as solutions hurting public designed to avoid corporate litigations such as you tube content infrifiment marking. Its biased against individuals.
But, oh well,bills and laws are not sponsored by public, so it's hard to expect they work in their favour.
As I've mentioned several times on HN, I'm currently suing TP-Link for asserting false IP claims against me. We actually just amended to add new antitrust claims, which might work, being that TP-link is the largest manufacturer in the WiFi router market by far.
It's particularly unfortunate that trademark law in essence forces trademark holders to be bullies. Hard to come up with a law structured to cause more litigation.
Nothing in the law forces them to restrict resale of their products. If anything, it might be an antitrust violation. Some abusive patent suits might be antitrust violations as well. See e.g https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/apple-intel-file-antitrust-c...
> Unfortunately, it's a problem for a long time. This isn't something that happened in the last few decades.
Yes, all of those things have been problems for a long time. However, the application of patent law to software and business methods is relatively recent (in legal terms). In the US, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has been largely responsible for growing the scope of software patents since its creation in 1982 (e.g., holding that use of an analog to digital converter or a memory storage device were all that is needed to meet the Supreme Court's 1981 Diamond v. Diehr test that a software patent has to actually do something, rather than just being a conventional implementation of inherently unpatentable math). This culminated in the 1998 State Street decision (again, of the CAFC, not the Supreme Court) that opened the floodgates for business method patents.
Despite Supreme Court decisions like In re Bilski (2009) and CLS Bank International v Alice Corp (2014) that attempted to limit the scope of these patents, and that were hoped (of Alice in particular) to be able to be used to invalidate large swaths of such patents, the CAFC continues to erode the force of these decisions (see, e.g., the 2020 Uniloc decision) and carve out new ways to patent mathematical algorithms implemented on general purpose computers. The allowance of these patents by the USPTO has also been on the rise in recent years.
The patent application process should at least allow the public to come up with counterclaims. Far from perfect, but imho it would solve a lot. For example: Amazon files a patent application for one-click buying; the public however responds with a small script showing how to implement it, nullifying the patent.
I'd also like to see an official public database where people can post inventions, source code, etc., or an official way to timestamp/sign them. Such services exist right now of course, but afaik they're not official.
This is the absolute minimum that the government can do to make patent law future-proof. A law will only work if people think it's fair.
Part of the problem is that there are no criminal penalties for making false copyright claims as far as i know. A troll could be sued in civil court, but it's a long expensive process with non-negligible risk, and in practice individuals rarely attempt it because of the same asymmetries that enable patent trolls in the first place. What we need is an actual law that levies meaningful penalties for abuse. Maybe $100+ fine per invalid DMCA request, or 2x the demanded damages in lawsuits. That would at least help put a stop to shotgun blast automated takedowns, and inflated multimillion dollar claims designed to fleece teenagers and college students.
DMCA notices are submitted under penalty of perjury, which means someone submitting false ones could be prosecuted criminally. We need an ambitious DA somewhere to enforce this, though.
I've been tracking lawsuits for false DMCA or trademark/patent claims, there's been a rising number, but any litigation takes time and money. I would support a law with punitive damages for such offenses, as well as a law making clear that such conduct is not legally protected (IP abusers have argued they have 1st amendment rights to say whatever they want, or similar argument.)
Note that it's sometimes possible to sue for antitrust violations, which carries a triple damages provision. I'm also currently attempting to get a RICO claim to work with an underlying wire fraud predicate, which would also lead to triple damages.
I considered that. It should be fairly simple to find evidence in any particular state, just dig through Google's transparency reports. Would be fascinating to watch.
The exact problem is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused, who has to fight the claim under penalty of perjury (while there is no reciprocal requirement for the accuser).
The simple fix is to make false DMCA claims tantamount to perjury.
Yea, but they would have to blink a significant portion of their galaxy for us to notice.
The top of our capabilities is indirect planet discovery. So alien civilization would need to affect ceartain stars on a scale that a planet does and make it look not natural, like prime number periods or something.
Walmart has 100% monopoly over their store space. Verizon has 100% monopoly over what can connect to their network. Google has a monopoly over the Play Store. Cows have a monopoly over milk production. At which point does this argument stop working?
> I doubt ms had 90% of consumer electronics market or even os.
Yes, but Walmart cannot stop another supermarket from opening in the same area, Verizon cannot stop you from bringing another phone to their network. Android allows other stores.
Cows? Oh wait, you've got me there.
