Skip navigation
Help

US District Court

warning: Creating default object from empty value in /var/www/vhosts/sayforward.com/subdomains/recorder/httpdocs/modules/taxonomy/taxonomy.pages.inc on line 33.

Zapruder-film-jfk_thumb

Because the President’s limousine passed almost exactly in front of Dallas clothing manufacturer Abraham Zapruder on Nov. 22, 1963, just as he was playing with his new film camera, and precisely at the moment that Lee Harvey Oswald fired his rifle from a nearby books depository, his silent, 26.6-second home movie has become the focal point of America’s collective memory on that weird day. For many of us, especially those who weren’t alive when it happened, we’re all watching that event through Zapruder’s lens.

Other footage from the scene turns up here and there, becomes fodder for documentaries (like this new one disproving the “second shooter” theory). But Zapruder’s film is still the canonical ur text of John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the most complete and most chilling visual record. In many ways, it prefigured all sorts of American pastimes, from widespread paranoia about government to a loss of faith in photographic truth and the news media, from the acceptance of graphic violence to newer concerns about copyright. Don DeLillo once said that the little film “could probably fuel college courses in a dozen subjects from history to physics.” Without the 486 frames of Kodachrome II 8mm safety film, our understanding of JFK’s assassination would likely be an even greater carnival of conspiracy theories than it already is. Well, maybe.

0
Your rating: None



A judge has ordered Google and Motorola to give Apple details related to the Android development process and Google's acquisitions of Android and Motorola. The order was issued yesterday by Judge Richard Posner in US District Court in Northern Illinois, as part of a patent lawsuit Apple filed in 2010 against Motorola, which is now on the verge of being acquired by Google.

In documents filed with the court last week, Apple argued that information regarding Google's development of Android functionality used in Motorola products is "highly relevant" to the pending lawsuit because two of the patents Apple is asserting "are directed to core features of the Android operating system." The patents in question include #5,566,377, which was filed by Apple in 1994, describing a "method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system." The other patent, #5,519,867, was filed in 1993 by Taligent, a now-defunct Apple project, and describes an object-oriented multitasking system.

"Apple has alleged that to remove or design around the claimed features would involve a substantial overhaul of the Android operating system, which would likely cost Motorola tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars to implement," Apple's filing states. The amount of money Motorola would have had to pay to design around these features, and the amount of money Google "paid to acquire and develop the Android system" is relevant to the amount of damages Apple should be entitled to if it wins this case, Apple argued.

Motorola argued last week that Motorola and Google are still separate entities until the pending merger closes, and thus Motorola "cannot force Google to produce documents or witnesses over Google's objections." Still, Motorola noted that "Google is in the process of producing documents and witnesses and depositions of Google employees have begun and will continue throughout the next weeks."

Posner's brief order states that "Apple's motion of March 2 to compel Motorola and Google to provide discovery concerning Google's acquisition of Android, Inc., Google's development of the Android OS, and Google's acquisition of Motorola is granted." The judge also granted a Motorola motion to strike "expert reports" Apple submitted related to FRAND patent licensing issues.

Because Motorola counter-sued Apple, there will be two trials, which are scheduled to be heard back to back starting June 11, Bloomberg notes. Google told Ars this morning that it won't comment "beyond what we've said in court papers."

Read the comments on this post

0
Your rating: None