Nope. There's no need for any mice, rabbits, hedgehogs, wildebeest or any other animal to be suffering for my health. I don't take medicine unless you count a single aspirin a very few times a year. I've no need for doctors nor use any cosmetics. If there's critters being sacrificed to improve the human condition I hope those researchers have really strong support for the necessity because I'd guess much of it can be done without animals being required. (altho it might be costlier)
With that said I do like a good piece of meat, but prefer seafood if I have my 'druthers.
The "healthy" environment you live (and thrive) in is controlled in part by government regulations--regulations derived from experimental data.
Don't be silly about substitutes for animal models. Just to start with, how would anyone know if computer models (or bacterial models) can replace animal models without having animal data to begin with?
In what way was Google hypocritical? Their argument on de-facto standards might not be legally supportable but I don't see the hypocrisy.
Oh, Google are the champions of de-facto standards...as long as they are free, & can benefit Google. Give Eric a call, & ask him for the rights to use Google's search algorithm in your search engine...for free (de-facto standard & all). Yeah, good luck with that.
Google promote "open" standards & technology, just so they don't have to pay a licence fee, while gathering the user data they sell to their clients.
?None of this is rocket science...& it is clearly hypocrisy.
FWIW Google is hardly the first to raise the issue of de-facto standards. Back in 2006 Nokia submitted an amici-brief in the historical eBay-Merc case arguing that de-facto standard patents should be considered in the same vein as FRAND-pledged IP with no access to injunctive relief for either one. Since Nokia's market-leading position has disappeared they've now changed their minds on that issue of course.
Nokia's lengthy and well-stated brief can be downloaded here if you're that interested.
A great read. The whole brief if applied to Apple/Samsung clearly supports Apple's legal stance 100%, & is damning of Samsung in its abuse of FRAND patents. The thrust of Nokia's arguments are about interoperability in technology related products. Nothing Apple has patented pertains to that.
For what it is worth, I believe that Apple's "data detectors" patent should be offered on FRAND terms. It is an extremely useful technology.
The other patents serve to differentiate Apple's devices, & Samsung does not have a right to them, if Apple does not desire.
Remember, patents are a limited time exclusive right to protect your invention, to enable at least partial recoup of your investment.
I would agree, in the fast paced world of high tech, the time frames of patent protection need to be adjusted, but the whole system does serve a purpose.
Oh, Google are the champions of de-facto standards...as long as they are free, & can benefit Google. Give Eric a call, & ask him for the rights to use Google's search algorithm in your search engine...for free (de-facto standard & all). Yeah, good luck with that.
Google promote "open" standards & technology, just so they don't have to pay a licence fee, while gathering the user data they sell to their clients.
?None of this is rocket science...& it is clearly hypocrisy.
And the products that actually generate Google profit are not open-source (ie. search). The only things that are is the stuff that they don't really give a shit about, but only acts as a trojan horse for their other revenue generating products. It's hilarious that people think that Google is pro-open source based on principle. They are not, and never have been. They use it for convenience when it suits their ends.
Strangely it was Samsung tech that gave us the iPhone and iPod. Samsungs fault was not 100% staying the slave. They still maintain the slave status with regards to low key selling their own chipsets elsewhere.
The mob hatred of Samsung, as Apple certainly intended, is good old fashioned protectionism at work.
Strangely it was Samsung tech that gave us the iPhone and iPod.
Samsungs fault was not 100% staying the slave. They still maintain the slave status with regards to low key selling their own chipsets elsewhere.
The mob hatred of Samsung, as Apple certainly intended, is good old fashioned protectionism at work.
Comments
Nope. There's no need for any mice, rabbits, hedgehogs, wildebeest or any other animal to be suffering for my health. I don't take medicine unless you count a single aspirin a very few times a year. I've no need for doctors nor use any cosmetics. If there's critters being sacrificed to improve the human condition I hope those researchers have really strong support for the necessity because I'd guess much of it can be done without animals being required. (altho it might be costlier)
With that said I do like a good piece of meat, but prefer seafood if I have my 'druthers.
The "healthy" environment you live (and thrive) in is controlled in part by government regulations--regulations derived from experimental data.
Don't be silly about substitutes for animal models. Just to start with, how would anyone know if computer models (or bacterial models) can replace animal models without having animal data to begin with?
No man is an island
In what way was Google hypocritical? Their argument on de-facto standards might not be legally supportable but I don't see the hypocrisy.
Oh, Google are the champions of de-facto standards...as long as they are free, & can benefit Google. Give Eric a call, & ask him for the rights to use Google's search algorithm in your search engine...for free (de-facto standard & all). Yeah, good luck with that.
Google promote "open" standards & technology, just so they don't have to pay a licence fee, while gathering the user data they sell to their clients.
?None of this is rocket science...& it is clearly hypocrisy.
FWIW Google is hardly the first to raise the issue of de-facto standards. Back in 2006 Nokia submitted an amici-brief in the historical eBay-Merc case arguing that de-facto standard patents should be considered in the same vein as FRAND-pledged IP with no access to injunctive relief for either one. Since Nokia's market-leading position has disappeared they've now changed their minds on that issue of course.
Nokia's lengthy and well-stated brief can be downloaded here if you're that interested.
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/eBay/eBayNokia.pdf
A great read. The whole brief if applied to Apple/Samsung clearly supports Apple's legal stance 100%, & is damning of Samsung in its abuse of FRAND patents. The thrust of Nokia's arguments are about interoperability in technology related products. Nothing Apple has patented pertains to that.
For what it is worth, I believe that Apple's "data detectors" patent should be offered on FRAND terms. It is an extremely useful technology.
The other patents serve to differentiate Apple's devices, & Samsung does not have a right to them, if Apple does not desire.
Remember, patents are a limited time exclusive right to protect your invention, to enable at least partial recoup of your investment.
I would agree, in the fast paced world of high tech, the time frames of patent protection need to be adjusted, but the whole system does serve a purpose.
Oh, Google are the champions of de-facto standards...as long as they are free, & can benefit Google. Give Eric a call, & ask him for the rights to use Google's search algorithm in your search engine...for free (de-facto standard & all). Yeah, good luck with that.
Google promote "open" standards & technology, just so they don't have to pay a licence fee, while gathering the user data they sell to their clients.
?None of this is rocket science...& it is clearly hypocrisy.
And the products that actually generate Google profit are not open-source (ie. search). The only things that are is the stuff that they don't really give a shit about, but only acts as a trojan horse for their other revenue generating products. It's hilarious that people think that Google is pro-open source based on principle. They are not, and never have been. They use it for convenience when it suits their ends.
It's not only self-serving, it's communistic.
Looks like @GatorGuy is reading Atlas Shrugged 50 years too late...
Samsungs fault was not 100% staying the slave. They still maintain the slave status with regards to low key selling their own chipsets elsewhere.
The mob hatred of Samsung, as Apple certainly intended, is good old fashioned protectionism at work.
On the contrary, their fault was stealing. They are admitted thieves of intellectual property.
Protectionism or hatred of thievery?