Slashdot Mirror

Not to mention trade secrets have no protection under law, in fact that's why copyright law exists in the first place.

Never say never.

Approximately 40 states have adopted the model Uniform Trade Secrets Act (USTA). The USTA defines a trade secret as "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program device, method, technique, or process, that: (i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and (ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."

The USTA specifies remedies for violation of trade secrets including injunctions, damages, and attorney's fees. It also gives courts the authority to grant protective orders to ensure the secrecy of a trade secret during the discovery phase of litigation, and prevents disclosure of confidential information by witnesses.

Federal Protection for Trade Secrets

The Economic Espionage Act of 1996 federally criminalizes the theft or misappropriation of trade secrets under two key provisions. The first makes it illegal to steal trade secrets for the benefit foreign powers; the second, makes it illegal to steal trade secrets for commercial or economic purposes regardless of who benefits.

Trade Secrets

The reverse engineering of software faces considerable legal challenges due to the enforcement of anti reverse engineering licensing provisions and the prohibition on the circumvention of technologies embedded within protection measures. By enforcing these legal mechanisms, courts are not required to examine the reverse engineering restrictions under federal intellectual property law. In circumstances involving anti reverse engineering licensing provisions, courts must first determine whether the enforcement of these provisions within contracts are preempted by federal intellectual property law considerations. Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law.

Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Reverse Engineering

Private citizens cannot file antitrust suits.

So we'll just ignore everything else you wrote, since that's likely made up too.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/5:2008cv05391/209307/

Google has already submitted the said blog post as part of its defense http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv03561/231846/103/0.pdf (Exhibit M) So, this is not a new development and unlikely to change anything.

Sorry, I made a mistake. SCOTUS ruled that the defendant can be compelled to produce a physical key, but not the combination to a safe. While both of those things could be used to open a safe, one is a physical object and the other is part of the defendant's mind. I should have used "key" instead of "combination" in my example.

I think you may have been watching too many movies or TV shows.

No, I have been reading too many case laws.

From the majority opinion of Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201:

We do not disagree with the dissent that "[t]he expression of the contents of an individual's mind" is testimonial communication for purposes of the Fifth Amendment. Post at 487 U. S. 220, n. 1. We simply disagree with the dissent's conclusion that the execution of the consent directive at issue here forced petitioner to express the contents of his mind. In our view, such compulsion is more like "be[ing] forced to surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents," than it is like "be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to [petitioner's] wall safe." Post at 487 U. S. 219.

The courts cannot compel a defendant to reveal a combination to safe since the combination is inside the defendant's mind. On the other, SCOTUS found that it's constitutional to compel a defendant to produce the key to a strongbox since the overt act of producing the key is not self-incriminating.

OK, how the fuck do you get from : VALIDITY SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED

to

Defaults are prohibited?

Simple, see Perry vs US.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th amendment forbids Congress the power to default on government obligations. The Supreme Court, per the Constitution, is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means.

In any case, nobody is going to default on anything. They'll just keep printing money. A few billions more dollars in circulation will not have the same effect on the US economy as defaulting on even a single $25 savings bond. And, as numerous others have pointed out, the US can solve this problem at any time by spending less, and taxing more to pay for the excess of the past. We're nowhere near the point where recovery is going to be impossible.

Obviousness was one of several patent concepts that arose from the Progress Clause but that wasn't originally a part of the statute. Instead, it was formed as a judicial doctrine that viewed obviousness as contrary to the limits on the patent system in the Progress Clause (in the 1850 Supreme Court case Hotchkiss v. Greenwood).

The concept of obviousness, along with the general guideline of "obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art", was later incorporated into the statute. In fact, many of the patent eligibility requirements were originally formulated by the courts and later adopted by Congress.

Cool, thank you! And here is the kicker, with regard to TFA:

Guarantee of freedom of speech

• This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Gitlow v. New York , 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(dicta).

Which brings us back to the question of just what the bejeebus the knuckleheaded state legislators think they're doing...

Cheers,

I can't find the ruling anywhere online yet, but eventually it should appear here. It looks like they've been posting documents within one day so far, so it seems likely that it'll be up pretty soon. Check back if you're interested, I guess.

In case anyone else wants to search, the case is Travelport v. American Airlines, 10CH48028, Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division (Chicago). The judge is Lee Preston.

