They -uh- have?
Not in court. My point remains that the parties which were purportedly damaged have a way to redress their grievances through court without FTC. And only the damaged parties have standing to ask for redress. FTC cannot claim damage to overall marketplace until after a court has ruled that there were some parties damaged through a breach of a contract.
It says right in the summary that the investigation has been going on for years already. And the timing makes little difference here, and if Trump gets involved it would be a scandal for many reasons unrelated to race.
Well, by all means, then they must be appalled (appalled!) that there is gambling... I mean DISCRIMINATION going on there. Clearly, they had enough evidence create a sham, but not enough to charge, and they had it a while ago and just decided to deploy it at the very moment when it would be most politically damaging to the incoming administration.
Had Qualcomm not entered into an agreement to license its SEPs at RAND rates, in exchange for the inclusion of its tech in widely-used telecom standards; had they simply kept their patents to themselves and forced the standards body to make due without Qualcomm's patented tech, FedGov would not have a case.
Is it common practice for FTC to sue to enforce contracts? Shouldn't the suit be brought by the parties which suffered because of the breach? Unless, FTC is a party to SEP agreement, then it should have not standing to sue for the breach. Even if it were a party, FTC would not be able to demonstrate damages to the FTC, so it would not have standing to sue. The only standing it can show in this case is as an entity entrusted with ensuring that monopoly power is not abused. But using government-granted limited-time monopolies for bargaining purposes is not an abuse of a monopoly. It is the intended purpose of patents.
This is FedGov suing an inventor that has lied, cheated, and violated both contracts and trust in order to advance its own position at the expense of others and do serious damage to the market in the process.
Wouldn't some of the parties damaged by the breach of trust have to show that the breach has occurred before a claim can be made that the marketplace as a whole was damaged?
Security needs to be designed into the protocols from the start.
That's almost too cute. Except they need to be secure enough to be usable by consumers and not have en masse exposure to criminals who can come in physical contact with them. What protocols do you use to secure them during physical access?
As long as your process does jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine).
should have been
" As long as your process does not jump from core to core, there is no cache invalidation, so GIL will not hinder you (because it will work as if it was running on a single-core machine)."
But, as always, you cannot edit a Slashdot comment after it's published.
Wasn't there something about a PASCAL programmer knowing the value of everything and the Wirth of nothing?