Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Submission + - Supreme Court Removes "Willful Ignorance" Defense (scotusblog.com)

Submitted by Windrip
Windrip writes: The Supremes provide yet another way for patent holders to crush their opponents.
Consider the affirmation of the Federal Court ruling in Global Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.. This decision has ramifications far beyond the infringement:

The plaintiff SEB (the respondent in this case) holds a patent on a design for a deep-fat fryer; the defendant Global Tech (here, the petitioner) reverse-engineered SEBâ(TM)s fryer and marketed a competing fryer.

You really want to rethink your "I don't read patents to avoid damages" strategy: The U.S. Supreme Court has now flat-lined that advice

But the remainder of the opinion is quite interesting. Adopting a suggestion from the oral argument, the Court (with only Justice Kennedy dissenting) held that the judgment of the Federal Circuit nevertheless could be affirmed on the basis of Global Techâ(TM)s willful blindness.
... What is novel about this (and what will make this one of the most commonly cited decisions of the Term) is the Court's explanation for the first time that criminal statutes which require proof of knowing or willful conduct are satisfied by proof of willful blindness.

Comment Re:Misleading headline and summary (Score 1) 394

by Windrip (#35518616) Attached to: US Reneges On SWIFT Agreement

Neither the summary nor the headline are misleading.

Still, I'm heartened you took the time to read TFA.

After another four weeks, The BFDI told Alvaro's office in a telephone call that the request had still not been forwarded to American authorities. There was, still no agreement between the US authorities and the BFDI. The American authorities would require still more data from the applicant. Nevertheless, Alvaro consented to have the data in question forwarded to the American authorities.

emphasis mine

The reporter uses the phrase "There was, still...". Almost a year later, there was still no agreement between the BFDI and the the Americans This is a crucial point, as such an agreement was a condition of the treaty.

Consider the phrase "The American authorities would require still more data..." I infer the Americans had been involved from the start. After all, how would the BFDI know the Americans required still more data if they hadn't been communicating with them? Why would the BFDI speak for their interlocutors when it comes to the need for such information?

Finally, the reporter states that

At the same time, the agency said it had no information or authority to determine whether and who has accessed his data in the US.

Again, providing this information is one of the conditions of the treaty. The U.S. must provide this information.

Submission + - US reneges on SWIFT agreement (spiegel.de)

Submitted by Windrip
Windrip writes: It seems the U.S. is not living up to its end of the bargain when it comes to the SWIFT data agreement.

When the agreement was signed last year, every EU citizen was guaranteed the right to know if the American authorities had retrieved their banking information, and which authorities had requested the information. Now. one European Parliamentarian, Alexander Alvaro shows that, once again, the Americans are not honoring their treaties.

Comment This is a waste of time (Score 2) 348

by Windrip (#35185460) Attached to: Why IP Laws Are Blocking Innovation

This is simply more of Obama's rhetorical slight-of-hand.

The Executive branch doesn't make the law. It may choose what laws to enforce and in the process do Hollywood's bidding, but that's another issue.

The Executive can propose legislation (think PATRIOT act), but how often is s such legislation enacted?

I don't like to say this, but consider the Tea Party caucus in the House as our friends on this issue. They just succeeded in handing stinging defeats to House leadership. We ought to try and make the case that is the subject of this /. article to that caucus and its allies. Politics is education; this didactic moment will soon pass. It's only a matter of time before they are entirely co-opted by "External Forces".

Comment Schroedinger's Cat (Score 1) 955

by Windrip (#32329932) Attached to: <em>Lost</em> Ends

Sad that I've seen no references to this on /.

The end of season five was that experiment: is the cat alive or dead? When they "left" the island via a successful explosion, they all had to die w/o the island's grace. They had to find grace in themselves and their actions, w/o the island to act as a mediating force.

Yes, it's a sad reversion to Judeo-Christian ethics. Such is the way of Hollywood sentimentalism.

Otherwise, it mostly works. Except for fixing high-pressure hydraulics w/ duct tape. Oh, and jets can't taxi backwards w/o a pushing force.

Comment Canine standards are not intelligence tests (Score 2, Interesting) 472

by Windrip (#29005345) Attached to: Dogs As Intelligent As Average Two-Year-Old Children

I was with them until they ranked breeds by intelligence.

What they're not telling you (and most of the +3 posts on this thread would indicate that the posters know little of professional dog breeding) is the pedigree of the subjects under test.

I was especially disappointed when they chose to rank the Afghan Hound as one of the "dumber" breeds; which is sorting is such a human trait.

Those who know the history of the Afghan in Europe are aware the breed descends from a very shallow gene pool. Find the history of the breed written in the 19th century by "those who would be king" (Google books maybe?) to read the description of just how intelligent those imperialists found the long-haired variety.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close