The Jews aren't a race. They're a religion.

Except in the U.S. where the Supreme Court affirmed Jews as a race for the purposes of claiming racially-based discrimination.

(I'm not a lawyer yet, but I'm studying for the New York bar this summer, so that must count for something.)

Amazon is not using the "App Store" moniker for their mac store because if they do, they may automatically lose standing in the original Android App Store action. Apple has not yet received their temporary restraining order, but if they do, it will automatically apply to Amazon's Mac App Store. At that point Amazon either complies (and rebrands their site - $$) or does not and forfeits standing in the Apple action. (Essentially, if you decide to violate the rules imposed by the court, the court expects that you'll ignore an adverse ruling.) The pertinent case is Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc.. It's an interesting case and once again affirms that the fundamentals of American civil procedure owe a tremendous debt to topless dancers.

I'd be very surprised if "slower yields to faster" is actually written ANYWHERE in the US Highway Code.

Umm in many states it does say something similar.

Most states follow the Uniform Vehicle Code and require drivers to keep right if they are going slower than the normal speed of traffic (regardless of the speed limit; see below)

http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/right.html

Some states didn't allow left-lane lingering but didn't enforce the law. Now they are.

At the start of the summer, the Washington State Patrol began pulling people over for violating the state's left-lane law, which prohibits "impeding the flow of other traffic."

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/left-lane-slowpokes-drive-you-crazy.aspx

For shits and giggles I pulled a few states laws on the matter

Nebraska: http://law.justia.com/codes/nebraska/2006/s60index/s6006131000.html

Upon all roadways, any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Arizona: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/28/00721.htm

B. On all roadways, a person driving a vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall drive the vehicle in the right-hand lane then available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

Virginia: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+46.2-804

1. Any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions existing, shall be driven in the lane nearest the right edge or right curb of the highway when such lane is available for travel except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or in preparation for a left turn or where right lanes are reserved for slow-moving traffic as permitted in this section;

These three states all imply that you must move over if they are driving at less then the "normal speed of traffic". Of course other states have different laws, but a large number of them have laws with wording similar to these. The mit page says this at the bottom of it.

Note that this law refers to the "normal" speed of traffic, not the "legal" speed of traffic. The 60 MPH driver in a 55 MPH zone where everybody else is going 65 MPH must move right. Contrast Alaska's rule, 13 AAC 002.50, allowing vehicles driving at the speed limit to use the left lane, and Colorado rev. stat. 42-4-1103, prohibiting blocking the "normal and reasonable" movement of traffic.

Amazon collects tax it has actually presences in, such as Washington State.

But Amazon has found a way to skirt this requirement while still having a contracted physical presence in many other states. These contractors are wholly owned subsidiaries, but legally independent. They use them to fulfill their orders, so the orders are placed, shipped, and received in the same state... but since an out-of-state company is handling the transaction, no sales taxes are collected.

This is a fairly blatant loophole to Quill, but it seems to neatly fall under Scripto, Inc. v. Carson.

In short, a nearly identical case has already been decided on by the Supreme Court. The biggest difference I see is Amazon's addition of "over the internet". Bezos' constitutional argument is crap, but who knows what the current Supreme Court will do. Various state laws may yet be struck down, based on their over-definition of agents, etc.

How about West Virginia, then?

http://law.justia.com/codes/west-virginia/2005/17c/wvc17c-14-1.html

I'm sure most states have similar laws. Took 30 seconds on google to find this one.

Plaintiff registered its works in the United States in May and November 1980

I just found a copy of the class-action lawsuit. What Apple does and doesn't do will (hopefully) come out in court.

The difference is that you could have no reasonable expectation that saying "the government is doing bad things" would directly, in itself, be responsible for pushing someone to commit a murder. Any 10 year old could understand that yelling fire or pulling a fire alarm in a crowded theatre has a moderate risk of causing a dangerous stampede.

By your logic, you could never be prosecuted for leaving valuables in plain sight near a window and rigging up a lethal trap on any would be robbers. I mean, you didnt TELL someone to try to break in, so you cant be responsible for their death right? Except that there are very few states where you could even hope to get away with that; any reasonable person would understand that such a scenario is likely to lead to someone's death.

