Actually, Apple stole the tech from Xerox, then licensed the tech to HP and Microsoft.

Xerox sued, but this was way back when. I don't think there was even a concept of a software patent when the Star system was developed. They originally tried to sue for copyright infringement, but the timing of the suit caused problems. They then tried to sue for unfair business practices. IIRC, they eventually settled out of court.

Actually - he states $.70 per song, and the only evidence there is of the pricing is in Starr v. Sony BMG and that was referenced in the brief.

The policy exists because multiple people actually have to lift the luggage on it's way to and from the airplane. They lift literally hundreds of bags each day, and lifting extraordinarily heavy bags without notice could cause an injury. The fee isn't to generate revenue, it's a deterrent in the best interest of the baggage handlers, and to offset the cost of handling a small number of bags in a different way than most other luggage. Every U.S. airline has a similar policy, usually at 50 pounds.

So - in a trial limited to "the issue of the appropriate amount of statutory damages", what really is discussed during the trial?

The RIAA has consistently been working the angle of statutory damages and avoiding the question of actual damages.

Are they going to have to argue actual damages moving forward?

It sounds like the trial would be a trial of the RIAA this time around, and not so much on Jammie Thomas.

It would seem that they would be limited too, in the discussion of the damages by the tracks she was determined to have infringed on copyrights, and in the damages suffered by the plaintiff's individually, not on the industry as a whole.

It would be a welcome discussion to hear:
1) How many copies of these particular recordings were found to have existed?
2) How many downloads of these particular recordings were estimated to have occurred?
3) How much money did each of these tracks earn in the year prior to the copyright infringement?
4) How much money did each of these tracks earn the year's during and after the copyright infringement?

The problem with that logic is that they already have in front of them one of the worst offenders they are likely to sue. As part of this trial, they insisted that she pirated thousands of songs, that she lied on the stand, and that she destroyed evidence.

The judge as part of his ruling, went with the ~$2500 number, in part, because she lied. Someone who does not lie, should therefore have a lesser fine.

When you start looking at bringing similar suits to trial, if your target collection # is $20K, you are much less intimidating than if your target collection number is $2M. Ms. Thomas really is in a position to say "I'll settle - give me $50K and I'll sign a non-disclosure." The only other real option for the RIAA is to take it to trial again. Granted, they are 2 for 2 with big verdicts, but the circumstances have changed and it's still a gamble.

I recently went to cancel DirecTV service - which I've had for more than a decade, only to find out they tacked on a $400 early termination fee. This had nothing to do with an agreement that I signed or ever verbally agreed to. It's just a tactic that they used to try to prevent me from leaving. The problem is that they can add on these fees and demand payment and in absence of payment, they'll affect your credit. My only solution is to go to small claims, which will cost me $75 + time and energy. Most people wouldn't go through all that and either stay or pay the fee and forget about it.

Who in their right mind would actually buy a 3D tv that required you to wear glasses while viewing. That's absurd.

You're missing the point. This isn't about leaking a secret, it's about intimidation and suppression of freedom.

Welcome to the police state. Pretty soon, we'll have "pre-screened" passengers wearing armbands and we all know where it goes from there

:) That's the problem with many of the projects I've seen: No time for requirements gathering, no time for testing, and deployment should take less than a day. So no matter how well you design and execute your design - you end up with last minute poorly thought out enhancements and any testing done happening from a developers standpoint instead of an end user's.

I agree that colo is the way to go. I've had problems with hosting providers in the past, but never has anyone asked for root access.

I rarely have a need for physical access, but I have on a handful of occasions which is why I now colocate within driving distance. Shipping is expensive especially when you need to overnight equipment two times in a matter of days because of an emergency.

The downside of a colo where you can have 24x7 access is that everyone hosting there can have 24x7 access. That's why I recommend a locked cabinet for anybody. Generally people who pay for locked cabinets are more careful about things. In open space, you might have the occasional cord get unplugged when someone else is working on a nearby machine. It's happened to me three times in 6 or 7 years, but it is always at the worst possible moment.

If you can't trust your host, you have to walk away. If you don't trust the data center, encrypt your volumes, and virtualize. The hardware is more expensive, but you are a bit safer and abstracted.

The only way to ensure that you will move forward along with a company you started is to ensure that you are not a replaceable asset to the company. Once big money investors get involved, you can expect that any founders will be pushed out the door unless they have real long term value. Technical knowledge of an existing invention != value in a lot of cases. Technical knowledge of a future, more profitable invention might, but even then there must be faith in your ability to complete the task combined with the lack of faith in anybody else to do the same.

Never go after outside money unless you absolutely have to, and never allow your value to be underestimated. Easier said than done.

Even that touch wheel wasn't really something they thought of. They won the race to the patent office, but not by much.

I am occasionally responsible for troubleshooting paging in an enterprise environment in Northern California. The enterprise works with several telco vendors to support a wide variety of end-user cell phones.

Some telco vendors are extraordinarily helpful and dedicate staff to help track down issues. Others are completely blind and offer zero support.

We run into instances of SMS messages not being received, or being received after a long delay at least a few times a month. We send roughly 1000 messages a day.

Support is getting better, reliability is getting better, but problems still occur with regularity.

But I thought:

    __
3.14 = 3.14141414141414141414141414141414141414141414

Why couldn't we all just be happy with 22/7?