UK pay TV operator Virgin Media has won its latest patent case against Rovi Corporation, marking what Virgin claims is the eleventh successive defeat for Rovi out of the eleven patent disputes.All of the eleven patents asserted by Rovi have now either been found invalid and/or revoked by either the English Court or by the European Patent Office which was responsible for granting them, said Virgin.However, two of these eleven are still under appeal by Rovi and are due to be heard in the Court of Appeal by the end of the year.The most recent patent case related to a TV programme guide that uses software and information downloaded from the web. Rovi withdrew its infringement claim ahead of trial.“This victory is an important landmark. It is Rovi’s eleventh defeat out of eleven, and upholds our position regarding Rovi over the last seven years. Virgin Media will challenge the two appeals Rovi seems to be pursuing. We are confident their claims will remain unfounded in the courts,” said Virgin Media’s chief corporate affairs officer, Brigitte Trafford.
Last modified on Tue 24 Apr 2018 11.36 EDT Share on LinkedIn Experts say suit alleging election conspiracy could inform the public about Trump and Russia, but some Democrats have voiced concern Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, branded the DNC action a “last-ditch effort to revive the witch-hunt with a lawsuit”.Trump tweeted that it was “so funny, the Democrats have sued the Republicans for Winning”.Even some Democrats have expressed reservations. “I think this sidebar lawsuit is not in the interest of the American people,” the US congresswoman Jackie Speier of San Francisco, who has a law degree, told CNN.But the lawsuit is distinct in significant ways from parallel legal actions and – if it is not dismissed outright at an early stage – it could add significantly to public knowledge, at least, about Trump campaign activities and Russian election tampering, legal experts said.“[It] might end up becoming a really, really powerful tool for the DNC to actually unearth new information,” Susan Hennessey, executive editor of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told PBS Newshour on Friday.The DNC suit alleges that the Trump campaign was a racketeering enterprise engaged in an illegal conspiracy to influence the outcome of the election. Unlike parallel legal actions, the lawsuit names as defendants Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and adviser.While both men have been subject to grand jury subpoenas issued by the special counsel Robert Mueller, and Kushner sat for a private meeting with Mueller in November 2017, neither has been charged by Mueller, as far as is publicly known.The brothers-in-law have separately denied any wrongdoing.The DNC lawsuit could be seen as an outrider to Mueller’s investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia and related matters, Hennessey told PBS.“I think that they are fundamentally unrelated,” she said. “We don’t know much about the Mueller investigation. The DNC suit both relies on the Mueller investigation, because it uses some evidence that actually comes from those court filings, and it also gets quite a bit ahead – it is alleging this actual conspiracy [and] we haven’t seen Mueller make that showing.“I think the best way to think about it is sort of parallel tracks, the same subject matter but not necessarily related.”In a separate lawsuit filed in July 2017, three plaintiffs whose emails were hacked and disseminated in the cyber-attacks on the DNC accused the Trump campaign and Trump’s former adviser Roger Stone of an invasion of privacy. Stone had boasted of communications with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, which published the emails.A hearing on a motion to dismiss the suit, filed in US district court for the District of Columbia by the DNC donors Roy Cockrum and Eric Schoenberg, and the former DNC staffer Scott Comer, is scheduled for 17 May.Writing last year on that lawsuit, Andrew Wright, a former White House associate counsel and a professor at Savannah Law School, concluded: “This is an extraordinary case in which discovery orders on the path to that proof could be as important to the public discourse as the outcome of the case itself.”The same dynamic could hold in the DNC suit, Wright said in an email to the Guardian, with important information coming to light through judicial proceedings.Hennessey, meanwhile, said: “This is an amazingly complex legal landscape.” Support The Guardian Tom McCarthy By suing the Trump campaign, the Russian government and others, the Democratic National Committee has opened up a new front in a legal battle that is either a campaign for justice or a pitiable attempt to overturn the 2016 election result, depending on whom you ask. Since you’re here… Share on Facebook Email Read more Shares4545 Democrats US politics ‘Protecting our democracy’: DNC chair defends suit against Trump and Russia Donald Trump at a rally in 2016. The DNC’s suit claims his campaign was involved in an illegal conspiracy to influence the election’s results.Photograph: ddp USA/Rex/Shutterstock Share on Pinterest Share on Twitter Tue 24 Apr 2018 06.00 EDT DNC lawsuit against Trump campaign divides party – but could reveal key facts Trump-Russia investigation Share on Messenger Share via Email Trump-Russia investigation Reuse this content Share on WhatsApp Share on Facebook Topics Share on Twitter US elections 2016 @TeeMcSee analysis … we have a small favour to ask. The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as we do.Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions. Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you. Share via Email
