Slashdot Mirror

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

"Police can demand all they want, but you have no obligation to show them ID."

"If a police officer wants to take you down to the station because you won't present an ID card, that's false arrest."

You may want to actually read the Supreme Court opinion. What the Supreme Court decided was exactly the opposite of what you assert: the Nevada statute that authorized police to arrest a citizen who refused to show identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, the arrest for failure to identify did not violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=nv&vol=118NevAdvOpNo88&invol=2

Here are the federal extortion laws. Wouldn't the FBI get involved if there is proof of extortion? Can't the attackers be caught easily when trying to cash in?

Well, they have allowed italians to inspect the car. Not part of your post, but related to general claims that the report was a coverup.

The US military has not changed it's story on this event in any significant details that I'm aware of. The jounalist in question has changed her story a few times. Whether or not lights were flashed, for instance. The direction the shots were fired from. The number of shots fired (actually, I'm willing to give her this one since people generally overestimate this statistic.) She has also recently concluded that the soldiers involved really weren't deliberately targetting her.

It seems likely that the SOP are overly aggressive, so requests for more information about SOP is somewhat reasonable, but concerns about revealing additional information cannot be summarily dismissed based on one incident.

The US Supreme Court says just this in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ. You can always rely on the war on drugs to ensure that government interest prevail.

No, in fact it is rented from Cuba (even though they refuse the payment) and the U.S. government's position is that it is therefore foreign soil and not subject to U.S. laws or Constitution.

That was the position of the Bush administration, but the Supreme Court disagrees. Six out of nine justices rejected that argument, holding that alien prisoners at Guantanamo do have the right to challenge their imprisonment by filing a habeas petition in federal court.

No, in fact it is rented from Cuba (even though they refuse the payment) and the U.S. government's position is that it is therefore foreign soil and not subject to U.S. laws or Constitution.

"They were captured in disguise and according to the laws of warfare could be summarily executed as spies."

While it's nice to refer to what the actual laws and interpretations allow, you miss the most important point: they have no due process rights. As you state, they have no Geneva Convention protection, even though they were captured as "the enemy" in a war. They are also not protected by the U.S. Constitution (see above link) because they are considered on foreign soil, even though they were captured by Americans, are being held by Americans, and are on an American base. In short, they have no protected rights for due process that civilized nations provide to everyone including war criminals, enemy soldiers, and civilian criminals.

Some people may not care. After all, these are terrorists, right? Well, how do we know? Is the military infallable? Is every accused person guilty? That's what due process is for. Is this not the "absolute power" behaviour that pissed off American's enough to create the U.S. in the first place, and provide such basic protections to all people?

No it is a Fair Use parody. If that isn't obvious enough for you try Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use of the US copyright law:
In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The site clearly falls into the nonprofit educational category.

We note in passing that 2 Live Crew need not label its whole album, or even this song, a parody in order to claim fair use protection, nor should 2 Live Crew be penalized for this being its first parodic essay. Parody serves its goals whether labeled or not, and there is no reason to require parody to state the obvious, (or even the reasonably perceived).

You mean all that innovation that comes from 1-Click software patents, the Happy Birthday song, Winnie the Pooh, etc.

If you look at the Constitution, copyright covers: "[o]nly the writings and discoveries of authors and inventors...and then only to the end of promoting science and the useful arts."

Original ideas should not become commodities that are transferred to purchasers and assignees - which is the problem with all the examples above.

Well, let's go back some years to find swedish inventor Håkan Lans creating PC color graphics, a useable computer pointing device, safe flight control (through something resembling "P2P GPS") - who has tried to hinder his creativity? US government agencies and major US corps.

Let's move on and find Ericsson software engineers creating AXE telephone switches, Bluetooth etc. Keep up, and we find Lavasofts Ad-Aware helping out most n00bs from getting the most out of skunkware. Pointsec, a swedish company producing the industry top class encryption sw (note: biggest customer is teh US military!). Yes, KaZaA and Skype are also created by swedes, ironic - isn't it!

Oh, did you know who actually made most of super-US bimbo Britney Spears smash hits? A swede called Max Martin. Go figure!

