Slashdot Mirror

http://www.cfac.org/content/index.php/cfac-news/commentary20/

California Supreme Court decision, IFPTE, Local 21 v. Superior Court

Quote: "Significantly, the Court could have---but did not---limit its holding to employees earning over $100,000. While the justices no doubt were impressed by evidence of abuses and mismanagement concentrated at the high end of the public pay scale, they were careful not to ascribe any legal significance to the compensation threshold.

Similarly, the Court could have---but did not---limit its holding to local governments, like Oakland, that have a history of disclosing their employees' salaries, thus undermining workers' claims to a "reasonable expectation" of privacy in their government compensation."

Copyright? Nada.

CC.

The California Consitution also protects "A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed." Cal. Const., art. I, 2(b); accord Cal. Evid. Code 1070.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit has held that the federal constitution protects journalists, writing:

"What makes journalism journalism is not its format but its content. . . . The test . . . is whether the person seeking to invoke the privilege had 'the intent to use material - sought, gathered or received - to disseminate information to the public and [whether] such intent existed at the inception of the newsgathering process.' If both conditions are satisfied, then the privilege may be invoked."
http://cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/shoen1.html

>In short, Apple is not attacking ThinkSecret.
>They are not being sued for damages. They are not being prosecuted at all.

Apple has sued Think Secret in a different lawsuit.
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/antislapp.html

> There has never been a clear and well-defined legal precedent for this supposed protection.

In Mitchell v. The Superior Court of Marin County, the California Supreme Court held: "We conclude that in a civil action a reporter, editor, or publisher has a qualified privilege to withhold disclosure of the identity of confidential sources and of unpublished information supplied by such sources."
http://cfac.org/CaseLaw/Cases/mitchell.html

According to The Superior Court of Los Angeles County:

A license is not a contract, according to Rosenblatt v. Cal. St. Bd. of Pharmacy (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 69 , 74 [158 P.2d 199] which stated that, "A license has none of the elements of a contract and does not confer an absolute right but a personal privilege ...." (Ibid) There is a clear distinction between a license and a contract, although respondent City correctly states the frequent misuse of words such as "license," "permit," and "franchise."

That's incorrect. Trademarks are not functional equivalents for copyrights. Thus, it can't prevent you from creating derivatives. There was a case that dealt a little bit with this. You can read it here. It doesn't come up much, however, since the situation is rare.

Since "sweatshop" is a completely meaningless, derogatory term, Nike is being honest when they say they don't have any-- even if liberals say they do.

This is exactly the same situation as Nike saying "We make fine quality shoes" and liberals suing them because they insist their shoes are not fine quality and that Nike was deceptive in claiming they were.

The complaint alleges that, in the course of this public relations campaign, Nike made a series of six misrepresentations regarding its labor practices: (1) "that workers who make NIKE products are . . . not subjected to corporal punishment and/or sexual abuse;" (2) "that NIKE products are made in accordance with applicable governmental laws and regulations governing wages and hours;" (3) "that NIKE products are made in accordance with applicable laws and regulations governing health and safety conditions;" (4) "that NIKE pays average line-workers double-the-minimum wage in Southeast Asia;" (5) "that workers who produce NIKE products receive free meals and health care;" and (6) "that NIKE guarantees a ' living wage' for all workers who make NIKE products." In addition, the complaint alleges that NIKE made the false claim that the Young report proves that it "is doing a good job and ' operating morally.' "

And on the sweatshop thing-- the liberals hate sweatshops because they hate the poor. They'd ratehr that someone who makes $5 a day sewing shoes for Nike be reduced to making $1 a day scavaging rusted cans, or whatever. ...

Because Liberals apparently never took economics.

you're trying to shut me up, just like liberals always do