Servant of 2 Masters
- Feb 3, 2016
On the past, in Seasonal, for instance, we have had owned brand Edison lights. That may be what they're suing about.
This isn't necessarily true. A patent holder has many options over who to sue including retailers and even end-users. It's been quite controversial over the years and there have been many recent attempts to change the law to make it more difficult to sue on bogus patents, which is often called patent trolling. One example of the behavior is that someone claimed to hold a patent on using a copier/printer to send an email. Instead of suing manufacturers, they sued individual small businesses that used the devices.I checked the vintage light bulbs at my store tonight, and they're made by GE, so not exactly a small indie operation. I'm not a lawyer, but in other patent cases the people sued are the ones actually making the thing that infringes on the patent (eg all of the lawsuits against Apple over the years have been against Apple...not Best Buy or Walmart or Amazon for selling iPhones or whatever). I don't get why retailers would be the infringers for the light bulbs.
What a dumbass.Deputies arrested a man who allegedly tried to shoplift thousands of dollars worth of items from a store where he worked.www.wbrz.com
Copyright != patent. Different rules apply.According to Nolo, retailers can be sued for secondary copyright infringement for benefiting from the infringement. If you google “can I sue an entity that helped others infringe my copyright “, Nolo gives all the details. Interesting reading.😊
This makes more sense, then.As of 12/20/19, UCSB is suing GE, too.
Check out this article from USA TODAY:Bed Bath And Beyond will probably be next, with Macy’a not far behind. They’re not doing enough to keep up.
Corporate: WHY DID YOU REQUISITION A $100 GIFT CARD!?!?!Nice boy
HOOVER, Ala. (WIAT) — A regular Target run turned into a test of one 10-year-old’s integrity when he found an envelope full of money left in an aisle. Friday, January 3, Foster Dudley and his…www.cbs42.com
While this article had a blurb about fraud, which no other article about checking out I've seen do, it wasn't enough of a blurb. Without a watchdog - cashier - checking to make sure all items have come out of the cart, what's going to keep a thief from shielding one item with another to fool the cameras or opening boxes to fool RFID sensors? It seems it will make it even easier to steal.
I think the amount of money you get for selling the data of customers makes up for the fraud. Amazon Go literally lets you say from an app you did not take an item and it will give you your money back.While this article had a blurb about fraud, which no other article about checking out I've seen do, it wasn't enough of a blurb. Without a watchdog - cashier - checking to make sure all items have come out of the cart, what's going to keep a thief from shielding one item with another to fool the cameras or opening boxes to fool RFID sensors? It seems it will make it even easier to steal.
Are the people who are designing ways that make it easier for honest folks to purchase even thinking about how easy it would be to fool cameras or bypass sensors? All the articles seem pie in the sky, everyone who shops will be honest and helpful with this technology. No one addresses theft. This article addressed fraud, though undefined, but it was more feel good words than an analysis of how facial recognition will keep someone from slipping the unboxed condoms and pregnancy test into the little hole punched into the toilet paper package directly over the tube center. A cashier would see the hole. The rapitag or cart camera won't.
I would think these technologies more feasible if they addressed the unlawful customers and means that they are countering the methods. As it is, I just see dollar bills flying skyward.