I direct you to the standing Supreme Court ruling in Parker v. Flook, a ruling which the hjudge in State Street Bank apparently ignored

I am, of course, familiar with Flooks, as was Judge Rich, who by the way DRAFTED the Patent Act. He clearly did not ignore Flook, in State Street Bank, nor did the other judges on the panel. Flook, as well as the other Section 101 cases on point, which apparently YOU ignored, were expressly discussed and analyzed in the State Street Bank opinion, which is a matter of record and routinely available. A thoughtful reader may look there for the rebuttal to this one-sided and overly simplified argument.

The Judge in State Street Bank decided he wanted to revers established US patent law and force the US patent office to issue software patents (all the while the US patent office was arguing in court that software is not an invention and that the US patent office was going to be incapable of handling software patent in any reasonable manner) and the judge did so in violation of Supreme Court law and contrary to the patent laws of every other country on earth.

Hardly impressive argumentation, legal or otherwise. Is it your legal opinion that Flook somehow anticipated and overturned the later court's decision in Diamond v. Diehr? And you mind-melded with dearly departed Judge Rich to determine his intentions exactly when? Did you even read what you wrote, or are you just so committed to the result you would type anything to reach that conclusion?

And, by the way, let us assume you accurately characterized the USPTO's legal argument, what then? How is it possibly relevant (legally or AT ALL) what the PTO is capable of if the Congress passed a law stating that an applicant is entitled to the patent? Wouldn't the Court still be required to call the patent act as they saw it, regardless of this important practical issue?

I say the only reason the State Street Bank decision is still standing is because the US Supreme Court has been to busy with civil rights cases and unconstitutional law cases and hasn't taken the time to bump one of those important cases off the docket to review a stupid patent dispute in the last 24 years

Nah, more likely it is because no lawyer has filed a meaningful petition for cert, realizing that an argument such as the myopic one you presented would be laughed out of court.

Starting with the plain language of the Patent Act, Section 101 expressly and unambiguously provides protection for novel, useful and unobvious methods and apparatus. This is a powerful start for those who would take the opposite position. Against this is a small and certainly vague body of judge-made exclusions and exceptions, much of which came from pre-Federal Circuit district court and circuit court law of unclear relevance today. Some good and some bad for your position. The few cases most squarely on point -- and yes, the Supreme Court cases are controlling of course -- lead to varying conclusions and uncertain application.

Gottschalk and Parker are part of the story, but you can't discuss them in a vacuum, particularly without looking at the later Diamond v. Diehr case. An argument can be made for the position you are taking, but you didn't make it -- you certainly didn't make it persuasively to anyone not committed to one conclousion.

Software patents as subject matter is as well-settled today as the law is likely to be -- it would be a surprise, indeed, to see the Supreme Court look at this question again directly. More likely, some wild pure business method will come up, and then we may test the fringes of the rule, perhaps with dicta that may inform this question.

In my view, and it is mere speculation on my part -- albeit an informed speculation -- this issue will not likely be revisited seriously by the Courts at the level of the State Street or AT&T cases, at least not until the Congress amends the act in some way to address these issues first, for some of the reasons set forth here and others.

No surprise there. Police agencies intentionally reject applicants with high intelligence. Don't believe me? Check this out, or this, or this. A cop who can't spell his own name would not surprise me.

It does not imply that state's can not choose to deny rights that are not covered by the constitution.

States that deny a given right to their citizens must still give "full faith and credit" to those states that do grant such a right.

In Moore DEA agents, without the benefit of a warrant or the owner's consent, surreptitiously attached beepers onto two vehicles parked by defendants in a shopping center parking lot. As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit framed the issue: "The basic question [was] whether the use of beepers so implanted to monitor the movements of the U-Haul van and the 1966 Mustang . . . violated defendants' reasonable expectations of privacy." United States v. Moore, supra, at 112. That court answered the question affirmatively, but reasoned that the lessened expectation of privacy associated with motor vehicles justifies the installation and use of beepers without a warrant so long as the officers installing and using the device have probable cause.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without
authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented
invention, within the United States or imports into the United
States any patented invention during the term of the patent
therefor, infringes the patent.

We have convicted criminals in high political office too... as well as individuals who used political & family influence to avoid prosecution for crimes that anyone else would have done time for.

Using commercial time to go to the bathroom
could get you sued, then. I guess.