Finally, and most emphatically, the case Brandenburg v Ohio did NOT uphold "shouting fire in a crowded theatre". In fact, the court SPECIFICALLY stated that that is one of the exceptions to free speech (last paragraph) -- to quote (from the actual case):

The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. [...] They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused.

And further, in an earlier supreme court ruling, we have this gem--

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

So your logic is wrong, and the courts seem to disagree. Using speech that is likely and can reasonably be understood to cause riots or dangerous situations is NOT protected in our law books, and I really doubt you would like living in a country where that was not the case.

Here's a paper on the reaction, by different people at the same university, and there's also this 2003 patent by two people named Erling Andersen, who don't seem to be at Barcelona, and a corresponding European patent EP1301433. The Andersen patent is cited in the Barcelona paper. I didn't find a patent on the battery application by the folks who made the model car. It looks like there's abundant prior art for the Andersen patent. This whole thing reads like a parody of patent abuse.

What does paper have to do with anything?

Are you kidding with this? How about 18 USC 1702?

Oh come now. You should know how they do it

15 C.F.R. 760.2 Prohibitions
(a) Refusals to do business
(3) Refusals to do business which are prohibited by this section include not only specific refusals, but also refusals implied by a course or pattern of conduct. There need not be a specific offer and refusal to constitute a refusal to do business... emphasis mine

Pretty slick, huh?

You think these people don't have it all covered? When does the charade end?

There's another important case currently at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, Warner Bros. Entertainment, et al. v. X One X Productions, et al., to which AVELA is also a defendant.

The case involves the use of images of Dorothy and friends from the Wizard of Oz. The characters were published, shortly before the movie was released, on promotional movie posters for which copyright was not sought (in those days, you had to register copyrights, unlike today, where the Berne Convention specifies automatic copyright upon publication). However, the district court ruled that the defendants, in selling various products featuring images of the Wizard of Oz characters (though not taken specifically from the movie, which is still under copyright) infringed upon the plaintiff's copyright in the movie because it used the images of the characters.

Of course, what the Ninth Circuit says in the case in TFA is apposite to the case in the Eighth Circuit. If one can infringe the copyright of a work by merely using images of characters depicted therein, then the copyright on a character can be maintained indefinitely by simply using the character in a new work from time to time. Even if the earliest works were in the public domain, the characters in those works would still be protected by the copyrights of the newer works, and this could be extended into perpetuity at the whim of the copyright holder. That clearly violates the "limited times" part of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution (although the Ninth Circuit addressed this in terms of the 1909 Copyright Act, which was the controlling law when the Wizard of Oz movie's copyright came into force, and which indicates that copyrights can't be extended in this fashion).

Did he even commit this crime? Wasn't he authorized to be in that system altering code? What are the police doing involved? Shouldn't this just be a civil suit in which the company sues him for damages?

It should be noted that public sector union bargaining is not universal in the US.

For teachers, 35 states have mandatory collective bargaining rights, 11 states permit collective bargaining (neither mandating or prohibiting), and 5 states specifically prohibit collective bargaining of teachers.

Some states have no public sector union bargaining at all.

Virginia Code 40.1-57.2 "Prohibition against collective bargaining" says: "No state, county, municipal, or like governmental officer, agent or governing body is vested with or possesses any authority to recognize any labor union or other employee association as a bargaining agent of any public officers or employees, or to collectively bargain or enter into any collective bargaining contract with any such union or association or its agents with respect to any matter relating to them or their employment or service."

Texas has government code 617.002. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PROHIBITED. "(a) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not enter into a collective bargaining contract with a labor organization regarding wages, hours, or conditions of employment of public employees. (b) A contract entered into in violation of Subsection (a) is void. (c) An official of the state or of a political subdivision of the state may not recognize a labor organization as the bargaining agent for a group of public employees."

I don't know about the US jurisdictions as I'm Swedish, but here the Self Defense laws are pretty harsh, you're only allowed to use violence to defend yourself to the extent it's necessary to defend yourself, any more then that and you're on the line for Assault/Manslaughter yourself.

Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.

That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.

Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).

In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):

Excusable homicide
Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee
Justifiable homicide by citizen
When homicide is excusable of justifiable defendant to be acquitted

In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that th

I don't know about the US jurisdictions as I'm Swedish, but here the Self Defense laws are pretty harsh, you're only allowed to use violence to defend yourself to the extent it's necessary to defend yourself, any more then that and you're on the line for Assault/Manslaughter yourself.

Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.

That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.

Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).

In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):

Excusable homicide
Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee
Justifiable homicide by citizen
When homicide is excusable of justifiable defendant to be acquitted

In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that th

I don't know about the US jurisdictions as I'm Swedish, but here the Self Defense laws are pretty harsh, you're only allowed to use violence to defend yourself to the extent it's necessary to defend yourself, any more then that and you're on the line for Assault/Manslaughter yourself.

Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.

That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.

Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).

In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):

Excusable homicide
Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee
Justifiable homicide by citizen
When homicide is excusable of justifiable defendant to be acquitted

In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that th

I don't know about the US jurisdictions as I'm Swedish, but here the Self Defense laws are pretty harsh, you're only allowed to use violence to defend yourself to the extent it's necessary to defend yourself, any more then that and you're on the line for Assault/Manslaughter yourself.

Allow me to educate you (and myself, because I honestly don't know what applies to which US jurisdiction as there are so many) insofar as my knowledge stretches to New Mexico and the neighboring States. First, though, I will freely admit that US law is highly convoluted, because it largely depends on the State you're in. This is by design, and the States are granted a great deal of leeway--certainly enough such that a law that applies in one State doesn't in another. Further, even so much as transporting firearms across State lines may require special permits--or not at all. Of course, there's a much deeper discussion to all of this, and the primary reason I'm using US law as an example is because individual cited in the article resides in Pennsylvania.

That said, I have no idea what Pennsylvania law is with regards to use of lethal force, but in New Mexico at least, self defense is fairly lenient; IANAL, but as I understand it, if there is a clear and present danger to you or to others that a violent crime is to be committed, you may use lethal force. Yes, you will probably go to jail until it's sorted out; yes, you will probably have your firearm confiscated; yes, you may wind up going to court. However, all of these "mays" are circumstantial. In the case of a potential rape victim, I highly doubt the victim would be booked by law enforcement. Questioned, certainly, but the laws here as I understand them (as I'm sure they are in Arizona and Texas) have seen some revision specifically for circumstances of self defense and are undoubtedly much more lenient than they are in Sweden. Of course, there are limitations such as the Castle Doctrine and how it applies to personal property (the NM interpretation of it is generally more strict), but there have been some recent changes.

Notably, some years prior, Governor Richardson signed concealed carry into law. This means that as long as your are licensed and authorized by the State, you may carry a firearm concealed with you wherever you go (I do believe it's limited such that CCW is not allowed if you are or are going to drink alcohol and you can be jailed or fined) for the purposes of self defense. There are also many other places where you cannot carry as outlined here (PDF warning).

In NM, these are the applicable laws (as far as I know):

Excusable homicide
Justifiable homicide by public officer or public employee
Justifiable homicide by citizen
When homicide is excusable of justifiable defendant to be acquitted

In particular, NM Law section 30-2-7 may indicate some leniency compared to Sweden:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.
Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that th

He did file the papers himself - it says so on them; that's what the "Pro Se" below his signature means, No lawyers involved - after three years at law school, most JDs can at least spell.

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/florida/flsdce/1:2011cv20047/371507/1/
The original filing is quite entertaining. He paid $350 to file it. That's a lot of PBR!

Well, if I follow his logic (or lack thereof) in the court filing

"6. That Defendants claim to operate a journalism entity protected by the free speech clause of the first amendment of the United States Constitution; Thus claiming citezship of the United States of America."

Being a journalist who desires free speech automatically entitles you to become a US citizen. News to me!

BTW, on lawsuits, the four class-action lawsuits on this issue has been consolidated, and they recently filed a motion to compel discovery:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2010cv01811/226894/

There was also "coke" (as in the colloquial term in many places for any soda) before "coca-cola"

Um, citation needed. Coca-cola was originally descriptive (coca leaves and cola beans); "Coke" stems directly from Coca-Cola. http://supreme.justia.com/us/254/143/case.html; http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10003-coca-cola-co-v-busch.

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

from http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel,

The Right To Travel As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

See also http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html

You might want to read this page.

