Slashdot Mirror

In what way were the words rearranged?

What the judge said

182.
The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design.

190.
The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool. The overall impression produced is different.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2012/1882.html

What apple said

"The extreme simplicity of the Apple design is striking. Overall it has undecorated flat surfaces with a plate of glass on the front all the way out to a very thin rim and a blank back. There is a crisp edge around the rim and a combination of curves, both at the corners and the sides. The design looks like an object the informed user would want to pick up and hold. It is an understated, smooth and simple product. It is a cool design."

"The informed user's overall impression of each of the Samsung Galaxy Tablets is the following. From the front they belong to the family which includes the Apple design; but the Samsung products are very thin, almost insubstantial members of that family with unusual details on the back. They do not have the same understated and extreme simplicity which is possessed by the Apple design. They are not as cool."

http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/

It's a typo in the linked story. Item 64 of the ruling specifies Arial 11pt and Arial 14pt for particular things: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html

I just came here after finishing reading the ruling itself, [2012] EWCA Civ 1339. I find UK legalese rather easier to read than US legalese (not being a lawyer), and it's interestingly informal in some parts. It's also quite informative (the judges pointed out specifically which differences they found to be relevant, such as the iPad's registered design being intentionally symmetrical, and the Galaxy Tab having an obvious intended orientation due to the addition of the word "SAMSUNG").

SOCPA 2005 section 71 gives Police Authorities and Police Forces ("Services") immunity from prosecution if they turn evidence in any other proceeding; since this is a blanket immunity, then it's practically impossible to prosecute the Police by any other than charges at Common Law (ie, rape, robbery or murder).

HOWEVER:

This case describes the first case decided on SOCPA sections 71 through 75; basically it allowed an individual to plead down, on appeal, by turning evidence in an ongoing case. His sentence went from 17 years for (among other things) drug possession to 3.

To date, no police officer in the UK has ever been prosecuted for the wrongful death of another. All they have to do is turn evidence in a lesser crime like cannabis possession, and they're off!

The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take comments down? And what is to stop fake comments from being posted to attract further payment?

Fortunately for the solicitors in England and Wales, action was taken by the Law Society and the owner of the site was forced to take the site down and suffer the consequences of poorly defended legal action.

That action was taken by the Law Society as the only option available to the libeled solicitors was to launch an individual libel claim. The owner of the site had to respond to such claims and didn't fair particularly well in these either, particularly when it was clear that he had offered to take the comments down for a payment (see paragraph 23).

The correct way to legally extort money is to call it an investigation and processing fee, rather than an offer to take the review down. The investigation will inevitably turn up the fact that the review was not submitted in good faith and/or by a nut job, and it will be taken down, which is what the lawyer wanted, but the investigation and processing fee in that case would be legitimate, even if the whole thing was automated or partially automated - there's no reason you wouldn't pay some broke college student 1-2% of the processing fee to actually perform an investigation process on a contract rather than a permanent employment basis, as piecework, in order to avoid actually becoming an employer, and as long as you paid your taxes, there's pretty much nothing to be done about it.

To avoid any appearance of impropriety whatsoever, you could also post positive reviews, and justify listing all negative reviews before positive ones on the basis that people in need of a lawyer would be best served by the review site by knowing as quickly as possible if the lawyer failed in a case similar to theirs -- so a lawyer with 100 reviews and a 96% positive rating would still have the 4 bad reviews listed before everything else that said good things, and that is what people would see first.

Taking this approach, $5 worth of investigation might not be enough, and even if it were, factually bad reviews would stick to a lawyer on the review site, which is maybe not a bad thing... it pretty much puts them in the same boat as trademark registration, where you have to zealously defend your trademark by spending money, only in this case, you pay the review site, rather than paying lawyers (perhaps adding some much needed symmetry to the universe in the process, but I digress...).

Note that I'm not recommending this as an honorable business model, but it's one that works pretty well for a couple of "review sites" here in the US, and in that case, even a libel case would have to name the original reviewer, rather than the site, as long as the site doesn't have employees posting the negative reviews in the first place (libel laws differ in the US, and astroturfing bad reviews in order to get people to pay for advertising is one of the techniques used by one of the putative review sites).

The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take comments down? And what is to stop fake comments from being posted to attract further payment?

Fortunately for the solicitors in England and Wales, action was taken by the Law Society and the owner of the site was forced to take the site down and suffer the consequences of poorly defended legal action.

That action was taken by the Law Society as the only option available to the libeled solicitors was to launch an individual libel claim. The owner of the site had to respond to such claims and didn't fair particularly well in these either, particularly when it was clear that he had offered to take the comments down for a payment (see paragraph 23).

The correct way to legally extort money is to call it an investigation and processing fee, rather than an offer to take the review down. The investigation will inevitably turn up the fact that the review was not submitted in good faith and/or by a nut job, and it will be taken down, which is what the lawyer wanted, but the investigation and processing fee in that case would be legitimate, even if the whole thing was automated or partially automated - there's no reason you wouldn't pay some broke college student 1-2% of the processing fee to actually perform an investigation process on a contract rather than a permanent employment basis, as piecework, in order to avoid actually becoming an employer, and as long as you paid your taxes, there's pretty much nothing to be done about it.

To avoid any appearance of impropriety whatsoever, you could also post positive reviews, and justify listing all negative reviews before positive ones on the basis that people in need of a lawyer would be best served by the review site by knowing as quickly as possible if the lawyer failed in a case similar to theirs -- so a lawyer with 100 reviews and a 96% positive rating would still have the 4 bad reviews listed before everything else that said good things, and that is what people would see first.