Actually, according to the MPAA's Jamie Kellner, "I guess there's a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom."

You can find this quote on this page or any number of other sites.

What will happen is probably more like:

Judge: Motion denied, and here is an 11(c)(1)(B) motion for you to show cause why I shouldn't smack your ass around for causing unnecessary delay.

Yes, I know you were making a joke, but I'm taking Civil Procedure, and we just covered sanctions.

Completely OT: the Supreme Court declared the tomato a vegetable in Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 (1893), in response to a dispute over the Tariff Act of 1883, which taxed vegetables but not fruits.

At the time the pentagon papers were published there was no law covering the release or publication of classified information.

There have been many attempts to create in the US an equivalent to the British Official Secrets Act, which would criminalize both the release and publication of classified information. Clinton vetoed a a similar law during his presidency. I believe any law like this would be blatantly unconstitutional.

In the seventies, Covert Action Journal published articles "outing" CIA agents written by an ex CIA agent Philip Agee. In response, congress passed a law making the it a crime to reveal the name of a current agent by a government official. This is the same law being applied in the Valerie Plame case. I also believe this law is blatantly unconstitutional.

So the short answer to your question is no with a but or yes with an if.

Or more simply, we could require a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the same. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl ?title=35&sec=112/

The 14th amendment gives Congress the power to tax...

That's funny -- I thought the 14th amendment was that whole "deprive folks of life, liberty, or property" bit. I think you mean the 16th Amendment.

Even better is the fact that you have XVI right there in your text. That might have been a hint =P.

All coins and currency are legal tender for all debts, there are no official limitations on what amounts you can pay with what denominations. However, if a place of business has a policy to refuse some of the coins and currency, that is fine. In this case, there was no policy for refusing pennies prior to the customer trying to pay the debt with them, so I would say the guy had to accept the pennies in payment of the debt.

Ofcourse, you want links. The US treasury. Title 31, section 5103.

I am not a lawyer.

From the research that I have done, it seems like Best Buy was obligated to accept the payment because they had already provided the service and he was paying a debt.

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article I found on
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Legal_tender# Legal_tender_in_the_United_States
Legal tender in the United States

As laid down in the United States Coinage Act of 1965, all coins and currencies of the United States, regardless of when coined or issued, shall be legal-tender for all debts, public and private, public charges, taxes, duties and dues.

However, US federal law does not restrict private businesses, persons or organisations in what methods of payment they choose to accept or refuse. Businesses are therefore free to insist on payment by credit card, for example, or to refuse larger denomination banknotes. Even further though, legal tender laws do not preclude businesses from choosing to reject U.S. dollars for payment altogether. In this regard legal tender laws do not pertain to voluntary transactions.

However, when the transactions are non voluntary such as in the payment of a debt, any legal tender must be accepted.

Another excerpt from the previous webpage

As legal tender can be refused until a person is in debt, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote for a single bus fare or bar of chocolate, and even shopkeepers can reject large banknotes. However, restaurants that do not collect money until after a meal is served would have to accept any legal tender, though they would not be obliged to provide change - the restaurant is not in debt, it has been given a gift.

Related Court Cases:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=110&invol=421

One of the Michigan Tech. team members was none other than Joe Nievelt one of the RIAA's "best friends"

So, unless there is specifically a law or amendment against something, it is a right. So, in that light, yes, rights to privacy, and to travel anonymously are a fundamental right!

Yes, you could make that case. However, given the fact that all states require car registration, and ID checks have been deemed legal by the Supreme Court, you would have a tough time with any court case on that argument.

See: UNITED STATES v. MARTINEZ-FUERTE
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=428&invol=543

So, according the Supreme Court, by their interpretation of the Constitution, you do not have the right to travel around anonymously. This is because the Fourth Amendment is protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure, and a few minute stop to check ID is almost certianly not "unreasonable".

I understand that concept fully. The only power of the government in this context that is limited is the restriction of "Speech". The government can therefore limit other forms of expression as it sees fit. (Public nudity, etc). According to google, there are 2,010,000 hits for "freedom of expression" and 2,410,000 hits for "freedom of speech". Clearly it is a oft-repeated tag line.

Again I ask, when did the 1st amendment begin to be applied to forms of expression other than speech?

