If that is the case (I haven't read the trial transcripts, just short trial summary reporting), then, yeah, that would be pretty effed.

Even if the code differs, if it can be shown (or suggested) that the code is a derivative construction, it would still be subject to copyright. Anyway, it's still a strange place to end up determining the case. Unless it's in East Texas, one would typically expect instructions to the jury to be sufficient to sway their directions (e.g. Lucy Koh in Apple v. Samsung).

First off, the plaintiff brought in an expert who *did* make an assertion of source-code similarity. As programmers, we do this all the time. (Raymond Chen calls this "psychic debugging")

Secondly, without an understanding of how to identify underlying coding patterns from exhibited high level traits, how can the jury be expected to make a reasonable determination of code copying from a visual analysis of the *compiled* product? It's an on-the-face absurd assertion.

It is still surprising to me that decompilation didn't surface as an option when the source code was not produced, but sitting back and cruising to a jury verdict only to leverage a *really* rare motion to take a verdict notwithstanding judgment is bad news. This is *not* how we want to have our cases conducted. We want judges to have the latitude to correct for off-the-wall juries, but, in this case, this effectively signals that expert, aggregate, and indirect evidence is insufficient for jury determination of infringement, suggesting that respondents should just clean up their tracks after they've illegally copied code.

No. This is the original judge overturning a jury determination. It is a legal determination, but he's not ruling on the law. I'm pretty sure there isn't any case law requiring side-by-side game demos in order to make a determination of infringement/contract-breach in the presence of analysis-based expert testimony for one party and thumb-up-ass rebuttal from the other.

This is blazing new (and stupid) ground.

I disagree on this one.

Let's take a car analogy.

If I bring suit because you hit my car and drove off, then bring a witness who says you hit my car and drove off, and you do jack+shit in the case only to claim in a post-verdict motion that I didn't provide photographs of my car in support of my case, you will get laughed out of court.

Unless you're EA. The judge may have thought that the judgement was high, but a jury found that the preponderance of the evidence supported the plaintiff's claim. Remember, that burden is a greater than 50% chance that the plaintiff's claim is true. Sure, showing the games might help show that, but an expert witness who has made a deep inspection of the games in question can determine if the underlying mechanics of scoring, play selection, and player rating are derivative, without getting bamboozled by 16-bit graphics.

In this case, the staggering move is the absolute lack of source code. Sheesh, people. Just subpoena the source. Oh, it's not available? How about expert analysis determining the algorithmic similarity? Oh, surprise, here we are.

We need more judges who want to learn to code. The rest should sit the fuck back and stop screwing things up.

Wait, did I interview and bounce you?

I mean, sheesh. Just give me a bad yelp review. AC on a stale /. story? Sad...

Worse if I gave you a thumbs up...

More than that, in most companies I've been with, if you are unable to answer the "what are your weaknesses" or "what is your largest professional mistake" question, you're out. Even if the rest of the loop didn't catch on to what a self-satisfied dope you are, your failure to answer that question is enough to let us know that:

- You have an ego problem, or
- You don't have a solid memory for (and learn from) failures, or
- You have no real experience, or
- You are an absolutely impossible rock star who doesn't know how to fail or have deficiencies.

We take the relatively safe bet that the last one is a really small proportion. (i.e. zero people) of the population.

How would you know unless... You saw it?

Minds. Blown.

This is a fundamentally flawed idea, that the moral choices of religious organizations should outweigh the rights of the *employees* of those organizations. So... No life insurance beneficiaries for gay partners? What about interracial ones? What about the medical privacy of janitors? Do those janitors need to look for as new job if they undergo a religious shift?

Individual rights must stand above organizational whims if you don't want to have what amounts to institutional slavery and private micro-governments. The church is not being made to violate their morals. The church is being compelled to comply with employment law and individuals are making private medical decisions.

Would we allow a Christian Science organization to skip out in FICA contributions for employees because they don't believe in medicine and, thus, don't believe in social security (or at least, socialized medicine)? No. That would be completely fucking absurd.

This is, too. Your employees are not your moral chew toys. They are individuals compensated for work. They are not property.

Wait... This leader is killing the economy by using a wedge or block to prevent movement? Chocking?