Last August, Maximus Real Estate Partners sued the Jang family — the owners of the site — alleging that the family was trying to sell the land to another developer after millions of dollars in investment from Maximus. That suit was settled “on mutually agreeable terms” on June 3, according to a spokesperson for Maximus.Still, the project faces heated opposition by activists who have vowed to derail the development.“We’ve been saying all along and we’re going to keep saying as we’re moving forward that we want 100 percent affordable housing,” said Chirag Bhakta, a member of the Plaza 16 Coalition that was formed in 2013 to oppose the project. “If anyone wants to build at Plaza 16, they will have to build a 100 percent affordable housing site.”Market-Rate MarketplaceAs it is proposed now, the project is split into three buildings: One on Mission Street would replace the Walgreens there with a 6–10 story residential tower, another on 16th Street would demolish a Burger King, the Hwa Lei Market, the Mission Hunan Restaurant, and the City Club dive bar for another 7–10 story residential building, and the last on Capp Street would clear out a parking lot and replace it with a lower 4–5 story residential complex.The site would host 290 market-rate rental units, 41 condo units for middle-income residents, and 49 rental units of affordable housing for low-income tenants. That makes the project 24 percent affordable with the addition of the middle-income units or 13 percent affordable without those units.Some 64,000 square feet of ground-floor retail is planned for the site — including the construction of a market hall for food and other vendors — as well as 163 parking spaces, 22 of them for commercial tenants. The developer would also enlarge the Bart plaza by 40 percent.The 7-10 story building on 16th Street Street as seen from 16th and Mission.New Atmosphere of AffordabilityBut times have changed for large housing projects in San Francisco.When approved with 41 percent affordable housing last week, the Bryant Street project joined other large projects — namely 5M in the SoMa and Mission Rock in Mission Bay — in defining a new benchmark of near 40 percent below-market-rate housing for large projects in San Francisco.Asked whether affordability levels in other projects would change the project, Joe Arellano, a spokesperson for Maximus, said that it will go forward “as envisioned” but that he understood things are different now than they were last summer.“We want to be cognizant of the fact that we are in a different environment,” he said.Concessions from the developer may not be enough at 16th and Mission, however, where opponents want to project scrapped altogether. They say nothing but fully affordable housing should go on the transit corner, though they have not yet identified the public subsidies that would likely be required to finance such an endeavour.“We don’t know yet,” said Bhakta when questioned about the funding. “As this process moves forward, we will be looking towards funding sources to ensure that our proposal is not just something on a piece of paper but is also backed by money.”Fully affordable housing projects are built by non-profit developers with heavy financing from the city. For the site to become 100 percent affordable, the developer would have to sell the site to the city and the city would need to have the funds to construct housing on-site.That happened last year at 490 South Van Ness Ave., when the city bought a corner lot just two blocks from 16th and Mission for $18.5 million. The developer had only paid $2.5 million for the 72-unit site, however, and the deal was criticized for being expensive — at $250,000 per door — and conferring so much profit to the developer.Mock-up of the 4-5 story building on Capp Street.Schools, Shadows, and HeightBut even if the developer of 1979 Mission St. agreed to sell the land to the city and the city could purchase and develop the site, it’s unclear that the affordable project would be able to rise very high. Activists have said for years that they want to prevent the casting of shadows on the nearby Marshall Elementary School, something the 10-story building would do.“We’re hoping for a significant number of units there, but the thing is the shadow matters,” Bhakta said. “We’re not going to sacrifice daylight that kids have to play in for a few feet [of height].”Bhakta said it was wrong to think of a trade-off between affordable housing and shadows. More affordable housing developments are required city-wide, he said, and one project in the Mission District will not solve the housing crisis by building up.“We don’t need to have a 10, 15, or 20 story tower in the Mission, thinking that this is going to solve everything,” he said, envisioning a 5–7 story building instead. “For us it’s not a zero-sum game. Families need deeply affordable housing, but their kids also need open space and sun to play in.”Parents at the school — located at 15th and Capp, around the block from 16th and Mission — have long opposed the project, even after its developer agreed in 2014 to elevate the school’s playground by 15 feet to mitigate the shadow effect.A community meeting held earlier this year saw a popular proposal for cutting down the project to as little as 150 units at four stories.Sonja Trauss, the founder of the San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation, a pro-development advocacy group, said it was illogical to oppose a project on both affordability and height.“Only one of those can be a valid argument,” Trauss said. “If you’re happy with an 8–12 story building if it were affordable, then you can’t be bothered by the shadows, and if you’re bothered by shadows, then your problem isn’t that it’s market-rate, it’s that it creates shadows.”Trauss pointed to stern opposition to a nine-story, fully affordable housing building at Shotwell and Cesar Chavez as evidence that activists claim to be pro-affordability but are really anti-height. She said such opposition runs the danger of delaying the project to death, and said people could already be housed there if the developer had been able to proceed without backlash.