fatdog789

11 ms·

61.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Windows Mobile phones sold more last quarter than the number of iPhones (any kind) in existence. Blackberry represents more than half of the corporate phone market. Windows Mobile (now Windows Phone) applications have a higher price point
62.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Or to put it more succinctly: Apple cannot retain the 30% if it was the cause of removal for an otherwise rules-abiding application. It's known as the doctrine of unclean hands (or possibly may even just be a plain ol' breach of contract).
63.
by fatdog789 17y ago
You think those Wal-Mart folks would hesitate to drop your product from their shelves without giving you a reason? You think they are shy about making their suppliers sign a scary one-sided contract and then holding them to it? Actually,
64.
by fatdog789 17y ago
This isn't about using force to extort, this is about using force during an end-of-the-world situation.
65.
by fatdog789 17y ago
I have a gun. You have gold. Which do you think is more valuable? Force trumps money, currency, and metal. In a true doomsday situation, the guy with the gun will always have more in the bank than the guy with the gold.
66.
by fatdog789 17y ago
That's why they have different releases of the .Net run-time.
67.
by fatdog789 17y ago
1) I worked in the Family Court for a year -- it's definitely not draconian and broken to men. As I said in another post -- it is only in rare occasions, like habitual drug use (not just alcoholism) that either parent loses custody on di
68.
by fatdog789 17y ago
"Results 1 - 10 of about 22,000,000 for mother's rights. (0.23 seconds)." Hmm... it seems that you're wrong about that. And the number of websites listed in Google is a poor measure of something's worth. After all, there are 2,810,000
69.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Except that the default presumption is, by law in every state , joint custody, and every state has court rulings to back that up. The proponent of exclusive custodial control must prove the other parent's unfitness for custody. This is eas
70.
by fatdog789 17y ago
People generally are treated worse than property....that's still true today.
71.
by fatdog789 17y ago
1) Unconscionable -- IS NOT SUBJECTIVELY DEFINED. At law, it must be objectively apparent that the prenup is "substantially unfair". It's not simply a matter of the judge's conscience -- b/c the determination is a legal one (not a factual
72.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Actually, the Irish were sold not as slaves but as life-term indentured servants. It's a crucial difference, legally (if not practically) -- indentured servants were treated as people, not property.
73.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Actually, in the west, title held by a married woman in her name was considered her own property. Property held by the husband was considered to be marital property. If the property was deeded to the "Husband and Wife", the wife's interest
74.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Americans are more open about race b/c we recognize how fucking important it has been to the development of our country. Britain, too, is fairly open about race, for somewhat similar reasons, but have less "draw"
75.
by fatdog789 17y ago
There are so many inaccuracies in that comment I don't know where to begin. 1) Contrary to popular belief, most prenups are not thrown out -- the only requirements for a valid prenup to survive legal challenge is that both the (future) husb
76.
by fatdog789 17y ago
The USB spec requires that USB devices be connected-device agnostistic. That is, they must be capable of communicating with any device, over USB, that knows the proper codes/bytes/etc. Hiding the codes/keeping them secret, like most vendor
77.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Foreign species invasion has had crippling effects on North American ecosystems. So this could actually be a pretty big deal. Also, most crimes of "danger" are state-level crimes, not federal level crimes. Federal crimes, by and large, are
78.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Every time copyright and patent laws have been revised, they've revised the protection length upwards. If the sunset-provision had applied in the past, right now, the copyright/patent periods would be rapidly approaching infinity.
79.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Yeah, it's bull, which is why you can't find any info on it. Edit: It's bull b/c most nations laws conflict -- it's impossible to obey any one such law without violating the law of another nation. Plus, it would cost too much to US busines
80.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Corporations cannot be held criminally liable for their conduct. Only natural legal persons can be held liable for criminal conduct, b/c nearly all crimes in American require the element of scienter (intent), which a fictional entity can
81.
by fatdog789 17y ago
They are treated differently. The maximum penalties for dumping toxins in a water source are significantly higher -- and the dumping crime also allows for prosecution for other crimes as well, such as assault, homicide/manslaughter, etc.
82.
by fatdog789 17y ago
There are specific circumstances given in the actual law. The article conveniently ignores those circumstances. For starters, "dangerous materials" is very strictly defined -- it's stuff like toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, and oth
83.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Jury nullification is technically not a choice. It's just an inevitable flaw in the design of the judicial system...sort of like Neo in the Matrix (sequels). On the other hand, it can be seen as a check on the balance of the executive poli
84.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Monopoly is not required for antitrust violations. Indeed, most companies found liable for antitrust did not have a monopoly in said market. The key issue is whether the company in question had significant market power and used that power
85.
by fatdog789 17y ago
I most point out that Regent University is considered one of the worst law "schools" in the nation. It's a "Christian" school that teaches "God's law", not the law of the United States as it actually exists. Take anything that comes out o
86.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Your response in no way addresses what I said -- MS didn't act out of empathy, b/c corporations have none -- they don't have a "heart" b/c they are persons only by law. As to the Cisco cite -- how is that relevant to MS? Moreover, copying
87.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Except that's not what happened. MS didn't "get caught" for a GPL violation -- there was no license requiring them to submit the code. They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts, correct, because MS is a corporation -- not a pe
88.
by fatdog789 17y ago
Look up "promissory estoppel" in Google. That will provide all the necessary examples...if you need specific patent examples, you will need access to LexisNexis or Westlaw (legal databases), both of which are too expensive for me to use for
89.
by fatdog789 17y ago
The FSF has a problem understanding the word "necessary". A court will determine that any method/code/algorithm necessary to fully implement the specs is "necessary", and thus covered by MS's promise. In contrast, MS never released the FA
90.
by fatdog789 17y ago
FUD is still FUD, and with MS, that's all the FSF is good at. Lawyers who do primarily ideologically-driven work have difficulty understanding transactional law. And transactional law is pretty damn clear on this point -- by actively encou

More ›