Specifically, the term "colorably different" means:

"The phrase “colorable differ-ences” refers to alterations that do not essentially change the nature of the device, and are made only to evade the permanent injunction.17 Language enjoining adjudged infringers from producing products that are “only colorably different” from the infringing devices is typical in patent injunctions."

Nathan Ingham, Recording over Old Standards: TiVo’s “More Than Colorably Different” Standard for Patent Injunction Contempt Proceedings, 53 B.C.L. Rev. E. Supp. 47 (2012), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.ed...

So, the injunction is very narrow. Basically for the phones specifically listed and minor variants that doesn't change the nature of the device and only made to evade a permanent injunction (i.e. a slightly modified model with a minor workaround).

Apple's specific argument was: "Samsung's claim that it has discontinued selling the particular models found to infringe or design around Apple's patents in no way diminishes Apple's need for injunctive relief... Because Samsung frequently brings new products to market, an injunction is important to providing Apple the relief it needs to combat any future infringement by Samsung through products not more than colorably different from those already found to infringe."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

However, even here, the argument is pretty darn weak. Apple only requested a number of devices plus any variants of those devices that are practically the same as those devices.

Essentially, they're asking an injunction against, say, a Galaxy S or a Galaxy S2 and any minor variants on them. But nobody sells them anymore except for a few ebay sellers. Samsung is not going to start reselling Galaxy S or S2 phones.

I don't understand the request for injunction against the Samsung phones in question. At this point, the Samsung phones are several years old and absolutely nobody short of a few ebay sellers are still selling them. What do they get out of asking for an injunction? They're spending millions of dollars in attorney fees and, for what, a meaningless "moral victory"?

Actually, the handover of USSR's stockpile of nuclear weapons in the Ukraine wasn't in exchange for defense, but rather in exchange for a promise from Russia that Russia will never use its military weapons to attack or intimidate the Ukraine. (See the Budapest Memorandum, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... )

Clearly, that agreement has been broken by Russia. Of course, I doubt any powers are going to try to exacerbate the situation by either providing the Ukraine with nuclear weapons or suggesting that Ukraine should acquire nuclear weapons, but based on my understanding of the Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine is well within its rights to do so now that Russia has breached the agreement.

If the Russians wish to engage in this kind of conduct, then the rest of the world should hit them where it hurts the most - their treasury.

We should deny all Russian lenders (not just the 5 picked out for sanctions so far) from being able to access US and European bond markets to raise capital. We should indefinitely sanction any transfer of petrochemical technology by US and European companies to any Russian firm. And we should sanction any credit transactions between American/European credit companies and Russian banks (i.e. cut off Mastercard, Discover, Visa, AmEx, etc.).

If they wish to engage to aggression against other country's sovereignty, they should do it without the rest of the world helping fund them.

And for good measure, Ukraine should "sell" its ownership in the Ukrainian section of the gas pipeline to a Nato country and then shut off the flow of gas.

Ah, so you take random Youtube comments as fact, but the death threats against her (which were made on Twitter, so you can just go and see for yourself) are automatically "lies" in your mind.

I watched some of her videos last night. I don't see where she insulted a gender at all. At most, she takes game developers to task for using cheap, clichéd tropes about women as decorative or damsel in distress because they want an easy (or lazy) shorthand for character development or to get a cheap emotional response from the gamer.

It seems to me that the first few comments made to Slashdot about this story is indicative of the problem at large. The first comments (made by anonymous cowards) immediately conjectured that Sarkeesian is to blame, that she concoted the death threats as a publicity stunt.

You must ask yourself honestly : Why is it, when faced with stories like this, is your first instinct to claim that the woman lied or made it up?

Just because a display is integrated into the car itself doesn't make it any less of a distraction from driving. Anything that requires you to take your eyes off the roads to look down and to your right distracts you.