Slashdot Mirror

Most jurisdictions permit a recovery of both actual loss caused by the misappropriation and any unjust enrichment gained by the culprit so long as the enrichment is not also included in the "actual loss" portion of the equation. If such damages are not easily proved, the aggrieved party may seek to impose a "reasonable royalty" damages. In addition, if the conduct leading to the trade secret misappropriation was willful and malicious, most states permit the imposition of punitive damages and the award of attorney's fees.

Apple will likely prove in court that a trade secret was misappropriated and will have the legal right to recover most of it's damages from Nick. When Nick realizes that this can seriously screw up his life, between having tarnished his chances of being hired by any tech company and having his wages garnished, he'll most likely "remember" who gave him the info in an attempt to reduce the amount he owes.

"Trade secret." And yes, they can be protected under the law, though IANAL and don't know how I feel about the leak.

I couldn't agree more. What we need is a new law similar to aggravated battery, but for stupid people. We can call it aggravated stupidity! You can get a citation for just being stupid - driving stupid, getting hurt doing stupid things, acting stupid, etc. The fines would start low and get progressively higher the more stupid you are until you are either broke or learn.

I should run for congress. Then I'd have the money to pay my tickets :)

For Chicago, that's nothing unusual. Just ask this guy. This happened to a friend of mine too. Sold the car a couple of years ago, but they still get tickets in the mail that list the old license plate number. The city doesn't care that they sent in proof of sale, because there is a budget deficit at the moment and having a fair appeals process for traffic tickets would decrease the amount of revenue they bring in. Lesson learned, remove your old license plate when you sell a car.

In addition, your story highlights what is the biggest problem with automated traffic enforcement. You aren't even aware of a violation being issued until you get it in the mail, which could be months later with the inefficiency of city bureaucracies. How are you going to even remember what you were doing at the time, much less be able to mount any possible defense? When the people lose the right to due process, that is when you have a police state. With automated enforcement, there is no meaningful due process, guilt is automatic and predetermined. In fact, these photo tickets usually don't go on a person's driving record since that would probably be in violation of state laws requiring positive ID of the offender, due process, etc.

From parent: "Air travel is the most dangerous form of transport around (the claim that it is the safest is based on distance travelled...)"

I can't seem to find any data to back that up...what I did find was this "From 1982 to 1998, a period of 17 years, there were a total of 8,109,000,000 passenger enplanements. During that same time period, there were 2,211 fatalities, and 348 serious injuries. This amounts to a 0.00003% chance of being seriously injured or killed in a commercial aviation accident. This is far less than any other mode of transportation. [Source: NTSB, Passenger Injuries and Injury Rates, 1982 through 1998.]"

>Even without the DMCA, the modchip maker is subject not to a contract but rather to Sony's patents.

No. Sony never patented a modchip. The only time this worked is for Macrovision. They would build a "protection" scheme, then patent all the obvious ways to break it.

>Offer + acceptance + exchange of consideration = contract in any country whose contract system is based on British common law. A signature is merely one way of indicating acceptance.

Oral contracts are so totally useless. But hey, if someone wants to sue me on an oral contract, what the hell. It'll be fun, and profitable for me ("barratry" countersuit).

>Microsoft and Sony might argue that the contract specifies a return period and that consideration isn't irrevocably exchanged until the return period expires.

Okay. Sounds great. That'd work if Sony and Microsoft would take back my modchipped consoles. Too bad they won't. Hell, I don't even think it would work then, because, again, I didn't accept their contract. I told them to go to hell and they still sold me what I wanted.

>First of all, look for the word "Patent" on the box. It is unlawful to use a device embodying a patented invention without permission of the patent holder.

Whaaaaat? Case law, please. What you're saying would mean that Matchbox could sue me for sticking a "Hot Wheels" up my ass (when I was a kid they all said 'patent pending'... I'm sure it's passed by now). Again, honestly, you can't be at all serious.

>Even better, some of the newer products' packaging has language to the effect of "This sale is governed by terms and conditions, which you can read at http://example.com/product/EULA/"

"Prosecutor, I don't have internet access. Sony never offered it to me in a way that is commonly available and understood to all people, such as by phone or on paper. 50% of households don't have internet access. The box didn't come with any free internet access, nor can their console download a webpage. In fact, just to read the EULA, I had to put in a ModChip and run linux on the console -- so I could download their webpage!"

>And the "first sale" link you gave refers only to copyrights, not to patents.

Exactly. That's because there *IS NO* law at all making it even remotely illegal to use a patented product any way you like, apart from:

- Breaking a good faith contract (there is definately *NO* good faith in a contract that lets me tell the salesman I'll be breaking it before I buy it)
- Breaking general patent law, such as duplicating the device.

>Is the purchase really a purchase until the 7-day return period has expired?

What's this "7-day return period" all about? I already said there's no warranty. Perhaps I wasn't clear, I'll be a little more: I AM NOT ALLOWED TO RETURN THE CONSOLES. THEY WILL NEVER TAKE THEM BACK. EVER.

By the way, you *definately* own the item even during the warranty period. Any talk to the contrary will meet with me displaying the rules of warranties of the USA to you. Ahhh, what the fuck, let me show them to you now. I've read them because I'm a retailer, and I often sell to the US as well as Canada.

There's *nothing* in there saying a consumer isn't allowed to do something with the product that the retailer doesn't like. The closest you can get is this, which is that if the consumer modifies the product in a manner that causes it to operate improperly you can void the warranty on that part of the item only. Heck, technically, my PS2s are still warranted even though I break the seal. Not that I care.

Seriously, I think you need to explore the law on these topics more. If I (a store) still owned the item during the warranty period, I could go to the person's house and demand my "property" back. Do you seriously think that if you buy a game from Best Buy they can require you give it them back?

you have to get permission for that, and if you don't they'll sue your rump. you have to wonder if there are behind the scenes royatly payments for that.
WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES IF I DO SAMPLE?

... no. To be guilty of any kind of homicide or manslaughter, your act has to have been the proximate cause of a person's death. The writer(s) of the Sasser worm might have prevented the Coast Guard from rescuing someone in danger, but the fact that that person was in danger in the first place was not the fault of the virus writer, which would prevent even an involuntary manslaughter charge. Unless the worm caused, say, a malfuntion in the boat's bilge system, which caused the boat to take on too much water and capsize ...

With that, are they off the hook? No way. If they are caught, there are lots of laws they could be charged with, some of which are felonies. Murder, or even manslaughter, are not among them, however. At least, not under this limited hypothetical.

That is misrepresentation and libel.

Except legally, you can't libel (or slander) the dead. So, while it may be misrepresentation, it is not libel.

While it may be reprehensible to say false things about someone who has died, in most states it is not legally actionable. No action can be taken on behalf of a dead person.

However libel does not extend to the dead.

Incorrect. That's called price fixing and that's illegal. They can set their manufacturer suggested retail price, but stores can sell it for whatever price they want and are under no obligation to follow the MSRP.

okay, maybe i'm a noob, or have just been living under a box trying to escape the complexity of this case. either way, can someone answer this for me?

why is this any different than a musician's music who has been sampled for use on another musician's album? I own a few thousand CD's, and I'd bet that several of them contain uncleared samples from other artists on them. i've yet to be sued, nor am i likely to be. isn't the offending artist sued in this case?

sure, in some cases a sample might be obfuscated or modified beyond recognition, but the genesis of the resulting sound is still the same. if the sample is not cleared by the owner of the original sample, a clear case to sue is present.

why then can these fu&*ers go after end-users (or the listener, in my example) for using technology sold to them by the 'artist' who allegedly stole the IP from it's creator?

imagine EMI going after everyone who has a copy of The Grey Album instead of going after DJ Danger Mouse like they are doing.

a little help? i'm very confused. thanks.

WHAT IS THE CRIME INVOLVING RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY?
Receiving stolen goods is generally buying or acquiring the possession of property knowing (or believing in some jurisdictions) that it had been obtained through theft, embezzlement, larceny, or extortion by someone else. The crime is separate from the crime of stealing the property. To be convicted, the receiver must know the goods were stolen at the time he receives them and had the intent to aid the thief. Paying for the goods or intending to collect the reward for returning them are not defenses. Depending on the value of the property received, receiving-stolen-property is either a misdemeanor or a felony.

There are numerous federal laws that make it a federal crime to receive stolen property (e.g., vehicles, securities) if the property received was or had been in interstate commerce.

So if I install a fountain for 'users', in front of our office, and someone takes it apart and damages it.. what is that?

To wit, if on the high seas - if not yet on the High Internet - anyone coming across something abandoned, has rights to claim it, if the original owner has disappeared, or if the original owner has lost interest in it, or a significant portion of its value if the original owner has lost control of it.

We've heard an awful lot about "Property Rights" as applied to software - I think we need to hear a lot more about "Salvage Rights" - because that is part and parcel of the business risk assessment that insurers do for shipping lines, and that is nothing if not Property Rights.

Very good information to help you deal with collection agencies at:

Freeadvice.com

This is a link to the forums. You can find decent credit and collections-related information off the main site, as well.

Mono means one. Microsoft is not the only player in the field. There are plenty of others.

According to your economics 101 definition, yes, a monopoly is a single company with 100% marketshare. The legal definition of a monopoly, however, is quite different:

A monopoly power is defined as the ability of a business to control a price within its relevant product market or its geographic market or to exclude a competitor from doing business within its relevant product market or geographic market..

When MS's main product costs them less than 14% of their selling price to produce, you can hardly argue that they don't have the power to control the price within their market. Therefore, they are a monopoly. And an abusive one, at that.

Note that SCO has not made copyright or patent claims, but trade secret claims.

There are mutliple types of IP, some of which have legal protection and some which don't. Copyrights and patents have legal protection. Trade secrets, however, are protected only to the extent that the owner manages to keep a secret. This was a deliberate choice of the founding fathers. Protecting copyrights and patents (for a limited time) encourages innovators to publish their work, which is good for everyone. Trade secrets are, by definition, unpublished - which is bad for progress.

Trade-secrets are protected by various forms of non-disclosure agreements. However, if some party in contract to you disclose the trade-secret, the recourse is to sue for damages.

[I]f someone innocently receives trade secret rights, it will be very difficult to enjoin them from use or further disclosure of the trade secrets. Thus, IBM may need to pay SCO damages, but now that the secrets are widely known, SCO cannot attack Linux.

If SCO had a patent or copyright claim, Linux would be screwed. But SCO only has claims against those in "privity of contract" to not disclose.

Primer on trade secrets.

Note that SCO has not made copyright or patent claims, but trade secret claims.

There are mutliple types of IP, some of which have legal protection and some which don't. Copyrights and patents have legal protection. Trade secrets, however, are protected only to the extent that the owner manages to keep a secret. This was a deliberate choice of the founding fathers. Protecting copyrights and patents (for a limited time) encourages innovators to publish their work, which is good for everyone. Trade secrets are, by definition, unpublished - which is bad for progress.

Trade-secrets are protected by various forms of non-disclosure agreements. However, if some party in contract to you disclose the trade-secret, the recourse is to sue for damages.

[I]f someone innocently receives trade secret rights, it will be very difficult to enjoin them from use or further disclosure of the trade secrets. Thus, IBM may need to pay SCO damages, but now that the secrets are widely known, SCO cannot attack Linux.

If SCO had a patent or copyright claim, Linux would be screwed. But SCO only has claims against those in "privity of contract" to not disclose.

Primer on trade secrets.

Songwriters own "the words" and or "the music."

From what I understood, that seems technically correct but misleading in practice. My understanding was that artists typically (and naively) sign away their publishing rights and all of their copyrights to the label, because labels like to offer to "take care of" legal matters like copyright. But this might be a misunderstanding on my part due to lack of knowledge.

At any rate, I found a couple good links that are well worth reading. they might even clarify my confusion on the topic:

• questions about music and IP, great FAQ about music IP
• the problem with music, famous and invaluable rant against major labels by steve albini (ironically, courney love borrowed a great deal from that article without giving credit when she wrote her famous anti-major label rant)

What's the statute of limitations for copyright violations?

Three years. Or is it 5? I think it's three.

Unless and until you become a monopoly, you can give away whatever you damn well like.

First go read about the Sherman Anti-Trust act, and then familiarize yourself with the concept of a "loss-leader".

Thanks for the clarification. I was sloppy when I wrote the parent comment.

I agree with the point you made about federal judges. Those who want a corrupt government can get it by limiting the amount of money paid to judges.

What are the necessary elements of a binding contract?

Competent Parties - For a contract to be valid, each side must have the capacity to enter into it. Most people and companies have sufficient legal competency. A drugged or mentally-impaired person has impaired capacity and chances are a court may not hold that person to the contract. Minors (e.g., usually those under eighteen) cannot, generally, enter into a binding contract without parental consent, unless it is for the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, or for student loan contracts.

Consideration - If the other side is to be held to the contract, you must give up something in exchange. This is called consideration. No side can have a free way out or the ability to obtain something of value without providing something in exchange. Money is the most common form of compensation, but it can also be property, giving up a right or valid claim, making a promise to do or not to do something, or anything of value. Agreeing to perform an illegal or illicit act is not consideration and the contract is void.

Mutual Assent or Meeting of the Minds - This means that each side must be clear as to the essential details, rights, and obligations of the contract. Putting the deal down on paper prior to signing it goes A LONG way to avoid future misunderstandings and disputes. Meeting of the minds sometimes can be expressed by words spoken or gestures made or can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. There is no meeting of the minds if: (1) one side is obviously joking or bragging, (2) there is no actual agreement (i.e., the farmer who is selling a gelding and the buyer thinks the horse is a brood mare), or (3) both sides have made a material mistake as to the terms or details of the contract.

(Copied from Free Advice: What are the key elements of a binding contract?)

Here's a snippet from http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/violent_crimes/ adultery.htm

WHAT IS ADULTERY?
Adultery is cohabitation by or sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his/her spouse. It is considered a misdemeanor in some states, although is rarely prosecuted except by the military.

As one rock manager computes it, if a consumer buys the standard Gold Plan on Pressplay, paying $19.95 for 75 songs downloaded to a hard drive and 750 streamed so that they can be heard only once, an artist, after these deductions, gets $.0023 per song downloaded. To earn a penny, more than four songs must be downloaded.

Aren't the artists getting shortchanged? According to copyright law, the current statutory rate for a U.S. copyright is 7.1 per song. (See, 37 C.F.R. 255.3(h)) This minimum rate is effective until January 1, 2000, after which it will go up every two years until 2006, at which time it will remain at 9.1 per song until changed.

There's a lot more to royalty calculations as well. More info on Freeadvice.com.

It is illegal in the United States for an employment application to ask whether the applicant has ever been arrested. The exception is for positions that are explicitly designated as security-sensitive. See, for instance, this page.

No you won't, cause you cannot libel the dead. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09210a.htm, http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/specials/w eblines/533.html, http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/0401/essay.html,http: //www.freeadvice.com/law/5765us.htm,http://codoh.o rg/bbs/messages/1649.html as just a few references.

Sorry, you are wrong. When you "subscribe" to a service you are entering into a contract. The company agrees to provide a service and you agree to pay for that service. Unless the contract has a clause that states "you must still pay even if we do not provide the service" she had every right not to pay her bill. At least in the U.S. there are a ton of consumer protection Rogers was the first to breach the contract so she had no obligation to pay. Here is a link explaining contract law. Under your theory, I could lease you a house, have the house blown up, kick you out on the street and you would still have to pay me rent.

he could be mocking specific police officers and their families for all we know.

Even if he was it sounds like the worst he could have done was slander the police dep't and/or officers. AFAIK that's not a crime people are arrested for (sued maybe). Free Advice has a page on libel and slander, and no where does it mention that someone can be arrested.

Since I'll eventually have to explain this to students and have basic understanding of the rules within UC, I'll chime in with what I think is going on. [IANAL]

A UC instructor has commented on his opinion on this matter and is correct on a number of points. Copyright is, by default, held by the instructor and not the university. The syllabus for the course is a legal document that sometimes grants students non-commerical duplication rights for personal use. But nweaver fails to address the case of handwritten notes.

There's a loophole here that I think the legislature is trying to plug:

Copyright law protects the preparation of derivative works.

Pertinent bits from the above:
"Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work."

Given that abridgements, compilations, dramas based on novels, sculptures based on drawings, and so on serve as examples of derivative works, lecture notes don't seem like much of a stretch.

So, I don't really think there is anything new here. However, there seems to be nothing stating definitively that lecture notes are in fact derivative works. So rather than test this in court over and over, legislating it would seem prudent. It's now in black and white, and penalties attached.

This strikes me as a pre-emptive move against problems that will likely crop up when the UC and CSU have to fully invest in distance learning. The 9 UC campuses have been warned that they'll have to absorb an additional 70,000 students over the next 10 years (the equivalent of Berkeley and UCLA combined), and the entire public higher education system in CA will have to take about 700,000 over what they currently serve (roughly the total population of Delaware).

Now, given that the dear taxpayers of California (of which I am one) are likely unwilling to build the equivalent of twenty major universities over the next 10 years, alternatives will have to be found - and distance learning will be a big component of that.

With 2 million students enrolled in higher ed in California in 2010, the low cost of distribution thanks to the internet, and the (hopefully) ease of electronic payment by that time, there's a hell of a big market here for people to tap for distribution of lecture notes, papers, and so on. Watch for more legislation to come...

Ok, by MS's own admission, this is a trade secret. From the license:

> The Specification is confidential information
> and a trade secret of Microsoft.

Now according to a little research I performed here.

> In fact, publication of a trade secret to any
> third party could destroy its confidential nature.

I think they are toast.

With some brief reading it seems that in the US you are safe to express an opinion; only the assertion of fact has potential to be libel. Then also if the you made the statements in good faith (ui.e. you believed tham to be true) affords some protection.

The second site listed below says that with the 1964 New York Times vs. Sullivan the burden of proof shifted from the defendant to the plaintiff (id est the victim of the alleged libel must prove the assertions to be false)

&#149 FreeAdvice.comLibel And Slander Law
&#149 Libel & Defamation by the News Media

I found a good Q&A about US libel law here:http://freeadvice.com/law/576us.htm.
As I understand it, the main difference in US law is that it is very difficult for a public figure to sue for libel in the US since the defendant must be shown to have knowingly and maliciously made a false statement. For a private individual like Mr. Godfrey it seems to be quite similar to UK law.
--