×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

SlaveToTheGrind Re:The (in)justice system (291 comments)

some crimes go unpunished . . . since with a plea bargain you're punishing some other crime, not the one that really happened.

Um, no. If the evidence is airtight that a crime really happened, it's not nearly as likely to get plea-bargained in the first place. Otherwise, there is no "really happened."

Yeah, the law says that you shouldn't smoke marijuana.

Many, many crimes are plea bargained other than the drug possession crimes everyone in this thread is harping on. It's a convenient scapegoat, but even if all drug possession were legalized tomorrow we would still need plea bargaining as the triage/resource management tool I originally mentioned.

about two weeks ago
top

Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

SlaveToTheGrind Re:The (in)justice system (291 comments)

Sure -- if you're going to eliminate existing crimes, you'll have less plea bargains. But unless all plea bargains are for what you're referring to as prohibition crimes (and they aren't), you're still going to have more people in the system than you have resources to take to trial. The numbers I mentioned above may change (though not as much as you may think), but you're still going to have to make a call on how to deal with the layer of people the justice system, as currently funded and staffed, can't try in a reasonable timeframe.

about two weeks ago
top

Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

SlaveToTheGrind Re:The (in)justice system (291 comments)

That's EXACTLY what we want and what you should want -- unless you're a fucking totalitarian sociopathic boot-licker

You know, I'm having a hard time deciding whether your overly charming tone or your illuminating choice of moniker is the top reason why I won't be losing any sleep over not seeing eye to eye with you on what constitutes a "civilized country."

Damn right we need to only pursue the "egregious criminals," because in every civilized country on the planet, what you call the "egregious criminals" are the only criminals!

Since I didn't draw any kind of a box around a set of "egregious criminals," the only way this statement can remotely make sense is if you're really convinced that nobody who takes a plea bargain actually committed a crime worthy of punishment. If so, you're welcome (and in fact I would strongly encourage you) to go live in one of the countries you consider "civilized." It's hard to imagine more of a win-win.

about two weeks ago
top

Innocent Adults Are Easy To Convince They Committed a Serious Crime

SlaveToTheGrind Re:The (in)justice system (291 comments)

"plea bargains" should be absolutely forbidden.

You're assuming infinite resources. As it is, would you prefer a system where (1) your taxes now have to cover a 20-30-fold increase in state and federal courts (and prosecutors) needed to take all cases to trial; (2) on the other side of the bar, an even higher percentage of the population becomes criminal defense lawyers; and (3) you yourself end up on jury duty multiple times a year?

Or, would you rather a world where the prosecutors just pursue the most egregious criminals given the limited resources they have, and put everyone else right back out on the streets with no deterrent whatsoever?

I'm not suggesting the current plea-bargain system is optimal or that incremental changes aren't possible. What I am suggesting that you can't just throw out such a fundamental piece without stepping back and redesigning the entire system.

about two weeks ago
top

UK Announces 'Google Tax'

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Why tax profits, why not income? (602 comments)

Individuals aren't taxes based on their profit but income. Corporations should minimally be held to the same standard.

Taxing businesses' income rather than their profits would severely disadvantage businesses with ultra-thin profit margins (e.g., supermarkets, whose net profit before taxes currently averages under 2%).

If your profit margin isn't high enough to cover this tax then you shouldn't incorporate.

See above, and be careful what you wish for -- bye bye supermarkets. Or, I suppose their other option in your world would be to raise their prices by ~4.5% across the board so their net profit would remain the same. Hard to imagine a more regressive tax than that.

about 2 months ago
top

Obama Administration Seeks $58M To Put (Partly) Toward Fighting Ebola

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Nice (105 comments)

Are you seriously trying to imply that the only reason to address an ebola outbreak is to score popularity points?

I personally wouldn't think so, no. But the state of play as given easily supports the notion that, despite its independent merits, it's definitely a convenient political lever as well, a.k.a. "Rahm's Rule":

TFA states somewhat in passing that this is part of a package of so-called "anomalies" to the upcoming Continuing Resolution, including, as the article coyly puts it, "additional flexibility" for border control, without providing any numbers or other details. Being the curious sort, I just spent about 10 minutes looking for the actual details on the rest of the proposal and could find only a few me-toos of TFA. One therefore might be forgiven for wondering if the administration is teeing this up as the heartstring-front-runner to put pressure on Congress to accept its entire package of spending "anomalies" that's doubtless orders of magnitude larger than $58MM.

about 5 months ago
top

Judge Lucy Koh Rejects Apple's Quest For Anti-Samsung Injunction

SlaveToTheGrind Re:I don't understand the injunction (30 comments)

The point of reference for "colorably different" is the patented features at issue (e.g., pinch/tap-to-zoom, snap-back scrolling), not the overall device.

