Slashdot Mirror

Note that I made no statement in support or opposition to the ACLU's position on the 2nd. In fact, I do disagree with it.

But let me introduce you to the 14th Amendment and the concept known as equal protection.

"What's with "owning a gun" such a high civil liberty?"

Because the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government has no repsonsibility to protect private citizens.

Read that again.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT PRIVATE CITIZENS.

Don't believe me? Read about it here.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20050329.html

None of the other rights matter if you can't protect your life.

A lot of GOPist groups are trying to use Truong to support the current actions. However, Truong was pre-FISA (decided in 1980, but the events were way before FISA which was 1978). Also Truong was NOT an American citizen and it's unclear if he would meet the FISA definition of "US Persons". If one is classified as an "Agent of a Foreign Power" then warrants are not required.

Carter's actions that are being used to support Bush were also pre-FISA. Clinton's actions (a warrantless physical search) were also at the time outside of the scope of FISA. The Clinton Administration supported the change in FISA to bring searches into the FISA warrant process.

The Bush Administration is knowingly, willingly, and flagrantly violating a law of this nation. That is unacceptable.

At least Pennsylvania has laws allowing private criminal complaints. Other states may have the same. I couldn't file, since I have never installed this crap on any of my computers, and the PA State Supreme Court decreed that you have to be a victim or relative of a victim to do so. The attempt might draw the right sort of publicity, though I wonder if the DA would let it get very far: "Under PA Rules of Criminal Procedure, your complaint may require approval by the district attorney before it can be accepted by the magisterial district court. If the district attorney disapproves your complaint, you may petition the court of common pleas for review of the district attorney's decision."

Under what theory of copyright law is a copyright owner allowed to restrict modification of the work? AFAIK, a copyright holder can only restrict copying of the work or derived works, but cannot restrict the creation of such derived works.

Modification is "creation of a derivative work" in the language of copyright law. That's one of the rights reserved to the copyright holder. In United States law, this is stated explicitly in 17 USC 106(2).

... because the Supreme Court has not reviewed a single software patent case since that bad lower court ruling. Because the Supreme Court has not had a change to smack down that judge and that ruling for violating standing Supreme Court law.

It is quite understandable that the Supreme Court is overwhelmed with thousands of applicants begging for their thousands of cases to be reviewed and addressed... and that they are a single court and are only physically capable of hearing a handful of cases per year... and that things like civil rights cases and criminal cases and unconstitutional laws tend to take presidence. That they are generally not going to bump some civil rights case off the docket to make room for some stupid civil patent dispute between t

Box scores are a matter of public record. The NBA's claim was dismissed, and this goes for MLB box scores, as well as data like the record of moves in a chess game.

Facts and figures cannot themselves be protected by copyright (though the selection and presentation of them can, in a very limited form). That was established pretty unambiguously in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

There may be some protection under the 'hot news' doctrine (International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=248&invol=215 ), but I'm pretty sure modern courts would follow the reasoning of the 2nd Circuit (though not binding on non-2nd Circuit courts, unlike the Supreme Court opinions cited above, which are binding on all U.S. courts) in National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/105_F3d _841.htm ...

In summary, MLB can shove it, IM(ns)HO.

Facts and figures cannot themselves be protected by copyright (though the selection and presentation of them can, in a very limited form). That was established pretty unambiguously in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

There may be some protection under the 'hot news' doctrine (International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=248&invol=215 ), but I'm pretty sure modern courts would follow the reasoning of the 2nd Circuit (though not binding on non-2nd Circuit courts, unlike the Supreme Court opinions cited above, which are binding on all U.S. courts) in National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/105_F3d _841.htm ...

In summary, MLB can shove it, IM(ns)HO.

Wait, what?

If I get this special license when I buy tracks just because I'm a DJ, where is it? What are the terms? Am I agreeing to those terms automatically by purchasing that music?

Lemme let you in on a DJ secret - we play what we get our hands on. Period. I buy acapellas and beats from iTunes and dig for tracks in discount bookstores and flea markets. Where is my license for public performance then?

A DJ that's concerned with the legal status of every little song and sample that they play wouldn't have very many tunes to play. In fact, I own records like "Unknown vs. Gwen Stefani" - Unknown because of the shady nature of an unlicensed sample. Definitely not cleared for public performance, but legitimately purchased from a record store.

In fact, last I heard, sampling anything is illegal in the United States without explicit consent from the copyright holder. Since so many beats used in rap/hip-hop/electronic/industrial are sampled and not cleared, that pretty much makes the records illegal anyway, even if they were sold to you as playable. (BTW, is it illegal to be a cover band? I might just learn to play something...)

But I'm pretty sure you were talking about club DJs and not real DJs... When you go to a club, look around for an ASCAP sticker (usually on the front windows or by one of the bars) - that's a good sign the club payed a licensing agreement -- so you can listen to the same top 50 tunes you hear all day on commercials and radio, and feel good about helping out those poor starving artists.

...drawn on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." Do not fool yourself into thinking that an organism that is part human part pig will be given civil rights that are denied to one that is fully human, yet unborn. Of course, if one pig-man sits down on a bus and refuses to move, and another declares "I have a dream", anything could happen...

We can debate all day about whether the police are allowed to strip-search children (they are) or whether meth should be illegal (it is), but the language in here is crystal clear. The only people who can't see it are those who don't like Alito and want to smear him, and make it appear as though he condones of strip searches (he doesn't, at least not from any reading of his written opinion on the matter).

Politics in this country would be so much easier if the press would just give web links to the full text of whatever they blather about. Then we could all read it and ignore 95% of what the windbags say.

Then your father needed to hire a better patent attorney.

Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)

"It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a "different state or thing." We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold."

Diamond v. Diehr (1981)

"In contrast, the respondents here do not seek to patent a mathematical formula. Instead, they seek patent protection for a process of curing synthetic rubber. Their process admittedly employs a well-known mathematical equation, but they do not seek to pre-empt the use of that equation. Rather, they seek only to foreclose from others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. These include installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly recalculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time. Obviously, one does not need a "computer" to cure natural or synthetic rubber, but if the computer use incorporated in the process patent significantly lessens the possibility of "overcuring" or "undercuring," the process as a whole does not thereby become unpatentable subject matter."

My citations may be damned, but they are correct. Your father's failure to properly protect his interests does not alter the state of the law, and does not prove me wrong.

--
The 4th annual symposium on time travelling will be held last thursday.

Did I miss anything?

Okay, I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV...
(seriously though, I often do legal research)
and quite frankly people need to RTF case. The judge has explicitly said "I don't tell [the patent office] their job, they don't tell me mine." What that means, and it's listed EXPLICITLY that the judge in the case doesn't give a hoot about the Patent Office ruling, and that he (not will not, implying no decision has been rendered) DID not grant RIM's motion to stay pending patent ruling.

He also clearly states that part of the main reason for his rejection of this judgement is that he buys COMPLETELY NTP's argument that if the patents are rejected, they will appeal, a process that could drag on for years (RIM contends it would only be a few short months).

Furthermore RIM is guilty throughout the trial of what is considered 'bad behavior.' There was considerable question that RIM followed all necessary protocols (particularly with an internal investigation of whether the patents were reasonably valid). This is backed up by conflicting evidence from the varies executive party at RIM.

