Slashdot Mirror

Geez, what's wrong with you? Norberg filed the case under state law in state court. Get the f*cking facts.

Why? Random idiots are bleating away and the supposed summary doesn't actually link to anything. Better to provide some basic context on how state law cases can wind up in federal courts. Researching the specific case docket history is not something you do for a slashdot post.

This case may actually be in Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 rather than diversity jurisdiction--applies where the amount in controversy is greater than $5 Million, there is some diversity, and at least 100 plaintiffs are involved. Whether it was initially filed in state or federal court doesn't really matter, so long as the court it's in has jurisdiction--what matters is where it is now. Judge Norgle, a Federal District Judge, is the one who denied the motion to dismiss. See, e.g., http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...

my bad. it used to be illegal but they changed the state law back in 2012. I think it's still illegal in some states.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...

ok, take it down a notch maybe. doing more research, it was illegal a couple years ago when I lived in SF, but they changed the law in 2012.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalne...

"Prior to enactment of the Act, the [State Water Control Resources Board] required all would-be appropriators to apply for and obtain a permit to appropriate water from any source, including water falling in the form of precipitation. Under the Act, however, the use of rainwater - defined as "precipitation on any public or private parcel that has not entered an offsite storm drain system or channel, a flood channel, or any other stream channel, and has not been previously been put to beneficial use" - is not subject to the California Water Code's SWRCB permit requirement [California Water Code 1200 et seq.] Relief from the permit requirement enables residents, private businesses, and public agencies to create new on-site water supplies to meet landscaping needs, thus decreasing the use of potable water to meet those needs."

I mean, even with the whole organised PR campaign against discrimination of women, we have yet to see a successful case of an employer discriminating against females.

Maybe you didn't look hard enough, but hey, what's measly $185 million dollar award to one woman for discrimination by an employer

California Jury Awards Record $185M Verdict to Female Employee

Why it matters: A California jury made national headlines and terrified employers across the country when it awarded $185 million in punitive damages (and less than $1 million in compensatories) to a female employee who alleged gender and pregnancy discrimination against AutoZone. The plaintiff told the jury that she was encouraged to step down from a managerial position when she became pregnant; when she refused to do so and complained about the discrimination she faced, she was first demoted and later terminated. Jurors awarded her a total of $872,719 in compensatory damages and then returned to deliberate on punitives, deciding on $185 million – what is being called the largest verdict ever for an individual in an employment case. In a statement, AutoZone said it intends to appeal the record-setting verdict. The staggering dollar amount of the settlement should reiterate the importance for employers of complying with anti-discrimination laws.

After all, it's only a record-setter :-)

Unfortunately, you have to (1) be sued by Amazon for violating the patent (else you have no standing to challenge it)

If your business was damaged by their enforcement activities in the past, regarding their claims about their patent -- such as cease and decist letters, or you were required to license the patent, OR you had an offer to license the patent and refused to license the patent, you might also have standing to pursue declaratory judgement.

As far as we know; Amazon took action against Barnes and Noble once, and hasn't sued anyone since, so this isn't likely.

EU isn't a country, and yes, free speech is protected as a human right. You can insult famous people in Britain all you like, as long as you don't allege something about them which is not true. The problem is how Britain's libel laws favor ligitive rich accusers, but Britain is hardly the only places that favors rich, ligitive bastards.

I think the problem from most people's perspective is that historically the truth was not an affirmative defense against libel in Britain. I know there are many aspects of US culture that have others roll their eyes about, but this is one case where the situation was reversed.

Seems they had a new law go into effect in January, though. The blurb mentions truth as a defense, so perhaps things are improving over there.

In some states it's illegal for them to even ask.

On July 16, 2013, Governor Lincoln Chafee signed into law an amendment to the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act. The amendment, at R.I.G.L. Â 28-5-7(7), makes it an unlawful employment practice "[f]or any employer to include on any application for employment . . . a question inquiring or to otherwise inquire either orally or in writing whether the applicant has ever been arrested, charged with or convicted of any crime,"

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ri-enacts-ban-the-box-law-limiting-67297/

If you screwed up like this in company, you would be fired. Yet some dumbass government worker in the USPTO grants this and several million dollars later it gets sorted out by the courts. One of the reason patent litigation is out of control is because these dumbass don't do their jobs.

Worse, the USPTO is about to switch from first to invent to first to file. You don't need to invent any more. Just find out what your competitors are doing, patent it, and sue them out of business: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/top-ten-reasons-to-file-your-patent-appl-98912/

Well, didn't Sarah Palin trademark her name?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/sarah-palin-trademark-name_n_880554.html

See also
https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resources/lawyoucanuse/pages/lawyoucanuse-268.aspx

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/celebrity-trademark-watch-marilyn-elvi-23734/

If it worked, we wouldn't be reading this article. The data was lost despite government regulation. I don't care that the government made 50k off the deal.

The $50K isn't the important part of the deal, the important part is the corrective action plan. (TFA isn't particularly good, but see here.)

if i recall correctly from the hipaa rules, it isnt the hospice that is required to pay the fine, im pretty sure it is the employees responsible.

Both covered entities and individuals working in them can face criminal charges for certain HIPAA violations (which can include fines and jail time), there are also civil fines against covered entities possible for a wider range of violations. TFA clearly indicates that this is a fine as part of negotiated settlement between the government and the hospice, and that the hospice itself is paying the fine, though a better article is here.

some times you lose more by getting on a jury.

Some places have fired people for going on one http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=d92cc1df-79be-4c30-849d-988ccf1bba6d

Judge Patel, in an August 2009 memorandum and order in the Universal. vs RealNetworks cases, states that fair use _is_ a defense to certain provisions of the DMCA, albeit not to the part that prohibits trafficking in anti-circumvention devices:

115. The Studios contend that fair use is never a defense to DMCA liability. This is the truth, but not the whole truth. Fair use is not a defense to trafficking in products used to circumvent effective technological measures that prevent unauthorized access to, or unauthorized copying of, a copyrighted work under sections 1201(a) or (b), respectively. But, fair use enters into the picture in the context of the act of circumvention itself. Fair use is prohibited in the access-control provision of section (a) but not in the copy-control provision of section (b). ...
So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.

Sony may not always play nice, but at least they haven't been charged with monopolistic business practices (that I'm aware of, anyway).

The USA investigated Sony for antitrust violations in 2008, as did China in 2007.