On 23rd April, Shanghai police took action against the Lepin entity. They raided 3 warehouses, destroyed 10 assembly lines, 90 molds, nearly 200,000 instruction booklets, 200,000 boxes and 630,000 sets, total worth 200 million yuan (US$29.7mil). 4 people were arrested, including the company owner. O_O
Wow, I did not expect Lepin to be such a large-scale operation. If US$30mil is calculated using Lego prices, then the actual amount involved may be only US$3mil. (Which then seems too little considering the scale.) 90 molds seem kind of little. (Mold is very important. It is expensive and hard to produce.)
This is the direct impact from the ruling last October. Lego won, but that was specifically for 18 sets, so many people did not think much of it. However, in that judgement, the court ruled that Lepin's logo was too close, and that the finished model qualifies for Copyright protection. No more 'bunch of bricks that happen to assemble the same model' argument.
It seems Lepin was unrepentant.
The news came out on 26th April. Since then, most (if not all) sellers have pulled Lepin and other KO bricks off their shops.
This is the end of Lepin as we know it. RIP, Lepin, 2015 – Apr 2019.
KO sets will continue to exist. It is a lucrative market. Just look at Lepin vs the other legitimate brick makers. Lepin is better known (notorious) by far. However, they must be smarter about it. No more blatant copying and reproduction of box art.
The bricks themselves are legal (mostly, some are still patented). It should be possible to sell sets of bricks to build any particular model. The question is, can the instructions be sold? How to message this to retail customers?
The 23-year-old male National University of Singapore undergraduate who committed criminal trespass and insulted the modesty of a female student at the same school last year was given a conditional warning after being assessed to have a high likelihood of rehabilitation and was remorseful, said the Singapore police in a statement on Tuesday (Apr 23).
The statement has been reproduced in full below:
There have been public discussions regarding the 12-month conditional warning given to a 23-year-old male National University of Singapore (NUS) undergraduate who had committed criminal trespass and insulted the modesty of a female undergraduate at the NUS.
There are two factors (which are both inter-related and yet separate): the first relates to rules to ensure that premises like NUS provide a safe environment, and the second relates to criminal prosecution. On the first, Police understand that NUS is reviewing its rules, on how such conduct is to be treated.
On the second issue: Police and AGC understand public concerns, on ensuring that our laws and enforcement provide sufficient protection for potential victims, and sufficient deterrence against would-be offenders. That is the approach that Police and AGC take.
In deciding whether to recommend prosecution for a criminal offence, a number of factors are considered by Police in each case, including the age of the accused, the likelihood of reoffending/rehabilitation, the extent of remorse shown, whether there are aggravating factors (for example, like circulation of the offending images).
In this case, the accused was assessed to have a high likelihood of rehabilitation, and was remorseful. There were also additional factors relating to his conduct which were relevant, such as the absence of other obscene materials in any of his devices.
A prosecution, with a possible jail sentence, will, likely ruin his entire future, with a permanent criminal record. Taking into account these factors, he was given a conditional warning, which means that if he commits any other criminal offence within 12 months, he will be liable to be prosecuted for both this current offence and the subsequent other offence. He will then likely face a jail sentence.
Our criminal justice system seeks to temper punishment and deterrence, with giving offenders a second chance to reform, based on assessment of the relevant factors.
The approach in this case is consistent with the approach taken in other cases. There have been a number of similar cases, where such conditional warnings have been given.
Where other relevant factors are involved, for example, a prior criminal record, premeditation to evade detection, there will often be a prosecution.
Allegations that the man was not prosecuted because he has influential parents are untrue — the Police and AGC did not consider his parents' background. Such factors are irrelevant considerations. It is unfortunate that such untruths have been put out. The man’s parents have agreed for it to be disclosed that his father is a driver in the public transport sector and his mother is a housewife.
The Police are also aware of comparisons being made between this case and a 2015 case involving a 23-year-old man who was charged and sentenced to 10 weeks’ imprisonment for filming a woman showering at Republic Polytechnic (RP).
The accused in the RP case had committed multiple criminal trespass offences, taken deliberate action to avoid detection by covering up the CCTVs in the vicinity and covering his face with a towel, and did not own up voluntarily but was arrested following Police investigations to track him down.
He was a former student of RP and had committed the offences over a period of four months. As such, the Police, in consultation with the AGC, prosecuted him in court. The facts in that case are quite different.
Three things struck me about the statement.
First, it can be inferred that the man turned himself in. Although not stated here, he confessed to the crime and apologized to the victim almost immediately — before he was identified and caught. This may be why the Police considers him remorseful. (It is not as if the Police took him at his word!)
Second, the man has no obscene materials in any of his devices. So the Police do search after all. However, I'm wondering why is this a consideration at all? And then this does not jibe with his explanation to the victim that he was influenced by frequent viewing of voyeuristic pornographic videos. Oops! :-O
(I'm old-fashioned. It's all streaming now.)