Taking this approach, $5 worth of investigation might not be enough, and even if it were, factually bad reviews would stick to a lawyer on the review site, which is maybe not a bad thing... it pretty much puts them in the same boat as trademark registration, where you have to zealously defend your trademark by spending money, only in this case, you pay the review site, rather than paying lawyers (perhaps adding some much needed symmetry to the universe in the process, but I digress...).

Note that I'm not recommending this as an honorable business model, but it's one that works pretty well for a couple of "review sites" here in the US, and in that case, even a libel case would have to name the original reviewer, rather than the site, as long as the site doesn't have employees posting the negative reviews in the first place (libel laws differ in the US, and astroturfing bad reviews in order to get people to pay for advertising is one of the techniques used by one of the putative review sites).

There was a similar case in the UK a couple of years ago. A person opened a website to allow others to berate lawyers and there were many comments posted - mostly by nutjobs or ill-educated individuals who had been through the mangle of the judicial system and wanted to blame somebody.

The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take comments down? And what is to stop fake comments from being posted to attract further payment?

Fortunately for the solicitors in England and Wales, action was taken by the Law Society and the owner of the site was forced to take the site down and suffer the consequences of poorly defended legal action.

That action was taken by the Law Society as the only option available to the libeled solicitors was to launch an individual libel claim. The owner of the site had to respond to such claims and didn't fair particularly well in these either, particularly when it was clear that he had offered to take the comments down for a payment (see paragraph 23).

Or course, the internet will find a way as sites do pop back up out of the court's jurisdiction

Comment: There is merit in having an open forum for fair comment against a professional body and its members but it has to be regulated. Changes have recently occurred in the UK legal sector so that sanctions are now registered and it is possible to search against solicitors and see recent decisions.

There was a similar case in the UK a couple of years ago. A person opened a website to allow others to berate lawyers and there were many comments posted - mostly by nutjobs or ill-educated individuals who had been through the mangle of the judicial system and wanted to blame somebody.

The difficulty with the site is that the owner offered to delete the comments upon payment of £299 (around $500). If the purpose of the site was genuine (to allow complaints to be 'heard') why was it possible to take comments down? And what is to stop fake comments from being posted to attract further payment?

Fortunately for the solicitors in England and Wales, action was taken by the Law Society and the owner of the site was forced to take the site down and suffer the consequences of poorly defended legal action.

That action was taken by the Law Society as the only option available to the libeled solicitors was to launch an individual libel claim. The owner of the site had to respond to such claims and didn't fair particularly well in these either, particularly when it was clear that he had offered to take the comments down for a payment (see paragraph 23).

Or course, the internet will find a way as sites do pop back up out of the court's jurisdiction

Comment: There is merit in having an open forum for fair comment against a professional body and its members but it has to be regulated. Changes have recently occurred in the UK legal sector so that sanctions are now registered and it is possible to search against solicitors and see recent decisions.

Ok, so I spoke to an expert in company law today about this, and basically the rules on multi-jurisdiction incorporation come down to whatever each country's laws say. So you can have a company operating in different jurisdictions, provided it complies with the rules for incorporation in both countries.

Obviously is is possible for a company to work in different countries, otherwise how would it be able to set up/own/run a subsidiary in that country.

Do you mean to say that if the court in India order Google India to share private emails of American Senators, Google USA has to comply,since these are "same entities"? Keep in mind, that by undergoing incorporation in India, Google India is obligated to follow India's jurisdiction.

I'm going to use the Google UK because I have better access to UK legal and corporate stuffs, so here we go, after some digging:

So, the UK version is Google UK Ltd (a private company limited by shares). You can find details at Companies House (the site doesn't seem to like linking). According to this site, Google UK Ltd is wholly owned by Google International LLC (a US limited liability company). According to this document (and the previous site, but this is probably more reliable; there's at least one mistake/out of date bit of info on that one), Google International LLC is wholly owned by Google Inc (the US public company).

Aren't group structures fun...

So, let's say Google UK Ltd breaks English law, the principle of incorporation probably means that any judgment can only be enforced against Google UK Ltd. However, were an English court to issue a judgment against Google Inc, they might be able enforce it against Google UK Ltd (due to it being an asset of Google International LLC and thus of Google Inc. That will depend on the various rules of tracing etc.

Now, can Google Inc be sued in the UK? Probably. While not conclusive, there is this case. In this one, Google Inc and Google UK Ltd were sued for defamation under English law. At paragraph 2, the court notes that Google Inc is a US-registered company, and at paragraph 4, that Google UK Ltd was "improperly joined" to the proceedings, so aren't relevant. Google Inc had applied to the court to not exercise its jurisdiction (under CPR 11(1) and (6) - if you want more details, examples of when claim forms can be served out of jurisdiction - that is, on foreign persons - can be found in 6D PD 3.1 here).

It's not conclusive because the court decided not to exercise its jurisdiction because it didn't think the claim had a decent chance of success, rather than because it didn't think it had jurisdiction. However, it may be being appealed.

Anyway, so yes; if court in the UK ordered Google UK Ltd (or Google Inc) to hand over private emails of US senators, either Google would be required to do so, or face a fine for contempt of court (which, if made against Google Inc might be enforceable by seizing Google UK Ltd, as an asset of Google Inc - but probably wouldn't work the other way around unless there was a statutory method of going back up the chain). It could try to dispute jurisdiction, but could lose.

International law doesn't really come into it, as it is all done within each country's own jurisdiction (and international law is fairly wishy-washy anyway).

So... erm, yes, isn't law fun, or something?

Do you have a source for any of that?

Because I have a source contradicting it. A quick check through recent reported case decisions of the English courts includes this case, dated 5th September, where the defendant is a US company, and also this one where the claimant is a US company, dated 31st July. And that was just a quick search for "Inc" (which is a US abbreviation; the UK equivalents are Ltd or plc., or their Welsh translations).

Do you have a source for any of that?

Because I have a source contradicting it. A quick check through recent reported case decisions of the English courts includes this case, dated 5th September, where the defendant is a US company, and also this one where the claimant is a US company, dated 31st July. And that was just a quick search for "Inc" (which is a US abbreviation; the UK equivalents are Ltd or plc., or their Welsh translations).

According to the English Courts, the allegation is that he had sex with a woman "improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state" (see paragraph 3.4 of this).

It's shady, but for some reason, courts keep finding that it isn't shady enough to dismiss outright. Perhaps the situation isn't as shady as it has been made out, or maybe all these judges have been bought off.

And yes, he is accused of rape. Not "rape", not even "Swedish rape", but actual rape. "Failing to use a condom" is something of a simplification. The rape allegation concerns having sex with someone who was allegedly asleep at the time, without a condom, knowing full well that she wouldn't have consented to it based on previous incidents. Which part of that doesn't sound like rape?

One of the sexual molestation (or sexual assault) accusations involves allegedly ripping a condom during sex. The other involves him allegedly taking some of his clothes off and rubbing himself against the woman, again knowing that she didn't want to have any sort of sexual contact with him. The final count involves forcibly holding someone down and trying to have sex with them when they didn't want to (due to the lack of a condom).

Now... maybe the allegations aren't true, maybe there's evidence against it and so on, but that doesn't matter at this point (as those are issues for trial). He is accused of a fairly serious set of criminal offences, he is wanted for prosecution of those offences.

If you want some sources, this is an old article looking into the initial allegations, or you could just read the English High Court judgment.

a) Nothing about this 'investigation' passes any known smell test. No matter how you sniff it, it smells of rat.

Some 5 courts and at least 10 judges have looked into this "investigation" and found nothing rat-like about it. But maybe you have a better nose than them (or more facts).

b) Yes, it's much, much easier for the USA to grab him from Sweden than the UK. Once he's there they can 'borrow' him with hardly any legal process.

Ok, after about half an hour of research, I think I've managed to find where the "temporary surrender" thing comes from (sorry, but I don't trust justice4assange.com to be entirely independent and unbiased). It seems to originate with Article VI of the Supplementary convention on extradition between Sweden and the US, signed in 1983, TIAS 10812. Apparently it's too old to be published anywhere official, but there's a copy here.

Article VI states:

If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:

(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or

(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.

Right, so what does this mean? Yes, Sweden can temporarily surrender him to the US for the purpose of prosecution. However, note the first 6 words; "If the extradition request is granted...". I'm not an international lawyer, but to me that means that the US must first apply for extradition, thus jumping through all the various hoops (both in Sweden and the UK, including challenges in courts) before they can even start looking into temporary surrender.

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why this process (being part of extradition, and an action carried out by the State, i.e. Sweden) wouldn't be subject to the ECHR, in particular, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and any others Assange might want to throw at the case. So using "temporary surrender" would actually be *harder* than normal extradition, as there is that extra step on top of everything else.

Thirdly, and the main reason to dismiss nearly all of his claims: if this is a problem, why isn't Assange arguing it in court? If he has, it must have been dismissed by the Court. On this point, we go to the initial extradition ruling, final major paragraph beginning "There was at one stage ..." Actually, I might as well just post the whole paragraph here as I seem to be pasting lots anyway... (emphasis mine):

There was at one stage a suggestion that Mr Assange could be extradited to the USA (possibly to Guantanamo Bay or to execution as a traitor). The only live evidence on the point came from the defence witness Mr Alhem who said it couldn’t happen. In the absence of any evidence that Mr Assange risks torture or execution Mr Robertson was right not to pursue this point in closing. It may be worth adding that I do not know if Sweden has an extradition treaty with the United States of America. There has been no evidence regarding this. I would expect that there is such a treaty. If Mr Assange is surrendered to Sweden and a request is made to Sweden for his extradition

Why won't a court issue the extradition request?

I did wonder that myself for a while; it seemed more expensive to fight the point in the Supreme Court than just to get a new EAW from a court but... I'm afraid the answer is "It's not done that way in Sweden." In Sweden, prosecutors are allowed to issue EAWs, and those EAWs are valid under EU law. If you want to know why, I will refer you to Lords Phillips, Walker, Mance, Brown, Dyson, Kerr and Lady Hale, also known as the United Kingdom Supreme Court (while Lady Hale and Lord Mance dissented, they argued that the surrender request wasn't valid under English law, not EU law).

Why won't the police interview him in the UK?

Because they don't want to just interview him (in the sense of just answering some questions). They want to continue their prosecution of him, and the next step of which involves a formal interview, while in custody, followed (if necessary) by charging. Again, that's the way it is done in Sweden. For more legalistic reasoning, I refer you to Sir John Thomas (also known as the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the England and Wales High Court), in his judgment at paragraph 160 (at the end).

You can doubt it if you want, but doubting something doesn't change the reality.

Why won't a court issue the extradition request?

I did wonder that myself for a while; it seemed more expensive to fight the point in the Supreme Court than just to get a new EAW from a court but... I'm afraid the answer is "It's not done that way in Sweden." In Sweden, prosecutors are allowed to issue EAWs, and those EAWs are valid under EU law. If you want to know why, I will refer you to Lords Phillips, Walker, Mance, Brown, Dyson, Kerr and Lady Hale, also known as the United Kingdom Supreme Court (while Lady Hale and Lord Mance dissented, they argued that the surrender request wasn't valid under English law, not EU law).

Why won't the police interview him in the UK?

Because they don't want to just interview him (in the sense of just answering some questions). They want to continue their prosecution of him, and the next step of which involves a formal interview, while in custody, followed (if necessary) by charging. Again, that's the way it is done in Sweden. For more legalistic reasoning, I refer you to Sir John Thomas (also known as the President of the Queen's Bench Division of the England and Wales High Court), in his judgment at paragraph 160 (at the end).

You can doubt it if you want, but doubting something doesn't change the reality.

I was going to do an "in before he hasn't been charged" reply to the OP, but obviously I'm too late.

1. Assange faces no charges in Sweden. There is not even an indictment.

True. But it doesn't really matter. For starters, "indictment" is an English word, and represents a common law concept of formal charges being brought. Sweden, being a civil law country may not have "indictments" in the US sense, in which case it wouldn't be surprising that one doesn't exist.

In paragraphs 128-154 of their judgment (I wonder how many times I've linked that on /. this week...), the English High Court considered whether or not Assange was "accused" of a crime and found he was. I could paraphrase what they wrote, but I think it is fairly clear:

... even if the court was constrained to determine whether someone was an accused by solely considering the question of whether the prosecution had commenced, we would not find it difficult to hold that looking at what has taken place in Sweden that the prosecution had commenced. Although it is clear a decision has not been taken to charge him, that is because, under Swedish procedure, that decision is taken at a late stage with the trial following quickly thereafter. In England and Wales, a decision to charge is taken at a very early stage; there can be no doubt that if what Mr Assange had done had been done in England and Wales, he would have been charged and thus criminal proceedings would have been commenced. If the commencement of criminal proceedings were to be viewed as dependent on whether a person had been charged, it would be to look at Swedish procedure through the narrowest of common law eyes. Looking at it through cosmopolitan eyes on this basis, criminal proceedings have commenced against Mr Assange.

I think that's pretty clear. So yes, he hasn't been charged, but that's not really important.

One of the women has retracted her allegations.

Again, this may not matter. I don't know much about Swedish criminal procedures, but traditionally prosecutions for crimes are brought by the state. It may be that one of the complainants has retracted her allegations and doesn't wish him to be prosecuted (although I'm not sure what you're source is for that - there's no mention of it in any of the legal proceedings I've read), but that doesn't mean a case cannot be brought. Unless she has changed her statements of fact, then the events supposedly still occurred, and a crime may still have been committed. Thus the Swedish prosecution authority may still have the right (if not a duty) to bring a case.

The "rape" allegations were cleverly manipulated and brought to public attention in an attempt to do several things.
- Prey upon Assange's personality and identify his persona as a synonym for Wikileaks.
- Move the core issues exposed by Wikileaks to the periphery of any examination.
- Assault the liberal/humanitarian orientation of any naturally inclined to support Wikileaks and Assange, creating dissension and re-aligning former supporters.

I have to wonder what you are trying to imply with those ""s... but anyway. The allegations do seem to do all of those. That doesn't mean they are intended to. If the facts given (and uncontested, it seems, by Assange's legal team) are true, there does seem to be an arguable case for "rape" and "sexual molestation" (although ianal), and something like 5 courts in Sweden and the UK have agreed this (or at least accepted that the original arrest warrant, and EAW were both valid).

Just because Assange runs/ran Wikileaks, doesn't mean he should be able to act with impunity in other aspects of his life.

It wasn't rape, everything was consensual.

According to the English High Court judgment (although maybe they're just corrupt, part of the establishment or untrustworthy for another reason) Assange is accused of two counts of sexual molestation, one of rape, and one of unlawful coercion. As it happens, the condom issue is one of the sexual molestations, the rape concerns having sex with someone while they are asleep (and thus unable to consent).

I don't know about American law, but at least two (possibly three) of those accusations could amount to rape under English law - and if it isn't the case in the US, perhaps that says more about the treatment of rape in the US. Whether or not what he did was actually rape (etc.) is a question of fact, based on complex evidence, where all sides of the story can be heard in an impartial situation... i.e. a trial.

Yes, this case is steeped in politics (which calls into question whether Assange will ever be able to get a fair trial), but at the heart of it *is* an accusation of rape.

[Posting anonymously to preserve mod points... this discussion certainly needs pretty heavy moderating due to the basic factual errors filling it.]

He didn't even do anything!!

He is accused of one count of "unlawful coercion", two counts of "sexual molestation" and one of "rape" (see the High Court judgment for details if you want them). Under English law, those would probably be three counts of rape, one of sexual assault. These are usually pretty serious crimes.

Whether or not he did them is something for a trial (involving due process, lawyers, judges, juries, evidence, witnesses, cross-examinations and so on). That is supposedly what Sweden want to do; hold a trial. However, under Swedish law (apparently), they can't hold the trial without him.

In theory, his running a website is irrelevant to this discussion.

I sat through some of the hearings in the Media CAT/ACS Law cases, which was the last big copyright in porn trolling case in the UK (although there's another one picking up at the moment). Every so often the judge had to refer to the films involved and there was always a slight hesitation and something along the lines of "I won't read out the names, but...".

[Damnit, losing mod points for this.]

There was a debate in the original submission comments about this. Perhaps the other tweet allegations should have been mentioned, but I strongly concur with the submitter's position.

Per Chambers para. [30], the guy who jokingly "threatened" to blow up an airport:

if the person or persons who receive or read it, or may reasonably be expected to receive, or read it, would brush it aside as a silly joke, or a joke in bad taste, or empty bombastic or ridiculous banter, then it would be a contradiction in terms to describe it as a message of a menacing character.

Therefore the sort of "ridiculous banter" which might be uttered by a serial troll (as this guy is - he has made several threats in the past to lots of people) does not seem on the face of it to be unlawful. The police would be acting overzealously, or possibly illegally, to arrest him on this basis.

But the question of what is indecent/obscene is far more vague, and would be a valid reason for the police to make an arrest.

This isn't particularly hard to sort out: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html

He's wanted for 4 charges; one of unlawful coercion, 2 of sexual molestation and 1 of rape (yes, actual rape, not scare-quotes "rape"). These are legal terms, so we need to apply the legal definition. There's quite a long discussion of the "dual criminality" aspect, and whether what he is accused of actually fits those crimes. The court found that they did. Assange didn't appeal that finding.

My understanding is that those charges are the translation of the Swedish charges. Under English law (ianal yet, but am a law student, and have studied sexual offences in some detail), the first of those sexual molestation counts could also be rape, the second could be sexual assault.

Of course, as you identified, rape (in English law) also requires some lack of consent (and no reasonable belief in consent) - force is covered within that (but does seem to be present in one case). Whether or not consent was there is an issue of fact. Quite a complex one, requiring all sorts of evidence, witnesses and probably rests with a decision of a jury. Thus it is a matter for *trial*, not for an extradition hearing. That's the way extradition works; you show you have a basic case, extradite, then hold the trial.

What he is accused of *is* rape, under both Swedish and English law. Whether what he did is rape is another issue entirely.

[Posting anonymously due to having spent a load of mod points earlier in this discussion.]

Will the actual details as presented in the European Arrest Warrant suffice?

For somebody who's "read them all," how exactly did you miss the press release summarizing today's judgement, as well as the judgement itself, which details this information?

Have you just been re-reading Joce640k's AOL News link that he's been spamming all over this article, and assuming that's the only information available?

Okay, I'll bite, since I actually could be bothered to read some of the actual source material. 2 counts of "molestation," a count of "unlawful coercion," and a count of "rape." - and it's very important that you understand that these are translated from the Swedish legal terms (as was "sex by surprise" - a literal translation of the category of crime), and thus are specifically defined in the law of Sweden; The Swedish terms may not conform to your personal definitions of "what constitutes molestation or rape."

The European Arrest Warrant contains four incidents that he is wanted for questioning in relation to:

"1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation -On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity." (para 3)

Source: The press release detailing this information and summarizing the Judgement issued today.

I'm gonna say that the actual charges outlined in the EAW and the actual text of the actual press release & judgement issued by the relevant courts in the UK hold a little more water than some random, 2-year-old AOL News article. If you disagree, you're welcome to present your legal reasoning, but it shouldn't take the form of blind dedication to your internet hero who "couldn't possibly have behaved like a douchebag to a couple women in Sweden."

From paragraph 1 of the judgment (Lord Phillips's opinion):

The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include "sexual molestation" and, in one case, rape.

More (NSFW?) details of the alleged offences are set out in the High Court judgment (which actually considered them) and the relevant press release, which can be found here - the important part being in the introduction.

He hasn't been charged with anything, he is wanted in connection with those offences which he is merely accused of. That is enough, under EU law, for an extradition.

From paragraph 1 of the judgment (Lord Phillips's opinion):

The offences of which he is accused and in respect of which his surrender is sought are alleged to have been committed in Stockholm against two women in August 2010. They include "sexual molestation" and, in one case, rape.

More (NSFW?) details of the alleged offences are set out in the High Court judgment (which actually considered them) and the relevant press release, which can be found here - the important part being in the introduction.

He hasn't been charged with anything, he is wanted in connection with those offences which he is merely accused of. That is enough, under EU law, for an extradition.

If it helps, they did complain. They sued the police and FACT to get their equipment back after the charges were dropped (or rather a decision was made not to charge them). They lost on appeal.

England doesn't have plaintiffs any more, and this is a criminal case anyway, so it's a prosecutor.

But yes, they did try to get it thrown out, or rather, they sued the police and FACT (the MPAA's UK enforcement minions) to get back their equipment, but lost on appeal. Apparently it was all perfectly legal.

The MPAA (through their UK minions, FACT, a "private commercial organisation, representing the interests of the audio-visual industry") did some investigating to find out who the operator of SurfTheChannel.com was. After various undercover meetings, fake deals and that sort of thing, they were able to identify the operators as a UK-based couple. Then they set the police on them.

The police turned up, with FACT people, and arrested the couple, seizing a load of evidence, and a FACT specialist was able to copy a load of data from the computers (and may have done so illegally). While in custody the couple were interviewed with FACT people present, FACT were able to examine the evidence, and eventually most of it was handed over to them for analysis.

Eventually, the couple were released and the CPS (who decide whether or not to bring prosecutions) decided not to charge them. The police then handed the rest of the evidence over to FACT who wanted it so they could run a private prosecution. The couple sued the police and FACT to get their stuff back (after their direct requests were refused). These facts all come from the resulting case (Scopelight Ltd & Ors v Chief of Police for Northumbria & FACT) which FACT won on appeal.

The initial arrests were in August 2008, the CPS gave up in December 2008, FACT filed their private prosecution in February 2009 and that appeal was ruled on in November 2009. This new information has come to light because that private prosecution is currently being heard in Newcastle Crown Court.

The other major fact that emerged was that the US programmer who worked on the site was arrested by US authorities, but managed to get out of being convicted for his part in exchange for agreeing to testify in the UK case. So the US let an alleged criminal go so he could help a private, UK-based company win a private prosecution in the UK.

Well, blame copyright laws, don't blame the judge for his application of broken laws.
What I wanted to point is that the judge ruling is fair according to current laws : the defendant shot a close-looking photo on purpose to avoid a licensing fee for a copyrighted work.

If they paid him before, yes.

Actually, at first, they didn't pay him, so there was a first lawsuit
They then settled for a royalty of 5% of the trade sale price, for past and futures sales.
Not willing to pay the royalty for future sales, they changed the picture.
Hence the second lawsuit.

Well, blame copyright laws, don't blame the judge for his application of broken laws.
What I wanted to point is that the judge ruling is fair according to current laws : the defendant shot a close-looking photo on purpose to avoid a licensing fee for a copyrighted work.

If they paid him before, yes.

Actually, at first, they didn't pay him, so there was a first lawsuit
They then settled for a royalty of 5% of the trade sale price, for past and futures sales.
Not willing to pay the royalty for future sales, they changed the picture.
Hence the second lawsuit.

The full judgement is here that provides the legal basis for the decision, which states that copyright covers "intellectual creation". Specifically, note the following in the "Subsistence of copyright" section:

17. Copyright subsists in original artistic works (s1(1)(a) of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988). "Artistic work" means "a graphic work, photograph, sculpture or collage irrespective of artistic quality" (s4(1)(a)). "Photograph" means a "recording of light or other radiation on any medium on which an image is produced or from which an image may by any means be produced, and which is not part of a film" (s4(2) of the 1988 Act).

18. At trial it was common ground that the impact of European Union law meant that the judgment of the CJEU in the Infopaq case (C-5/08 [2010] FSR 20) was such that copyright may subsist in a photograph if it is the author's own "intellectual creation". After trial it was also common ground that the recent judgment of the CJEU in the Painer case (C-145/10, 1st December 2011) was to the same effect and did not necessitate further submissions from the parties.

19. Mr Edenborough also referred me to and relied on O (Peter) v F KG ([2006] ECDR 9) decided on 16th December 2003. This is a decision of the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court). It is a court which comprises judges with considerable expertise in intellectual property matters. The court there was considering a claim to copyright in photographs of grape varieties used as illustrations in a book. They were applying an approach to copyright based on the principle that the work must be the creator's own intellectual creation. They held (in translation):

In accordance with more recent jurisdiction of the finding Senate, photographs are to be considered photographic works in the sense of s.3(2) UrhG (Copyright Law), if they are the result of the creator's own intellectual creation, with no specific measure of originality being required. What is decisive is that an individual allocation between photograph and photographer is possible in so far as the latter's personality is reflected by the arrangements (motif, visual angle, illumination, etc.) selected by him. Such freedom of creation does certainly exist not only for professional photographers with regard to works claiming a high artistic level, but also for a lot of amateur photographers, who take pictures of everyday scenes in the form of photos of landscapes, persons and holiday pictures; also, such photographs shall be deemed photographic works, as far as the arrangements used cause distinctiveness. This criterion of distinctiveness is already met, if it can be said that another photographer may have arranged the photograph differently []. The two-dimensional reproduction of an object found in nature is considered to have the character of a work in the sense of copyright law, if one's task of achieving a representation as true to nature as possible still leaves ample room for an individual arrangement [].
(Paragraph 2 1. of the judgment. References have been omitted.)

20. Although the language used in this judgment differs from the way in which an English court would traditionally express itself in a copyright case, I believe there is no difference in substance between the law as applied here by the Austrian Supreme Court and the law here. A photograph of an object found in nature or for that matter a building, which although not natural is something found by the creator and not created by him, can have the character of an artistic work in terms of copyright law if the task of taking the photograph leaves ample room for an individual arrangement. What is decisive are the arrangements (motif, visual angle, illumination, etc.) selected by the photographer himself or herself.

A bad example -- outside of the UK, truth is an absolute defense when accused of libel :-p

Oh god, not this again. In the UK, truth is an absolute defense against defamation suits. In the US it is not, because the claimant has to establish grounds for the believing the statement to be untrue before the suit can be pursued,

The UK libel laws are fairly shit, but they are not quite as bad as is sometimes claimed, especially following some House of Lords decisions in the past 15 years which expanded the range of defences dramatically. See for example Jameel and others (Respondents) v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl (Appellants) in which the WSJE won their case because they had met reasonable journalistic standards despite the fact that the claims that some people were associated with terrorists were ultimately untrue.

