Slashdot Mirror

Ah, listed under penal codes 286, 288, 289. Thank you.

If the standard was whether a manufacturer has market power in their exact product (not its category), then there would NEVER be a question. So, obviously not.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech Svcs. There, the issue was whether Kodak had tying power in replacement parts for Kodak copiers. That's tying with respect to an exact product, not a category.

I'm not a lawyer but here's what I found in a couple of minutes of Googling:

From FindLaw: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/murder_first_degree.html

Most states also adhere to a legal concept known as the "felony murder rule," under which a person commits first-degree murder if any death (even an accidental one) results from the commission of certain violent felonies -- usually arson, burglary, kidnapping, rape, and robbery.

According to Everything2: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1316784
A person who commits, or attempts to commit, a felony can be convicted of murder if someone dies during the commission (or attempt) if:

        * the person has intentionally engaged in the felony
        * the felony is inherently dangerous
        * the death occurs during the commission of the felony
        * the death is independent and collateral to the felony, and
        * the felon (or an accomplice) caused the death.

The inherently dangerous element is automatically satisfied if the felony is listed in the first-degree murder statute; [emphasis mine] in California, those felonies are arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, sodomy, lewd or lascivious acts involving children, oral copulation, [sexual] penetration by foreign object, and drive-by shootings.

If Hans Reiser abducted Nina and then killed her, even if it was accidental, then he could be convicted of first-degree murder in California.

I am certainly not a lawyer. 'Evidence' may not be the correct legal term. However, if your wife is missing, and people can be confirmed to have heard you fighting right before you went missing, that would seem to indicate more than an unfounded suspicion that it would worth looking into you as a suspect. Certainly no reasonable person would question the police checking your past history and whereabouts based on that information.

The concepts of evidence and warrants are not as tightly connected as your post implies. My understanding of US law is that you request a search warrant to get access to protected premises or items that are not otherwise legally available to the authorities, such as your property inside your house or locked vehicle, bank records, or, we'd desire, your browsing history. A cop does not need a search warrant, for example, to seize a bag of pot laying in plain sight on your car seat, if he sees it when issuing you a ticket. The pot then becomes evidence, no warrant required, and you, sir are about to have legal issues.

Case law is also quite clear that cops can search your garbage, no warrant required, and items found will be used as evidence against you. A cop can seize a weapon used in a bar fight, no warrant required, and it certainly becomes evidence. The controlling concept, as I understand it, is reasonable expectation of privacy, as embodied in the fourth amendment, which can be seen here.

Our browsing history is not in 'plain sight', and under US law, that means that it would normally require a warrant, which requires reasonable evidence of probable cause(I'm probably mis-using that e-word again).

At any rate, that's quibbling over the major point, which is at what point does an investigation become founded on some fact, and more than a fishing expedition which we are protected against by our laws.

Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.

As a criminal defendant, your best hope is that the government did in fact violate the Fourth Amendment while procuring evidence against you. All evidence, acquired directly or indirectly as the result of an illegal search, must be excluded as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. U.S.

Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The women then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.

"Still crying, she informed the TSA officer that she could not remove it without the help of pliers, and the officer gave a pair to her," said Hamlin's attorney, Gloria Allred, reading from a letter she sent Thursday to the director of the TSA's Office of Civil Rights and Liberties.

Hamlin said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.

You mean the import/export clause: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports...

The terms "import" and "export" in the Constitution refer to imports and exports from other countries. See the treatise here: "Only articles imported from or exported to a foreign country, or âoea place over which the Constitution has not extended its commands with respect to imports and their taxation,â are comprehended by the terms âoeimportsâ and âoeexports."

Case: Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 673 (1945), holding that "These provisions were intended to confer on the national government the exclusive power to tax importations of goods into the United States."

Last I checked, Amazon shipped from within the US, so it doesn't apply at all.

Who think the Commerce Clause gives Congress exclusive and complete control over interstate commerce, read up on the Dormant Commerce Clause. Or if that's too dense, go to the Wikipedia article, although that's more confusing.

In McCulloch v Maryland (17 US 316, 1819), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." While that ruling was in a different context, that principle still holds today. For example, in Speiser v Randall (357 US 513 [1958], citing an earlier case, sorry can't get Findlaw working for this one), the Supreme Court held that "It is settled that speech can be effectively limited by the exercise of the taxing power."

It is legal to tax First Amendment-protected material, but such a tax must never:
1. Single out the press
2. Target one group of speakers over another group
3. Discriminate on the basis of content of taxpayer speech.

So, while you pay sales tax on a CD, you pay the same tax on your CD as you pay on your couch and your Jolt! cola. Such a tax applies, but it does not apply only to something that is protected. It encompasses protected things, but it does not single out protected things as the subject of the tax. You pay sales tax on books, but you do not pay a tax that applies only to books.

A "music download tax" targets a specific kind of expression --music -- and is thus illegal under the First Amendment. Similarly, porn taxes are illegal for exactly the same reason, and in Texas bar owners are litigating a tax on admission to topless bars (because dancing, including nude dancing, is also protected, although the extent of that protection is far from settled). One poster asked if the porn industry has a lobby. Yes.

There are two ways such a tax could work:
1. An internet sales tax that applies to all goods and services sold over the internet. This has obvious problems.
2. An internet download tax that covers all downloads, eg, including your web traffic, email, and so on, essentially a bandwidth consumption tax. This has other problems in that pretty much everything on the internet can be construed as speech in one way or another, and thus the argument can be made that the tax targets only internet-based speech, which would be protected.

Note that the First Amendment itself does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial speech, and thus the courts have tended to err on the side of freedom in commercial speech. There are of course exceptions for things that are deceptive, defamatory, libelous, and harmful; however, for the most part, if what you have to say, even in a commercial enterprise, if it's true, it's pretty much fair game.

DCMA Section 202, Sub-Section 512, Paragraph (a) provides for common carrier status in all but name.

The part you highlighted, actually, which has been an element of scholarly debate regarding the second amendment (something *you* apparently don't understand). Quoting Michael Dorf (link) on the topic of methods of interpretation of the second amendment following a recent ruling in the case of "United States v. Emerson":

"The first model holds that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people collectively rather than to individuals, because the right's only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia; it is not for individuals' benefit. The second model is similar to the first. It holds that the right to keep and bear arms exists only for individuals actively serving in the militia, and then only pursuant to such regulations as may be prescribed. Under either of the first two models, a private citizen has no right to possess a firearm for personal use. But the court rejected these two models in favor of a third, the individual rights model. Under this third model, the Second Amendment protects a right of individuals to own and possess firearms, much as the First Amendment protects a right of individuals to engage in free speech."

So, "the people" could be all individuals, or it could be "the people", as part of a "well-regulated militia", the latter emphasizing the purpose clause of the amendment. Your own bias results in your choice of interpretation. But it isn't the only one, believe it or not (of course, most pro-gun folks would prefer not). And, interestingly, that same article points out that "in endorsing the third, individual rights model, the Fifth Circuit broke ranks with the other federal appeals courts that have addressed the issue, all of which have adopted some variant of the first two models."

Of course, my bet is you'll go the way of our favorite arch-conservative, ArcherB, and just decry this stuff as the imaginative ramblings of ivory-tower scholars and judges who like to "legislate from the bench". That's your choice... and I would expect nothing less. But, maybe someone with a more open mind will come along, read this, and realize there's more to this debate than the simple black-and-white interpretation the pro-gun lobby likes to favour.

this technology as being inherently double edged.

Of course it is, but these academics will go ahead and develope this tech and then be all suprised five to ten years down the road when Real ID cards with complete live tracking become a required "National Security" measure. I'm far less concerned with the idea of some random psycho using this to track me as I am with the government and other dataminers (marketing, transit, credit agencies, insurance) tracking me. "if you're thinking about making this mandatory under the guise of security or comfort, you're going to be tracking my RFID tag in a garbage can." Unfortunately when this tech becomes about "National Security" you won't have much choice, unless you are prepared to be denied access to most public buildings and transit for failure to carry proper ID. Or possibly you'll just get arrested. All that's really required is that a failure to produce a RealID RFID response becomes reasonable suspicion.

Findlaw has the full text.

There is a difference between public knowledge of an instruction set and Intel actually granting a license to use their design.
It is known that even if nvidia purchased AMD then the x86 chip cross license agreement that AMD carries is none transferable and could not be used in GPU devices.
This leaves only Via with a 10 year license to Intel designs. The terms of that are a little more clouded, but I would hazard it would also be none transferable.

nvidia have their own license to Intel products at the moment, however this does not include the x86 itself.

Intel and Microsoft are still in bed with each other.
the more things change, the more they stay the same.

intel/amd license terms:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

intel/via news article:
http://www.news.com/Intel,-Via-bury-the-hatchet/2100-1006_3-995845.html

intel/nvidia news:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1729927,00.asp

You might find the legal annotations on the 14th
Amendment useful:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/37.html

"Sec. 4 was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War"

It is BEYOND QUESTION that the debt is invalid according to the Supreme Court.

Thorington V Smith in 1868 states:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=1

"It is very certain that the Confederate government was never acknowledged by the United States as a de facto government in this sense. Nor was it acknowledged as such by other powers. No treaty was made by it with any civilized state. No obligations of a National character were created by it, binding after its dissolution, on the States which it represented, or on the National government. From a very early period of the civil war to its close, it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States."

Quite simply, the woman has a worthless lawyer.

You might find the legal annotations on the 14th
Amendment useful:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/37.html

"Sec. 4 was undoubtedly inspired by the desire to put beyond question the obligations of the Government issued during the Civil War"

It is BEYOND QUESTION that the debt is invalid according to the Supreme Court.

Thorington V Smith in 1868 states:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=75&invol=1

"It is very certain that the Confederate government was never acknowledged by the United States as a de facto government in this sense. Nor was it acknowledged as such by other powers. No treaty was made by it with any civilized state. No obligations of a National character were created by it, binding after its dissolution, on the States which it represented, or on the National government. From a very early period of the civil war to its close, it was regarded as simply the military representative of the insurrection against the authority of the United States."

Quite simply, the woman has a worthless lawyer.

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 or so petitions for review each year. It grants 150. About a quarter of these will ultimately be disposed of in single line or less.

The screening process begins with the Court's law clerks, who sift through the petitions and settle upon a select few that they deem worthy of consideration by the justices. Next, inside a closed conference room, the Chief Justice leads the meeting in which the Justices discuss the petitions and vote aloud on which cases they find more significant and deserving of deliberation. Voting begins with the Chief Justice and is followed by the Associate Justices according to seniority. The most junior Justice...takes the handwritten notes that will be passed to a clerk for public announcement... To be considered, a case must receive at least four votes. Whether or not a case is accepted "strikes me as a rather subjective decision, made up in part of intuition and in part of legal judgement," Rehnquist wrote in his book, "The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is." In deciding whether to review a case, the Court will generally consider whether the legal question was decided differently by two lower courts and needs resolution by a higher court, whether a lower court decision conflicts with an existing Supreme Court ruling, and whether the issue could have broader social significance beyond the interests of the two parties involved. However, not all cases of significant social issues needing resolution are accepted by the Supreme Court.

A History of the Supreme Court

The definition of the US militia is still a part of US law, though it's been modified a few times over the years.

According to current federal law, U.S. Code : Title 10 : Section 311a:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

That's the current law of the land, folks. Even with a tortuous reading of the second amendment to parse it to mean that it the right only applies to the militia, the militia is still a very large percentage of the populace. I don't think you'd get much support for restricting only women, only the older, or only the non-able-bodied from firearm ownership either...

In 1994 Congress passed the anti-bootlegging provisions, and 18 U.S.C. s. 2319A, that give perpetual, and retroactive, protection to unauthorized recordings of live musical performances. In 1998 Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which lengthened the copyright term from the life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years; the average copyright term is now longer than one human lifetime all but obliterating the usefulness of a "public domain." (As a point of reference the original copyright term in the first American copyright act was at most 28 years.) The statutory damages which accrue per instance of copyright infringement (up to $150,000) far exceeds actual damages in most cases. Thus, infringers who copy 50 songs which would have cost them $50 dollars on iTunes, or even $1000 in traditional CD format, end up owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Is a more balanced, public domain friendly copyright law on your agenda?

In 1994 Congress passed the anti-bootlegging provisions, and 18 U.S.C. s. 2319A, that give perpetual, and retroactive, protection to unauthorized recordings of live musical performances. In 1998 Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which lengthened the copyright term from the life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years; the average copyright term is now longer than one human lifetime all but obliterating the usefulness of a "public domain." (As a point of reference the original copyright term in the first American copyright act was at most 28 years.) The statutory damages which accrue per instance of copyright infringement (up to $150,000) far exceeds actual damages in most cases. Thus, infringers who copy 50 songs which would have cost them $50 dollars on iTunes, or even $1000 in traditional CD format, end up owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Is a more balanced, public domain friendly copyright law on your agenda?

ICBW, of course, but I suspect that the ACLU found a ruling it liked and decided that it was the One True Ruling and all others would be ignored.

#include <ianal.h>
#include <just_a_court_junkie.h>

For better or worse, US vs Miller is the one and only ruling the Supremes did on the Second, and because it was fairly limited in scope (The court ruled that the federal government did have a compelling interest in the transportation of weapons across state lines, which I'd generally agree with), there's a lot of room to argue about what might or might not be considered legal under that ruling.

A decision will be handed down on District of Columbia v. Heller , which will give an opinion on what the rights are of the individual states to pass laws to regulate the ownership of firearms.

A "Girlie Man" Supposedly Lacks Not Only Physical Strength, But Nerve and Guts Putting Schwarzenegger's "girlie men" remarks in context helps to illuminate the stereotypes they further. First, consider his attack on the California legislators. Schwarzenegger argued, "They cannot have the guts to come out there in front of you and say, 'I don't want to represent you. I want to represent those special interests: the unions, the trial lawyers'. . . I call them girlie men. They should get back to the table, and they should finish this budget."

A "girlie man," in this view, lacks "guts" because he is beholden to special interests. His "girlieness" is a kind of "wimpiness" -- a lack of guts, a lack of strength, and an inability to speak with an independent mind, and get things accomplished. Conversely - the phrase implies -- "real" men have guts, courage, strength, and the capacity for strong leadership that serves the People directly. So given the choice, the phrase implies, we should prefer "real men" over "girlie men" as our political leaders. .

As we drove our 2008 model across first the Tobin Bridge to the Zakim Bridge and into the Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. Tunnel, the driver of the older WRX took perverse delight in passing on the right, then letting me pass, before repeatedly dropping in behind me and zooming by on one side or the other. The invitation was clear. "Let's play in traffic and see what you've got." The unspoken slur was: "Your new WRX is a cop-out."

The Arctic was a place where Henson could contribute his full potential. Not because Peary or his white companions were civil rights crusaders, but because the environment of the north simply demanded too much to afford the luxury of limiting any person's contributions on arbitrary racial grounds. By contrast, Henson's life outside the Arctic was a struggle against diminished expectations and unspoken slurs at best and outright racial hatred at worst. But in telling the story, Henson focuses on the exception, the kindness of the sea captain who tutored him and taught him to read, as the defining influence in his life.

An interesting aside wrt AMD. Apparently AMD's license for the x86 instruction set has a massive "catch":

http://www.overclockers.com/tips01276/

what clause 6.2 appears to say is that if AMD gets taken over or goes bankrupt, Intel has the right to end AMD's right to use Intel's patents and copyrights after sixty days notice. This would seem to mean AMD couldn't make x86 processors anymore.

The direct findlaw doc link:
http://contracts.corporate.findlaw.com/agreements/amd/intel.license.2001.01.01.html

So the arms race isn't so cut-and-dry because x86 is so pervasive. Any competitor would likely find themselves in the same situation as AMD because Intel holds the licensing trump card. Imagine being the startup trying to negotiate a fair arrangement under those conditions (i.e. where they could be truly competitive with Intel down the road).

>"You can't really ban something unless you can define it and no one is offering a definition we can use."

Justice Potter Stewart once famously said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "

But he was talking about something else...

http://library.findlaw.com/2003/May/15/132747.html

Patents are far more evil than copyrights

Patents are for a fixed 20-year term, and must be laid out in specificity for the good of the general public upon expiration. Patents are subject to a lengthy examination process to prove that they are novel and non-trivial extensions of the current knowledge.

By contrast, copyright is for the life of the author plus (currently) 70 years. Thanks to our Congress, everything created since 1923 could potentially still be protected. After 80 years of Mickey Mouse, he is STILL not in the public domain. Walt Disney croaked in 1966, and his copyright will last until at least 2024. See this article for more details.

Trademarks are designed to protect your interest in your "brand", and to prevent customer confusion. They are inherently a good thing.

I would posit that 1) trademarks are good for companies and the consumer; 2) patents are mostly a good system (with the possible exclusion of business method patents), and 3) that copyright is much more heinous.

Now that you've won spectacularly, is it possible to pursue those damages?

That is an interesting civil procedure question but the answer is probably not.

IMPORTANT NOTE: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, there is no formation of attorney client privilege, this does not serve as an offer to represent you, your family, or anyone you have ever met, consult the advice of a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before taking any action, the forgoing is for informational and educational purposes only, and any and all warranties inherent in this post whether express or implied are hereby disclaimed.

Regular Business Judgment Rule (BJR) does not apply in hostile takeovers. In these instances the Enhanced Scrutiny Standard or Unocal Test applies.

Under this standard the Corporation's Board of directors is presumed self-interested, and must show (1) reasonable grounds for believing the taker over is dangerous to corporate policy and effectiveness, and (2) that their defense against the takeover is reasonable in proportion to the threat posed. Only if these two things are shown will the BJR be applied.

While it is definitely harder to satisfy than the BJR, I still think Yahoo can make some credible arguments to satisfy the Enhanced Scrutiny Standard, especially with respect to how Yahoo would fit within the greater Microsoft corporate structure.

However, what's more interesting is whether Yahoo's comments about wanting a $40 per share price constitutes an attempt by the board to actively sell the corporation. If the that's the case, the Board has effectivley put itself in an situation where it has a duty to get the best price possible for its shareholders and act in good faith with respect to obtaining that price. This the so called Revlon Rule.

Given the available information, it's arguably clear that $40 per share is just a pipe dream, especially since Microsoft is the only bidder. Yahoo's Board, by rejecting Microsoft's offer and countering with an unreasonable offer is arguably acting in bad faith, especially if the $40 offer is just a ploy and not a real negotiating strategy. Given that Yahoo is also attempting to entrench their employees, their overall course of conduct does not appear to be proper and in the interest of maximizing shareholder value for a company that is essentially putting itself up for auction.

In sum, Yahoo's board is going to argue for enhanced scrutiny to apply, while the plaintiffs will be arguing for Revlon to apply, and both probably have good arguments as to the matter. It'll be interesting to see how the court draws the line on this one.

Padilla's charges were in no way related to 9/11. Please refer to the indictment and verdict. Nothing in the complaint or indictment says anything about 9/11.

You should familiarize yourself with the case under discussion before calling someone else's post 'tripe'.

It says that Padilla participated in a conspiracy to kidnap people, and kill U.S. citizens and foreign nationals somewhere, somehow. Whether or not any of the plans could or were going to happen is what is in question. Padilla was initially trotted out as the poster boy for the Justice Department's efforts against terrorism. When it became clear that they busted some schlub who was probably not capable of holding up a 7-11, let alone plan a mass murder, they had to make something stick, lest they look ineffective.

Yes, I am familiar with criminal conspiracy, and I also know that it is used by prosecutors for a variety of reasons, some of them legit, others not so much. The threat of prosecution for conspiracy is often used to elicit testimony against the target of another investigation. Conspiracy is also used when a prosecutor can't get enough evidence to convict on a more direct charge. Sometimes this is all they have to prosecute a true criminal. It's also used as a face-saving technique by prosecutors in high-profile cases that turn out to be less than originally hyped.

I use the term 'thought crime' advisedly. Until quite recently, it was not a crime to simply *want* to commit a crime. It's not, or was not, illegal to want to rob a bank, or even plan to rob a bank, as long as you don't actually rob a bank. I'm sure that at some point in your life, you have wanted to strike another person. As long as you do not act on this, you have not committed a crime. If I get together with my buddies, and plan out a bank heist, that is not illegal or a conspiracy unless we actually do it, or get caught in the act of doing it. Padilla traveled abroad, expressed a desire to carry out some kind of attack, and may have planned something. The guy is also not very bright, and was told by a local cleric to master English before attempting to learn Arabic. If they had more concrete evidence that these guys were planning something, believe me, it would have appeared in that indictment. It does not, so I can only conclude that what's in the indictment was all they had. After 4 years in solitary confinement, that's all they got? Pretty thin.

Your example of 'hate crimes' as 'thought crimes' baffles me. Why is it inappropriate to consider the motivations of the perpetrator of a crime? You know, we have 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter and other variants that consider the motivation of someone who kills another, but committing a crime motivated by bigotry is a 'thought crime'? Is that a thought crime in the same sense as the difference between murder 1 and murder 2? There is an argument to be made that some of these could be 'aggravated', hence obviating the need for hate crimes statutes, but do we not regard bigotry as an especially odious motivation for crime? Smashing a store window as an act of simple vandalism and smashing a store window and spray-painting 'Kristallnacht' on the storefront are two levels of crime, are they not?

I wonder how fast he's going to get sued by the legal publishers that the article refers to as "more expensive", and thus quite successful and profitable?

These businesses already have had some competition for years and it's still available so unless he copies what they offer directly, summaries and such, I don't think it's very likely he'll be sued. Findlaw does this, for instance searching for "John Gilmore" has the ruling in his case as well as commentary on it.

So how is this different than http://www.findlaw.com/ ? I've been using that free site to look through cases ranging from the Supreme Court to individual State courts.

Freedom means that we can hurt ourselves and make bad decisions, and we accept it because it's better for everyone in the end.

Absolutely correct -- except in those aspects of a Free Society that are necessary for all. Can the citizens of a Free Society vote to give up their Freedom? No, they can not. Just as a vote that gives up the Freedom of all cannot be allowed, citizens who willingly refuse to protect their privacy harm the Freedom of everyone.

There is no better example than the complicity of the general populace with respect to the absurd measures governments are currently imposing in airports. These searches violate the Fourth Amendment in multiple ways (i.e. no probable cause -- not even reasonable suspicion, no warrant, no specific person to be searched, and a nearly unlimited list of items to be searched for), but individuals who object are rare and punished severely (just as in totalitarian systems).

"If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions."

-- Thomas Jefferson

It is the responsibility of every individual to watch the government. This is not a law. People cannot be coerced to do this by any authority. Any attempt at coercion would only result in tyranny. However, anyone who claims to believe in Freedom but makes no attempt to protect their privacy is a hypocrite, and every other individual has the right to speak freely and inform that individual of their hypocrisy.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Just as it is the duty of the individual to protect their privacy in a Free Society, it is the duty of the well-informed individual to enlighten the ignorant of their role in protecting everyone's Freedom.

Are you familiar with the fact that patent litigation takes YEARS, and millions of dollars? Sometimes a legitimate company may only be able to afford a single lawsuit at one time. The patent office can already reject your application on the ground of prosecution laches, and the court can rule an issued patent unenforceable due to laches for unreasonable delay. Actively suing someone else isn't unreasonable delay, so it can take many years before a patent holder gets around to suing you. I don't have a cite for that exact proposition, but I recall reading it while doing legitimate legal research. Also, read Symbol II and Symbol IV.

we'll see how they handle the 2nd Amendment fight this year

Do you mean the Washington DC case? I hope they hold up the 2nd.

we'll know if the Supremes are simply a bunch of puppets for the new Federal Oligarchy

I don't think this is a good case for this as the Bush admin generally supports the 2nd.

Their ruling on the Imminent Domain (or lack thereof) was also troubling

Yeah, the Kelo v. New London ruling was a travesty. And the thing is is New London condemned people's homes so a big business could build on it and now redevelopment may not happen. Though Susette Kelo and her neighbors who joined her lost something good came out of it, because of this case a number of states and local governments have changed the laws regarding eminent domain. Some changes have been that private developers can't have property condemned, the property can only be condemned if the government is going to use it, such as building a public school.

#3 there is a big difference between passing a congressional bill and performing constitutional duties- I don't know how much you know about politics, but the ratification of a bill is far less stringent than the passing of an amendment and was made so for good reason as laws are able to be reversed easily and repealed and amendments become a part of the judicial system which governs the land.

You like so many others make the mistake of what the USA Constitution is. It does not say what the federal government must do, it instead limits what it can do. If the Constitution is quiet on something the federal government can do nothing about it. Amendment 10 even states this explicitly, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So there being nothing in the Constitution about health the federal government can do nothing about it, without an amendment. You want the feds to do something then propose an amendment, don't treat the Constitution like it's toilet paper. That's what Article 5 is there for.

Also, congressional laws are not part of the judicial branch they remain in the arm of the legislative branch with reaching powers over the other branches. when you have an amendment in order to challenge an action it needs to go to the court (judicial) branch in order to be challanged- not so with a bill/law.

I don't know where you went to school but if it was in the USA they taught poorly. Fact is is the USA Constitution setup a system with three legs, congressional, executive, and judicial whereby no one branch of government would have too much power. Fact is is one role of Supreme Court is to make sure the executive and judicial branches do not break the Constitution.

Unfortuantely it didn't take very long before it was broken. Though it may of been broken earlier the first tyme I can recall the Constitution being broken was by President Jackson. In Worcester v. Georgia the US Supreme Court ordered the release of 2 missionaries, Samuel A. Worcester and Elizur Butler, from gaol. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the majority, said they had to be released. However Jackson refused to release them saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

IANALBWLAO (IANAL + But Watch Law And Order, lol). But seriously, between a husband and wife, it's called Spousal Privilege. The spousal privilege is a combination of two elements: 1) the right not to be compelled to testify against one's spouse, and 2) the protection of marital confidences (link). It should be noted that there are at least a few cases when spousal privilege does not apply, such as if the crime is committed against the spouse or children.

I've never heard of it applying to the parent-child relationship. I searched a bit and found an article about two New York trials that found they could not support such a privilege. I'm not sure why, but the first time I went to the link I was able to read the text, but now I have to log in to see. Regardless, I'm pretty sure it doesn't extend to children.

I personally believe that the current problem with our system is that the patent office (due in large part to a decision by the Supreme Court) didn't grant software patents (in the form of business method or machine patents) earlier.

I think this totally wrong. The problem, one of them that is, with the patent system in the US that the US Patent Office issues patents for software. Software should never be patented as it is only instructions on how a computer will perform a calculation. In other words software are algorithms. All that should be patentable is a unique solution to a given problem, if someone were to create a new solution they should be able to use it without worrying they'll infringe on someone else's patent.

The hobbyist software creator didn't exist in large part thirty years ago, and the fights would have been between large companies like IBM and its challengers.

Sure they did, it was hobbyist hardware hackers who built up Homebrew computers, from which the Mac and PC came from. Prior to the hardware hackers were the software hackers from places like MIT's Model Railroad Club though they also hacked hardware, though Stanford had it's share of hackers. It was there that the imagine of the hacker sitting in a basement all night programming came from. It's also where open source really comes from, part of the hacker ethic was to share.

The case referred to above was Gottschalk v Benson 409 US 63. The Court held that mathematical expressions could not be patented, and essentially found that all computer programs were mathematical expressions. The patent in question was for a bit shifter (converting decimal numbers into binary). IMO, we would be better off today had they simply found the patented material to be obvious, which is what many amici suggested.

Now I'm confused. Here you're arguing similarly to what I said above whereas in your second paragraph you argue software patents should have been granted earlier.

For starters there is contract law to keep people from signing stupid deals

http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-forms-contracts/business-forms-contracts-overview/

But above and beyond that society keeps people from doing stupid things all the time for example meat inspections so we don't buy tainted meat. Do you want to go back to the days of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle?" I think not...

http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Uncensored-Original-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1884365302

Or how about the days of child labor of the 19th century?

http://www.amazon.com/Times-Bantam-Classics-Charles-Dickens/dp/0553210165

Unchecked Libertarian capitalism is fine in theory, not so nice in practice.

That may be the economic theory, but I don't think it's necessarily the legal theory. Legally, the patent system is supposed to induce inventors to create new processes, materials, machines, etc. and to disclose their inventions so that they will eventually be owned by the public. Something often lost on the discussions on this site is that any patented invention will become public domain. In 20 years, potential patent holders will have to overcome this "land grab" of patents that we're currently experiencing. The broader the patents now granted, the more difficult they will be to overcome in the future.

I personally believe that the current problem with our system is that the patent office (due in large part to a decision by the Supreme Court) didn't grant software patents (in the form of business method or machine patents) earlier. Had the land grab happened thirty years ago, and the patent office learned to deal with it then, this all would have been worked out by now. The hobbyist software creator didn't exist in large part thirty years ago, and the fights would have been between large companies like IBM and its challengers.

The case referred to above was Gottschalk v Benson 409 US 63. The Court held that mathematical expressions could not be patented, and essentially found that all computer programs were mathematical expressions. The patent in question was for a bit shifter (converting decimal numbers into binary). IMO, we would be better off today had they simply found the patented material to be obvious, which is what many amici suggested.

Quick Question - There seems to me to be an inherent illegality here, maybe someone can explain why I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, maybe someone can file a complaint with the copyright office? As a violation of federal law and a matter of defrauding the court, it seems to me that if this chain of logic holds, they could be disbarred for doing this.

As I understand it,

A) A lawyer, issuing a Cease and Desist letter, is operating as an Officer of the court;
      I don't know that I'm right on this, but it seems to be implied in everything I can find on it. Doesn't mean I'm right.

B) An Officer of the court is also an Officer of the U.S. Government:
      Again, I'm not sure I'm right, but everything I can find referencing this in the law seems to indicate that yes, these are interchangeable terms.

C) Documents created by people acting as Officers of the U.S. Government are not copyrightable.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_101.html
"A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_105.html
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

D) If A --> B --> C, it seems to me submitting a Cease and Desist letter for copyright is in fact defrauding the federal government. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/sections/section_506.html

"(e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500."

Presenting that copyright to the court would in turn be fraud of the court.

Am I completely off base on this?

Pug

Quick Question - There seems to me to be an inherent illegality here, maybe someone can explain why I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, maybe someone can file a complaint with the copyright office? As a violation of federal law and a matter of defrauding the court, it seems to me that if this chain of logic holds, they could be disbarred for doing this.

As I understand it,

A) A lawyer, issuing a Cease and Desist letter, is operating as an Officer of the court;
      I don't know that I'm right on this, but it seems to be implied in everything I can find on it. Doesn't mean I'm right.

B) An Officer of the court is also an Officer of the U.S. Government:
      Again, I'm not sure I'm right, but everything I can find referencing this in the law seems to indicate that yes, these are interchangeable terms.

C) Documents created by people acting as Officers of the U.S. Government are not copyrightable.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_101.html
"A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_105.html
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

D) If A --> B --> C, it seems to me submitting a Cease and Desist letter for copyright is in fact defrauding the federal government. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/sections/section_506.html

"(e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500."

Presenting that copyright to the court would in turn be fraud of the court.

Am I completely off base on this?

Pug

Quick Question - There seems to me to be an inherent illegality here, maybe someone can explain why I'm wrong. If I'm not wrong, maybe someone can file a complaint with the copyright office? As a violation of federal law and a matter of defrauding the court, it seems to me that if this chain of logic holds, they could be disbarred for doing this.

As I understand it,

A) A lawyer, issuing a Cease and Desist letter, is operating as an Officer of the court;
      I don't know that I'm right on this, but it seems to be implied in everything I can find on it. Doesn't mean I'm right.

B) An Officer of the court is also an Officer of the U.S. Government:
      Again, I'm not sure I'm right, but everything I can find referencing this in the law seems to indicate that yes, these are interchangeable terms.

C) Documents created by people acting as Officers of the U.S. Government are not copyrightable.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_101.html
"A "work of the United States Government" is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_105.html
"Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."

D) If A --> B --> C, it seems to me submitting a Cease and Desist letter for copyright is in fact defrauding the federal government. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/sections/section_506.html

"(e) False Representation. - Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500."

Presenting that copyright to the court would in turn be fraud of the court.

Am I completely off base on this?

Pug

Are you high?

The U.S. Postal Service is an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," according to statute; it is wholly government-owned and, as such, is exempt from prosecution under the Sherman Act, according to the Supreme Court. I quote from this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=540&page=736

"The Postal Service has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. Its goals are not those of private enterprise. The most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even...."

PUH-leeze. Get the facts wrong, and you're MY meat.

The president of the school probably read or watched "Clear and Present Danger" recently. The book got that phrase from the US Supreme Court, who used it in a First Amendment opinion. The next few sentences in that opinion seem to imply that war and peace imply different levels of First Amendment protection. Since we seem to be "at war" all the time recently, using "clear and present danger" is probably an attempt to bring that opinion in on the side of the administration.

The current process is flawed, but stop whining that your rights were violated when in fact they were not. You consent to the search when you enter the security area. If you don't want to be searched, don't enter the checkpoint. You can't get on the plane without going through the checkpoint but flying isn't a right. If you don't like the airport searches, there are other methods to get to your destination that may be less convenient but don't involve such security measures.

It is a shame that the 9th Circuit decided you can no longer walk away from the process once you begin (decision (pdf)), but you still have to enter the checkpoint to begin the process. The TSA isn't actively approaching people wandering around the airport and demanding searches upon threat of arrest.

For further reference, Boyd v. United States (116 US 616, 623) (Feb. 1, 1886) is the best example I can find of the Supreme Court upholding border searches as consistent with the 4th Amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=116&invol=616#623

I have to agree, sadly, because I live here.
I've been hit by secondary screening multiple times on the same trip! I guess my right to privacy and careful thought towards sharing my private information with "some" stranger gets me tagged for a follow up. Nice. I usually place my skid marked underwear on the top of my carry on for the return trip, just for fun. When they ask me to move it aside, I suggest it isn't my job. Then I get to wait for the next flight for being uncooperative. Anyone ever heard of "unreasonable search and seizure" http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/ ?

I recall when you'd get on a plane, then pay cash for your ticket after you were already in your seat. I miss those days. It really is getting hard to have an affair with my girlfriend in another state without my wife finding out through credit card receipts and online tracking of each charge.

This government is forgetting what our country was founded on - individual rights.