Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment S&P 500 Companies probably still came out on t (Score 1) 113

Sure they lost a huge chunk of money. But if they had housed their own data, how much would that have cost them up to this point? I wonder if it would have cost more than 150 million. But to address the issue, they should get some redundancy. Mirror across several clouds if need be. It makes me wonder if mirroring would still give them an economic edge vs hosting their own hardware and all the support that requires in additional to the hardware costs.

Comment Re:The security firm provides a competing product (Score 1) 188

They could have been credited with all known vulnerabilities but if they waited 3 months for all the other cases and not this one, then they are still suspect in my eyes. The lawsuit doesn't mean jack until they release the security advisory, so there was no reason not to sit on the 3 months waiting period.

Comment Based on the article, PwC was in the right (Score 1) 188

In an email, a spokesperson for PwC acknowledged the existence of the vulnerability and confirmed that it had been fixed.

The spokesperson also said in separate prepared statement: "The code referenced in this bulletin is not included in the current version of the software which is available to all of our clients."

It seems the article does a poor job of being impartial. Despite the above quotes, they continue with:

It's far from the first time that a security firm or its researchers have faced the wrath from a company that fights instead of fixes.

I am not sure what to make of this since there is still too much information being withheld from both PwC and the article and ESNC.

Comment Re:In before whining about Thiel backing Trump... (Score 1) 165

I actually did read the article. Here's essentially the same comment (without Trump/Thiel referenced): https://slashdot.org/comments.... The fact that the program didn't start like that is just more support for why Thiel is not the reason behind the success. The program didn't become successful until it started recruiting already-successful candidates. So in effect, the program is successful because it basically "bought" its success through its selection process. For the record: I don't like neither Trump (compulsive liar who likes to inflate the truth and take credit for things he had little to nothing to do with) nor Hillary (also a liar and complete fraud).

Comment Genius my ass... (Score 4, Insightful) 165

It's nothing more than a common watering hole for all the already-successful young entrepreneurs to all gather. Let's see, basically get a bunch of already successful young people and throw more money at them and give them even more opportunities to succeed... and they do it!? *rolls eyes*

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 100

It does involve constitutionality. The constitutionality of any law passed by Congress must be be weighed by the possibilities of that law. (McCollough vs Maryland and Brown v Maryland). If the monetary award is a penalty against Samsung, it can be argued as excessive in the light of only a component of their phone was infringing (and both parties agreed that the infringing design could be be considered a component). Article 8 of the Constitution prohibits excessive fines.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 100

Here's the court's opinions from HEYDENFELDT v. DANEY GOLD AND SILVER MINING COMPANY providing an example of how the court goes against explicit law:

It is true that there are words of present grant in this law; but, in construing it, we are not to look at any single phrase in it, but to its whole scope, in order to arrive at the intention of the makers of it. "It is better always," says Judge Sharswood, "to adhere to a plain common-sense interpretation of the words of a statute, than to apply to them refined and technical rules of grammatical construction. Gyger's Estate, 65 Penn. St. 312.


This interpretation, although seemingly contrary to the letter of the statute, is really within its reason and spirit.

Comment Re:Terrible decision, regardless of patent feeling (Score 1) 100

Where the Supreme Court differs from you is that it sees a phone as being more than just a single patented object. Here's the law itself:

"That hereafter, during the term of letters-patent for a design, it shall be unlawful for any person other than the owner of said letters-patent without the license of such owner, to apply the design secured by such letters-patent, or any colorable imitation thereof, to any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale, or to sell or expose for sale any article of manufacture to which such design or colorable imitation shall, without the license of the owner, have been applied, knowing that the same has been so applied. Any person violating the provisions, or either of them, of this section, shall be liable in the amount of two hundred and fifty dollars; and in case the total profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied, exceeds the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars he shall be further liable for the excess of such profit over and above the sum of two hundred and fifty dollars; and the full amount of such liability may be recovered by the owner of the letters-patent to his own use, in any circuit court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, either by an action at law or upon a bill in equity for an injunction to restrain such infringement

I think we can both agree that if Samsung had sold a phone chassis that copied Apple's design then all profits for said chassis would go to Apple. However, this is only a component of another product -- their phone. If a car company copies some other companies' bumper design, and then uses these bumpers on their next line of cars, why would the profits for the entire car be forfeited? Only in the case where it can be proved that sale of these new cars hinged specifically and only on the use of these bumpers would all profits be forfeit. For me, the key line is:

profit made by him from the manufacture or sale, as aforesaid, of the article or articles to which the design, or colorable imitation thereof, has been applied

As for precedence, see Haydenfeldt v. Daney Co., 93 U. S. 629. Another good read is Some Questions under the Design Patent Act of 1887 by Frederic H. Betts (The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 1, No. 5 (May, 1892), pp. 181-192)

The Legislature may write laws, but the Courts will still interpret them.

Slashdot Top Deals

I haven't lost my mind -- it's backed up on tape somewhere.