Slashdot Mirror

Actually, the patent office has been taking in more fees than it spends since 1992.

Unethical behaviour for lawyers is more narrowly defined than you might think. Legal ethics are codified in the model rules of professional conduct. Specifically, a lawer under the model rules has a duty of candor to the court. He/she cannot selectively present the law or facts. See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_3.html Furthermore, a lawyer has a duty of fairness to opposing counsel see http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_4.html A lawyer who is doing "everything he is empowered to do" is one who professionally complies with the model rules. The ones who do not, or selectively apply them are professionally negligent, immoral, unprofessional and may be disbarred based on the applicable local rules. They may also be personally sanctioned.

Unethical behaviour for lawyers is more narrowly defined than you might think. Legal ethics are codified in the model rules of professional conduct. Specifically, a lawer under the model rules has a duty of candor to the court. He/she cannot selectively present the law or facts. See http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_3.html Furthermore, a lawyer has a duty of fairness to opposing counsel see http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_3_4.html A lawyer who is doing "everything he is empowered to do" is one who professionally complies with the model rules. The ones who do not, or selectively apply them are professionally negligent, immoral, unprofessional and may be disbarred based on the applicable local rules. They may also be personally sanctioned.

[T]he American Bar Association urges the Congress to conduct a thorough, comprehensive investigation to determine: (a) the nature and extent of electronic surveillance of U.S. persons conducted by any U.S. government agency for foreign intelligence purposes that does not comply with FISA; (b) what basis or bases were advanced (at the time it was initiated and subsequently) for the legality of such surveillance; (c) whether the Congress was properly informed of and consulted as to the surveillance; (d) the nature of the information obtained as a result of the surveillance and whether it was retained or shared with other agencies; and (e) whether this information was used in legal proceedings against any U.S. citizen.

Once again, Congress has not conducted such an investigation.

The rest of you points are just as uninformed - you are sadly mistaken about a whole lot of things. Here is why the war in Iraq was unnecessary - it diverted the attention from the war on terorism, to a campaign whose alleged goal was to address a "real and present danger", according to Colin Powell:

The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.

.
The reality was that Saddam was already scared to death, and had allowed the weapons inspectors the full access they had asked for in the past 12 years. From the

This is a classic case of why consumers should have a private right of action to sue in court under the civil law. HIPAA does not allow individuals to sue a hospital or doctor for violations of the statute. (However, a stricter State statute or privacy or contract law might allow a suit)

There is a growing trend in U.S. Federal Law that grants people rights, but does not allow them a remedy if there is a violation of these rights. This is a direct outgrowth of 20 years of conservative Supreme Court rulings that have gutted the power of the Judiciary to provide remedies for violations of the law.

The thought process is "well, Congress said you have a right to have your information kept private, but didn't explicitly say that anyone besides the State can enforce this remedy, so oh well, your screwed if the government doesn't want to do anything."

This thought process is not only unjust, but goes against 500+ years of legal of Common Law. Where you have a right, you should always have a remedy. It is an axiom, and 20+ years of Republican Judicial Activists have destroyed this notion. It is not right, and it is not fair. And it is not conservative. It is radical and undemocratic, and goes against the rule of law.

See: http://www.privacyrights.org/fs/fs8a-hipaa.htm and http://www.healthlawtoday.com/hipaa/files/righttos ue.htm and http://www.abanet.org/buslaw/blt/2001-11-12/meade. html

An attorney's job (as confirmed by the American Bar Association's Attorney's Oath) is to do his or her best job possible for every client to win the case. It's their job! You need to blame the person who hires the attorney for malice or idiocy typically.

Just in case:

http://www.abanet.org/email.html

that's their contact page on their website

Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.

This administration deserves neither loyalty nor love.

Both of these statements are true.

I went to one of the best private high schools in my state, I also have 6+ years of college, yet I have only recently been learning about the Constitution and our government in my spare time. Of all of the required studies I took in school, I can't believe none of them taught me the Constitution, and very little history. The government makes these standards, right?

Anyway, in my recent learning of our Constitution and government, I learned a little about the impeachment process.

For those that don't know, impeachment of a high official must be initiated by the House of Representatives. To find your representative, look here. Note that the site requires your 5+4 digit zip code.

If you are an American and you love your life and country, I believe it is time to write at least your representative and ask for at least the impeachment of President Bush. A decent starting point can be found here plus there are many other resources on the web.

I made the decision today with the recent Gonzales article here on slashdot to write a letter to at least my representative. I was embarrassed that I had to look it up, but emphasis on government has never been necessary in my life until recently.

If someone could reply with a boilerplate for a letter to your representative, that would be appreciated.

I think its time that we take back charge in this country.

Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.

It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.

From http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constituti on.html

Article 1, Section 2:
Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3:
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Clause 7: Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

From the American Bar Association website http://www.abanet.org/publiced/impeach2.html

Q. What procedures does the House of Representatives follow in the impeachment process?
A. While the Constitution outlines the basic process for impeachment, the specific procedures are determined by the internal rules of the House of Representatives and the Senate. To begin, the House of Representatives refers the investigation to its Judiciary Committee, which reviews the evidence and may conduct hearings. It determines whether an official impeachment inquiry is warranted and, if so, asks the House for permission to proceed. An official investigation follows, with the Committee deciding whether to offer articles of impeachment to the full House. The House then votes separately on each of the articles, with a simple majority needed to impeach the official. Articles of impeachment approved by the House are then presented to the Secretary of the U.S. Senate for trial.

From the Respondent's brief:

"Respondents [Metabolite] do not seek, and the '658 patent does not claim, a monopoly on the correlation between total homocysteine and vitamin deficiencies. Rather, the Inventors have patented a particular application of that correlation, when used as a sequential step in a diagnostic method."

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs /05-06/04-607_Respondents.pdf

Translation: they aren't asking for a patent on the correlation, or even on thoughts, about the correlation, even though that's how LabCorp has tried to characterize it.

I wasn't using a dictionary, but the America Bar Association does seem to agree... see section C in the link

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/volunteer/judge_wha tdo.html

vs. a whole lot of lawyers:

http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news021306_3. html

Read here: http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer04/sourcebook.h tml

It is clear that if they win this case, they have a chance of getting fess.

Pro bono my black ass!

In any case, if they get a precedent, they open up a whole new field of litigation: suing online forum operators. That gravy train will have a long life.

Just so. Indeed, may I just offer, amid all this indignant debunking, a simple metric based on fact rather than prejudgement?

One of the many blogs hosted at SOA Web Services Journal is one by Web 2.0 Workgroup member Dion Hinchcliffe. In terms of page views, the blog crossed the 500K mark after just over 90 days...here are the exact stats:

Hits since 24 Sep 2005:
502,587
(4,786.54 per day)

Total Blog Entries:
55
(0.52 per day)

Total Comments: 396

The topic of Web 2.0, and related offshoot movements like Identity 2.0, TV 2.0, Democracy 2.0, Law 2.0 is a major grassroots topic of interest. It's as simple as that.

To the detractors one can only remind them what Bill Watterson used to say: "It's not denial. I'm just selective about the reality I accept."

In your colleagues case it sounds like he may have been able to prevent it, but that is not always so with metadata that that vendor includes in your documents.

Fine, here's some commentary on MAP (which, in some cases is allowable, in others is not), from Product Distribution and the Internet: The Antitrust Issues:

Price-restrictive advertising that is not coop-supported, however, may remain per se unlawful. In the context of traditional brick-and-mortar dealers or distributors, this means that a manufacturer may run afoul of the antitrust laws by requiring adherence to MAP with respect to in-store promotions or other advertisements that are not coop-supported. In the context of the Internet, MAP restrictions binding an entire web site may constitute a violation if the manufacturer paid for only part of the site. Even if the manufacturer paid for the entire site, it may not restrict the prices advertised on other web sites linked to the original site. Complications may also arise if the dealer's or distributor's web site serves not only to advertise a product but also to take purchase orders. Under these circumstances, the manufacturer's advertising restriction may well be deemed the functional equivalent of resale price maintenance, and it would be unlawful per se.

Limitations on dealers' advertising of discounts on the Internet may also be problematic, at least where websites take purchase orders and posted prices might be considered the equivalent of instore price stickers.

Since the Sherman Act prohibits only "agreements in restraint of trade," manufacturers can unilaterally announce in advance that they will deal only with distributors who adhere to their pricing policies and can terminate those who depart from such a policy. On the other hand, a manufacturer that goes further and, confronted with a distributor that is not complying with its pricing policy, rather than terminate the distributor, coerces or induces the distributor into changing its prices, may violate the law. The problem is that subsequent compliance in response to pressure may be considered to form an "agreement" on prices. Thus, while "exposition, persuasion or argument" to influence dealers is generally allowed, threats of sanctions, policing, requiring approval of deviations, retaliatory price increases, and the like may support a finding of an illegal agreement, when they succeed in securing some indication of a dealer's assent.

During the 1st Session, two remedy-stripping provisions were added to the FY 2004 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill prior to House passage. Proposed by Rep. Hostettler (R-IN), they sought to prohibit CJS funds from being used to enforce the judgments in the Newdow and Moore cases. These intemperate provisions were dropped when the CJS bill was incorporated into the final FY 2004 omnibus appropriations bill.

H.R. 3313 (Hostettler, R-IN), legislation to amend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed the House in July 2004 by a vote of 233-194 but never received any action in the Senate. It sought to strip all federal courts of jurisdiction over one of the provisions of the 1996 DOMA that gave states the option of not granting "full faith and credit" to same-sex marriages recognized by another state. If enacted, it would have preempted the role of the federal courts to determine the constitutionality of the federal DOMA statute.

H.R. 2028 was introduced by Representative Akin (R-MO) in May 2003 to strip the lower federal courts of jurisdiction to "hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution." The bill quickly garnered extensive sponsorship and, a month later, the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair introduced identical bill S. 1297. The House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 2028 on a party-line vote in September 2004 after an amendment was adopted to strengthen the jurisdiction-stripping provisions. A week later, the House passed this ABA-opposed bill by a vote 247-173, but the Senate never acted on it.

H.R. 3799 (and similar bills, H.R. 1547, S. 2082 and S.2323) sought to deny all federal courts jurisdiction to hear or decide any case involving federal or state statutory provisions relating to religious freedom, prohibit courts from using or relying on foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements, and provide for the impeachment and removal of judges who violate the bill's prohibitions. The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this blatantly unconstitutional bill but did not mark it up or take any further action.

In addition to these court-stripping bills, other legislation action was undertaken to limit the discretion of federal judges.

H. Res. 568 (Feeney, R-FL) sought to affirm the sense of Congress that judicial decisions should not rely on any foreign laws, court decisions or pronouncements of foreign governments unless they have been incorporated into U.S. laws by Congress or "inform an understanding of the original meaning of the laws of the U.S." The resolution was so broadly worded that it would have limited the ability of the federal judiciary to interpret treaties or apply the "law of nations." A House Judiciary subcommittee approved an amended version of the bill in May 2004. The ABA opposed this resolution. While such a resolution is non-binding, it nevertheless is pause for concern because it intrudes on the independence of a coequal branch of government and exerts a chilling effect on the decisional independence of our judges. Consider, for example, that Congressman Feeney, in an interview with MSNBC.com, stated, "To the extent they (judges) deliberately ignore Congress' admonishment, they are no longer engaging in good behavior in the meaning of the Constitution and they may subject themselves to the ultimate remedy, which would be impeachment."

H.R. 3920 (Lewis, R-KY) received no action, but deserves mention because it proposed the most extreme change to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Titled the "Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004," it sought to authorize Congress, by a 2/3 ma

The people at Gitmo are not conferred the status or treatment that apply to prisoners of war - they are placed in this facility specifically so these principles do not legally apply to them.

At least do some semblance of fact-finding before spouting off - here's a fucking link which comes up second in a google search of 'guantanamo bay pow':

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/winter03/detention.ht ml

You sure knocked her down good!

Unfortunately, it seems that you see feminism less as a complex and nuanced socio-political critique, and more as the aggregation of opinions you've read in Cosmopolitan and/or heard women talk about.

It may be a waste of time to try to explain, but for the sake of those who may have read your comment and thought "Hey, yeah! What business does she have making me hold the door? I'M oppressed!", here goes:

You must not have had many relationships... Not meant as in insult, it's just that any man whose been in relationships with women know that this is completely false.

Just because your wife can make you do the dishes does not mean that women as a global class are empowered. This is the kind of folsky wisdom that is hilarious when it's in a "Cathy" comic, but when applied to reality, it's a dangerous denial of the fact that:
"as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995."
(according to http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html)

Ahhh yes, bringing about equality through inequality. "I WANT TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS A MAN! NOW HOLD THAT DOOR OPEN FOR ME!"

Most women (I would claim the vast majority) would gladly pick "Not being objectified, cat-called, occasionally terrorized, and generally humiliated based on my gender" over "Not having to open doors or pay for dinner". I'm not saying that some women don't want it both ways (and who can blame them? I like it when someone pays for my dinner, too!), but that gets back to the fact that you don't seem to have a very clear understanding of what feminists really want, as opposed to what some random women you know want.

There's a lot of FUD surrounding gender issues, mainly because everyone thinks they understand "men" and "women" as social classes based solely on their own interpersonal experience.

It's a lot bigger than that.

Yes and no. For federal grand juries, at least, the lawyers and the jurors are sworn to secrecy. The witnesses, however, are not, and may reveal both the questions they were asked and the answers they gave.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

Why can a grand jury witness talk about his or her testimony?

In the federal courts, the witness is not sworn to secrecy, and may disclose whatever he or she wishes to whomever he or she wishes. The witness exemption was adopted in part because it was thought that requiring witness secrecy was unrealistic and unenforceable, and in part to allow the witness to rebut rumors concerning his or her testimony. There is a basic revulsion in the United States about secret testimony.

I hadn't thought of this, and it's a very good point. However, it shouldn't be too difficult to check the ABA directory or similar state directories, then call the law office. One need only as for the lawyer who sent the email, and if he actually exists, state your name and say you wish to discuss "our case". If he has no idea what you're referring to, then you can be pretty sure it was a prank.

http://www.abanet.org/legaled/standards/chapter3.h tml/
I trust that this makes it perfectly clear... BY ABA/AALS regs.
You can complete the degree in as few as 24 months:

Standard 304. COURSE OF STUDY AND ACADEMIC CALENDAR.

(a) A law school shall have an academic year of not fewer than 130 days on which classes are regularly scheduled in the law school, extending into not fewer than eight calendar months. The law school shall provide adequate time for reading periods, examinations, and breaks, but such time does not count toward the 130-day academic year requirement.

(b) A law school shall require, as a condition for graduation, successful completion of a course of study in residence of not fewer than 58,000 minutes of instruction time, except as otherwise provided. At least 45,000 of these minutes shall be by attendance in regularly scheduled class sessions at the law school.

(c) A law school shall require that the course of study for the J.D. degree be completed no sooner than 24 months and not longer than 84 months after a student has commenced law study at the law school or a law school from which the school has accepted transfer credit.

Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit?

Depends on what stage you're talking about. Everything I've been involved in got dropped or was settled before getting to court. But my legal career is still just getting started, so ask again sometime. Mostly though, I expect to be doing transactional work.

I'll defer to you on the methodology of the numbers, but you seem to have a rather positive view of the legal system.

Well, I'm a lawyer. Generally I find that when you study the system carefully for several years, you find that it's designed pretty sensibly, and that numerous alternatives tend to be considered and if rejected, for a good, if perhaps subtle, reason.

But it seems to me that it is subject to upfront agreements and forgive me if I'm somewhat jaded as to what reasonable means.

Well, sort of. Contingency fees are not available in some areas -- divorce proceedings, for example. But when they are, the decision as to whether to pay one is up to the client. They can always pay the up-front hourly fee, whether they win or lose, and keep the award to themselves. The worst a lawyer can do is not take a case of a client that comes in the door.

As for the reasonable amounts, 1/3 is the common practice. Sometimes fees might be paid in some form other than money (e.g. a business might pay in equity) but these sorts of things are on thin ice, and while sometimes allowable get watched closely.

Anyway, you might be interested to read the Rules of Professional Conduct. All jurisdictions have them, and lawyers are obligated to follow them or risk being sanctioned or disbarred. Bars generally require applicants to the bar to have either taken certain classes in them, or to have achieved certain scores on the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam (which is distinct from the LSAT or Bar Exam).

Hello
I do not like this "empty" academic talks about is IP a real term for copyright, patents etc. or it is not. This term is in use and there is no need to discuss about it, unless You are a law professor and got a lot of free time to spent for such polemics ;) Yes it covers copyrights and industrial property rights (industrial property term was taken from French law doctrine and covers patents, utility designs, industrial designs trade marks, geographical indications etc. depends on which legal system we talk).
Anyway. Each country got different patent law and rules about to become a lawyer at all. Generaly speaking in USA to become a lawyer You have to be educated in a law school (it was not needed 150 yrs ago. ;) and You need to pass a bar exam (each state proviedes its own bar ex. but all are unified by American Bar Ass. rules). To become a patent attorney You need to pass USPTO exam. There are different positions for example You can be a patent examiner and there is no need to have law education.
You as an inventor can apply for a patent or a design for yourself at USPTO. Its easy. Of course they suggest You to take an advice of a PA to avoid mistakes.
ABA rules statue that You have to be a legal advisor (lawyer, patent attorney) in the field You are specialised.
For more details check USPTO web page and American Bar Ass. web page.
Hope I help You a little.
Tomasz Rychlicki
www.rychlicki.net

When the user demanding access to the box I support because he's the "IT" person and he's had a unix class so he knows what he's doing and knows nothing about our applications and when supporting him on a different box that isn't ours to support (just to be nice) and he's told to press control-c asks if that is "capital control-c?", he's not getting access.

Now submitter anomaly isn't that confused, but the point for needing external support is that he can't support it himself. Maybe there's reasons the product has to work the way it does. If not, like everyone says, get a different vendor.

Or ... get an open source application and change it to do what you want, that's the beauty of open source!

The rules in the merchant agreement state that the card must be signed - blank cards can be signed right there, but anything other than a signature invalidates the card.

A signature need not take the form of one's name though. Any mark made with the intention of agreeing to or validating a document can be considered a signature. When the person wrote the words "Check ID" on their card they are making a mark with the intention of agreeing to the terms of the card.

Here is some further reading dealing with digital signatures but touches upon what defines a signature. American Bar Association and The Journal of Information Law and Technology.

Is it worth it to try and argue what a signature is with the 800 lb gorilla that the the Credit Card company is though? Probably not... It's probably easier just to get one of those CitiBank cards with your photo on it.

They are regulated. How well is an exercise left to the reader.

Let's see now: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Do you want to explain where in there, exactly, the government has any right to ban assault weapons?

There are lots of instances where the government has the right to ban or restrict certain kinds of speech.

Actually, US law, and all common law jurisdictions (as opposed to civil law) is derived from the law of the English King. Look up Matthew Hale if you're not inclined to believe wikipedia.

Is no reason to justify making the rest of my life incomprehensible

But that is exactly why the law is so complex: because life is. Here's an example: Let's say there is a statute that says "No vehicles in the park," and it was enacted 50 years ago. Very few people drive cars or airplanes through the park, so it's not really a big deal and the statute has never been challenged. Now let's say that someone on a bycycle runs over a pedestrian in the park? Vehicle? Well, probably not. Why was the statute enacted? To protect the quality of the grass and park in general? Well then a bike is fairly unobtrusive, so a bicycle is allowed. Or was the statute enacted to protect pedestrians in the park? If that is the case, and this guy just got bowled over, can he point to the statute and say "this guy did something forbidden!"?

So the bike is sort of ambiguous, but probably would not be considered a "vehicle" per se. But what about a motorized scooter the kids use today? What about a Segway?

Life is complicated and full of exceptions. Add on top of that that people feel differently. A majority of Texans may feel that carrying a gun in public is ok, so in Texas it's ok. A majority of Virginians may disagree, so it's not ok in VA. Now that's all fine and well for states and "the people" can understand the law where they are from. But how does this come into play when the nation chooses one way or the other? How do the Federal and the States resolve their different "feelings" about how the people should live and act? The law is complicated because life is.

Lawyers - as a practice - enable a government to create overly complicated rules

As I said, it's life that is complicated. You may say "anyone that runs over another in the park not only committed a tort of battery, but they should be fined for violating the statute." The guy that did the running over may agree that he committed a battery (or may not), but he will certainly contest that he violated the statute. You disagree, depsite the fact that the statute is in the language of the people.

such as thurgood marshall and a few pro-bono cases

A little factoid: It's not a few pro bono cases. Many states have policies encouraging/requiring lawyers to perform a certain amount of of pro bono work. Looking at the chart, many of them are 50 hrs. That's over a week of work that you do for free! In the big scheme is that a lot to ask of one person? No. But how many jobs do you know of that ask that of its employees? And to do it every year? That adds up to a lot of pro bono cases, per lawyer.

Please provide the experiences you've had with lawyers. I work with them everyday and they really are not the bottom feeders everyone on /. makes them out to be. Yes there are bad apples. But there are bad doctors, bad programmers, and bad librarians, too, yet they are villified.

-truth

The US patent process is quite amusing in its own way. The main idea behind the US patent system is that "any" patent will be granted unless the Patent Office finds that there is prior art, or someone can claim prior art to the pending patent.

From the article:
"The overtaxed U.S. Patent and Trademark Office often grants absurdly broad patents that reflect little actual innovation. (For example, Microsoft owns a patent for activating a program on a handheld device by holding a button down for several seconds). And because it costs less to pay the toll than to hire lawyers and resist, smaller firms have no choice but to pony up."

As this is by all means a news-article rather than a factfinding mission into the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office I will regard the "facts" in the article as is.

In a document describing the general information about U.S. patents you can read the following:
"The patent law specifies the general field of subject matter that can be patented and the conditions under which a patent may be obtained".

A patent in the U.S. may be granted to anyone whom; "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent".

The following, from the same document describes the process of examination of an Patent application:
"The examination of the application consists of a study of the application for compliance with the legal requirements and a search through United States patents, prior foreign patent documents which are available in the Patent and Trademark Office, and available literature, to see if the claimed invention is new and unobvious. A decision is reached by the examiner in the light of the study and the result of the search".

In most cases when it comes to technology and patents the patents are granted and the burden of getting them revoked or stopped from being used falls on anyone who has prior art that the Patent Office did not discover in their work.

The Reference to a non disclosure contract was towards the Linux-kernel developers who may be given internal information from the findings of the OSRM. It was not intended to come out as if a U.S. patent can be put under a NDA, as it can not, since it is, like you put it, a public document.

Sorry for the bad wording, I've had a bussy day at work, and my english grade is not what I would want it to be :)

Sources and reference for this posting can be found at: USPTO, US Patent and Trademark Office General Information Concerning Patents.

According to Macedonia resident Sam Vaknin, economist, author and internet expert, "...commercially compiled lists of 'dangerous countries' for internet scams, viruses, lotteries, etc. are being sold to ISPs and hosting companies... every day, I find another website has disappeared... last week it was an investment company related to Fidelity, yesterday a mental health website, today a radio program from the US."

While this appears to have been an entirely corporate initiative, political lobbying behind the scenes may also play a role.

"The fact that Russia and Israel- 2 epicenters of internet fraud and hacking on a global scale- 500 zillion trillion times bigger offenders than little Macedonia- are off the list is incredible," charges Vaknin. Yet these countries also have a much stronger political lobby within the United States than does the beleaguered Balkan state.

American ignorance of Macedonia (and the outside world in general) is revealed by this idiotic warning from the so-called "Bureau of Export Administration":

"...pay close attention to shipping or contact addresses located in countries with a high reported incidence of online fraud and many e-commerce web sites have found a high incidents of on-line fraud as well, such as Africa, Nigeria, Macedonia, Colombia, etc.."

Not only does this sentence violate grammar, it also transgresses geographical good sense (since when was 'Africa' a country?) and unfairly lumps Macedonia in with other, utterly different nations, quoting no specific sources to justify its inclusion in the list. And, despite its deceptive title and American-eagle background logo, the website (named "Exportbureau.com") is not governmental. Rather, this self-proclaimed "manufacturing and export information association" claims to be

"...a non profit organization [that] has been providing a completely free unbiased worldwide export manufacturing company directory to the worldwide public for the past 5 years since late 1998."

Or not...

On 19 March 2004, computer fraud was added to the Macedonian criminal code for the first time, in reaction to an initial (and relatively minor) upsurge of email lottery fraud and (non-internet) identity theft.

The first known case of identity theft in Macedonia occurred last year when a couple of young men, in affiliation with a foreign partner supplying plastic cards with magnetic strips, were able to knock off a few ATMs. However, the police soon put an end to this amateurish scheme, which succeeded in taking only 12,000 euros-peanuts in comparison to the $1.5 million snatched from New York ATMs by the Russian mafia in one case last year, or the Israeli mafia's multi-national ATM-milking efforts in 2002.

Moreover, Macedonia has a very low rate of general internet use. Leading Macedonian information technology site Metamorphosis rec

Not surprisingly, the ratio in Washington DC (where I am currently residing) is much higher. 41K resident (doesn't count commuters, and there are many commuters from VA and MD) lawyers in a population of 571K. That's more like 1 in 14 is a lawyer (but really it's worse than that because of the commuters). And that, my friend, probably explains the level of litigation in this country.

It's purely conflict of interest. The U.S. Patent Office makes money with each patent it grants. Even the application fee alone is substantial. Therefore, there is no economic incentive for the Patent Office to deny patents, no matter how dubious they are.

While I enjoy blaming the gubment as much as anybody, in this case I think you need to look at the lawyers. Who approves all the bogus and conflicting patents which lead to costly lawsuits? The USPTO. Who is the largest employer of intellectual property lawyers, according to the ABA? The USPTO. And who gets rich from the lawsuits? The lawyers. Coincidence? I don't think so.

The IP lawyers have basically managed to install themselves like little royalty who you have to tithe to in order to work in the software field. Because the sad fact is that software patents have basically made it illegal to write software without paying a lawyer to approve it, at least in the US. Hopefully we can keep getting away with it (until the lawyers get too greedy.)

Which brings up an interesting question: Wouldn't the DOJ be compelled to bring these suits on behalf of the porno industry? Otherwise the DOJ would seem to violate the principle of equal protection.

"What a fucking crock. The majority?"
Even though most people will not read this post, I think it is important to add one more comment. Lawyers are represented by national groups such as the American Bar Association (ABA). The conduct and rules of groups like the ABA do reflect on the character of lawyers. It was therefore interesting to see an editorial in Saturday's New York Times which discusses the proposed "revisions to the American Bar Association's code of judicial conduct". To guote a part of this editorial,
"The bar panel's newly unveiled proposals for revamping the Model Code of Judicial Conduct would actually weaken the core provision that requires judges to avoid not just actual impropriety in all their activities, but also the appearance of impropriety."
Related articles are here and here.

I am going to `break the rules' and comment on the noderation of my first post in this thread. I get mod points quite often (as do most of us, I suspect); I do not know if professors get more or fewer than other people. When I have mod points, I look at articles which have been modded down to see if this was deserved (and as the guidelines request, I look at comments modded -1 and higher). On some occasions, I notice a later post which says "mod parent up" or "mod parent down" AND includes good reasons for this request; I have thought about the arguments and, in some cases, modded the parent up or down. If moderators really think my first post was offtopic, uninteresting and inappropriate, then I request that you mod it down to -1.

Voir Dire in theory is pretty simple. Attorneys ask the prospective jurors questions trying to locate possible bias against their case. If they feel it's warranted, they can use one of their preemptory challenges to have the juror removed. And I agree with you that this sort of thing is a must have.

But some states let it go wayyy too far. North Carolina, for instance, allows for 16 total challenges in civil cases, 8 from each side. Capital cases are even worse, with 12 for each. It's almost like an entire trial before the trial. Now I have to ask, if you are having such a hard time finding 'fair and impartial' jurors that you have to be able to replace the entire jury box once and perhaps twice, isn't it a good sign that A) you have no case or B) you should have filed for a change of venue?

My feelings on jury nullification are mixed. On the one hand, it is a fantastic way to have stupid and bad laws nixed when some fool prosecutor tries to apply them. But like everything else, it can be taken to unhealthy extremes. Frankly, I just think that if one side is allowed to say, "You _have_ to judge the facts according to the letter of the law", which is patently untrue, then the other should be allowed to explain nullification. As it stands, judges almost always allow the former but never the latter. For instance, the federal prosecution of the medical marijuana guy a few months back; after the trial the jury was _livid_ when they found out that the 'crime' was explicitly legal by state law and that they had been prohibited from learning that. The feds completely ignored the state laws, and while this can be either good or bad (e.g., Brown vs Board of Education), the jury has to be informed of not only the facts of the case but the facts of the law as well. I mean, what's the point of having a jury be the final arbiter of law and order if we're then not even allowed to tell them the rules of the game?

The best advice above has been that you should have an attorney look at the contract and that any employer that won't accept reasonable modifications to that contract is going to be a problem to work for anyway.

But as to the practical matter of actually finding that attorney who specializes in such things and will help you out for a reasonable price, here's what to do: Look up your local Bar Association. They likely have a lawyer referral service that gets you a 30-minute consultation with an attorney for $25. Additional time negotiable. The link goes to such a program in Alameda County California, but you can find your own local association at the American Bar Association's website.

Give the ABA feedback, slashdot style: http://www.abanet.org/scripts/contactmail.jsp?to=q uestions

A lawyer can acquire an ownership interest in a client while he is representing them. Further the ABA sayeth not:

Formal Opinion 00-418
Acquiring Ownership in a Client in Connection with Performing Legal Services

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit a lawyer from acquiring an ownership interest in a client, either in lieu of a cash fee for providing legal services or as an investment opportunity in connection with such services, as long as the lawyer complies with Rule 1.8(a) governing business transactions with clients, and, when applicable, with Rule 1.5 requiring that a fee for legal services be reasonable. To comply with Rule 1.8(a), the transaction by which the lawyer acquires the interest and its terms must be fair and reasonable to the client, and fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client. The client also must be given a reasonable opportunity to seek the advice of independent counsel in the transaction and must consent to the transaction in writing. In providing legal services to the client's business while owning its stock, the lawyer must take care to avoid conflicts between the client's interests and the lawyer's personal economic interests as an owner, as required by Rule 1.7(b), and must exercise independent professional judgment in advising the client concerning legal matters as required by Rule 2.1. (emphasis added)

Bottom line is, what is the internet - a public place or a content provider? Because if it's a content provider, I see no basis for Southwest to get overturned. Newspapers don't have to include a CD-audio version in their distributions, do they?

