Slashdot Mirror

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Are the patents legitimate or did they sneak BS through the PTO?

They have so many of them, and only a couple of their claims were invalidated or dismissed as
patent-ineligible in the court cases with Snapchat/Facebook despite Snap/FB's arguments to dismiss many more of them : so its kind of a tough argument to say so many patents "sneaked" by the patent examiners.

Snapchat v Blackberry - Ruling on Snapchat's motion to dismiss pursuant to frcp 12(B)(6) [24]:

Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,301,713 (“the ’713 Patent”); 8,326,327 (“the ’327
Patent”); 8,825,084 (“the ’084 Patent”); 8,209,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,296,351 (“the ’351
Patent”); 8,676,929 (“the ’929 Patent”); 9,349,120 (“the ’120 Patent”); 8,429,236 (“the ’236
Patent”) and 8,677,250 (“the ’250 Patent”).

713 : Handheld electronic device and associated method providing time data in a messaging environment
327 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
084 : System and method for determining action spot locations relative to the location of a mobile device
634 : Previewing a new event on a small screen device
351 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
929 : System and method for pushing information to a mobile device
120 : System and method for silencing notifications for a message thread
236 : Transmission of status updates responsive to status of recipient application
250 : System and method for switching between an instant messaging conversation and a game in progress

Facebook brings this action against BlackBerry for infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 8,429,231 (“’231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,567,575 (“’575 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,356,841 (“’841 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,228,432 (“’432 patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 6,744,759 (“’759 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,302,698 (“’698 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-in-Suit”).

231: Voice instant messaging
575 : Personalized multimedia services using a mobile service platform
841: G.P.S. management system

432: Method and apparatus for providing security for a computer system

759: System and method for providing user-configured telephone service in a data network telephony system

698 : Operation of trusted state in computing platform

Just that the bug "allowed for" recording. Gotta watch those lawyers.

The full complaint is here and makes for some entertaining reading. This 30-page gem was filed by a local personal injury attorney 4 years out of law school the next day after the plaintiff supposedly found out about the bug. 'Nuff said.

Citation needed.

And if Flynn is so innocent and there's all this exculpatory evidence, why the plea bargain at all? If Mueller had been caught hiding exculpatory evidence, why hasn't the conviction been overturned?

Citation given. The reason that the plea bargain has been rejected is because directly of that. Don't forget that the guy mortgaged his house and drained his kids university funds to pay for his defense. The fact that muller has refused to disclose exculpatory evidence means that the plea was rendered in bad faith, the government MUST disclose all evidence, failing to do so is a one-way-ticket to having the entire case tossed out with an automatic double-jeopardy being applied.

Regarding the whole "secret mandate" thing, that's some clever propaganda from Trump's goons

That's what Muellers team told the judge, not Trump, not people working under him, not random people. Muellers team. The judge was not amused, gave him 2 weeks to provide the unredacted proof that's it.

Steele did leak the dossier to media

The person who leaked to Buzzfeed is not known; a ruling last year determined that Buzzfeed does not have to reveal the source. However, by the time that Buzzfeed published it, it was already widely circulating in the federal government, so the most likely source was a government official.

You're confusing the release of the dossier with the release of the fact that Steele was assisting the FBI.

reporting on his leak was subsequently used (in part) as justification for FISA application

We don't get to see the full Democratic response to Trump transition team member Devin Nunes because the White House blocked it, but from the summary: "The GOP memo also claims that a Yahoo News article was used to corroborate Steele, but this is not at all why the article was referenced."

Nunes, it should be added, never even read the FISA application.

Steele did knowingly impair and obstruct the functions of the Department of Justice

Oh give it a bloody rest. The guy compiled intelligence memos - something he's been doing for his entire career, MI-6 and after. Nothing about them or him was kept secret from the FISA court, and nothing about any aspect of his work was even remotely against the law; it's rather baffling what on Earth you think was. On the other hand, what is being investigated is serious violations of federal law. Covering a wide range of topics, some of which have already gotten guilty pleas.

The FISA warranty was given to surveil a guy who had been boasting about being a Kremlin representative. The fact that you find this to be some sort of grave miscarriage of justice is even more baffling.

Creation of $300B in bitcoin won't help the world to feed one more mouth.

Do you know what is really weird? A Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist writes a book with no endorsements.

One such book is Pay Any Price by James Risen (2014).

His thesis—which he introduces through the least straight-line narrative he could reasonably concoct—is that after the Iraqi treasury was looted of a billion dollars (valueless paper, further despoiled with Saddam's portrait) by his son, Qusay, the American government became terrified about their ability to feed the liberated Iraqi population, and so came up with a scheme to ship some $12 billion in $100 U.S. bills from East Rutherford to Baghdad (filling five expensive transports with this worthless paper in the process).

Wouldn't you know it, this whole enterprise involved shockingly lax controls, and there were 35 convictions back in America after the fact for excessively tasting largess (accounting for but a pittance of funds which disappeared into the liquidity void).

People act on their expectations of the future, and the behaviour is sometimes strikingly different if the expectation is one where "worthless" paper (or a similarly serviceable proxy) is in short supply. The value of trade that hasn't happened yet is not so easy to dissect from the system of trade as you would pretend to make it.

So, no, your currency won't make a fish out of water, but it might serve to distribute an actual fish into the mouth that most benefits.

If the U.S. government had shunted $12 billion in abstract currency to Baghdad, fewer people would have found themselves thumbing through big wads of $100 bills, and more of it would have disappeared to an even blacker final destination.

Apparently, operation currency lift also involved twenty-seven 747 cargo planes of freshly printed dinars.

I have formed no fixed idea about this book from the one chapter that I've read so far. Most of the sources are unnamed, there is no scholarly end-matter, just an afterword about how the author has become a persona non grata of the U.S. intelligence establishment, and the odd tidbit of redemption:

Risen Cleared on Labeling CIA Contractor a 'Con Artist' — 2016

"The only evidence in the record that Montgomery points to which might create a genuine issue of fact are his own, vague representations that the technology worked," the 74-page opinion states.

In 2011, the Department of Justice invoked the state-secrets doctrine to keep details of the government's deal with Montgomery under wraps in a separate lawsuit in Nevada.

Montgomery cites the purported classification of the information as a reason to withhold production.

Judge Contreras said that he has "serious reason to doubt that the software is, in fact, classified," but that its purported sensitivity is irrelevant Montgomery's case.

"Whether because the information is classified or because Montgomery gave it away to the government without retaining a copy, the simple fact is that the software, and therefore any ability to confirm whether or not it works, is absent from the record," he wrote.

Vapour all the way down. Hard to assess. Very much like the topic at hand.

No, their warranty is excused under US laws. Other countries validate this.

And you're arguing it shouldn't be allowed under US law. Did you contract did yourself?

You are failing to understand my statement. What if your favorite auto maker suddenly changed their warranty to 1 year, and forced you to pay for anything more than that?

By what do you mean "suddenly changed their warranty". The Apple warranty was always 1 year in the US. It's always been 1 year. Apple did not "suddenly change" their warranty as you imply. Please describe how Apple "suddenly changed" their warranty. Therefore your assertion is false.

Would you still feel confident in the product and buy a new car from them, or would you re-consider, based on their calculations and reasoning for limiting their product to one year? I have a feeling you would think about it, for there is always a validated reason to limit warranties on hardware, and it usually has to do with reliability.

Your hypothetical is based on a scenario that didn't happen in this case. However in a hypothetical scenario if a manufacturer changes their warranty coverage on new products, you are free not to buy their products (as we all are). As were the plaintiffs. If Honda reduced their warranties to 1 year on their cars, you are free not to buy their cars. You can't buy a Honda then complain after the fact that the warranty was 1 year. That isn't the scenario here as the warranty has always been 1 year. The court ruled as much in the original dismissal.

Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.

That "decent" warranty would be mocked in other countries who believe in protecting the consumer. And ironically enough, when sales start to drop for any product, one of the first things a manufacturer does to boost sales is to extend the factory warranty, proving just how minimal the financial impact really is.

Your idea of decent warranty goes against common sense. How long is your home warrantied by your home builder? I bet you it's not 30 years or 15 years which is a typical mortgage. How long is your car warrantied? It may not be the length of your car loan.

A product is "durable" or it isn't. Stop with the bullshit marketing if all you're going to offer is the same shit warranty that every other vendor offers.

Again your ideas about durable are unenforceable as a matter of practicality. My computer didn't last 10 years, I should sue. My lawn mower didn't last 40 years, I should sue. I should sue because nothing lasted as long as I expected them to last.

Please don't be ignorant about this and assume the extreme.

A Kitchen-Aid mixer lasting 30 years isn't the extreme. It's quite normal as those things last forever. A car could last 20+ years. These are normal in the real world, not extreme. Neither of those products have lifetime warranties. Who is the ignorant about the real world?

I'm asking is for a vendor to match consumer expectations and offer a factory warranty that mirrors what carriers are pushing, which is two years.

They DO offer one if you pay for it. However in the US, the minimum and standard manufacturer warranty is typically 1 year. The problem with what you propose is that a cell carrier could make a 3, 4, or 5 year contracts. The manufacturer has no legal standing into anything you agree to with the cell company. By the way, the "vendor" in your scenario as you describe may not be the manufacturer. The vendor could be the cell company. In some cases to get sales, a vendor may grant or offer a warranty on top of a manufacturer's warranty. But again, that is on the vendor, not the manufacturer.

That should not be asking for a lot from a company that is marketing (and defending in court) a "durable" product. If it's durable, then back up your damn marketing and legal defense with a reasonable warranty.

The court ruled in the original dismissal on your "reasonable warranty" arguments and shot them all down.

The court addressed adhesion contract in the original dismissal. As the court points out, the plaintiffs had the opportunity to read the contract before purchase and object either by not purchasing (or purchasing a competitor's phone) or attempting to negotiate. They chose to do none of those things.

With regards to procedural unconscionability, Plaintiffs contend that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because it is a contract of adhesion, and because Plaintiffs were provided with the Limited Warranty only after purchase. Pl. Opp. at 14. However, “while the terms of the [Limited Warranty] are non-negotiable, Plaintiffs do not allege that they lacked other options for purchasing [smartphones] or for obtaining additional warranty protections from Apple itself.” Berenblatt v. Apple, 2010 WL 1460297, at *5. Moreover, the SACC does not allege that Plaintiffs “were ‘surprised’ by the terms of the express warranty,” and Plaintiffs do not allege “that they themselves did not receive pre-sale notice of the warranty, or that they could not or did not access the warranty online” at the time of Plaintiffs’ purchase.

Adhesion contracts are problematic if you cannot access them before sale. For example, the Microsoft Windows EULA was only accessible after you installed Windows (before XP if I remember). But by installing it you agreed to the EULA including the provision that you were not entitled to a refund after installation. A court ruled that was unenforceable. Microsoft has to make the EULA available on their website these days and I think they they changed the installation to show the EULA before you agree to do it.

In some ways, the Windows 10 forced upgrade issue presents another legal problem for MS in that if consumers had their machines upgraded to 10 without permission, they didn't have a chance to object and not upgrade. Thus they could not give implied consent.

"As to substantive unconscionability, Plaintiffs assert that the Limited Warranty is unconscionable because Defendant “manufactures a new [iPhone] model every two years,” that cellphone service providers offer phones on two-year contracts,” and Plaintiffs thus “intuit that in the event of a latent problem with their phone during the lifeof that contract, [Defendant] will make them whole, especially if [Defendant] manufactured the flaw into the iPhones in the first place.” Pl. Opp. at 15. However “a time limitation, by itself, is not unconscionable,” and courts have rejected unconscionability arguments in similar cases. Bros., 2006 WL 3093685, at *8 (rejecting unconscionability argument where the plaintiff argued “the class do[es] not have any meaningful choice in the time limitations in the warranty, the express terms favor HP, and HP knew that the [printers] were defective and would fail well before their useful life”)

As to reasonable expectations of a warranty, the court also ruled that "An express warranty covering ‘materials and workmanship’ does not include design defects.” Clark v. LG Elecs USA, Inc" and "The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’argument that the Limited Warranty’s 1-year duration provision is unconscionable"

As I post there are 373 comments, so I apologise if I missed anyone else pointing out the remarkably impressive feat of Ivey's "assistant" Cheng Yin Sun spending hundreds of (possibly up to a thousand) hours training herself over four years to recognise minute variations on the backs of cards which she could detect when the cards were rotated.

If that isn't news for nerds, I don't know what would qualify!

It also means that while she's nowhere near as famous as Ivey, in this enterprise she wasn't a mere "assistant", much more something like an equal partner: despite at least one comment above referring to Ivey having trained himself to recognize by spotting inconsistencies in the card markings, on the facts as reported (I read both the Washington Post article and the judgment linked to in the summary (fwiw I entirely agree with the judge and his reasons for making the judgment he did), *and* I read a New York Times magazine article linked to by the Washington Post article), the only person who could recognise the differences when cards had been rotated was Cheng Yin Sun.

In fact, if the New York Times magazine article is accurate, Sun (the NYT article calls her Cheung Yin Sun, but Cheng Yin Sun as in the judgment seems more likely to be correct) first did this with other people at several casinos, and then *she* recruited Phil Ivey:
"Over the coming week, Sun and her highly organized group used the same strategy to beat more Las Vegas casinos, including Treasure Island and Caesars Palace. They made a trip to Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Conn. Eventually Sun recruited the celebrity poker pro Phil Ivey, who is also known as a high-stakes gambler at craps and baccarat."

Washington Post ... Sun had spent, according to the New York Times magazine, hundreds of hours memorizing tiny flaws in purple Gemaco Borgata playing cards. ... She purchased souvenir playing cards from the Borgata, identical to the ones used on the casino floor save for holes punched in the center. She discovered that patterns on card backs, designed to be symmetrical, were not perfectly so. Sun trained herself to identify aberrations along the left or right margins of the card backs, no wider than 1/32 of an inch, the Times reported. ("Sun's mental acumen in distinguishing the minute differences in the patterns on the back of the playing cards is remarkable," Hillman noted.) So prepared, she helped Ivey on his way to millions.

The technique Ivey and Sun used was called edge-sorting. Sun was allowed to peek at the card before the dealer flipped it over. In Mandarin, she would ask the dealer to rotate the most valuable cards in the baccarat deck -- the sixes through nines -- 180 degrees as they were flipped. The automatic shuffler could randomize the cards, but would not alter their rotation. "Baccarat is a casino game well known for unique and superstitious rituals," Hillman noted in an October opinion. "Thus, Sun telling the dealer to turn a card in a certain way did not raise any red flags for Borgata." With the deck sorted, it was possible for Sun to identify which cards had been rotated. The pair therefore knew the values of the cards while they were being dealt, before completing bets. Ivey adjusted his bets, and once the pair edge-sorted the entire deck, he increased his bids to the maximum allowed. ...

New York Times magazine ... Sun visited several Las Vegas casino gift shops and bough

There was a post on his account claiming to be his wife saying they filed a police report. Media has investigated and can fin no evidence of a report filed with various relevant police departments.

Too bad there's evidence that he filed the civil suit, with a court, case number, and filing date stamped right on it.

Puts the whole "this doesn't exist" theory to shame...

AC nobody expects a secret US grand jury investigation.
"EPIC Partially Prevails in FOIA Case, Wikileaks Investigation Ongoing"
https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
US government still hunting WikiLeaks as Obama targets whistleblowers (6 March 2015)
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
more at http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj...
"The FBI's "still active and ongoing" probe of WikiLeaks" (March 06, 2015)
http://www.courthousenews.com/...
from https://epic.org/foia/doj/wiki...
i.e. "... the Department of Justice and FBI’s multi-subject investigation into the unauthorised disclosure of classified information published on WikiLeaks, which is “still active and ongoing” and remains in the investigative stage."

Another judge in the Northern District of California recently ruled that this practice "unsettling" but constitutional. Same investigation, different cases.

Hosting illegal materials is still illegal. The CDA doesn't exonerate someone who knowingly and willfully continues to make content available that is illegal regardless of who is considered the "publisher". Ever seen the operator of a child porn site get raided? Yeah, it's like that except with terrorists. Just because Facebook is Facebook doesn't make them above the law, and trying to cling to your weak/twisted interpretation of the CDA doesn't change that.

Prevailing interpretation of the CDA to you.

It's not as if we haven't seen this before:
Twitter responded that as a publisher, it is immune from liability for content posted by its users under the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
          But plaintiffs' attorney Joshua Arisohn said that because direct messages are not published, they fall outside the protections of that statute.
          "The common definition of publisher is one who disseminates information to the public," Arisohn said. "If Congress wanted a broader definition for publisher, it could have made one."
          Twitter attorney Seth Waxman replied that direct messages are covered under the 2009 Ninth Circuit ruling, Barnes v. Yahoo!, which found that entities cannot be held liable for content posted online by third parties. Finding otherwise would that mean every provider of email and direct messaging, such as Apple and Google, could be liable for content exchanged by their users, Waxman said.
          Orrick was not persuaded that companies like Twitter could be sued for messages sent by users.
          "Just because it's private messaging doesn't put this beyond the Communications Decency Act's reach," Orrick said.

But please, continue to make unsupported assertions about the field I practice in. I'll certainly take your word over actual precedent and reputable lawyers.

It helps if you read everything that I wrote. Then again, the original poster did not say that Facebook could be sued for not censoring something, so I didn't emphasize that point.

If you want to take that position, you should research the CDA as well. We've seen it before, we will see it again, and I for one do not expect to see a different result.

That's not sleep deprivation... not punishment

http://www.rollingstone.com/po... "There were several guards charged with what they called "Manning Watch" and whose instructions were to check on Manning every five minutes, 24 hours a day. Constant observation and frequent interruption were well-worn tactics widely used on detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as at Guantanamo. "It's sleep deprivation, basically," says Brandon Neely, a former Army MP who was posted at Guantanamo. It was also broadly acknowledged, and condemned, by human rights monitors, as a form of punishment."

https://www.vice.com/read/the-... "Sometimes, said Tankersley, POI status inmates were found snoozing. "And we catch them and wake them back up," he said. "There's basically nothing to do." Any time Pfc. Manning had to be moved from his cage, the entire facility was put in lockdown."

Yes. It's sleep deprivation. To be fair, there were times where he was given a sleeping period:
"He was forced to sleep from 1 PM to 11 PM, naked, and was allowed to do so only when facing his lamp."
Ah yes, forcing someone to sleep facing a lamp--clearing a measure undertaken by those who care deeply about his health.


not torture.... not punishment

He was also detained for several hundred days without trial--a clear violation of the sixth amendment, but again, slavish defenders of government iniquity such as yourself never seem to find any problem with that part.

Solitary confinement IS torture, and it is often used as such despite any excuses of suicide watch. In this case, it seems that the decision to put Manning on suicide watch three separate timnes was entirely arbitrary, and questioned by more than one party:

http://www.courthousenews.com/... "Chief Warrant Officer-4 James Averhart, the brig OIC, or Officer in Charge, put Manning on suicide risk, or SR, three times, despite the protests of his prison psychologist, Capt. William Hocter."

"In one instance, Averhart called for suicide watch shortly after having a private conversation with Manning, who he said had been "disrespectful" to him... Averhart asserted to have no detailed memory of the encounter, but remembered that Manning asked why he was yelling at him."

"... On Wednesday, the chief of corrections for the Marines, CW5 Abel Galaviz, said placing Manning on this status broke regulations established by the Secretary of the Navy, known as the SecNav instructions."


This guy put Manning back in solitary because Manning was being "disrespectful" by asking why Averhart was shouting. On top of this already being an example of torture, that detail totally blows away your claim that none of this is punishment. Again, I'm sure none of this bothers you! You'll defend all treatment of manning no matter what, because you are scripted as such. Too bad that script is now gathering cobwebs.

We see it happening in America, too. Lately there have been a small number of cases of black youth violently attacking police officers, typically after being confronted for some crime these youth had committed, and then the police officers do the only reasonable thing and defend themselves using their guns. Not wanting to be falsely accused of being "racist" by the "social justice" supporters

The recent outrage is about police shooting unarmed black youths. In many cases, shooting them in the back.

Here's the video of the one in Chicago that everybody's upset about. As you can see, the teenager was shot in the back while running AWAY from the police. He was unarmed.
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicag...

Here's another one: the guy had a gun... but the police had already taken it away and had him face down on the ground. Then shot him when he was face down on the ground and unresisting:
http://www.courthousenews.com/...

And here's one where the video shows that they shot an unarmed man who was face down with his hands handcuffed behind him... then the video shows them planting a gun on him.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3367933/Shocking-video-shows-cops-planting-gun-shooting-handcuffed-man-23-dead-execution.html
http://www.alternet.org/civil-...

No. The anti-vax movement has been largely driven by greed, stupidity, and the parents need to "blame" someone.

No. The anti-vax movement has been entirely driven by unethical pharmaceutical behemoths killing/maiming thousands of children in third world countries, unloading worthless crap on ignorant asshats and raking in massive unearned profits on the misery of millions.
  Glaxo Smith Kline was fined a paltry amount after performing unethical "experiments" on children and killing fourteen of them. Would you trust these jackasses to inject your kids? Hell, their own scientists had to be bribed to cover that shit up. Faked vaccine data lessens confidence in Merck products.
  Merck has lied for years about the efficacy of their vaccines. Why would anybody trust them?
Other countries ban defective vaccines, it's not rocket science to shun poisonous garbage that makes your populace sick and decreases productivity for potentially years. MMR vaccine, lookin' at you.
And that's not even counting poor vaccine quality control, a persistent issue for these massive corporations. In that one case Merck got caught before they could offload those 1,000,000 deadly doses on some unfortunates in Africa and collect tax credits for their philanthropy from the IRS.
FFS even the Nigerians are skeptical by now. Looking at the preponderance of shady practices, outright lies and poor quality of your average vaccine peddler it's no wonder the anti-vax movement is gaining momentum. But don't take my word for anything, go get your annual flu vaccine and risk paralysis or worse, and forget about that "immune system" crap the hippies are trying to foist on everybody. Nutrition isn't that important and you have a basement to live in and keyboard crumbs to make.

Looks like the basis was the Posse Comitatus Act rather than an actual constitutional issue. Hard to say how this will play out over time. The Supreme Court could go either way, or Congress could act to allow it if they so choose.

Navy Guilty of Illegally Broad Online Searches

Writing in dissent, Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain noted with apparent regret that the majority was the first ever to apply the "exclusionary rule" to violations of the Posse Comitatus Act.
          Excluding evidence under the rule should be a "last resort" and done only after consideration of the "social costs," he argued.
          "Yet, in a breathtaking assertion of judicial power, today's majority invokes this disfavored remedy for the benefit of a convicted child pornographer," O"Scannlain wrote. "It does so without any demonstrated need to deter future violations of the PCA and without any consideration of the 'substantial social costs' associated with the exclusionary rule."

I wonder if legally speaking this would even be an issue if the Coast Guard was doing it? The Coast Guard is considered law enforcement unless acting under the direction of the Navy in wartime.

Correct in concept, wrong in practice. Today you are guilty first, and parallel construction will be used to ensure guilt if someone want's you that way. Unless of course you have a whole lot of money, in which case you will never see charges let alone a trial.

I hope you are right that it never happens, but in practice how long was that porn company extorting money from people? Nobody from the company went to jail for extortion to my knowledge, they were just told by a judge to stop. I'm not going to dig past a summary, you can surely do more if you like.

The point is that you should never say never, especially with the high level of corruption we are seeing in the USA. It may be implemented just to test the waters, I personally would not be shocked.

The 235 decibel blasts from these sonic cannons enters the water about every ten seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks or months on end, per exploration mission. 235 decibels is about a million times louder than standing next to a jet engine. It kills or injures nearby life almost immediately.

The US Navy recently increased sonar exercises without a proper assessment of the risks to marine mammals. The service and the Navy later estimated that the use of sonar during the five year plan will result in the death or injury of 650,000 marine animals. Their own study.

This isn't something you can compare to the noise that your neighbours make, it's essentially the shockwave from a powerful bomb that goes off every 10 seconds for weeks or months and travels hundreds of kilometers in every direction due to the increased conduction of the wave by the density of the fluid (water). This is one of the largest compression waves that humans can generate, and it "hemorrhages in and around the ears" and causes "organ damage and internal injuries similar to decompression sickness". If you intentionally wanted to kill every living mammal in the ocean, there are few things you could do that would accomplish it quicker or more effectively.

I'm not a US citizen, but you should Contact your Congressional Representative and tell them that this won't fly, immediately.

The 235 decibel blasts from these sonic cannons enters the water about every ten seconds, 24 hours a day, for weeks or months on end, per exploration mission. 235 decibels is about a million times louder than standing next to a jet engine. It kills or injures nearby life almost immediately.

The US Navy recently increased sonar exercises without a proper assessment of the risks to marine mammals. The service and the Navy later estimated that the use of sonar during the five year plan will result in the death or injury of 650,000 marine animals. Their own study.

This isn't something you can compare to the noise that your neighbours make, it's essentially the shockwave from a powerful bomb that travels hundreds of kilometers in every direction due to the increased conduction of the wave by the density of the fluid (water). This is one of the largest compression waves that humans can generate, and it "hemorrhages in and around the ears" and causes "organ damage and internal injuries similar to decompression sickness".

DENTON, Texas (CN) - A "revenge pornography" website gained unauthorized access to nude photographs of a woman and posted them on the Internet, the woman claims in court.
          Shelby Conklin sued Verisign, Katz Global Media, and Pinkmeth.com, in Denton County Court.
          Pinkmeth is her main target. She claims Tucson-based Katz sold "anonymous hosting" Internet services to PinkMeth, and she wants Verisign to disable the PinkMeth website. ...
http://www.courthousenews.com/...

She's on quite the fishing expedition. Here is another lawsuit filed by her, from 2012, suing Pinkmeth (again), Katz Global Media (for the crime of providing anonymous hosting), and Verisign. Yeah, she sued Verisign. Maybe that suit didn't work out so well, so she thought she would try her hand against Tor. Not exactly the best way to make a name for herself as a criminal justice major. I suspect that pursuing suits like these will serve is much more of a "loss in earning capacity" than a porn picture ever would. She might also be interested that her Facebook profile is open for the world to see. Here she is.

Maybe she's just trying to clog up the Google search results for her name with information about lawsuits instead of her actual pictures. You have to go to page 4 to find this one (which is not Pinkmeth), page 6 for this one (also not Pinkmeth), and page 8 for this one (again, not Pinkmeth).

I'm assuming she has no proof that would allow her to sue the person actually responsible for distributing the pictures (you know, other than her). Life lesson learned, I suppose. Try not to clog up the justice system.

Obviously, no.

Teacher, Mark Berndt, Pleads Guilty To Feeding Students Semen-Laced Cookies In Los Angeles School

Case against ex-Miramonte teacher Martin Springer dismissed

http://nypost.com/2014/05/13/notorious-pedophile-teacher-gave-victims-drug-laced-oreos/

Girl was victim of both teachers charged in L.A. child abuse cases: report

Mark Berndt: Profile of Perversion

Mark Berndt's $40,000 Payoff

LAUSD Molestations Spark Grim Federal Complaint

Berndt allegedly kept a jar of Vaseline on his desk which he used to masturbate in class, and sometimes wore a "freakish" Mickey Mouse costume with women's tights, the parents say. They claim the school's principal Martin Sandoval walked into the classroom as Berndt was videotaping students but let him off with a verbal warning. The parents claim LAUSD ignored those red flags and other instances of "freakish behavior." "LAUSD ignored multiple prior student complaints about Berndt and a district attorney investigation. LAUSD ignored parent complaints and failed to detect the massive number of lewd acts committed by at least three active child predators on one small campus for years," the complaint states.

Anderson Cooper 360 reports on why Teachers' Union killed a bill that would make it easier to fire SEXUAL PREDATORS in the classroom.

Just In: CA Ballot Initiative to Target Sex Abusers in Schools

Teacher puzzler: Part-time porn star fired, semen-feeder paid off

Why would Apple be interested in grabbing your data? They're the only one of the major tech companies which have so far shown no interest at all in the "you're the product" business model.

iAd Workbench is the simplest way to advertise to millions of people on their Apple devices. In a few steps, you can create a campaign that drives traffic to your website, generates video views, or promotes your iTunes Store content. Choose your audience, set your budget, and run your campaign across thousands of Apple-verified and brand-safe iOS apps.

http://advertising.apple.com/t...

The Apple Data Mining Lab is looking for an outstanding data mining scientist who is interested in designing, developing, and fielding data mining solutions that have direct and measurable impact to Apple.

http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/...

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The lack of specific injury dooms a massive lawsuit accusing Apple and 14 app developers of mining iPhones and iPads for data, a federal judge said.

http://www.courthousenews.com/...

So we have one out of many add net works - the only one where there are complains that Apple doesn't give data about their customers to the people paying for the adds. We have an job search for a "data mining expert" - because the data mined has to be sold to others, not used to improve local services benefitting the user like SIRI. And most damning, we have a lawsuit where Apple was one of the accused simply because they own the App Store - not because they collected data.

Why would Apple be interested in grabbing your data? They're the only one of the major tech companies which have so far shown no interest at all in the "you're the product" business model.

iAd Workbench is the simplest way to advertise to millions of people on their Apple devices. In a few steps, you can create a campaign that drives traffic to your website, generates video views, or promotes your iTunes Store content. Choose your audience, set your budget, and run your campaign across thousands of Apple-verified and brand-safe iOS apps.

http://advertising.apple.com/t...

The Apple Data Mining Lab is looking for an outstanding data mining scientist who is interested in designing, developing, and fielding data mining solutions that have direct and measurable impact to Apple.

http://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/...

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) - The lack of specific injury dooms a massive lawsuit accusing Apple and 14 app developers of mining iPhones and iPads for data, a federal judge said.

http://www.courthousenews.com/...

Ah, good, someone pointed this out already. Of course... you got down-modded because you gave like ZERO useful information, so here's some elaboration:

Sony upgraded the PS3 software and removed the capability to dual-boot into Linux (the "OtherOS" feature). There was a class action lawsuit that was dismissed apparently because the plaintiffs didn't do a good job showing actual damage.

I remember some good analysis of the issue at the time. One analysis concluded that the PS3 owners had the right to reject the upgrade, and that the system itself could function as normal, but the ongoing use of the Sony servers represented a "continuing relationship" whereby the company did have the right to change the agreement and the users could either accept the changes or stop using the service entirely. The "service" was free, or paid monthly, and differentiated from the "hardware" which performed precisely as it was sold _if you didn't upgrade the firmware_.

Of course this varied from country to country, but I know of no country where Sony was held liable (someone should correct me -- I could easily have missed one).

I'm sure there was more nuance, but I'm paraphrasing something I read long ago. Anyway, the same logic may or may not apply here... did the LG TV advertise these features? Could the streaming "features" be considered a subscription based service, rather than tied to the hardware advertising? LG can argue that every online service faces some time-dependant obsolescence and change; they may end up being in the clear.

The problem with the stolen IMEI number list is that people like AT&T that already abuse internal lists will then be able to fuck over phone owners that are customers of other companies. For example, AT&T put my new iPhone on their stolen list while it was being shipped to me new. Because of that, I had to buy another phone at full price in order to be allowed to keep my unlimited data plan. I was able to sell the phone that AT&T fucked over for $350. If there was a blacklist that was shared between providers, my new iPhone would have been worthless. That is what AT&T wants. They love fucking over people. That is why the Republicans help them so much. They hate us.

You're kind of whacked out, I think...

Except the class action lawsuit that's currently being pursued against AT&T to force the implementation of the kill switch is being brought by Democratic judge R. Parker White of the lawfirm of Poswell, White, and Cutler... http://pwclawcorp.com/attorney... per this article: http://www.courthousenews.com/...

And the sponsored legislation demanding the kill switch is coming from San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón (Democrat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...ón after being appointed to that post by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (Democrat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... as a replacement for Kamala Harris (Democrat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K... .

But, you know, feel free to believe that AT&T "wants" a kill switch, and that the Republicans are the one pushing the issue. While you are at it, be sure and note that Apple iPhones already have a kill switch, and the idea of requiring a kill switch is a more or less transparent ploy by Apple against Android, which doesn't have one, and doesn't provide software updates for their phones because of the way the Android development is done.

the reverse however is true (bitcoin has an arbitrary or not-so-arbitrary value in currency, but the value of the US Dollar/British Pound/Euro/etc. is not defined as having value relative to bitcoin).

Is anybody here still naive enough to confuse my (personal crypto) check for cash? I assert that the check in my hand is worth $100.00 - who'll give me $95.00 for it? I promise it's good . . .

USD Fiat has no legal enforcement as currency outside of the US either. Exchanges, Companies, Governments or Individuals can choose to accept them or not. They place a value on them dynamically by what they perceive they are valued at in reference to their currency.

This is exactly the same with Bitcoin.

Additionally, many judges and governments have indeed declared Bitcoin a currency. One example : http://www.courthousenews.com/...

but managed to expose, endanger AND KILL sympathizers and spies working with the US and the UK on the other side.

Sorry cold fjord, but this is false. From here:

The military's position took another hit Wednesday, as the former brigadier general who headed the Information Review Task Force investigating the leaks said that he had never heard that a source named in the Afghan war logs was killed.

Though the Taliban had claimed that its review of the war logs led them to an Afghan whom the U.S. military named as a source, the supposed informant the Taliban claimed to have executed was not in fact named in the leaked materials.

Now-retired Brig. Gen. Robert Carr had wanted to testify about the Taliban's claim Wednesday, but Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over Manning's court-martial, barred such testimony as inadmissible hearsay.

The revelation supports an assessment by former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates that the rhetoric about the supposed harm caused by the leaks was "fairly significantly overwrought."

He did, arguably and depending on your perspective, as much harm as the original "crimes" he revealed.

No, the State has admitted that his disclosures did not lead to any deaths.

You don't just share 10,000 secret documents without at least reading them first.

Manning left that job up to journalists. He first tried to leak directly to the NYT, as Ellsberg had done and they rebuffed him. He then went to Wikileaks, which arranged a consortium of newspapers (El PaÃs, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Guardian and The New York Times) to analyze, redact, and publish the information responsibly.

Snowden, perhaps reflecting his age and experience, is doing exactly that.

Why is Snowden more qualified to determine what's right and wrong to publish than a group of experienced journalists?

So while I feel strongly that any crimes revealed by Manning should be prosecuted, I also feel that he needs to go away for a while.

But that's not how it works. If Manning revealed crimes, then he is to be afforded, by law, whistleblower protection. In fact, he did reveal crimes, has been denied those protections, and those who committed the highest crimes are walking around with huge pensions and stock options for doing so.

However, there has been no definitive statement that there was no harm as you've implied.

Harm is in the eye of the [political] beholder, which makes Manning's sorrow, feigned or not, somewhat meaningless. We do know that no deaths have been caused by the leaks. Did some psychotic CIA plot get messed up? Would that be harm? Nobody knows.

yes, and in a few years when only the police has guns, don't be surprised when they trample all over your rights and do whatever they want.

In a few years? That shit happens all the time.
Like this one example out of thousands:

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

Link

Silly, paranoid people! Why, it's like they believe they live in a country where:

• The IRS routinely conducts spite audits of the President's enemies.
• Or sicks the FBI, ATF and OSHA on them as well.
• Where the DOJ can seize the phone records of reporters without a warrant.
• Or where the DOJ illegally seizing the health records of 10 million Americans.
• Or where the government gave weapons to Mexican drug lords in order to make the case for gun control.
• Or where a leading Democrat publically stated she wanted to confiscated the guns of all Americans.

Silly, paranoid gun owners!

Thank God we live in America rather than that paranoid, nightmarish, Orwellian police state!

Disclaimer: I am a former Washington Post journalist

First of all, TFA is at The Washington Times. That alone makes its credibility dubious. The Washington Times was founded by Sun Myung Moon (crazy "Unification Church" cult leader) who stated that the purpose of the "newspaper" was to be "the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world." Moon was convicted that same year of filing false federal income tax returns and conspiracy and served 13 months in prison. The Times has long been known as a conservative shill (although it has a decent sports section) that had to be financially supported by Moon's "church" to survive. Moon spent nearly $2 billion of his followers' money over 20 years to keep the paper afloat.

Second, The Washington Times article doesn't even claim to have done any reporting on its own... it cites some article from UPI that isn't readily available on UPI's home page or even by searching UPI for "IRS." Ultimately found the "article" here. It's a 9-paragraph blog posting. UPI was once a respectable news agency like AP or Reuters, but its relevance diminished to the point where it was bought out in 2000 by... you guessed it: Sun Myung Moon. UPI's White House correspondent retired the next day after 57 years with the organization. These days UPI doesn't even have a White House correspondent, and its finances have gotten so bad that it relies on free articles contributed by college students.

The UPI blog posting cites a Courthouse News Service article: John Doe Company sued 15 John Doe IRS agents in Superior Court. The plaintiff's attorney alleges that the records affected may include those of "politically controversial members of the Screen Actors Guild and the Directors Guild, and prominent citizens in the world of entertainment, business and government, from all walks of life." He goes on to complain that the unnamed IRS agents "decided to use John Doe Company's media system to watch basketball, ordering pizza and Coca-Cola, to take in part of the NCAA tournament," but "Plaintiff's attorney Robert E. Barnes declined to elaborate on the complaint's allegations, saying he will have more information 'in a few months.'"

Why publish a story no one can verify, since all you can say for now is that that unnamed people at the IRS are illegally snooping on unnamed politically controversial people through an unnamed medical firm? Because it helps fuel the fire driving the current Republican party line of "the IRS is evil and Obama is responsible." Because some ignorant blogger might pick it up and run with it, thinking that The Washington Times and UPI are real news organizations, and not even bother to look for the source of this story. Great job Timothy.

there should be no worries about medical records being leaked and/or used against individuals or organizations since the IRS will keep those safe for all of us.

No, the ACA does not allow the IRS to access your medical records.

They're so eager to begin, they simply walked in and seized without explanation approximately *sixty million* medical records in California

The allegation is that they exceeded the authority of a warrant and demanded copies of servers containing records for ten million people from an unnamed company. Is it true? Neither you nor I know. But the suit is unrelated to the ACA.

Sprint made a similar goof last year

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/28/45101.htm

Unless of course I missed the epidemic of cops beating and shooting little children.

Yes
you
fucking
did!

Thanks to a little known case against GE, it is now legal to break DRM to watch a move or play a game.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/29099.htm

>Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act's) anti-circumvention provision," Judge Garza wrote for the New Orleans-based court.
          "The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners."

This referred to GE cracking a hardware dongle to use software. If that's not a violation of the DMCA, then nothing that simply enables use is a violation.

Close, but not quite: http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/03/20/44856.htm

You must not have done a simple google search for mercury in vaccines because the first link comes up proving there still is mercury in vaccines.

They do a simple bait and switch because there are vaccines without thimerosal which you can request but the vast majority of vaccines still contain mercury. If you do not believe me, then go to your local pharmacy or store which has the current flu vaccine and ask for an insert. You will find the ingredient thimerosal.

There are a whole host of other things in vaccines which can harm an individual, such as adjuvants, one commonly being aluminum.

As for the RFID chip in vaccines, the first time I remember that fear spreading across the web was in 2009 and probably stems from this video. While a lot of what is said in that video is legitimate because there are such plans and laws on the books in case the government wants to do such a thing, it ended up not happening despite all of the hype the swine flu got that year.

It is very unfair for you to say "they" often react violently, generalizing a lot of people from anecdotal evidence.

Solar can take up huge swaths of land, we have it empty. What are your plans for our deserts?

If you're an environmentalist, apparently it's to keep it pristine. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/10/49192.htm

VA Must Disclose Documents to MK-ULTRA Victims
http://cryptogon.com/?p=30509

July 24th, 2012

Via: Courthouse News Service:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/07/23/48617.htm

"Veterans won another court order requiring the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hand over more documents about its Cold War-era drug experiments on thousands of Vietnam veterans.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley in Oakland, Calif., said the documents requested were âoesquarely relevantâ to the claim that the government failed to adequately notify veterans of the chemicals they were exposed to and what that exposure might do to their health.

The Army and the CIA, with the help of Nazi scientists, used at least 7,800 veterans as human guinea pigs for testing the effects of up to 400 types of drugs and chemicals, including mescaline, LSD, amphetamines, barbituates, mustard gas and nerve agents, the Vietnam Veterans of America and individual soldiers claim in a 2009 class action.

The government covered up the true nature of its experiments, which began in the 1950s under code names such as âoeBluebird,â âoeArtichokeâ and âoeMKUltra.â

In âoeProject Paperclip,â the Army and CIA allegedly recruited Nazi scientists to help test various psychochemicals and develop a new truth serum using its own veterans as test subjects.

âoeOver half of these Nazi recruits had been members of the SS or Nazi Party,â according to the class action. âoeThe âPaperclipâ(TM) name was chosen because so many of the employment applications were clipped to immigration papers.â

Veterans say the government was trying to develop and test substances that could trigger mind control, confusion, euphoria, altered personality, unconsciousness, physical paralysis, illogical thinking and mania, among other effects.

The experiments in Army compounds at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick, Md., left many veterans with debilitating health problems for decades. Veterans say the government has since refused to provide proper medical care."

In the US it is quite clear that there is legal liability for law enforcement agents for exceeding their authority.

Suits based on civil rights violations by law enforcement do happen.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/07/37170.htm

Given NZ is a civilized nation I would hope the same applies there.

Those quota's are illegal and the NYPD is being sued over them. This case is likely what caused this app to be created.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/02/24/44142.htm

Its now a race to see who can get the first turbine up and spinning before anyone can claim to be first.

After years of opposition by Ted Kennedy, the Cape Cod wind farm was granted approval and all the law suits have pretty much played out.
The Cape Wind Farm gained final construction approval about this time last year (April 2011). Held up by yet another appeal due VFR (small plane) flights flying below regulation minimum altitude, it is expected to pass this hurdle as well, just like every other wind farm has. The opposition group has recently been fined for election violations.

But Approval does not mean construction has started, and both of these projects seem to be at the same point in their development.

On December 8, 2011, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the last remaining count of the class action lawsuit, stating: "As a legal matter, [..] plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable."

Digging a little deeper:

Seeborg found the plaintiffs could not prove that they had a right to expect the OS feature beyond Sony's warranty period or continued access to the Playstation Network.

Sony Tosses PlayStation 3 Upgrade Claims Aside

"The dismay and frustration at least some PS3 owners likely experienced when Sony made the decision to limit access to the PSN service to those who were [un]willing to disable the Other OS feature on their machines was no doubt genuine and understandable," Judge Seeborg wrote. "As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable."

The problem is that the plaintiffs could not prove that they were entitled to an ongoing relationship with Sony after the date of purchase, and they had the option of turning down the update and continuing their use of their Linux installations. "As a legal matter... plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable," Judge Seeborg wrote.

Judge dismisses "Other OS" class-action suit against Sony

The choice may have been a difficult one for those who valued both the Other OS feature and access to the PSN, but it was still a choice.

[For] Sony's conduct to have been in any manner wrongful, it is not enough for plaintiffs to show that they have a right to expect continued availability of the Other OS feature beyond the warranty period, but also a right to continued access to the PSN. Nothing in plaintiffs' factual allegations or their arguments is sufficient to support a conclusion that Sony has any obligation to maintain the PSN in operation indefinitely.

In short, even assuming it would be wrongful under one or more of plaintiffs' legal theories for Sony unilaterally to disable the Other OS feature after expiration of the warranty period but during the reasonably expected lifetime of machines that were otherwise still working properly, the facts show that Sony did not do so, except with the consent of owners who exercised an affirmative choice to install Firmware Update 3.21. For some, that choice may not have been made without regret, but absent some legal entitlement to continued access to the PSN, it was still a choice.

IN RE SONY PS3 OTHER OS LITIGATIONI [Full text]