Given that the patented features here are consumer-facing rather than internal functionality, design-around options would seem fairly limited short of yanking the offending feature altogether or replacing it with something fundamentally different (shake-to-zoom, anyone?). And if you skate too close to the edge of the ice on a design-around, a patentee is always free to request a contempt hearing (with a relatively low barrier to entry compared to the original litigation) to get a ruling on whether the new functionality is colorably different from that previously found to infringe.

As a practical matter, the injunction would have been a lot broader than the media account would lead you to believe.

about 5 months ago
top

Planes Can Be Hacked Via Inflight Wi-fi, Says Researcher

SlaveToTheGrind Re:So, which is it? (151 comments)

Did I, at any point, say I felt passengers deserved to die? No, I did not. . . . . Not every flight (for any airliner) is commercial, and not every flight carries passengers.

Nice attempt at backpedaling from your original cavalier, thoughtless, and utterly stupid comment, bucko, but you're stuck with it. The only scenario where somebody innocent doesn't die is if the only people on the plane, including the pilot, are the ones engaged in hacking into the plane's control system through the wifi to... wait for it... interfere with the flight controls and crash the plane. Hopefully even you can figure out why that scenario won't happen. Ever.

about 6 months ago
top

Google Looking To Define a Healthy Human

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Reality is... (125 comments)

Agree completely that people don't comprehend the ramifications of the enormous deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums in these so-called "low cost" plans. Add to that the tendency toward ultra-narrow provider networks and the resultant increase in risk of balance billing by out-of-network providers.

It's astounding to me how far people are willing to stick their heads in the sand to pretend that the current system is, in aggregate, "better" than the one that we already had.

about 6 months ago
top

Appeals Court Affirms Old Polaroid Patent Invalid

SlaveToTheGrind Hardly a shocker (45 comments)

The district court held the patent invalid under the old standard that was, in practice, more generous toward software algorithm patents. Then the Supreme Court decided CLS Bank, making software algorithm patents more difficult to obtain/keep. Under those circumstances, it would have been newsworthy if the Federal Circuit hadn't affirmed in this case.

about 6 months ago
top

Airbus Patents Windowless Cockpit That Would Increase Pilots' Field of View

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Why would you do that? (468 comments)

Private pilot here. I agree with everything you've said -- the entire piloting mindset revolves around the idea that redundancy (coupled, of course, with consistency, sobriety, and good judgment) keeps you alive. Now, different pilots take this principle to different levels, based in no small part on their own personal risk tolerance and how much they've seen go wrong in the past. I sat next to a 20-year commercial pilot on a flight last year, and he told me that he won't fly in anything with less than two engines anymore. That's further than I would go, but I get it.

Anyway, one of the fundamental pieces of redundancy in the entire process is the pilot. As many have observed, planes are designed so the pilot has at least a fighting chance of being able to bring it down in one piece even when many -- or all -- automated systems have failed. That's simply best practices. In my opinion (shared, I suspect, by most rational pilots in the world), giving up the ability to see out the front of the airplane if your shiny techno-gadget viewscreen fails is Just. Plain. Stupid. Imagine the feeling of utter helplessness: You have 2-3000 hours of flight time under your belt, you've flown your way out of countless near-fatal situations, and now you just have to sit there (along with your hundreds of passengers) and wait to die because you can't see out the front of the friggin' plane.

I predict this won't happen, at the very least within the term of the patent. If it does, I definitely won't be a passenger.

about 7 months ago
top

New Chemical Process Could Make Ammonia a Practical Car Fuel

SlaveToTheGrind Re:I see a problem here... (380 comments)

There is no money to be made by selling the world something it needs for just pennies.

Um, yeah. Just ask this guy.

about 7 months ago
top

Intuit Beats SSL Patent Troll That Defeated Newegg

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Which proves judges are stupid (59 comments)

Which proves you can't read and/or don't understand the subject matter. Even the summary clearly says Intuit won on non-infringement, not on invalidity.

about 7 months ago
top

Judge Orders DOJ To Turn Over FISA Surveillance Documents

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Better summary: (184 comments)

but the DoJ has to 1) actually comply with the order

The judge would have wide discretion in issuing sanctions for contempt of the discovery order. I personally doubt this is the sort of thing where a whole bunch of people progressively higher up the food chain would be willing to take up residence in a jail cell. We'll see.