Okay, so no one seems to get this, but I'll spell it out for you, and link the document: RIM lost. Not will lose, not might lose, HAS lost. Their 45 page appeal proceeding (one needs Lexis Nexis to access it, thus I won't be posting that one here) reads VERY poorly for RIM. In fact the only part that was remanded to a lower court does little to allow them to win. NTP won. RIM is in violation (imho because they a.) engaged in 'bad behavior,' which is to say trial etiquette and b.) during the Markman hearing [a hearing where the judge determines things like definitions and scope of patents, est. 1996, Markman v. Westview Instruments] they did horrible job allowing NTP to fully dominate definitions of email and patent scope, giving them enough broad leeway to technically sue any computer manufacturer that makes a wifi laptop that can check e-mail, but I digress... and c.) their initial arguments (which cannot be dropped in favor of new arguments unless the appeal strikes those specifically, and it didn't) were ridiculously weak, and essentially claimed that the Intel chipset inside was the RF device (the NTP patents specifically call for an RF device), not the Blackberry pager itself, and therefore was not liable for infringement (no judge in the WORLD would buy this argument on common sense alone, but there is numerous precedent in US patent law that clearly says that by possessing this part, RIM infringes)...

Here's how it's going to end:
RIM is going to pay NTP a ton of money.
Everyone's going to keep their Blackberries.
In 2012 (when the original patents expire, and thus the payments mandated by the court) or whenever RIM migrates every BB customer to a non-infringing system (whichever comes first) NTP stops getting paid.

Please note, I'm a huge fan of RIM. I think RIM should have won this case hands down, and I passionately pursue research in the area strictly as a hobby, as a fan of both law and technology. I believe that RIM was doomed from the beginning, and a few /. nerds on the defense team would have heavily swung this in the opposite direction (also a little more corporate courtesy on RIM's part). Seriously though, I've heard nothing but nonsense about this case, and I'm happy for a chance to set the record as straight as I have found it.

Here is the rejection by the honorable James Spencer of RIM's motion for a 'stay of proceedings' pending review of the patents by the USPTO.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/rim/ntprim11300 5opn.pdf
It's a PDF, and an enlightening read.
Enjoy.

"14. basically gave the government the power to federalize a lot of things after the civil war"

Is that how you look at the most important amendment since the Bill of Rights was ratified? Maybe you should take a look at Section 1 again. Then you might understand how "Congress shall pass no law ..." became "Congress (and the various state legislatures) shall pass no law".

"It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased"

I'm going to copy that twice, because it is such an incredible thing to say in light of the following text: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom . . . of the press". Have you even read the First Amendment?

"Freedom of Speech was put into the 1st amendment for the sole purpose of allowing Lese Majeste . . . Specifically, the states wanted this freedom so that if the current government became corrupted like the English monarchy/parliament, then they would not be thrown in jail for saying so. It was not intended to protect the press from printing whatever they pleased or protecting their sources or pornography or flag burning or any such thing. These were interpretations added in later."

The First Amendment protects people not states. Very clearly, it says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech". It does not limit what kind of speech is protected. Yes, those "interpretations" were added later. ALL interpretations were added later. A court cannot interpret a Constitutional amendment until AFTER it has been ratified.

If speech creates a clear and present danger (e.g. inciting to riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater) I agree with the Supreme Court that it can be regulated. But if the purpose of regulation is simply to censor content that someone finds offensive then it goes directly against the purpose of the First Amendment.

If you could show that video games, pornography or flag-burning caused people to jump up and start raping and killing other people, then I would be interested in allowing government oversight. But the real reason people want to regulate these things is because they do not like the images and ideas that are expressed in them. That is exactly what the Freedom of Speech clause was intended to prevent.

In response to your admonition that I should stop expressing the same views as Larry Flynt. You can take your freshman-level American History textbook and shove it up your ass sideways a few times to get an idea of how much I care about your opinion... Thanks.

Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df [state.gov] "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html [findlaw.com] '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)

Ok, it looks like you're a genius on the subject after a bit of googling. Whatever you're reading from, it's wrong, you're picking and choosing and you happened to pick some inaccurate quotes. Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus clause when he had the army arrest some guy running for governor for coming out saying he was a tyrant and stuff. Now that was way back during the civil war, the country was still in it's infancy. Nobody has ever come close to taking advantage of presidential authority as much as Lincoln did. Lincoln violated all sorts of rules during the civil war, he called for a naval blockade before he had even declared war on the confederate army, which is illegal and Bush faced with the same decision to strike at Saddam with a tomahawk before the war had officially started, turned down the opportunity. So the quote that each national crisis leaves us less democratic is complete bullshit. That may be the authors opinion but it's completely baseless and he aught to study history more. Furthermore, if you think the president doesn't have the authority to suspend the constitution during a national emergency, look into the topic of marshal law.

But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.

Once again, you must have a really short memory. I said the only thing that really matters is that the President is going with the consensus of congress and public opinion when he makes these decisions. I have repeated public opinion over and over, and really I think congress matters very little, congress right now is a joke, see what people think about wiretapping foreign phone calls, I think this will blow up in the face of anyone trying to use it against the president. No I'm not OK with deporting or otherwise rounding up all muslims in this country. That is a stupid question. You would make a good white-house reporter ;) If only the president (or press secretary) could be as blunt as I am.

Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.

What the hell does that mean? Is that like trying to say that it was justifiable to go to war in Afghanistan after 9/11 but now it isn't and we should be prosecuting people for wanting to go to war? This is an example of the short term memory of the public, that the public opinion can be influenced outside the scope of a certain duration, this is a political tool and I don't see any use argueing with you about this. It's all the same to me because I'm not your average dumb-ass who gets hi

I did a little more reading, and I may have overstated... as it was only one or two courts interpretation; however, it is not bullshit either. It's apparently not a "settled" issue.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/05.html#t156
Scroll down to footnote 156, and check out that attached cases.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Let's try to be polite here. I did read the whole thing.

There is no specific wording in regard to what the president can and can't do. It is intentionally vague.

"Intentionally vague" is not the same thing as "the President can do whatever he wants".

The president didn't break any laws.

That's the administration's position, but there is no consensus on that matter. Keep in mind also that Bush's primary justification for all this is Congress' authorization of the use of military force in Afghanistan after 9/11. Does this look like a use of military force?

The president has the authority to MAKE LAWS with executive order.

Executive orders cannot controvert statute or the Constitution.

The president has the ability to, and did declare a national emergency after 9/11. Google "national emergency presidential powers"

Good idea. Here's a good one. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.p df "With the exception of the habeas corpus clause, the Constitution makes no allowance for the suspension of any of its provisions during a national emergency." I recommend reading the rest of that document as well. Here's a good article (that also supports some of what you're saying): http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html '"Constitutional dictatorship is a dangerous thing," Rossiter advises. Such governments are the result of necessity, of the sheer imperative of survival. The greatest danger with such a form of government, and its related institutions and laws, is that they can remain after the crisis has abated.' That's one of my fears as well. Bush won't be in office if or when we win the war on terrorism, but what about his successors? "None of Professor Rossiter's observations about our history is more chilling than his finding that each national crisis has left the nation a little less democratic than before." Obviously there's a lot more, but I'm getting hungry. :-)

It made more sense during WW2 to intern the Japanese because of the nature of the threat and the strange times, with Hitler and the Nazi's and all. President Bush could TRY to do something like that but he probably wouldn't get very far, that would be ridiculous, Muslims in the U.S. have very little in common with terrorist extremists.

But it would be OK with you, right? Because Bush is doing what he thinks is right in a time of emergency. That's what you've been saying - he can do anything he decides is necessary.

If you knew the whole story you would probably understand why it was justified in each case.

Whether it was justified before also does not have any bearing on whether it was justified now. That's even if you're correct that it was justifies in the past, which I'm not conceding.

Is the NSA going to lobby congress to change the laws if they are doing something top secret?

No, but the President should. There are procedures for such things.

People don't give the United States much credit for all the good we do. I have a little puppy that had to have his coat of fur shaved off because it was all matted, so he gets cold and starts to shiver lately. Sometimes I try to wrap a blanket around him but he thinks I am trying to confine him or something, all I'm trying to do is keep him warm, but he doesn't understand.

Not a good analogy unless your puppy speaks English.

Remember, life then liberty. What good does liberty do if you're dead, or fearing death?

And what good is life without liberty?

Sure the odds are slim that you will be killed by terrorists, but you're essentially saying you want to have freedoms that you will NEVER ENJOY OR BENEFIT FROM PERSONALLY at the potential cost of human lives.

I benefit from the liberties this nation provides every day, and so do you, whether you realize it or not.

> The ACLU tried to get the supreme court to ban a moment of silence

Sometimes the ACLU goes overboard.

U.S. Supreme Court WALLACE v. JAFFREE

The Supreme Court held that the government officials in the Alabama State legislature unconstitutionally abused their power to impose a moment of silence on students for the explicit and unconstitutional purpose of promoting prayer by them.

The ACLU supports the right of students to pray in school, it only opposes acts of government to promote or suppress it.

-

There are some truly sick creatures that run wikipedia, so none of this is surprising.

Take the case of [[User:Fred Bauder]] - a top level wikipedia Bureaucrat on the site's powerful Arbitration Committee. Bauder states he is a "retired" attorney on his wiki-profile. What he doesn't tell you is that his retirement was forced by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1999 for soliciting prostitution from one of his clients.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=co&vol=1999sc%5Csc0125a&invol=1

The Parents for the Online Safety of Children also exposes some serious issues regarding how Wikipedia puts pedophiles on a pedestal. Pretty serious stuff.

The first google search on "16th amendment" pulls up this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment16/ .

Click on the "history" link and you'll get a different story than the amendment never being ratified.

Thanks,
Leabre

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-11-10 -palmeiro-no-perjury_x.htm

Baseball star Rafael Palmeiro will not be prosecuted on perjury charges after lawmakers said Thursday there isn't enough evidence to prove he lied when he told Congress under oath that he had "never used steroids" six weeks before failing a steroid test.

Perjury is punishable by a fine and/or no more than five years in prison, making it a felony. The fine can be no more than $250,000 for an individual (except in some cases in which money is involved).

I just got that from reading those links, but still, I'm not a lawyer.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-11-10 -palmeiro-no-perjury_x.htm

Baseball star Rafael Palmeiro will not be prosecuted on perjury charges after lawmakers said Thursday there isn't enough evidence to prove he lied when he told Congress under oath that he had "never used steroids" six weeks before failing a steroid test.

Perjury is punishable by a fine and/or no more than five years in prison, making it a felony. The fine can be no more than $250,000 for an individual (except in some cases in which money is involved).

I just got that from reading those links, but still, I'm not a lawyer.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-11-10 -palmeiro-no-perjury_x.htm

Baseball star Rafael Palmeiro will not be prosecuted on perjury charges after lawmakers said Thursday there isn't enough evidence to prove he lied when he told Congress under oath that he had "never used steroids" six weeks before failing a steroid test.

Perjury is punishable by a fine and/or no more than five years in prison, making it a felony. The fine can be no more than $250,000 for an individual (except in some cases in which money is involved).

I just got that from reading those links, but still, I'm not a lawyer.

First, the executive order you cite, at the very bottom, says the following:

      1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
      section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
      the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
      electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
      Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
      Act as well as this Order.''.

In accordance with that act (FISA) and this order. It does not intend to nor could it be able to override FISA. Please, read what you're quoting.

Second, Jamie Gorelick saying that the president can do whatever he wants don't make it so.

Third, U.S. v. Truong ruling that was cited in the sealed case was decided in 1978, the year the law was enacted. The actual events that caused the case happened in 1972, long before the matter was settled by the court:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=439&invol=1326

Now, what's interesting about the case that's cited as the alleged justification for complete Presidential powers to conduct warrantless searches for foriegn intelligence purposes? Truong, the person who was spied upon, was a Vietnamese citizen, and furthermore, had not established residence in the US. Not a "US person" acording to FISA. Thus, the scope of the ruling EXACTLY COVERS THE SCOPE OF THE LAW.

No warrants are required to spy on FORIEGNERS. Warrants are most definitely required to spy on US citizens.

Please, stop repeating the tired talking points of Bush administration apologists. This is a very serious matter, it's a crime, and it must be stopped.

It's unconstitutional for contradicting the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause in the first amendment. It would be constitutional if it was found to have a scientific basis, but as its basis was found to be religious, then it cannot be supported by federally funded schools.

That is not quite true. A lot of people are trying to get the word out. Problem is, that a lot of people are backing a traitor, know it, and are doing their best to keep other quiet on what is obviously their mistake. Think about how many people here who support bush would admit that they are supporting a traitor, a liar, an obstructor, financially inept, security inept, etc. etc.? This man makes Clinton look positively compitent as well as making McCartney look like a lover of freedoms.

Constitutional law isn't cut and dry. Quoting the Fourth Amendment's "probable cause" while ignoring the Fifth Amendment (which mandates the use of Grand Juries), common law, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent is neither compelling nor an accurate representation of law.

For example, in US v. R Enterprises (498 U.S. 292) the Supreme Court unanimously held that "where ... a subpoena is challenged on relevancy grounds, the motion to quash must be denied unless the district court determines that there is no reasonable possibility that the category of materials the Government seeks will produce information relevant to the general subject of the grand jury's investigation." The judgement was unanimous, although Marshall and Blackmun didn't sign the quoted portion.

The entire opinion is available on FindLaw, and is a pretty good read. It involved subpoenas for the same sorts of business records which may be requested under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, and even has an attention-grabbing pornography/obscenity twist.

The exceptions on that section are provided here for your convenience (no, they don't detract from the parent's argument):


  (a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard,
        a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64
        years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy,
        Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for
        reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
            (b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National
        Guard, a person must -
                (1) be a citizen of the United States; and
                (2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.


From here.

Patriot act big PDF warning. I am happy that our government is actually trying to restore our rights. First they let the assault weapon ban drop, now they let the patriot act die. I know it is early, but this may be a step in the right direction. Hopefully we can continue to elect out the lawmakers who would lie and steal their voter's rights. IMHO moving away from the 2 party system would be another step in the right direction, but I will take what I can get.

Sadly not enough similarities have shown up. That is why Mr. Dean suggest to Mr Fitzgerald to turn over more stones. Apparently, he was initially ordered to not stray from his mission of finding just one person who leaked. Now, the question is, will he?

Doctrine of laches fixed this problem. No more submarine patents. Though there is a secret period while the patent is being prosecuted sometimes, the theory being we should not punish the patentee because the PTO is slow.

I disagree most vigorously. The phrase "A man's home is his castle" originated in feudal Europe when most people were not free but some semblance of privacy was respected. Privacy is -not- of modern origin but has been the bulwark of freedom and the last bastion of freedom througout history. Just because it's possible to invade privacy more easily now does not mean it has always been so. Just look at the fact that you can kill a man for entering your home (in the US anyway), with no questions asked. Your house is your castle and you can expect privacy. That has always been the law of the land. To say that it is a luxery and not equated with freedom is disengenuous. It's even written into the constitution fo the United States. Read the fourth amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endments.html

Here's another article that exposes older privacy laws of England, France, Norway, and Sweden. Those countries are arguably as free, or nowdays more free than the United States.

http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003 /overview.htm

No, the right to privacy is not a modern luxery. To the contrary, the lack of privacy is a modern invention and not practiced to anywhere near the modern extent in previous eras. The parent post should be modded down as ill-informed malarky.

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those. -http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a mendment09/

Prove this. The original telegraphy and radiotelegraphy was created without government funding or mandate.

While this looks a little more specific.

And this might just be close to a bullseye. I think I'll curl up with this one myself.

2.) Your location is already public. In other words if you are on the street, people already see you there. You go to a mall, the cameras will record your location, you go to work - the co-workers will know where you are. The police can technically follow you around to know your location, without needing a search warrant.

In other words "your location" does not = "your property".

IANAL but have taken a fair amount of law classes as part of a pre-law degree. It's not that simple--law is all about balancing competing principles such as privacy and the public good. One key principle is 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. If I fly a plane over your factory to learn the secrets of your patented process, is that legal because view from the air is publically available? Since your location is 'public', would you have any objection to someone hacking your phone and broadcasting it to the world?

And you might be interested to learn that cops can't just follow you around hoping you commit a crime or whatever. You might want to read up on the Fourth Amendment. I know that these days I also forget that government is meant to serve us, and that government essential has no rights that aren't stated in the constitution (unfortunately it seems that both of those statements have been reversed lately...).

Can you really copyright grunts?

dude, you can copyright SILENCE..

in the fantasy world where you replace the Supreme Court

I did not claim to replace the Supreme Court. In case you filed to notice, I extensively QUOTED the Supreme Court. If you would like to argue that my quotes were inaccurate or fictional, or that I misrepresented them, you are welcome to do so. If you would like to present evidence that the Supreme Court has reversed their stance on any issue, I would love to see it.

I belatedly realize I did not provide a link to the Supreme Court Ruling itself. I really should have had it in there. My bad. Linky linky: U.S. Supreme Court DIAMOND v. DIEHR

you would overturn the established legal precedent

I showed that the lower court opening the door for software patents appears to be in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court in several ways. The implication being an expectation that the Supreme Court will overturn this software patent nonsense once they take time out of their busy schedual of hugely important cases to address a stupid software patent case and fix this mess. We have been stuck with this software patent mess for so long because the Supreme Court has not addressed a single case in this field in such a long time. Patent law generally does not anywhere near civil rights and constitutional issues in terms of importance and attention. The lower courts have run amuck based on the bad State Street Bank ruling and general absence of attention from the Supreme Court.

And I further note that you have not disputed, much less refuted, a singlg thing I said last post.

The Supreme Court rendered a 5-4 ruling with four justiced being vehemently opposed to getting anywhere near software patents, and the other five rendering a ruling in support of a single aspect of an industrial manufacturing process that incorported a software element, and those majority justice including explicit warnings on how their ruling should *not* be missapplied and the sort of software applications that should *not* allowed under it.

Some lawyers and judges failed to heed those warings in the ruling itself and went ahead and took it as a green light to unlimited software patentability. A conclusion directly contrary to the ruling.

And if I'm wrong, well I'd love to hear you explain the errors in my prior post.

-

If anyone is interested, this is a 30 page suit that is being brought on behalf citizens of California (class action suit) by the EFF. It seems like a well reasoned, and sound case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the EFF is going to beat Sony on this, though I know only a bit about the California Penal Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( the statues under which this is being prosecuted).

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/hullvs ony112105cmp.pdf

compare this with the filing by the State of Texas, six pages, and see if you think that the EFF didn't provide a ton of valuable knowledge to the California filing.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/txsony 112105pet.pdf

If anyone is interested, this is a 30 page suit that is being brought on behalf citizens of California (class action suit) by the EFF. It seems like a well reasoned, and sound case. In fact, I'm willing to bet that the EFF is going to beat Sony on this, though I know only a bit about the California Penal Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ( the statues under which this is being prosecuted).

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/hullvs ony112105cmp.pdf

compare this with the filing by the State of Texas, six pages, and see if you think that the EFF didn't provide a ton of valuable knowledge to the California filing.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/txsony 112105pet.pdf

That's not true either.

That would have been one side effect, but the contemporaneous attitudes were generally stronger than that, and more akin to the modern "liberal" interpretation in some areas. In personal feeling it was true that Christians were favored over atheists and non-Christians by almost all at the time, but despite that, the Constitution was adopted as it is.

For example, consider this:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

As was discussed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, this is not just a prohibition against a "state religion", but any sort of religious requirement AT ALL.

For instance, a test which required people to be "Christian", but not of any particular sect (i.e. no state religion) was discussed and was explicitly considered to be disallowed. The writer supporting the Constitution (Madison?) admitted that this meant that "atheists" and "Mohamedeans" (Muslims in modern language) would indeed be permitted in any office.

