11–20 of 57 posts
So... what is Alice?
Did you not read the article? Alice is the name of a company, and also the abbreviated name of a court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) in which Alice, the company, was the plaintiff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you not read the article? Alice is the name of a company, and also the abbreviated name of a court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) in which Alice, the company, was the plaintiff.
Some of us (where "us"="me") come to the HN comments first, because they load very quickly and can help us decide whether to read the article at all. Especially since many of the headlines are pretty opaque due to reuse of ordinary words in computing contexts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you not read the article? Alice is the name of a company, and also the abbreviated name of a court case (Alice v. CLS Bank) in which Alice, the company, was the plaintiff.
Some of us (where "us"="me") come to the HN comments first, because they load very quickly and can help us decide whether to read the article at all. Especially since many of the headlines are pretty opaque due to reuse of ordinary words in computing contexts.
You may not realize it, but I'm doing you and lucb1e a favor by telling you this. Many people will just quietly write you off as a hopeless dweeb if you expose your laziness in this way. Some people go their whole lives wondering why no one takes them seriously because no one ever gave them a dope slap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the linked page does not adequately explain what Alice is. To me it was clear that it was some important court case and they just want to call it "Alice". But I can understand why it might be hard to understand for some.
You can't be serious. The very first words of the article are: "In Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that ..." That makes it clear that "Alice v. CLS Bank" is a court case, and Alice was the name of one of the litigants. That phrase is linked to another article, whose first sentence is: "In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank today." Anyone older than six…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't be serious. The very first words of the article are: "In Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that ..." That makes it clear that "Alice v. CLS Bank" is a court case, and Alice was the name of one of the litigants. That phrase is linked to another article, whose first sentence is: "In a long-awaited decision, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank today." Anyone older than six…
I would think that "Alice" used by itself refers to the litigant of that name. The fact that it's used as a shorthand for the case itself is very much not obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us (where "us"="me") come to the HN comments first, because they load very quickly and can help us decide whether to read the article at all. Especially since many of the headlines are pretty opaque due to reuse of ordinary words in computing contexts.
You are of course free to approach HN any way you want. But if you choose not to read the article and end up asking a stupid question as a result you should not be surprised when you get called out for asking a stupid question. The signal to noise ratio here is extraordinarily high in no small measure because people are expected to do their homework. You may not realize it, but I'm doing you and lucb1e a favor by tel…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are of course free to approach HN any way you want. But if you choose not to read the article and end up asking a stupid question as a result you should not be surprised when you get called out for asking a stupid question. The signal to noise ratio here is extraordinarily high in no small measure because people are expected to do their homework. You may not realize it, but I'm doing you and lucb1e a favor by tel…
This whole boring thread could be avoided by providing a tiny bit of context in the title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would think that "Alice" used by itself refers to the litigant of that name. The fact that it's used as a shorthand for the case itself is very much not obvious.
It is common practice to abbreviate the name of a case. For example, "Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka" is almost invariably referred to as "Brown vs Board of Education" or sometimes even just "Brown v. Board". "Dred Scott v. Sanford" is invariable referred to simply as "Dred Scott". "Obergefell vs Hodges" is usually referred to simply as "Obergefell." This is particularly true when the context makes the shorter…
I see nothing wrong with the article abbreviating it in this way, but your ridiculously condescending comment is way out of line.
1. There should be an absolute maximum on the litigation that can be brought against any organization for any reason in a given time period (say, a year), and that total cost should not be able to exceed some tiny fraction of its total operating costs for that period (parent companies included, to avoid hiding actual illegal activities in subsidiaries). In other words, it should be impossible for someone to kill a startup “in the crib” simply by creating overwhelming lawsuits that are too expensive in time and money to deal with.
2. There should be a very substantial penalty for failing to convict after accusing a someone of a patent violation; something like 10x the legal costs of the party that was accused, and a moratorium on any similar accusations against any party for some period (like 6 months). In other words, slow these trolls down and hit them hard when they fail, and they might not try to make a shady business out of it.