sorry, yes you're right. The sample size was not huge (@500 people viewed each variant) although the result was statistically significant. I just added a note to the post about this. My aim is to repeat the test at a later date to see if the results repeat themselves.
Yes-- sample size, and effect size. He's saying that the results were strong enough that given the sample size, they were statistically significant.
Simple example: if I have a study of 20,000 people and I find that 51% of people prefer foos to bars, that may be similarly significant to your study of 20 people, all of which prefer foos to bars.
If I've understood it correctly, the smaller your sample size, the bigger the difference you need between response rates. So if the difference is 60%, then a sample of 30 people can be statistically significant. But if you're looking for a 5% improvement on something, you'll need to sample a large number of people.
1. Motion to intervene: the fact that Apple earns revenues from third-party developer sales confirms that its interest in the "property" at issue in the litigation (the IV license) is potentially impaired if Lodsys is allowed to sue the developers for infringement when in fact (as Apple would claim) its patent rights were "exhausted" in this area when it (or its predecessor) granted the license to Apple. This fact, then, strengthens Apple's claim that is has a right to intervene to protect its interests.
2. On the merits: Apple will claim an unimpaired right to earn revenues from its developers owing to the strength of its license - this bolsters its substantive case that Lodsys is abusing its patent by trying to double-dip in having taken payment for the license in the first place (from Lodsys's predecessor) and then over-reaching to try to get further licensing revenues from those who should have the right to rely on Apple's license.
A well known Palo Alto law firm I talked to last year made this point abundantly clear in early discussions re engaging them. They wouldn't represent the founders, they would represent the company. Even in those early talks they mentioned there would sometimes be conflicts of interest where it would be best the founders seek their own legal advice.
That's exactly right, and they're also doing their job right to recommend the founders get their own separate counsel. I have seen some really surprising conflicts of interest arise between founders and investors and even between founders before the corporation exists to become the official client. Everyone wants to be awesome buddies and not think about the chance of not always getting along.
Agree, lawyers have the resposability to represent their clients regardless of their own interest, its actually unethical and illegal to do otherwise. VC were just asshole, lawyers committed malpractice.
Considering how little we know of the facts, and that it's a "very well-known Valley firm", it's a bit premature to conclude that the lawyers committed malpractice.
Twitter was never a protocol. SMTP, http, XMPP are protocols - a data exchange description explained in an RFC where anyone is free to do their own implementation of it. Twitter is just a fauxpen API for a private company's massive platform. The idea that no one has created a true microblog protocol (like a realtime USENET) is a testament to the incorporation of innovation and a lock-in economy.
