121–130 of 246 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't that mean you're a poor person trying to pay for upkeep of an expensive house? If you sell it they will come take that cash.
You live in the pool house and rent out the mansion to college kids.
He should stop stealing IP. That is China's job.
Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets . Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this by kicking the can down the road to another court ? I would be highly surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this
> Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets . Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this by kicking the can down the road to another court ? If he has less than $100M in assets, then he will only pay a portion of the judgment. If he, his lawyer and his accountant were smart, he would have moved most of his assets into trust funds, iras and other judg…
Are ML model parameters copyrightable? Should it be? To me, it looks like that is the only claim google has - rest of the algorithms are all open sourced already. Honestly, I don’t see much difference between this and the oracle java case. Google can’t have it both ways.
I don't remember anything about ML and especially not model parameters. But, yes, I'm somewhat sure those would meet the criteria for copyright.
What's far more interesting is the copyright status of the output of ML models: does it meet the required "creativity" when it's just the product of a computation you set up once, a long time ago? And is the ML model's creator still close enough to the product to be considered its author? If your text generator was trained on Wikipedia data, are the wikipedia authors co-creators? This stuff is going to be fun...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His company existed for a seven months in 2016 before being bought by Uber. It isn't clear (to me) if there were third party investors or what the cap table was, broadly. Purportedly 90 employees at time of sale to Uber.
I don't know what the CGT situation is in America, but in Australia of you own an asset (shares, property, etc) for less than 12 months before sale, capital gains tax kicks up to about 50%.
That doesn’t sound right.
CGT operates by treating net capital gains as taxable income in the tax year in which an asset is sold or otherwise disposed of. If an asset is held for at least 1 year then any gain is first discounted by 50% for individual taxpayers, or by 33.3% for superannuation funds. Capital losses can be offset against capital gains. Net capital losses in a tax year cannot be offset against normal income, but may be carried forward indefinitely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_Australia
Maybe the 50% your thinking of come from this?
For most CGT events, your capital gain is the difference between your capital proceeds and the cost base of your CGT asset. (The cost base of a CGT asset is largely what you paid for it, together with some other costs associated with acquiring, holding and disposing of it.)
There are three methods for working out your capital gain. You can choose the method that gives you the best result – that is, the smallest capital gain.
CGT discount method
Eligibility: For assets held for 12 months or more before the relevant CGT event. Not available to companies. For foreign resident individuals, the 50% discount is removed or reduced on capital gains made after 8 May 2012.
Description: Allows you to reduce your capital gain by 50% for resident individuals (including partners in partnerships) and trusts 33.33% for complying super funds and eligible life insurance companies.
How to do it: Subtract the cost base from the capital proceeds, deduct any capital losses, then reduce by the relevant discount percentage. See: The discount method. Indexation method
Eligibility – For assets acquired before 11.45am (by legal time in the ACT) on 21 September 1999 held for 12 months or more before the relevant CGT event.
Description: Allows you to increase the cost base by applying an indexation factor based on the consumer price index (CPI) up to September 1999. How to do it: Apply the relevant indexation factor, then subtract the indexed cost base from the capital proceeds. See: The indexation method. Other method
Eligibility: For assets held for less than 12 months before the relevant CGT event. Description: Basic method of subtracting the cost base from the capital proceeds. How to do it: Subtract the cost base (or the amount specified by the relevant CGT event) from the capital proceeds. See: The 'other' method.
https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Capital-gains-tax/Working-out...
A friend of mine heard his personal attorney speak at a law school class. Even his attorney thought Anthony was a “jackass” for stealing the IP; his defense fell on him being an engineer who, at the end of the day, just wanted to build cool shit and wasn’t malicious.
Just a regular guy with assets somewhere between 50 and 100 million dollars.
Levandowski just filed for bankruptcy saying he has less than $100M in assets . Does anyone know if he will only pay a percentage or is only delaying this by kicking the can down the road to another court ? I would be highly surprised if his employer (Uber) shouldered any of the this
I wonder how he doesn't have more assets after he sold his company to Uber for $680 millions
Bit unrelated, but could somebody highlight the comma splices mentioned in the comments section? As a non-native english speaker, I can’t notice anything out of the ordinary.
The only clear error was this sentence: > However, Levandowski, had disputed the ruling. The second comma is unneeded. It’s not a comma splice though. There are some really long sentences with awkward commas, but I believe they’re grammatically correct. It would just be better to break them into multiple sentences.
A friend of mine heard his personal attorney speak at a law school class. Even his attorney thought Anthony was a “jackass” for stealing the IP; his defense fell on him being an engineer who, at the end of the day, just wanted to build cool shit and wasn’t malicious.
Levandowski may be a jackass but that lawyer is not much better.