Third, the Police stated that a prosecution will likely ruin his entire future, since he would have a permanent criminal record. This is the harsh truth. There exists a gap between a warning (deemed too light by the public) and the lightest sentence (too heavy).
People are no doubt surprised the Police considered his future. Is he special or what? The Police did not explain, but this is a privilege for students — people who have not stepped into the working world. They lack world experience and are still deemed minors.
Well done, Monica, you have made both NUS and SPF respond! I doubt she is happy though. She wants Nicholas to be punished.
The lives of two people changed forever at 1:20am, 25th Nov 2018. But it would come to light only almost four months later. Unsatisfied with the outcome, Monica Baey posted her ordeal online on 19th April 2019:
The perpetrator was given 12-month conditional warning by the police. In addition, the NUSSU Exco (a student body) meted out: official letter of reprimand, one semester's suspension, barred from hostels, mandatory counselling, rehabilitation and reconciliation, 30-hours of community service and writing a letter of apology.
Naturally, netizens went wild at the light sentencing. What happened to the usual tough sentencing for such cases. Many people thought he went "scot-free". Was it because of his supposedly powerful family?
(It transpired a few days later that his father was a taxi driver and his mother a housewife.)
Here's what I think.
First, even though it is traumatic for Monica, the police has to play it safe. Was it a moment folly or not? You cannot really be sure. Any charge would be very serious. But a second offence? No doubt. (I believe the police would search for evidence of prior offences to his first caught offence.)
Second, NUS takes cue from the police. The student would be expelled for a serious offence. How else can you punish a student? You can only suspend him.
It is all too easy to call for blood.
IMO, the sentence is not without consequence. "Conditional warning" means the police has decided to give you a second chance. It is up to you to cherish it, or not. There is only one such chance in life (I think). Suspension is in effect a fine and disruption — your courses are now all out-of-sync. And there is this pesky notion about rehabilitation.
During his term of suspension, Nicholas found work as an insurance agent. Not anymore:
"He has been placed on immediate suspension and has since submitted his resignation. Great Eastern strongly disapproves of any inappropriate misconduct by our financial representatives and will not hesitate to take the necessary action."
No doubt, this is the real consequence that Monica seeks. Good news, Monica, you can do it again and again. Organizations will not hesitate to drop him like a hot potato at first sign of trouble.
Like I always say, this is a good time for Nicholas to learn who his true friends are. :-D
No doubt due to the outroar, NUS was forced to reveal its "second strike and you are out" policy for sexual misconduct cases. Obviously NUS does not want to publicize this, but this can be inferred from past incidents.
The Education Minister has commented:
From here on, for offences that affect the safety of students on campus, we have to take a tough stand, and send a strong signal to everyone. Two strikes and you are out cannot be the standard application. NUS has to make its campus safe for all students, especially female students.
So, good job, guys. No more leniency.
In his apology letter, Nicholas said he was under the influence of alcohol. He should be barred from alcoholic drinks for ten years, since he obviously can't handle it.
One thing I'm pretty sure would happen is that hostels will be "locked down". Note that both of them were not supposed to be there that night. Beware of the law of unintended consequences.
| Transport | to | $22 |
| back | $24 | |
| Tickets | Season | $108 |
| Season w/ express | $208 | |
| Child S w/ E | $198 | |
| Lunch | $13.50 | |
| $10.80 | ||
| Drinks | $15.30 | |
| Snack | $5.00 | |
| Gifts | $17.91 | |
| $20.70 | ||
| (est) | $17.91 |
$661.12. Good or not, I don't know, but it sure is expensive.
Finally, one year later?
There is no standalone 32-bit installer for 18.04, but Canonical allows 32-bit 16.04 to be upgraded to 32-bit 18.04. Hopefully they find a way to upgrade to 64-bit 20.04 seamlessly. (But I may not need this anymore, read on.)
The sudden switch to 64-bit for all major Linux distros caught me by
surprise. I thought the transition would take years. I'm also surprised
there aren't any breakages. int remains as 32-bit, but
long is now 64-bit. My very old code would break, because I
used to cast void * (now 64-bit) to int. Later I
do the reverse, but even that is not truly portable. It is time to acquaint
with size_t, intptr_t and ptrdiff_t.
But I digress.
It is really easy to press ctrl-c when upgrading the packages. Do not panic. Kill dpkg and re-run it:
sudo dpkg --configure -a
The installation was pretty seamless, with just a few config file conflicts (as usual). Except, after it was done, the GUI did not come up. And the kernel crashed after several minutes.
After several hours, I found that the system worked if I entered Recovery mode first, then resumed normal boot. Hmm... could it be related to graphics acceleration?
I added nomodeset to kernel boot command line and it sort of
worked. It booted up fine, but there was no local display. (It worked fine
in Recovery mode.)
So, the system is limping along now, but I think it is due for a fresh install. It managed to upgrade from 10.04 -> 12.04 -> 14.04 -> 16.04 -> 18.04 (barely). It is time to go 64-bit. :lol:
