Slashdot Mirror

Freedom of speech is not the freedom to be an asshole.

Actually, yes it is.

Oh, and you're a fucking moron. I'm surprised you can even read. Your mama should have aborted you.

See what I did there? I used my freedom of speech rights to be an asshole. Get it now?

I hate to break it to the researchers, but getting a pack of rats to operate under the same collective consciousness has been done before

GP stated that "Bowman didn't sign it," not that "Bowman didn't sign it for his second plantings." The first suggests to the reader that he never agreed to the planting restrictions or was somehow innocently unaware of what he was doing. The second suggests that he was perfectly aware that what he was doing would violate at least the patents, if not the contract itself (there's no reason for the contract to be specific to that planting. as opposed to a period of time up until the patents expire).

It's funny how including what Bowman actually did gets the post moderated as a Troll, but accusing a company of suing 'innocent' farmers who purchase seeds in a very unusual way is +5 informative. Bias much?

Their resources page reads like a Who's Who of, well, sites anyone can link to?

We’re proud to provide you with the following resources:

Professional Organizations and Governmental Agencies

American Bar Association
Library of Congress
American Association of Justice
Association of Trial Lawyers of America

News and Information

The Wall Street Journal
CNN Legal News
The National Law Journal
Law.com

Legal Resources

United States Federal Law
U.S. Code Search

And the footer text of their pages:

Content copyright 2012. Yes It Is No Piracy - DMCA Remover. All rights reserved.

Clearly they were in the DCMA removal business.

Exactly who 'entitled' Samsung to investigate jurors?

The courts.

Free to the client, definitely, but the lawyer often gets something (non-monetary) out of the deal too.

The American Bar Association recommends 50 hours of pro bono service per year, and most state bar associations recommend various numbers of pro bono service per year, too. 7 states even have mandatory reporting of pro bono hours. The bar gives out awards to firms that do their pro bono work, too, and it seems pretty prestigious.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/aba_model_rule_6_1.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/reporting_of_pro_bono_service.html

Standing in a bar association is pretty much the go to prestige for an attorney, from what I can tell, and it's sort of the law equivalent to medicine's Hippocratic oath. A little.

Free to the client, definitely, but the lawyer often gets something (non-monetary) out of the deal too.

The American Bar Association recommends 50 hours of pro bono service per year, and most state bar associations recommend various numbers of pro bono service per year, too. 7 states even have mandatory reporting of pro bono hours. The bar gives out awards to firms that do their pro bono work, too, and it seems pretty prestigious.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/aba_model_rule_6_1.html
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/probono_public_service/policy/reporting_of_pro_bono_service.html

Standing in a bar association is pretty much the go to prestige for an attorney, from what I can tell, and it's sort of the law equivalent to medicine's Hippocratic oath. A little.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

While her nonprofit work might be commendable, what this woman is doing is abusing the power she has as an attorney. It's possible she's also violating Rules 3.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions.html, 4.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others.html, and/or others.

I'm sure it will get a lot of chuckles, but practicing lawyers cannot simply make things up, threaten people with actions they know (or at least that a competent attorney would know) are devoid of merit, or knowingly make a false claim. Such as "You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because..."

It's the kind of weasel hedge you'd expect from a crank, but one a Bar disciplinary committee could see through in a second. Because while technically she could sue (technically you can bring suit for just about anything), as an attorney she knows perfectly well that she cannot file frivolous claims and expect to escape sanction.

She needs to be checked, hard.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

While her nonprofit work might be commendable, what this woman is doing is abusing the power she has as an attorney. It's possible she's also violating Rules 3.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_3_1_meritorious_claims_contentions.html, 4.1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_4_1_truthfulness_in_statements_to_others.html, and/or others.

I'm sure it will get a lot of chuckles, but practicing lawyers cannot simply make things up, threaten people with actions they know (or at least that a competent attorney would know) are devoid of merit, or knowingly make a false claim. Such as "You cost me thousands in billable time and I could sue you. You are fortunate it came back up because..."

It's the kind of weasel hedge you'd expect from a crank, but one a Bar disciplinary committee could see through in a second. Because while technically she could sue (technically you can bring suit for just about anything), as an attorney she knows perfectly well that she cannot file frivolous claims and expect to escape sanction.

She needs to be checked, hard.

According to the survey, the number of medical school enrollees grew from 16,488 in 2002 to 18,390 in 2009 to 20,281 in 2014, a 23% increase. That is augmented by a faster percentage growth in osteopathic student enrollment, from 3,079 in 2002 to 5,104 in 2009 to 6,271 in 2014, a 103% increase from 2001. By 2018, the report says, medical school enrollment "is on track to reach the 30% targeted increase by 2018."

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/PHY-250808/Increasing-US-Medical-School-Spots-Wont-Increase-Physician-Supply#%23

Increasing the number of doctors would require that hospitals create and the government fund more residency slots. Not likely in the fight over budget deficits in the short term, despite the long term good it would do for the country.

There was no contract between youtube and megaupload, so there is no tortious interference.

There is not a requirement for a contract in order for there to be tortious interference of a business relationship merely a business relationship. I believe that if they can establish that without any action from UMG, YouTube would have hosted their commercial without removing it, then that could be considered a form of a business relationship, though a weak one. Some further research

Anything that UMG did technically is permitted under youtube's TOS, so as far as megaupload is concerned, UMG acted as youtube's agent.

Given YouTube's public statement that UMG had no right to take down the video, they would most likely not be considered an agent of YouTube. Again IANAL.

Actually, you are still ignorant, and perhaps not yet mature.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110510101621.htm

Also... (google and choose the cache if the pdf doesn't come up)
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/criminal_justice_section_newsletter/crimjust_juvjus_Adolescence.pdf

âoe[They] frequently know the difference between right andwrong and are competent to stand trial. Because of their impair-ments, however, by definition they have diminished capacities to understand and process mistakes and learn from experience, toengage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understandthe reactions of othersâ¦. Their deficiencies do not warrant anexemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their per-sonal culpability.âAtkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318,122 S.Ct. 2242, 2250 (2002)

âoeThe evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of con-sequences, and other characteristics that make people morallyculpableâ¦. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the âbiolog-icalâ(TM) age of maturity.â10

---
The brain continues to develop. Major parts of the brain which manage impulse control and logical thinking do not fully develop until later.

To claim that copyright is "killing" science is pure hyperbole, but his actual point is valid. I didn't watch TFV, but based on the mention of open access journals, I assume his point is the usual complaint that the millions of dollars universities give to Elsevier, Nature Publishing Group, et al. to buy access to journal articles their scientists write (based on research typically funded by the public), could be better spent on actual research. Here's an article about a recent spat between the University of California and NPG over these fees: http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-Tries-Just/65823/

Open access journals allow the same peer review process and attribution as the current model, the only trouble is the author is asked to shoulder the expense of the publication process (usually around $1000). Things are already moving in the right direction on this. Compare PlosOne (open-access) and Nature (paywall). See also the open access rules from the NIH: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm

On the topic of IP that translates into consumer goods and services, you have the Bayh-Dole act which allows universities to profit on developments made with publicly research funds. Unfortunately, because any research is built on other research, you have things like the patenting of a test for breast cancer gene BRAC by a single company, when most of the work that led to the test's development was publicly funded, and conducted at a range of different institutions. Now those instutions have to pony up to continue working on essentially the same research they were already doing. See http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/James.html

pontificating about the evils of software patents. Then he turned around and sued his biggest competitor, Barnes and Noble for infringing his one-click patent. Because when push comes to shove, those who have the weapons will use them.

The proper reaction to Google's statement is a collective eye roll.

Bull.

I'm sorry, but you're so far off-base, there's no way to even evaluate your statement. Google has been entirely on the side of patent reform since they started. We might disagree on some points (among ourselves and with Google), but there's no arguing which side of this battle they've been on.

Instead, let's try a history lesson:

• 2009 - Google files an amicus brief with the Supreme Court along with others who "share a grave concern about the threat to innovation posed by the issuance of patents on abstract ideas."
• Also in 2009 - Google works to support the Patent Reform Act, saying "Once a driver of creativity, our patent system now poses a hurdle for innovation."
• 2007 - Google argues for damages apportionment, among other useful reforms.
• Google is also a member of the Coalition for Patent Fairness, an industry lobby that attempts to push forward an agenda of patent abuse reform.
• Google also releases their specifications with patent licensing that explicitly allows open source implementation

Once again, Slashdot take careful aim at the supporters of our favorite causes... go us :-/