You sure about that? Small town businesses have lamented Walmart moving in for ages, Verizon can _absolutely_ prevent another phone from joining their network, they even charge activation fees on top of it all. And Android _is_ the alternative store if you don't like shopping on iOS, and the monopoly holder to boot. I can't run .ipa files on Android either, why can't we sue Google for not supporting that SDK, since they're a smartphone OS monopoly holder?
While I agree with everything you're saying, Google's android literally allows you to install third party app stores and even sideload apps. Google does not behave at all like Apple in that regard.
Their app store is on their devices. They forbid any other similar service.
So they creted a platforn and enforce service. Thats creating playground, rules and playing the game.
Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.
By giving customers no choice, it's limiting hardware capabilities of your device.
> Remember microsoft was subjected to antitrust regulations for providing web browser with the os. This was considered unfair practice. Forcing people to give up 30 of revenue goes much much further.
This only became an issue when their market share was far greater than the competition, which is simply not the case.
This is just developer sour grapes. You want more money. Just say it.
But 95% of computers sold ran windows then. 10% of computers run MacOS now and maybe 20% of phones. Just buy a different computer, or don't... Or if you are a developer, make software for Windows or Android instead.
Sure, if you're just counting units sold. But by total app store revenue, the metric that actually matters, they account for well over two thirds of the market.
The fact that Microsoft was a subject to the anti-trust investigation for giving away their browser for free is not an indicator of a just law and its correct application. The law is flawed and that case was simply a hint to MS that they should've lobbied proper people in the government. "Pay us or else" - a typical practice of any government with unreasonably wide powers over country's economy.
The song isnt anything special itself, especially for this artist.
It's clearly a critizicm of governing party approach to lockdown and martyrology. They clearly set the rules to avoid limitations and even avoid the rules. They also lost most relatives in 2010 crash including twin brother of the leader of governing part, then president in office. Though he doesn't hold any formal position he is most influential. So he used position to visit the grave, they made it an official celebration.
So the song is just a criticism of perceived abuse of political power. Normal stuff with out any judgment.
The funny thing starts at the radio. President of Polish Radio (national broadcaster) is politically appointed. They appointed CEO for this station. The station were run by people with 15-30 years within, so all govts basically, even when current party was in charge some time ago. Some of the redactors left, were forced out or let gone before. The chart is published for like 30 years, by same few people. The CEO knew the critic song will top it. Blocks whole programm, says vote was a fraud by chart leaders and listeners had right to know chart was bothched, this is almost a literal citation. Chart runners leave because of accusations. Their friends leave over all of recent managment. The station's programme director, which wasn't politically swapped showed SMS from the night before chart was supposed to be aired from polit CEO "To make sure the song they talked about is not aired". Supposedly CEO wanted redactors to sing paper saying vote was erroneous, they refused, so CEO blocked the air resulting in censorship. It's basically PR Chernobyl, and it was most iconic station in Poland.
Sorry for long text but it's still a summary leaving few details. It shows overreaction blown out of proportions and mindset of people placed as directing managers. They could let the chart run and deal with it later but they choose worst option for some reason. They wanted to appease the party or were afraid of consequences of letting it air. Even the party leadership voices were saying it's poor decision making or straight up unacceptable, even if the song is crap.
So, there's nothing in the song, it was the people appointed to run the thing.
Much better, because what the heck is "internet speed". The most sensible definition to me is payload over IP protocol possibly on an existing commercial link. That's the only way I see relation to internet and the internet.
In the past, the "Internet speed record" was measured in units such as "terabit meters-per-second":
> ... they had managed to send nearly 840 gigabytes of data across a distance of 16,346 kilometers (10,157 miles) in less than 27 minutes, at an average speed of 4.23 gigabits per second.
> This was equal to 69,073 terabit meters per second (or 69,073 trillion bits sent through one meter in a second), which exceeded the previous record set by CalTech and CERN earlier this year. [0]
---
> The team successfully transferred data at a rate of 8.80Gbps, which is equal to 264,147 terabit-meters per second (Tb-m/s). [1]
---
> Internet2 ... has this week announced a stunning new record speed of 9.08Gbps - equal to 272,400 terabit-meters per second (Tb-m/s) [2]
---
No idea if it's still done that way or not but I don't see any mention of distance in this article (haven't looked at the paper).
Which is exactly why it was chosen, the 'purpose' of networks is moving data from point A to point B so the 'goodness' of networks is how much data from point A to point B and how far away is point A from point B.
Then the Internet became a transport for time sensitive data (movies, voice, Etc.) and so the latency between bits gets wedged in sometimes.