It appears that the US Supreme Court now calls it "Freedom of Expression". The earliest citation I could find was from a 1921 Supreme Court case.

Any insightful comments on how the expression and concept of "freedom of expression" crept into our legal lexicon?

I understand that concept fully. The only power of the government in this context that is limited is the restriction of "Speech". The government can therefore limit other forms of expression as it sees fit. (Public nudity, etc). According to google, there are 2,010,000 hits for "freedom of expression" and 2,410,000 hits for "freedom of speech". Clearly it is a oft-repeated tag line.

Again I ask, when did the 1st amendment begin to be applied to forms of expression other than speech?

It appears that the US Supreme Court now calls it "Freedom of Expression". The earliest citation I could find was from a 1921 Supreme Court case.

Any insightful comments on how the expression and concept of "freedom of expression" crept into our legal lexicon?

Here is the exact filed text of the ten year licensing agreement you are refering to. Intel AMD cross licensing agreement Nowhere is there any legal languague in it that covers future developments. That would be a really stupid business move on anyone's part.

The real story here is what caused Intel to agree to a license agreement to begin with. They actually were caught with their pants down on this one. They had reverse engineered everything and attempted to move forward with their reverse engineered plans and AMD blew the whistle. Intel admitted their deed, to save on litigation that was obviously not in Intel's favor (based on their forced agreements with AMD in the past).

No AMD definately did this in a seperate agreement and were very happy to make it public. They just wanted the publicity out of Intel bringing up the rear for a change.

3 ... it's a possible violation of the Sherman act (anti-trust), in the area of "tie-in sales".

(example case: this one is about refusing to sell rights to one film unless rights to a whole set of films were bought simultaneously)

Excerpt: "The standard of illegality is that the seller must have "sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product...." [Northern Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 6]. Market dominance - some power to control price and to exclude competition - is by no means the only test of whether the seller has the requisite economic power. Even absent a showing of market dominance, the crucial economic power may be inferred from the tying product's desirability to consumers or from uniqueness in its attributes."

I would say that, given the monopoly status of phone / DSL providers, you don't even have to worry about "market dominance" at all -- it's automatic. They're in a position to do "whatever they like", and this is illegal even for companies -not- in a monopoly position. From a discussion of this same law over Windows/IE/WMP, the distinction was also made clear between "cars with tires" (cannot be functionally complete) and "operating system with browser/media player" (can still work, with fewer features) even though in both cases there are separate markets for "chunks" of the item being sold. And that's for a case where the 'extra' is offered for "free", not a "oh, you have to buy this too" clause.

"Today I have the unfortunate responsibility of informing you that there has been a decision made by bureaucrats of a Federal agency that takes away your right to privacy as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

What exactly is the article in the U.S. Constitution that guarantees privacy? Maybe I'm an ignorant foreigner (Dutchman), but I was always under the impression that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee privacy. Am I wrong?

The referenced website talks about the "First Amendment rights to privacy", but I was always under the impression that the First Amendment concerns freedom of speech, assembly and religion. Smells a bit fishy.

I could make a strong argument that the following could apply to spammers:

"A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt ... (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by - (A) false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud ...

Most spam contains false representations. Heck, I will go for it if the spammers I am suing try to BK me.

"Howeer, when a technology is predonominantly used for infringing purposes, maybe it is inherently bad."

And the movie industry said the same thing about VCRs (See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=us&vol=464&invol=417 for the Sony Vs Universal City Studios case).

The argument is more basic than anyone has yet said. It isn't about "predominently used for infringement" more than it is about the ability for the industry to stop technology that it sees as harmful. The same thing happens every time a new technology displaces an older one.

Another place you are seeing this kind of thing going on is in the other case the Supreme Court is hearing today involving ISPs and cabel access.

B.

they can levee fines against anyone they deam fit for any reason they see fit and don't even have to tell you why. You can't complain, you can't do anything about it

Of course, it may take five years and a Supreme Court decision, but that's why we have a judicial branch. The executive and legislature are not all-powerful. You have rights. Knowing them is step one.

they can levee fines against anyone they deam fit for any reason they see fit and don't even have to tell you why. You can't complain, you can't do anything about it

Of course, it may take five years and a Supreme Court decision, but that's why we have a judicial branch. The executive and legislature are not all-powerful. You have rights. Knowing them is step one.

they can levee fines against anyone they deam fit for any reason they see fit and don't even have to tell you why. You can't complain, you can't do anything about it

Of course, it may take five years and a Supreme Court decision, but that's why we have a judicial branch. The executive and legislature are not all-powerful. You have rights. Knowing them is step one.