Bear in mind that when you read about UK libel laws - whether in a left-leaning or right-leaning publication - you are most likely to be reading the words of professional journalists and writers. They have a deep interest in having as much of a shield from liability as possible, just like the audit firms say they shouldn't be responsible when firms collapse right after receiving clean audit opinions, and like doctors claim that medical treatment would be really cheap if they (or their insurers) didn't have to pay when they cripple their patients. After all, most of the media is a business. Even if the paper is not making much bottom line profit, there are still a lot of people making their livelihoods from it and if they never have to pay to clean up the mess they make of other peoples lives it makes their jobs a lot easier and more profitable.

UK, but only if they do not comply after removal is requested (cf Godfrey vs Demon Internet Ltd). AFAICT, this ruling appears to suggest that 3rd party comments can remain even if removal is requested in Italy, and so is contrary to the UK rule.

(IANAL, and have not read the ruling in question, so this is just my personal interpretation which is quite likely to be wrong...)

Also, if there were any European country that was *going* to hold the editor responsible, it would be Italy. Italy's defamation laws are absurd. Defamation is a criminal offence in Italy, and truthfulness of the statement is not an automatically accepted defence. This is a country that as recently as 2002 imprisoned a newspaper editor for running articles suggesting some judges were mismanaging cases and handing out inappropriate sentences.

It's also worth noting that the defendant in this case is Berlusconi's largest media rival, and the judicial process in Italy is well-known for being politically influenced at times. Whether this helped or hindered them in this case is hard to tell; Berlusconi's certainly had his downs recently...

The difference between this and the Newzbin2 ruling is that the Newzbin2 order was very specific that the Hollywood studios had to do all the monitoring etc..

While the order itself (given right at the bottom of the judgment) says that BT must "block or attempt to block access by its customers to the website known as Newzbin2 ... and any other IP address or URL whose sole or predominant purpose is to enable or facilitate access to the Newzbin2 website", which seems to be a general monitoring obligation the judgment made it clear that "[i]t will be the Studios' responsibility accurately to identify IP addresses and URLs to be notified to BT." In theory, all BT has to do is take IPs and URLs given to it and add them to its existing block-list. While BT may be able to use this new ruling if they end up appealing the Newzbin2 order (or if ISPs face further orders), I'm not sure how much use it will be.

The CJEU ruling sets an upper bound on the extend to which courts can order ISPs to enforce copyrights, but anything less than the ridiculously-wide order SABAM sought is still fair game.

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.

I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.

I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.

It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.

ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.

The UK's blasphemy law

The UK for all it's faults at very least hasn't got anything as bad as France's HADOPI yet, hasn't had anywhere near as bad web blocking orders as in Ireland or the Netherlands, and doesn't at least have as close to the amount of censorship as Germany. Oh, and Sweden is basically a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA now.

I'm so glad that the Digital Economy Act and s97A CDPA 1988 were figments of my imagination. I'm glad that the London police aren't extra-judicially working with the IFPI to block payments to sites they don't like, and aren't pushing Nominet into letting them seize domain names based on a mere accusation. On top of that, I'm glad the UK doesn't criminalise people for making harmless jokes on Twitter or for insulting people. While headscarves aren't illegal, the Police can remove and seize anything they think might be being used as a disguise. On the topic of censorship, the UK recently made it potentially illegal to draw stick-figure porn of overage people.

I suppose you can complain about our big brother state but really the reason we have a reputation in that respect is precisely because our population actually stands up and shouts about how unhappy we are with it, which is surely better than most other European states where it's at least as bad but just blindly accepted without much dissent.

The UK has the occasional protest, where people wander through the streets, accompanied by the police, a few of whom get arrested (for the wonderfully-vague "breach of the peace") and everyone goes home happy that nothing will change. Unlike peaceful places like Greece or France.

It's thanks to the fact we do have organisations like Liberty that these things are exposed for what they are attempts at but most the worst stuff our last government proposed that generated all said stories is dead now, the ID card database is gone, many CCTV programmes have been cut/scaled back, libel laws are being reformed.

ID cards went because they were expensive and ineffective (and no one wanted them)... although the database seems to still be around, although mainly used for foreigners. The DNA database is still up and running, despite being declared illegal, most of the "anti-terrorism" legislation New Labour introduced is still on the books aside from the bits the courts struck down (although they're mostly still on the books, just not being applied), including the various 'unreasonable stop-and-search' powers, and while libel-reform is in the works, and has some vague government backing, only last week the responsible minister pointed out to a meeting of the libelreform campaign that there's no guarantee it will happen any time soon. CCTV was never that big an issue (it was vastly exaggerated in the media), so I'll give you that one. Oh, and the UK also imprisons people for not disclosing passwords.

The UK's blasphemy law

It has become necessary that we all ignore copyrights from this point on, in civil disobedience.

From what I've seen, this is already happening - just not in civil disobedience. While some people who infringe/ignore copyright on a daily basis do so for some sort of political meaning, most of the millions of people across the world who infringe copyright - not just those who download music and films without a licence, but those who rip CDs, use photocopiers, sing or hum tunes in public or, in England at the moment, visit most websites - do so because they don't care enough to check whether what they're doing is lawful, and probably wouldn't stop even if they knew. If asked, many may say that they support copyright, and that they think it is important, but that only lasts while it doesn't get in the way of whatever they want to do.

This doesn't just apply to people, either; news organisations and many other companies are perfectly happy to go with a "use first, try to license later" model, which sometimes involves them having to pay up, but rarely ends up in court. The current state of copyright reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, except with laws passed to say the clothes exist, the Courts upholding those laws, and groups lobbying and pushing for even fancier, thinner and more expensive new fabrics for the clothes.

