carnegie

bells said:

22july2013 said:

Not many people are willing to shell out money to see a 20 year old news article. So I think he's mistaken comparing movies to news. The life cycle of a movie is probably measured in decades, while news is probably measured in weeks. He can do what he wants, but I think it would be wise to open up his newspaper to an additional 100 million paying subscribers.

Your assuming many of those 100 million aren’t already paying.

The New York Times has a ton of subscribers. It is worried about losing its identity long term when its articles are thrown in with others. 

That at is why he referenced Netflix. Netflix became powerful enough to create its own content displacing many movie studios.

If I was a publication with a strong identity and subscription base I would be caustious about joining a service like Apple’s. 

I understand Mr. Thompson's point.

But, when it comes to subscriptions, the vast majority of those 100 million (wherever that number comes from) aren't already paying for NY Times content. The New York Times Company reported 2.7 million digital-only news subscribers and 4.3 million total (worldwide) paid subscribers as of the end of 2018.

gatorguy said:

FWIW quoting: “I don’t think I’m claiming to be an inventor" said Siva in court testimony....
As a long-time engineer I would assume he knows the difference.

Being an engineer doesn't mean that someone understands patent law. Surely some do, but surely many don't.

At any rate, I'm sure Mr. Siva wasn't called as an expert witness (regarding his inventorship of the patent in question). He was called as a fact witness, in order to provide testimony as to what happened rather than what it means legally. Others will testify as experts (and this article suggests someone already has testified as such) on the issue of his inventorship.

beowulfschmidt said:

maestro64 said:

Yep this was predictable, this happen because we have idiots in this country who think our laws and constitution apply to everyone in the world. We have individuals who do not live here trying to use our laws against us for their own benefit why shouldn't a foreign company try and do the same.

For those who think this will be dismiss immediately think again, this will play out.

Pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that non-resident, non-citizens have no standing to challenge the US government on Constitutional grounds.  And Congress absolutely has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations" (see Article I), so even in the unlikely event SCOTUS decides to hear this (I don't think any lower court's ruling would be binding on Congress without the approval of SCOTUS; I could be wrong), I doubt it will actually go anywhere.

We shall see, however.

What case are you referring to in the first sentence? What you suggest may be the case in particular contexts, but it isn't broadly the case. A non-resident, non-citizen can have standing to challenge the actions of the U.S. government on constitutional bases. See, e.g., Boumediene v Bush. At any rate, it doesn't matter here as this complaint is being brought by Huawei Technologies USA, Inc.

Standing is about (1) injury, (2) traceability, and (3) redressability.

As for lower court rulings, they can be binding (as you are using that term here) on Congress. A federal district or circuit court can, e.g., find that a provision enacted by Congress is unconstitutional and enjoin its enforcement. That happens fairly often. Such decisions can, of course, be appealed. But if they aren't, or if appeals are unsuccessful, a lower court ruling stands and has effect.

Lastly, yes, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. That's among its enumerated powers. But, as is the case with other enumerated powers, it still can't use that power in a way that violates other provisions of the Constitution. Congress has the power to, e.g., punish the counterfeiting of U.S. coins, but it can't use that power in a way that violates, e.g., the Equal Protection Clause.

The Supreme Court has muddied the waters somewhat when it comes to Bill of Attainder jurisprudence. So I'm not sure whether Huawei can win on that issue, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Congress can make rules and provide punishments for violating them, but determinations with regard to particular violations generally have to be made through a judicial process. Congress can't, e.g., say... John Doe stole from previous government employees so we're going to deny him Social Security benefits. It likely can't even say... John Doe stole from previous government employees so he's ineligible for a job with the federal government. A court would have to make the determination - while respecting John Doe's due process rights - that he was guilty of stealing from previous government employees.

As I suggested, the waters have been muddied somewhat by a line of Supreme Court decisions which focused on different (or focused differently on the) issues. But some key considerations are (1) is the congressional action being challenged a punishment and (2) is the reason for that punishment past actions or possible future actions? Specificity is also an issue, but the specificity is, I think, clear in this case. The law itself refers to Huawei and ZTE (along with a few other companies) rather than a group of possible actors who may have done something (where such determination with regard to specific actors would be left to a judicial process).

crowley said:

joebloggs said:

As Apple (Computer) itself said in its lawsuit with Apple Corp. (the Beatles' record company), "even a moron in a hurry" could tell the difference between the marks.

That's got to close the case, the Fremskrittspartiet  logo looks more like Apple Corps than Apple Inc.

There’s more to the consideration than just how much given marks look like each other.

That said, Apple owns the Apple Corps trademark registrations in Norway.  See here. It doesn’t own the ones related to the Beatles name, but it owns the ones related to images of Apples.

But Apple didn’t refer to those Apple Corps trademarks in its objection to the Fremskrittspartiet registration.