Discovery occurs in civil cases as well as criminal. A quick trip to google will convince you of this.

See here for a nice description by the ABA of discovery procedures. That website, in fact, has a good description of how trials work in general.

Visa and Mastercard are convicted monopolists (actually duopolists).

As with Microsoft, you can choose to either support them because it's easy and everybody else does, or you can support their squeezed competition and help the market return to a state of fair competition where the consumers -- not the monopolists -- win.

It would seem that solicitor-client privilege is maintained were these communications end up on a prosecuting attorney's . I know in Canada that it is. I could research this if taken to task. A google search revealed this site that described the status of solicitor-client privilege in various countries. (OLD-2000)

Care to quote your statistical source?

How about the American Bar Association? They're citing the Journal of Trauma and say:

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely...

There has been some arguement about the number most often bandied about by gun control advocates, which is 43:1. An article that argues that this number is unfair states:

According to the study's classification of the deaths, there were 389 noncriminal deaths for only 2 intruder deaths, for a ratio of 194.5 to 1 so quoting the "43 times" in relation to intruders is a misrepresentation of the findings.

I guess they're trying to show that guns kill more noncriminals than even gun control advocates suggest. That's not what I would do if I was debating the point, but oh well. *shrug*

My wife and I are constituents of yours in Blacksburg, VA.

Reading through a recent American Bar Association network article about the ridiculous PriceLine patents, I was delighted to see your denunciation of the PriceLine patent:

"In calling for reform of the patent system, Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., ridiculed the PTO for granting the PriceLine patent. There was nothing novel or nonobvious behind it except its use in cyberspace, he insisted. 'The market economy of the Western world and the theory of microeconomics is predicated on individuals setting a price at which they are willing to purchase something.' "

As you know, Blacksburg has quite a few high-tech firms. The continued growth of our local economy relies on a legal system that reflects the honest and appropriate use and protection of intellectual property, not the gouging of loopholes and mistakes from an ill-informed government agency.

Keep up the good work!

- Miko O'Sullivan
Idocs.com

it redirected me to: http://www.abanet.org/nojavascript.html which reads:

Thank You for visiting abanet.org.

The ABA website relies heavily on JavaScript for display purposes. You currently do not have JavaScript turned on in your web browser.

Please enable JavaScript, then click here.

(i changed the link, so it pointed to their server)
Well what if i don't want to use javascript? What if i think it's annoying? what if i (gasp!) don't use a browser that supports it? I could use javascript, but i find it to be just one more annoying way of making things "pretty."

i think the information is more important than the presentation. why do people have to use javascript and flash everywhere? for a lot of people, that just makes it harder to view the web pages. there are some things that flash is suitable for. tragically, it is too often used for things like navigation bars.

I've ranted now, i'm better, i think.

it redirected me to: http://www.abanet.org/nojavascript.html which reads:

Thank You for visiting abanet.org.

The ABA website relies heavily on JavaScript for display purposes. You currently do not have JavaScript turned on in your web browser.

Please enable JavaScript, then click here.

(i changed the link, so it pointed to their server)
Well what if i don't want to use javascript? What if i think it's annoying? what if i (gasp!) don't use a browser that supports it? I could use javascript, but i find it to be just one more annoying way of making things "pretty."

i think the information is more important than the presentation. why do people have to use javascript and flash everywhere? for a lot of people, that just makes it harder to view the web pages. there are some things that flash is suitable for. tragically, it is too often used for things like navigation bars.

I've ranted now, i'm better, i think.

Actually, Manzi of Lotus made the crack about wanting to perform cashectomy on Borland. (IMHO, Borland should have stuck with compilers--they might not be the empty, burned out husk of their former selves they are today if they had.)

This week happens to be right before the annual spring meeting of the ABA Antitrust Section.

Long story - I had to dig out my old 'Wired' feature on "Oh, no, Mr. Bill!", The Fed's plan to reboot Microsoft - and they mentioned that, "Historically, the Supreme Court has timed its rare antitrust opinions right before this early spring antitrust powwow ... so the bar can kind of chew on it at this spring meeting", which is, this weekend! (Apr. 5-7).