Actually refusing to answer without a lawyer can be mentioned in court but the jury should be directed that under normal circumstances no inference of intent or guilt should be made. Abnormal circumstances are when the time itself may affect the outcome of the crime or interfere with evidence, such as if there is a bomb set to go off imminently or a critically injured victim at an unknown location.

There was no jury in this case. It was tried in front of Reading Majistrates.

There is a difference between keeping quiet when questioned, which can cause inferences to be drawn in court, and refusing to be questioned without your legal rep being present, which cannot.

Actually refusing to answer without a lawyer can be mentioned in court but the jury should be directed that under normal circumstances no inference of intent or guilt should be made. Abnormal circumstances are when the time itself may affect the outcome of the crime or interfere with evidence, such as if there is a bomb set to go off imminently or a critically injured victim at an unknown location.

is available on BAILII.

(BAILII - British and Irish Legal Information Institute - is a very valuable resource indeed, for lawyers and those who simply want to understand the laws affecting their lives. legislation.gov.uk is another useful resource.)

Ah yes - the court found that he wasn't employed and so the s11 copyright ownership thing doesn't apply. Instead the court was willing to imply a term into the contracts between Ainsworth and Lucasfilm's people that any copyrights, design rights etc. would be owned by Lucasfilm. This is a fairly standard thing the Courts do in contract law (at least, as a first-year contract law student, it's something I've actually covered) - where a term can be implied into a contract through trade custom etc..

But, of course, this didn't matter as all three courts found that there was no copyright (in the helmets). Lucasfilm did, however, own the copyright in the Ralph McQuarrie sketches and the draft designs.

The relevant paragraphs are 182 - 189 in the HC judgment, and 196 - 208 in the CoA one.

Ah yes - the court found that he wasn't employed and so the s11 copyright ownership thing doesn't apply. Instead the court was willing to imply a term into the contracts between Ainsworth and Lucasfilm's people that any copyrights, design rights etc. would be owned by Lucasfilm. This is a fairly standard thing the Courts do in contract law (at least, as a first-year contract law student, it's something I've actually covered) - where a term can be implied into a contract through trade custom etc..

But, of course, this didn't matter as all three courts found that there was no copyright (in the helmets). Lucasfilm did, however, own the copyright in the Ralph McQuarrie sketches and the draft designs.

The relevant paragraphs are 182 - 189 in the HC judgment, and 196 - 208 in the CoA one.

If you want to know the details, the three UK judgements are all publicly available (under Crown Copyright).

The first instance High Court judgment contains most of the details, facts, evidence and arguments: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch) (July 2008)
The Court of Appeal judgment covers a few of the issues raised above (those which were appealed) in greater detail: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1328 (December 2009)
The Supreme Court judgment looks only at the issues of sculpture/utilitarian use and jurisdiction - but in even more detail: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (July 2011)

If you want to know the details, the three UK judgements are all publicly available (under Crown Copyright).

The first instance High Court judgment contains most of the details, facts, evidence and arguments: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch) (July 2008)
The Court of Appeal judgment covers a few of the issues raised above (those which were appealed) in greater detail: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1328 (December 2009)
The Supreme Court judgment looks only at the issues of sculpture/utilitarian use and jurisdiction - but in even more detail: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (July 2011)

If you want to know the details, the three UK judgements are all publicly available (under Crown Copyright).

The first instance High Court judgment contains most of the details, facts, evidence and arguments: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch) (July 2008)
The Court of Appeal judgment covers a few of the issues raised above (those which were appealed) in greater detail: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1328 (December 2009)
The Supreme Court judgment looks only at the issues of sculpture/utilitarian use and jurisdiction - but in even more detail: Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (July 2011)

I've explained some of this above, but ... basically, go away and read the High Court judgment - Mann J explains it all in quite a lot of detail. The court found that, on the balance of probabilities, Lucasfilm owned the design rights and copyrights in the props and the sketches for the props. Ainsworth argued that he made up the armour himself, Lucasfilm successfully argued (with evidence) that any input to the design he might have had was not substantial.

Much of the High Court judgment was taken up arguing this (as Ainsworth was counter-claiming that *he* owned the copyright in the helmet), but it was ruled that if there were any copyright or design rights they would be owned by Lucasfilm as there are presumptions about employers etc. owning things, and the evidence suggested that Ainsworth had only made minor modifications to the original designs, and these had all be approved by someone at Lucasfilm, possibly Lucas himself. [You can read the HC judgment here.]

However, the court found that the helmet (and the other props he sells) weren't sculptures, so not covered by copyright at all in the UK (the design right they're covered by expires after 15 years). While there are copyrights etc. owned by Lucasfilm in the sketches, plans, drawings for the helmet (and in the films, of course), there is a specific exception to UK copyright law (under s51, CDPA) for making models from plans - this doesn't infringe copyright in the plans (otherwise you'd need a licence for every set of flat-pack furniture or Lego model).

Yes - and the original English High Court case also concerned several other helmet designs. They just went with the stormtrooper helmet in the appeal courts (and press) because it was the most obvious, and the law applies the same to all of them.

The High Court judgment included an appendix with some of the original concept art and stills of models used as evidence and to describe the different models.

I'm not quite a lawyer, but there was an interesting discussion on whether Internet postings were slander or libel in Smith v ADVFN Plc & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 657 (see 7, and the previous High Court judgment by Eady J). Unfortunately as the appeal was dismissed by consent, and the claims were subsequently found to be without merit (due to not being defamatory or their being obvious defences), no conclusion was reached.