2) The judge actually agree on merits

Agreed, though I'm encouraged that one of the reasons in the opinion for ordering the docs to be submitted to the court was the DoJ's prior shady practices in the case: "The evidence in the record shows that some documents, previously withheld in the course of this litigation and now declassified, had been withheld in their entirety when a disclosure of reasonably segregable portions of those documents would have been required. Further, the withholding followed an Order from this Court expressing concern that the agency had failed to explain sufficiently why the withheld documents “would be so replete with descriptions of intelligence activities, sources and methods that no portions thereof would contain” reasonably segregable and producible, non-exempt information." As a result, she seems appropriately skeptical going into this round.

3) The DoJ not immediately file for an appeal due to matters of national saftey

I don't believe an order to produce classified documents is immediately appealable.

4) the DoJ actually give the information to the EFF

The judge should have the same contempt levers available here as in #1.

about 7 months ago
top

Tesla Releases Electric Car Patents To the Public

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Trust but verify (211 comments)

I don't know of any challenges, but the principle in question seems nearly identical to the copyleft notion underlying the GPL -- a notion that went untested in court for a very long time because, basically, every attorney that looked at it decided it wasn't worth fighting.

At least some manufacturers of electric cars presumably will have more money splashing around than open-source software developers, and thus will be more attractive targets. Beyond that, I'd be careful analogizing very much at all between copyrights and patents -- they're two entirely separate bodies of law.

I'm not aware of any purchaser of a patent who has successfully argued that they can revoke a licensing commitment to a standards body, either. It seems to me that the precedent is rather firmly established.

It all depends on what you mean by "successfully argued." The real-world question is not whether an argument will ultimately carry the day at trial, but how much money you're going to spend either (1) fighting the case to get to trial, or (2) settling the case so you don't have to spend the money fighting and have the legal uncertainty hanging over your company's head. Those amounts tend to run in the millions of dollars for all but the true bottom-feeders, who may walk away for low-mid-six figures. Though it's a bit dated, here's a fairly good overview of the last several years of significant litigation over commitments to standards bodies. There have been a number of smaller cases as well.

about 8 months ago
top

Tesla Releases Electric Car Patents To the Public

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Trust but verify (211 comments)

If you know of any examples of such a pledge being tested and enforced by a court, I'd appreciate seeing them. My understanding is that while the practice is somewhat in vogue recently, it's still very much a no-man's-land in terms of future certainty. For example, does the promise only apply to the initial promisor, or is the patent itself permanently impaired and future assignees take subject to that impairment? The last few years of litigation in the somewhat parallel area of licensing commitments to standard-setting organizations suggests that a lot of time and money will be spent trying to answer such questions.

about 8 months ago
top

Tesla Releases Electric Car Patents To the Public

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Trust but verify (211 comments)

True enough, but if they're going to keep the patents in force then in my opinion this amounts to little more than a publicity stunt. If and when I can get from them on demand a fully-paid-up license to their entire portfolio for $1 so I have actual, legal, freedom to operate, I'll take this more seriously.

about 8 months ago
top

Tesla Releases Electric Car Patents To the Public

SlaveToTheGrind Re:Trust but verify (211 comments)

You're fully correct about the legal doctrine, but in reality there's a non-zero chance that it will cost you a very large number of dollars to defend a patent lawsuit filed by a future assignee who convinces the judge that even the "clearer statement" (1) wasn't so clear and/or (2) didn't apply to your particular use.

There's actually a simple way that Tesla could make this binding -- formally disclaim the rest of the term of the patents at the Patent Office.

37 C.F.R. 1.321 Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.
(a) A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns. A notice of the disclaimer is published in the Official Gazette and attached to the printed copies of the specification.

It will be interesting to see if they actually go that far.

about 8 months ago
top

Why United States Patent Reform Has Stalled

SlaveToTheGrind Sensationalist article (139 comments)

While it's no doubt fun to rail against Big Pharma and Greedy Trial Attorneys, Occam's Razor still holds true.

The piece of the proposed legislation that would have made the most meaningful real-world change in the system was making it easier to collect attorney's fees from losing parties that had taken unreasonable positions in the litigation (e.g., trolls). After the Supreme Court expanded the trial courts' ability to do just that in the Octane Fitness and Highmark cases a few weeks ago, that naturally took a significant amount of wind out of the legislative sails.

The legislative appetite to Just Do Something diminishes quite a bit when the playing field has materially changed and there's not yet any data on how much of the problem was curbed by that change.

about 8 months ago

Submissions

SlaveToTheGrind hasn't submitted any stories.

Journals

SlaveToTheGrind has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?