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.
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.
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.
I doubt someone committing to donate $x for every retweet validates Twitter as an activism tool. It's just a well meaning PR stunt that uses Twitter instead of any number of on/offline tools.
A real test would be something like the protests in Iran. I remember wondering why the regime doesn't just block Twitter, like they do for other sites. Apparently it wasn't worth the bother, the impact was more felt in the Western hyposphere than Iran. Personally what really concerned me was the State Dept asking Twitter to reschedule downtime for this. I'd hope they have somewhat better sources.
Yes, I'm not claiming this was any great revolutionary activism - but it was action beyond "Western self-congratulation" as John writes about in the linked post.
People took out their wallets, and paid. See if you can find the 28 people who matched. It's not easy - they're not getting any PR. This was someone who on a whim decided to attempt to raise money for a charity through the Twitter medium, and he gained a lot of support. The trigger was favs, not RTs - I'd argue it's not a PR stunt.
I do share your cynicism about the Iran situation, but I think Twitter can be used as an effective tool around smaller issues as demonstrated.
What if in the future there are 2 billion twitter users instead of 170 million? Do you think there will generally be higher awareness of global issues? Before you can act on something you need to be aware of it right?
I have a friend here in the states who is from Iran and he spent many nights during the protests refreshing twitter and Facebook. I can't say whether twitter changed the way the protests went, but they seemed the best way to get a sense of what was happening.
On the other hand, if raising $15,000 for breast cancer (why is it always breast cancer and never bowel cancer btw?) is the biggest thing that has been accomplished by twitter after all the attention it has gotten, then its potential so far has been somewhat overstated.
For a sense of scale, I googled "raises $15000 for breast cancer" and found the following folks who had also raised $15000 for breast cancer sans worldwide brouhaha:
"Maquette Bank Employees Raise $15000 to Fight Breast Cancer"
"Buckley Senior Raises $15000 for Cancer Research through Cabaret"
"In conjunction with Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Special Effects Hair Salon raised over $15000 hosting a Cut-A-Thon fundraising event..."