Oh, I see. It makes more sense if you say it while being a complete idiot.

It does nothing of the sort. The problem isn't that congress rushes bills through because they are in a hurry. Those same 700-page monstrosities would be passed without review anyway. But when one party completely blocks useful and meaningful compromise, the system breaks down. One party wants zero government, and they get it by default when they block legislation as a matter of course. Meaningful progress in our legal frameworks is impossible without modification (unless you think it is perfect already)

And if you do that, you're a traitor who should be put to death.

Anonymously? Come on man.

I will make (and have made) the same argument to the face(s) of any person/people who suggest(s) that income and wealth differences should be solved by the self segregation of the wealthy.

That may be the single most moronic argument of 2013.

So, I'm going to stick to "fuck you" for the time being. You want to argue in person? There are plenty of places to get a beer and hash it out like (drunk) men.

As a middle-class desk jockey who lives in San Francisco and works on the peninsula, let me just say this: fuck you.

I've lived out of my car and worked minimum wage jobs. I've also pulled 120 hour weeks in the tech sector. Given the value (in dollars) of the work people in tech do, and the shortage of competent workers, it makes sense to take away the hassle of driving and have people spend those commuting hours working.

On the flip side of things, it's a free fucking market, and San Francisco hasn't done lower income residents any favors. Rent control that severely limits rental income on older properties but leaves a gaping legal hole for eviction? Stupid. Idiotic zoning and permitting practices that leave residential developments in limbo for years and see them stifled by an *anonymous* violation reporting process that stops work for days at a time *at the moment of report*? Batshit. Public transit that shuts down at midnight and renders local suburbs impractical for really taking part in San Francisco's night life? Pathetic. A miniature slice of a peninsula with desirable weather, great sprawling vistas, and wonderful access to water? Okay, that one is nature.

The reality is that the local and state governments have basically set eye-popping real estate prices up as the inevitable outcome of some pretty short sighted choices. You want to protest people who earn money in another city and then pump it into the service economy in San Francisco? You want to protest the people who fund universal healthcare in San Francisco? You're going to give a pass to the elected officials who actually caused these problems? You're going to dismiss the ballot measures passed by residents? You're going to go after people who are the next rung up on the ladder instead of the top?

I rent my place in SF. I'm not happy about skyrocketing rates, either, but I'm not going to just abandon the city because other people want me to make it magically cheaper for them. Someone else will just come fill the void. It is *nice* here.

If half of these protesters had a fucking clue about the basics of supply and demand, maybe they'd figure out a way to make real estate approachable instead of going after mass transit that does the whole city a traffic reduction favor.

As it stands, fuck you.

It is nowhere near that in a normal car...

I have a 40Ah battery in my car (at 12V, that's 480 Wh). If it were drawing like a Model S, it would be dead in under half a day... I often go *weeks* without driving.

  45W is huge. Your phone in active standby (screen off) is probably around 45mW... A Macbook Air under load is 45W. That is an *astronomical* amount of energy in standby. Even the cellular connection can only account for, maybe, 1W. Is this for the auto door pulls? Battery heaters?

Isn't the model number the kWh of the battery pack? The 85 is an 85kWh car, right?

So, you know, when you go on vacation, make sure to leave your car plugged in...

One important reason to not have stability control is that stability control is typically configured to specifically avoid significant slip angles. It is *not* designed to avoid hitting that tree, curb, small child, or boat in front of you. The car doesn't know what its surroundings are. A significant slip angle may be the fastest, safest, or otherwise most appropriate approach to the circumstances.

i.e. Sometimes it makes sense to slide a car.

Each of these things about this car could be thought of as bad or good:
- Why would you want a center of gravity so low as to make it hard to feel how laterally loaded the car is? This might make it more likely to snap at the limit, making it less safe. It might also make it handle better overall, making it safer.
- Why would you want a low polar moment of inertia? This might make it more likely to spin. It might also make it easier to change direction, raising its performance limits. Raising the limits of a car could be thought of as making it more or less safe...
- Why would you want a more responsive engine with very little flywheel inertia? This could cause you to lose control, or it could allow you to keep it.

That said, the GT is an absolutely ridiculous car to drive, and it can easily catch someone out if they aren't paying attention, especially while goofing off.