The interesting bit here is the "redacted special jury verdict".

Page down through it, and you'll see that it's a simple set of questions, usually song-by-song. Near the end the jury is asked to set damages for each song. Each entry has $80,000 entered, which is pretty much half-way between the minimum ($750) and the maximum ($150,000).

Every song has the same damages assigned. Were all the songs downloaded the same number of times? We don't know...there is no evidence that the songs were ever downloaded by anyone else, as far as I can tell.

Are all these songs equal money-earners for the label? Who knows?

It's a remarkably lazy bit of life destruction from a senseless and cruel jury.

This is exactly why a judge revised the verdict, calling it "monstrous". He isn't name-calling the plaintiffs. It's directed squarely at an idiot jury.

Read 22 U.S.C. 212

The only requirement for a passport is proof of allegiance.

Then read 22 C.F.R. 51.2

A United States passport shall be issued only to a national of the United States.

The fact that the passport office deems a passport as proof of citizenship is either a mistake in terminology in the part of their instructions, or due to the fact that on the original application for the first passport issued, evidence of citizenship or nationality was provided.

A third party, who is not the federal government, would need to request the passport office to check the original records to determine if a passport was issued to a statutory US Citizen, statutory US National, or to a non-citizen national. The regular passport (as opposed to the diplomatic or official passports) itself does not provide prima facie evidence of citizenship.

If you are still interested in these issues, I really recommend the Why A National link. Even if you disagree with the conclusions, you should benefit from the compilation of relevant statutes, regulations and case law.

republic

But given that the case settled, there's little chance those judges had much to do with it. Also, the reputation is that the court is extremely plaintiff-favorable - so it would not simply be that the judges are well versed in patent law. The implication is prejudice.

The judge had plenty to do with it. A lot happens involving the judge before an actual trial occurs. In particular, the parties argue claims construction, and then the judge rules on the meaning of the claims. That ruling came down on June 1, 2010 in this case. You can get a copy of that ruling here if you are curious.

The claims construction ruling can be a major turning point in a patent case, as that is when the parties find out what they are actually dealing with. Cases can be won or lost on claims construction.

As for prejudice, the fact is that EDT isn't even in the top 5 districts when it comes to favoring plaintiffs.

Not so long as they get paid per patent accepted they won't.

This statement ignores a ton of history and implies corruption where there is none. The Patent Office has historically fought tooth and nail to oppose the expansion of patentable subject matter. It opposed patents on genetically modified organisms all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (the 'Diamond' in that case was Sidney Diamond, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks). It repeatedly opposed patents on software all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978) (Parker was the acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (again, Gottschalk was the acting Commissioner). In Bilski v. Kappos, the Patent Office was fighting against the patentability of business methods, again, all the way to the Supreme Court.

In most of these cases (all except Bilski, in fact) it was actually the Patent Office that appealed to the Supreme Court rather than acquiesce to the lower court's ruling, so the Patent Office has for decades consistently fought quite hard against the expansion of patentable subject matter despite being reliant on application and maintenance fees for its budget.

Not so long as they get paid per patent accepted they won't.

This statement ignores a ton of history and implies corruption where there is none. The Patent Office has historically fought tooth and nail to oppose the expansion of patentable subject matter. It opposed patents on genetically modified organisms all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (the 'Diamond' in that case was Sidney Diamond, the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks). It repeatedly opposed patents on software all the way to the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981); Parker v. Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978) (Parker was the acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) (again, Gottschalk was the acting Commissioner). In Bilski v. Kappos, the Patent Office was fighting against the patentability of business methods, again, all the way to the Supreme Court.

In most of these cases (all except Bilski, in fact) it was actually the Patent Office that appealed to the Supreme Court rather than acquiesce to the lower court's ruling, so the Patent Office has for decades consistently fought quite hard against the expansion of patentable subject matter despite being reliant on application and maintenance fees for its budget.

Why do you have such a hard time following the judge's logic? She is NOT saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you commit a crime. She is saying that there is no expectation of privacy when you subscribe to an ISP. THAT'S IT. No fucking crime needed.

Actually, a crime is needed. This ruling is over a rule 45 subpoena which can only be brought if there is enough evidence for the trial to commence. In other words, they have to show a reasonable likelihood to have cause and that the court in question has jurisdiction in order to get the subpoenas.