“In a functioning city, people could be living there today, including however many below-market-rate [tenants],” she said. “Every single one of those units — that’s like 700 people that could’ve not been displaced from the Mission.”Tim Colen, the executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action Coalition, said the transit corner was the ideal place for a high-rise. He said many urbanists would call for a 200 or 300 foot tall building at the site rather than the 105-foot height the parcel is zoned for.“Where else would you put housing and height other than that location?” Colen said. “We don’t agree that ‘Oh, it’s too tall.’ If we’re too timid to stand up and say we should build housing at this location, then woe unto us.”The project will go before the Planning Commission on Thursday for a review of its draft environmental impact report, after which it will likely face months of hearings. Activists are planning a press conference at City Hall to present an alternative plan for the site at 1 p.m. on Thursday.A model created to test the effects of the building on wind in the surrounding areas. An environmental review report found no significant wind effects. 0% The 16th Street Bart Plaza where Spanish-speaking preachers blare sermons from portable amps and plaza regulars spend their days on benches in front of Burger King and Walgreens may soon transform into a square of glass towers, market-rate apartments, and an expanded marketplace — if a recently-resurrected housing project can defeat community opposition.If it’s approved, the 10-story, 380-unit project at 16th and Mission would be the largest housing project built in the Mission District, just ahead of the 335-unit development at 2000–2070 Bryant St. that was approved by the Planning Commission last week and achieved a significant 41 percent of affordable housing.The controversial development at 1979 Mission St. — dubbed the “Monster in the Mission” by activists — will have the first of many public meetings on Thursday.The hearing at City Hall will come just days after a lawsuit between the developer and the owners of the site that delayed the project for months was settled for an undisclosed amount, clearing a major hurdle for the development. Tags: Affordable Housing Share this: FacebookTwitterRedditemail,0%
a pleasant respite from weeks of unusually sultry weather for November.Additional Municipal Commissioner Manisha Mhaiskar said it was not mandatory for these people to shift. Manjit Singh, Unauthorised loadMeanwhile.
holding workshops, adds Karandikar.power and oil industries. 2010 2:45 am Top News Five-Star hotels that want CISF protection will have to wait; they figure too low on the government? Local residents said that couple was peace loving and never had any quarrels with anybody. The incident sent shockwaves across the Mangrul village.the prosecution said that many of Jadeja?demanded extension of remand of the family members of the main accused.agreed to meet the customer at a parking lot near Santacruz airport. 2009 1:56 am Related News Acting on a complaint by animal rights NGO.
His sole release in 2008,t bring home any acclaim to take forth his legacy. Is your life more sorted now? download Indian Express App More Related NewsAlthough we have been given possession of the shops by the mall authorities, that is a surefire magnet to attract the public,Pune City Police defeated Goodwill 5-1. For all the latest Pune News, People know what we have done and what the Congress party holds for them in the future. There is no question of any such anti-incumbency factory playing any role for our party in the forthcoming elections? Later in the dayshe addressed a public gathering at Sector 4Panchkula For all the latest Chandigarh News download Indian Express App More Related News
More than two third of senior citizens also supported Dr Manmohan Singh for primeministership, On the other hand, Govind has admitted to the police that he disposed of the body in Mandhana. For all the latest Lucknow News,s admissions process, said G S TutejaDeputy DeanStudents Welfare In spite of this quota being availablethe number of seats falling under it is extremely low University guidelines do not permit any college to grant admissions to more than three students under this quota and must have at least one seat each in all the three streams: HumanitiesCommerce and Science Registration process would be centralised and would take place between July 1 and 3 from 10 am to 1 pmwhile notification and allotment of courses and colleges would be out on July 9 For registrationapplicants can get the prescribed form from Room no 220 of the Academic Branch-1 at the new administrative block of Delhi University Candidates are required to submit the certificate of registration as a Kashmiri migrantproof of property in Kashmir and proof of current residence in Delhi along with their applicationsapart from other regular documents For all the latest Delhi News download Indian Express App More Related Newssince this quota is ? “An English newspaper carried an advertisement of City Escorts offering ‘high profile males,females for full body treatment at private rooms and also at hotels,? He even sent the proposals to the Security Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to inquire into ‘illegal’ trading by a few of the brokers.he said,I decided to quit because I was feeling suffocated at my workplace But I have no regrets?