That's the traditional way, yes. There's a more recent method (which may not involve using the L3 band for communication) that operates by detecting atmospheric disturbances caused by shockwaves and electron emission in the atmosphere. The double flash will not detect subterranean tests, but looking for radio communication interference will. It's a roundabout method but researchers were able to detect North Korea's subterranean tests this way.
The L3 band is the transmission band used to communicate with the base stations on the ground. The disturbances themselves are detected using the satellite's onboard instruments.
The GPS satellites are incredibly sensitive to atmospheric disturbances and can detect anything that causes interference with radio transmissions, such as electron emission from a subterranean nuclear test. It is not necessary to detect the emission source itself, just the effects of the emission.
In some cases yes. The L3 band used by the GPS satellite system is used to detect and report nuclear detonations, but I do not know if a small amount of cobalt-60 would be detected by a satellite 26,000 kilometres away.
.NET is already an extremely verbose platform that is many years ahead of its competition. If it seems like they've neglected it a bit that may be because there's currently either no motivation to add new features to it, or there's currently not enough features worth adding to it that would justify an incremental release and all of the accompanying documentation. I'd rather that they take a step back, let it mature a bit, and clean things up a bit if necessary.
The first amendment has nothing to do with this. It simply prevents the government from creating any law which abridges the freedom of speech. The freedom to speak about certain matters is something that the government cannot take away from you without a damn good reason, however the freedom to speak about certain matters is something that individuals can sign away on their own.
Non disclosure agreements are incredibly common contracts in the business world that in effect are in effect unilateral or bilateral restrictions on one's freedom of speech. Breaching an NDA can result in civil liability as well as various criminal offences under some trade secret acts.
NDAs have been found to be enforceable many times in the past as they are often necessary to protect sensitive private information and provide a legal vehicle for redress in the event of such disclosure. However, I agree that a judge would find that a clause prohibiting criticism of a product would be unconscionable, but not for reasons of violating the first amendment.
No, they cant.
Attorneys cannot make arguments for matters of fact that are not in dispute. As far as this trial is concerned there is no question as to whether or not Samsung infringed on the products that are the subject of the trial, that was settled by the previous jury. The only question is what the actual damages are.
This is a retrial ordered by the trial court to reassess damages on products that the previous jury found that they did infringe. The trial judge found that the jury used a legally impermissible method of calculating damages, and that damages had to be reassessed in those cases. If the appeals court later finds that the entire trial needs to be done over due to the fact that the judge and jury dropped the ball entirely then infringement can be reassessed at that point.
Samsung can't argue that they didn't infringe on the patents, that was already settled in the case. This was simply a retrial on assessment of damages. Samsung can (and is) appealing the original verdict and will most likely appeal the new damages as well.
The networks carrying the traffic belong to the ISPs but the data travelling across the networks does not.
This is already the case.
Most of the big Linux Kernel devs are paid employees of Redhat and IBM
OnLive was such a bastion of success wasn't it?
It's a limitation implemented in firmware/microcode for marketing purposes.
The Titan, GTX 780 and GTX 780 Ti all use the same physical chip.
Nokia's market share was already dropping rapidly when Stephen Elop was brought on board. Symbian was too far behind iOS and other competing operating systems, and was facing delays in catching up.
Since Microsoft prefers to settle out of court for various levels of royalties and/or cross licencing no one knows for sure what the patents involved are or what the terms of the licence are. If they actually went to court over the matter the public would probably know, but Microsoft rarely does that as they're usually on the receiving end of patent lawsuits. The patents themselves are public, but the licencing agreement is not; this is very common in all industries as licencing agreements may reveal preferential pricing practices to the detriment of the licencor.
As for the $2 billion figure, that's just a number from a single analyst. It could be off by a factor of ten or more. In most cases though royalties typically amount to about a quarter of a device's retail cost. A $400 tablet may be encumbered by $100 in royalties and fees directly in addition to royalties and fees that were already paid by the manufacturer of parts that are part of the bill of materials. Believe it or not, that's dirt cheap compared to developing the whole thing from the ground up.
Microsoft rarely takes allegations of infringement to court, they almost always prefer to settle for royalties or cross-licencing. That being said, the FAT patents have survived many legal challenge and their validity has been upheld.
It's not trolling because Microsoft operates in the mobile market, designed the systems in question as a part of their market activities, and continues to use and license the systems in question as part of their market activities.
It's not simply a case of some unknown shell company purchasing broad and previously unknown patents in an attempt to squeeze settlements out major players. Everyone knows whom the FAT patents belong to, what the licencing terms are, and what will happen if they're not licensed.
The best selling smartphones in North America (the iPhone) do not have removable storage and do not use the FAT file system. Other phone manufactures are free to either implement FAT support as a matter of adding value and pay Microsoft the associated royalties, or leave it out.
Microsoft isn't patent trolling here. They would be patent trolling if they were simply holding onto broadly defined patents to use them offensively. The patents in question, which I believe relate to data storage and file systems, have been used by Microsoft for a very long time and have been challenged unsuccessfully before. Microsoft's own engineers did the work, not Google's. Google and various Android manufacturers are free to not implement them.