Finally, Dredd is the law in new TV spot

Our new-fangled Judge Dredd finally drops his most famous catchphrase in the latest trailer for the upcoming Dredd.

We’ll be the first to admit that we had our reservations about a new Judge Dredd movie. The 1995 Stallone version is still fresh in our minds as a typically-90s Stallonian bit of fluffy action movie nonsense, and while it wasn’t good, it is certainly the most recognizable version of the character to date, at least as far as the mainstream audience is concerned. Sure, it made a lot of sense to want to create a movie in which the character is as hard-bitten and gruff as the comic-book source material that spawned him, but remakes in general give us the willies.

That said, the more we see from the upcoming Dredd, the more we’re cautiously optimistic about the film. Karl Urban seems to effortlessly exude the cold menace inherent to the Judge Dredd character, the city around him is fittingly far less shiny than the metropolis seen in Stallone’s movie, and even the miscellaneous hired thugs who only exist to be shot to pieces seem capable of holding their own in a futuristic hellscape. Likewise, we’re big fans of the in-story explanation for the film’s bullet-time effects, though we’ve mentioned that a couple times before.

As for this most recent trailer, while a lot of it is material from the film that we’d already seen before, there is one crucial bit making its debut here. While we’re not fans of the idea that every action hero needs a witty catchphrase to punctuate his or her perforation of misanthropic jerks via automatic weapons fire, there was just something missing from Dredd. Something catchy, something punchy, something drunk twentysomethings might scream at one another during a giggly night of bar hopping and playing Halo in a friend’s loft. Dredd’s iconic “I AM THE LAW!” fits perfectly, and we’re happy to see it here in this spot.

Now that we’ve discussed our uncharacteristic excitement for this remake, we’re curious as to what you all think of this thing? Is Karl Urban an ideal star for this hyper-macho character? Does Lena Headey cut a menacing enough figure as the film’s key antagonist? Is anyone, other than Rob Schneider, sad to see that this new film is sorely lacking in the “former Saturday Night Live co-star tapped to provide comic relief” department?

No, of course not. That’s a stupid question.

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

‘It’s time for peace’ – Judge calls on Apple and Samsung to settle before verdict

As the Apple and Samsung patent infringement court case nears its end, presiding judge Lucy Koh has urged the two sides to settle before the jury delivers its verdict, telling them "it's time for peace."

As the patent infringement court battle between tech giants Apple and Samsung draws to a close in California following three weeks of arguments and testimony, presiding judge Lucy Koh has come up with a rather novel idea: she’s told the two companies to talk on the phone at least once to try to reach a settlement before the jury comes to give its verdict.

But many who’ve been following events at the San Jose federal court would probably agree there’s about as much chance of that happening as there is of Apple boss Tim Cook and Samsung chief Choi Gee-sung parachuting off the Burj Khalifa together wearing penguin suits singing “You Are My Sunshine.”

In the multi-billion dollar patent battle, Apple is accusing Samsung of ripping off the design of its iPhone and iPad devices in the creation of some its own smartphones and tablets, including the Korean company’s Galaxy range of mobile devices.

The Cupertino company wants a permanent sales ban imposed on these Samsung products, as well as monetary damages. But it’s not all one-way traffic. Samsung accuses Apple of infringing a number of its patents, including ones linked to the way smartphones deal with email attachments, photos and the playing of music files.

Peace

Speaking in court on Wednesday, Koh told lawyers for Apple and Samsung, “It’s time for peace.”

Reuters reported that the judge told both sides they had “succeeded in raising awareness about the importance of their intellectual property rights.”

She added that she saw risks for both companies in leaving the outcome of the case to the nine-member jury – risks highlighted in this recent DT article by Simon Hill. He suggests that if Apple and Samsung don’t settle by themselves and it’s instead left to the jury, there’ll be “a storm” in the world of tech.

But both Cook and Gee-sung have already met once in a bid to resolve the long-running dispute. When the two company bosses sat around a table in April, they failed to reach any agreement – hence the current court case.

And after three weeks of costly court-based back-and-forth between Apple and Samsung, does anyone really believe Koh’s plea will come to anything?

Source : digitaltrends[dot]com

Is a Facebook ‘Like’ Protected Under the First Amendment?

Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Back in April, a U.S. District Judge ruled that hitting the Facebook “Like” button wasn’t protected under the First Amendment. You know, the one that ensures our freedom of speech.

The case involved six employees who worked for Sheriff B.J. Roberts in Hampton, Virginia. In 2009, Roberts was running for reelection and one of the six — Daniel Ray Carter — “liked” Robert’s opponent on Facebook. After the election, the Sheriff fired Carter and the others. The employees brought the case to court, but the judge threw out the case, ruling that clicking one “like” wasn’t protected by the First Amendment.

However, Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union are on the case now. Both have filed their own friend-of-the-court, or Amicus Curiae, briefs in appeal of the judge’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to express their thoughts and opinions in whatever form they choose to do so, whether it’s speaking on a street corner, holding up a sign, or pressing a button on Facebook to say that you ‘Like’ something,” ACLU attorney Aden Fine said in a comment.

“Whether someone presses a ‘Like’ button to express those thoughts or presses the buttons on a keyboard to write out those words, the end result is the same: one is telling the world about one’s personal beliefs, interests, and opinions. That is exactly what the First Amendment protects, however that information is conveyed,” says the ACLU brief. The entire ACLU brief can be read here.

Facebook makes a similar argument in its brief. “Liking a Facebook page is entitled to full First Amendment protection,” says the Facebook brief. “The district court reached a contrary conclusion based on an apparent misunderstanding of the way Facebook works; the resulting decision clashes with decades of precedent and bedrock First Amendment principles.”

Facebook argues, “If Carter had stood on a street corner and announced, ‘I like Jim Adams for Hampton sheriff,’ there would be no dispute that his statement was constitutionally protected speech.”

There were other issues, unrelated to freedom of speech, that the judge cited in dismissing the case in April, according to the Hampton local paper, the Daily Press. So even if a Facebook “like” ultimately deserves First Amendment protection, it isn’t clear if the issue would be enough to send the case back to court.

Source : abcnews[dot]go[dot]com