There was a case in Texas, Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress International that held that there is no copyright in laws. In Bender v. West West claimed copyright on pagination, but the case was never fully dicided as they struck a deal to avoid the question. But, most of the copyright claim was stricken.

Now, the terms of use is a different stury and may restrict the use of the information gathered from the site.

In some states, when a person claims self-defense they are almost always arrested and charged with murder. Their case typically goes to trial. At trial, the prosecution only needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed the victim (sic). In order to even claim self-defense, the defendant has to confess, so the prosecution meets its burdon by default.

The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that their life was in danger and they had satisfied any duty to retreat or avoid the situation. If the defendant fails to meet this burden, the court will convict them.

It's not even strictly true in California.

Except California law states that if you do it on your own time and on your own equipment, you own it. Its not legal to request an employee to sign that away, and is not enforcable. Burden of proof is on the employer to prove the employee did it on work time, rather than the reverse. In this state those IP agreements are a scare tactic, nothing more.

No, that's not at all true. The first exception in CA Labor Code Section 2870 says it doesn't apply to inventions which:

Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer;

(Feel fre to Check it yourself.)

If you work for a large software company, that covers a *lot* of ground.

1988 Beck Decision

Read International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918). "[C]opying news from bulletin boards" is essentially what Google is doing here.

What you're missing is that there's a legal difference between a contractor/temp and an FTE. There are Federal and State guidelines about their differences, and if those differences are not met - i.e., if you treat a contractor the same as an FTE but deny them any of the rights and benefits of FTE in your corporation, you are violating the law. FindLaw has some good basic guidelines here.

Notice that in most places, there is no provision for compensation as a replacement for benefits. These employees were what is called "common law" employees, that is, FTEs without the title or benefits.

Good summary of the law at Findlaw

They probably have a good case.

Ok, I'll bite. Bullshit.

States rights exist, in some kind of balance with federal rights (granted, the balance may not please you, but that's a far from cry from non-existence). Any state has the right to lower the drinking age. They will lose some federal transportation funding if they do so, but they can do so.

A simple perusal of state law codes should prove the existence widely varying statutes.

With regards to the SC decision, since the majority's logic was based on the 8th amendment, it's pretty clear that this is a federal issue (see the 10th amendment). (and, just so we are clear, the decision brought us out of the glorious company of China, the Congo, Iran, Pakistan as the only countries to actively execute juveniles.)

-Ted

Aren't all laws based in morals? I mean, I'm no student of the Law, but at some point, Society determines which behaviors are acceptable and which are not. A lot of people talk about how we should get rid of all these "religiously-motivated laws," but I think that all our laws were founded in religion at some point. The Constitution doesn't say anything about not having religious laws, it just says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" meaning that there should be no state-sponsored religion like the Anglican Church many people fled to America to avoid.

Good for you man! Just be thankful you're not in the US or your attempt to reverse-engineer the audio encryption could land you in prison.

You are wrong about Hamdi, according to this page:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020821.html. Quoting it:

After being captured during the Afghanistan conflict, Hamdi was initially held at the Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But when his American citizenship came to light, the government transported him from there to the brig at the Norfolk Naval Station.

You are misinformed.

Jose Padilla in not in Guantanamo:

"Padilla was transferred to military control and transported to the Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina"

Neither is Yaser Hamdi:

But when his American citizenship came to light, the government transported him from there to the brig at the Norfolk Naval Station.

Neither were charged under the PATRIOT act.

Does it bother you that you don't know what you are talking about?

You are misinformed.

Jose Padilla in not in Guantanamo:

"Padilla was transferred to military control and transported to the Naval Consolidated Brig, Charleston, South Carolina"

Neither is Yaser Hamdi:

But when his American citizenship came to light, the government transported him from there to the brig at the Norfolk Naval Station.

Neither were charged under the PATRIOT act.

Does it bother you that you don't know what you are talking about?