This gives evidence to the intent at the time.

If it were merely that no state religion was to be allowed, the Constitution would have only said, "The United States shall not establish any national religion."

Madison's original wording here was "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment01/01.html#4

So, clearly Madison believed in a broad interpretation close to contemporary judicial interpretation, and the possibility of merely banning a national religion could have been entertained. The current phrasing is less specific and hence less definitive, but that it encompasses more than a narrow prohibition on a state religion is a certainty.

The Constitution intentionally does not describe specific, algorithmic statutes: mostly it describes objectives, and leaves the details to legislatures and courts. It is not a piece of prolog software. Therefore the current interpretation by court precedent falls very safely within the parameters of the Constitution and the original intent of those who adopted it.

Google might actually honor that promise not to share the callee info. But what about their cutrate knockoff competitors? The US needs privacy laws like the EU. You'd think that the Constitutional "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" would protect our "papers and effects" against searches violating representations of privacy, but it obviously isn't. A new privacy amendment would be great, but Americans have been so numbed lately by threats to amend the Constitution to discrimimate against gays and protect flags that it won't even be seriously considered. We could try a federal law, and when that's not enough, maybe get the amendment to protect this fundamental right. Easy abuse of personal info in convenience features like this Google feature will set the stage.

Under that train of thought, why a person should have to obscure something in order for it to be ilegal to monitor it. Tresspass is ilegal weather or not you put a lock on your door, the meer fact that it is your property is enough to warent the tresspass charge, I am not a lawyer so none of this is legal advice but I am sure you can find this to be true in Mississippi, and many other states. http://lp.findlaw.com/ Why should the meer fact that you dont want people looking at something, not automaticly make it a crime to look at it. I realy dont agree with either the DMCA or tress pass laws, but am I not correct in believeing that this train of thought taken to its logical extreem would indicate that, doing any thing agnist the will of another would be deemed ilegal.

"You'll note they use the term "current owner". A lien simply records the fact that somebody might have a security interest in the property. It does not mean they own it. It gives them a legal means of seizing that property if any obligations are not met -- but until they seize it they do not own it."

Lien law is more complicated than that and varies from state to state.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/leasing/resourc e/different/ownership.htm

"Achieving full ownership. When buying a vehicle with cash, you receive immediate ownership of the vehicle. When purchasing a vehicle with an installment sales contract or loan, you pay down the loan balance and eventually build equity in the vehicle. You receive full ownership of the vehicle after you make your final payment."

In other words one ISN'T the full owner of the car. Think of it as joint ownership.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=10th&navby=case&no=023072

"Clark, supra, at 12-14.
Under the majority approach, regardless of any express statutory requirements, a secured creditor is not required to disclose its status as a lienholder on a vehicle's certificate of title in order to achieve perfected status. Instead, it is sufficient if the creditor is identified as the owner of the vehicle."

Now you see why you should leave the law to the lawyers. Even if in this one case, in this one state, you were correct. There are fifty other states, and territories, let alone circumstances, you could be wrong.

I don't agree. The electoral college deadline was Dec. 18, the Fla. deadline was Dec. 12, and it seems clear that SCOTUS was going to get involved on Constitutional issues of equal protection. It seems to me that they saw the handwriting on the wall: they were going to get dragged in, and they might as well get dragged in sufficient time to make a decision.

Could they have remanded the outcome to Congress? The minority opinion recommended that. Perhaps that might have been the best outcome. I don't for a moment pretend that they made the best possible ruling -- I'm neither a judge nor a lawyer.

My only point is that SCOTUS did not jump in; they accepted a request to make a ruling.

Links:
Wiki Bush v. Gore
Findlaw Bush v. Gore.

Interesting thing about the US that bribing the government is not illegal

Of course it is illegal. A bribe is an improper soliciting of a quid pro quo. Which is not the same thing as exercising one's freedom of speech and political association by contributing to the political campaign of a public official you agree with, and whose policies you wish to see enacted.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=18&sec=201