Given it was not directly brought up in the motion in limine, it sounds like there were other concerns with the message anyway?

> it’s possible/probable that the trial outcomes would have been the same with or without the Facebook message evidence.

It seems like defense counsel was primarily concerned that the message indicated the defendant owned/possessed a gun. The emoji argument seems to be a secondary concern that he raised only on appeal.

This is not good.

> We’ll compromise on almost everything else, but our one red line is this: Whatever we agree on, there has to be a future for Rebble in there.

I can see through to the good intentions, but this mindset has a very dangerous sandbagging risk to the other party.

Could you imagine a company forcing you to exclusively use them and only them as a vendor for the foreseeable future? Not just for a single contract, but for many contracts beyond it? Or one especially long contract?

That’s just not fair.

There are some other red flags here too. I am not convinced they have the ability to license a database they themselves scraped, nor if there’s any obligation to merge the particular code changes if any back upstream.

That's not what they're demanding (or at least, that's only one way of giving them what they're demanding).

A legal guarantee that they'll allow people to configure their watches for an alternate app store would probably be sufficient, for instance.

I agree, I think that’s the intended interpretation — but I’m disappointed that’s not their stated redline then, though.

The ask there is for a future in app stores beyond Core Devices, not just for Rebble specifically. That is a call for Core to open their platform; what they have now is a call for Core to open their platform to them.

You’ve achieved greatness in your view of the world, and in your empathy for others.

Agreed. It’s honestly not that long of a wait at most stations.

The true honesty is that judges may rule however they please, regardless of the reasoning. In many cases they require their intuition to guide them. In that sense, it is already up to their gut feeling.

At some point someone needs to weigh the facts, and they are given great discretion to do so. It is generally a good thing, because we have multiple layers of appeal to prevent obviously horrible outcomes.

So this legislation, like all legislation, provides guidance for the good faith judge to help weigh the facts. There is no guidance that will prevent a bad faith judge from ruling badly: You do not need a clause about public safety to get the ruling you want, but there is an argument that your ruling may perhaps be less scrutinized.

There’s a reason an attorney’s answer is always “it depends” :) No legislation is truly airtight from abuse.

A judge can rule however they please, but if it goes against legislated law or precedent, it can (and should) be appealed. Sure, if the highest appellate determines the law says something different than it really does, that’s that, but it’s not like most judges have carte blanche to determine the outcome of any legal entanglement on a whole.

It unfortunately goes away. Last I checked you get 7 days before the app expires. The subscription makes it last much longer, but not forever.

Oof! You certainly did, I remember reading this and not thinking that much of it at the time.

:) Pleased to see the wikipedia change landed without drama. It’s still there as of writing.

i crossed my fingers for the first 24 hours but i now think admins and mod, to their credit, understand it's the truth.

the article shows scans of the research reports listing only Carlsen as their author, you could have just linked to one in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page to support his sole inventorhood, right

per: the scans, the patent isn't for TIFF and the articles misspell his name. I think that the Paul Brainerd (Aldus cofounder) interview with the Computer History Museum, when he names Stephen, will be sufficient for Wiki.

Focus and determination can grant you the power of the queen on the chessboard.

But when you become blind to what happens around you, you become the pawn in someone else’s plan. A messenger is an authority’s favorite tool.

Someone would like to starve people and you are a part of their plan. If you feel the tug of appeal, it is because you understand something isn’t right here. If you don’t investigate, your mind is not your own.

Legal will be the face of it, but engineers often handle the actual underlying request.

Over a couple large public companies, I’ve had to react to a court ruling and stop an account’s actions, work with the CA FTB for document requests, provide account activity for evidence in a case, things like that.