FinFisher spyware made by U.K.-based Gamma Group can take control of a range of mobile devices, including Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s iPhone and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM)’s BlackBerry, an analysis of presumed samples of the software shows...“When FinSpy Mobile is installed on a mobile phone it can be remotely controlled and monitored no matter where in the world the Target is located,” a FinSpy brochure published by WikiLeaks says. Systems that can be targeted include Microsoft Corp. (MSFT)’s Windows Mobile, the Apple iPhone’s iOS and BlackBerry and Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android, according to the company’s literature. Today’s report says the malware can also infect phones running Symbian, an operating system made by Nokia Oyj (NOK1V), and that it appears the program targeting iOS will run on iPad tablets.
Right now rightsholders and the anti-piracy outfits they employ have absolutely no incentive to improve the accuracy of their automated takedown systems, so perhaps it’s time for them to be punished?
That is the problem--they have nothing to lose. If automated detection can't differentiate between illegal, fair use, and completely unrelated content (as in this case), then someone needs to be held liable for that junk.
Also, according to this, the not-to-sue promise was a private contract, not a license; I think this was mentioned on Groklaw awhile back. And if this case was a slam dunk for Apple, I don't think they would have been after Samsung to get a license for the 3G patents in the first place.
Brazil’s electoral law has several restrictions on what opponents or critics can air on television and radio about candidates for office — even comedic needling of politicians is banned during electoral season. The Internet’s role in these cases, until now, was not legally explored, as the government does not license the internet and was considered by most exempt from the law.
NOW, SAME FOR MR. TEPMAN, AS WELL AS TO MR. HOGAN. YOU ALL HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE, BUT WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DECIDE THIS CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. MR. HOGAN SAYS YES.
Already moderated in this forum... but posting anyway.
That is NOT what the jury said if you read the full statement. Your as bad as fox news with taking a snippet and carrying on with it, totally out of context. The jury said they took the easy questions first, that could be agreed upon with only a small amount of discussion. And saved the ones where people were really far apart and divided and saved those for later discussion. This is the same way you take standardized tests. You knock out the easy questions first. When this person said they skipped prior art... they didn't disregard it or refuse to consider it. They tabled it for the lengthier discussion due to its complexity (skipped it from the initial discussion) and did indeed discuss it in quite a bit of detail. Please quit putting your faux-news tidbit spin on this. That's been discredited several times. Go read up on it.
Actually OP is pretty close. Watch the Bloomberg interview again, it's on Youtube. You can skip to the 2:00 mark. Hogan states that they were discussing one (Samsung's '460 patent...he's suggesting this is the first one they began discussing) patent on the first day. Later at home, he starts thinking that patent "claim by claim, limit by limit "and how he would defend it in court. His "ah-ha" moment was that the two implementations were not interchangeable because "Apple's software could not be placed into the processor of the prior art and vice versa", so Apple did not infringe. He shared this revelation with the other jurors the next day and they agreed to use his theory to assess the patents one by one, rather than prior art, which Samsung's law team spent a lot of time addressing. This is contrary to the jury instructions that they were supposed to be following.
"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama