Comment on the Case about the American Solid Oak Software Sue the People's Republic of China and Concerning Companies for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Copyright Infringement——Comment on the Practice of Using Forum Non Conveniens by U.S.Court
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plaintiff Solid Oak Software filed suit against the People's Republic of China et al.for misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement for allegedly copying nearly 3 000 lines of code from Solid Oak's software program CYBERsitterand disseminating it to tens of millions of end users in China.Defendant Sony Corporation,joined by Defendants Acer,Inc.,BenQ Corporation,and ASUSTeK Computer,Inc.,moves to dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens because California is an inconvenient forum and the dispute should be heard in China.On November 18,2010,the court of Central District of California denied Sony's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens.Although it would be a hard work if Chinese company asserts a dismiss base on Forum Non Convenience,this article encourages the Chinese company to best use this doctrine of Forum Non Convenience when necessary based on the deep pre-research on the related American cases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".