What was challenged here is provisions within rule 45 which allow the quashing of the subpoena if certain conditions exist (rule 45e or 45c3 I think). What the court rules was that there was no rule 45 expectation to privacy because previous courts have rules that once you give information to third parties, there is no controllable expectation of privacy. the court then lists 4 or 5 other cases to back this up that date back to 2000. You should be able to find more about it here.

I guess the article and the summery was over-inflated garbage as it didn't take the context correctly and present it as it's actually existing. the rules of the court still apply and there has to be a somewhat creditable allegation of crime in order to rule 45 to allow subpoenas for discovery in the first place.

Let me state it once again in case you missed it: the ONLY reason given for no expectation of privacy - THE ONLY REASON - is signing up for an ISP.

And let me state this once and for all, the court references 4 or 5 other cases dating back to 2000 which already established this. The case in question also only pertains to discovery subpoenas issued in accordance with court rules once a suit have been lodged. The summery and article should actually read, because you disclose information to and ISP, the expectation of privacy does not extend to a discovery subpoena issued in accordance with rule 45.

Would an analogy help?
You're eating food, therefore I get to see your wife naked.
See, no crime.
How about: you like bubble gum, therefore I get to watch you have sex.
Again, just an everyday ordinary action by you and the state gets to peek in your windows.

That's completely silly. I guess I can see where you might think that though, if all you had to go by was the article submitted. Follow the link above and you will see the entire ruling which will have a lot more detail and provide a proper context.

P.S. Maybe you're just trolling me. Kudos: I bit.

No, Not trolling. I just seem to of had a little more information on the subject then you originally did.

Three points:

First, I find it interesting, to say the least, that the plaintiff in this case isn't Disney, Columbia, 20th Century Fox, etc., but "Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co KG" a crapware movie distributor so obscure that Googling seems to 95% turn up links for this lawsuit. Wearing a tin foil cap, one could almost think they were acting as a front for the MAFIAA, much in the way that SCO was to some degree a front for Microsoft in its anti-Linux crusade. In the end, as we in the USA further lose our rights, the major studios will shrug and say, "It wasn't us, blame the Germans..."

Second point is that there seems to be a conflation of the concepts "Privacy" and "anonymity" not only in this thread but in the original legal documents.

Privacy = You may know who I am, but you don't know what I'm up to.
Anonymity = You may know what I'm up to, but you don't know who I am.

They're complementary terms, and both important rights, but for accuracy's sake we should be clear that, since the deed (file-sharing) is already known, just not the perpetrators, this is primarily a blow to anonymity.

Alternatively, given that it is accepted legal practice to refer to internet anonymity as "privacy of subscriber information," one can think of anonymity as a subset of privacy, "privacy of subscriber information" being one tine along with "privacy of home", "privacy of beliefs", "privacy of association," etc. Even so, treating this ruling as a generalized blow to privacy to some extent muddies and obscures what's going on, particularly the salient issue at hand: Should we be entitled to an expectation of anonymity/"privacy of subscriber information" on the internet?

Third, probably mentioned elsewhere by now, but here's the ruling. In point of fact, it's a mixed bag. While denying anonymity, it also says that jurisdiction may be a real problem for the plaintiffs.

This original complaint is here in pdf format:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kyedce/2:2009cv00219/62639/1/0.pdf

It is pretty funny to see them talking about "TheDirt.com" all through it when it isn't even the right website.

I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.

Would you care to say how, I, as a hypothetical consumer using a purchased good for commercial use would be infringing on a patent by use of said good when I was not a party to the original patent license? I'm not a party to the license agreement therefor it does not apply to me as an end purchaser and owner of the final product.

If I were to encode the final video product in MPEG 2 or MPEG 4 and attempt to sell it then I would require a commercial license but not for using a camera.

I think you are wrong. In "GENERAL TALKING PICTURES CORP. V. WESTERN ELEC. CO., 304 U. S. 175 (1938)" the SCOTUS found that a patent holder CAN authorize a manufacturer to only manufacture for a particular market (home use vs commercial), and that any subsequent purchasers only get the same authorization that the manufacturer had. For example, if MPEG-LA authorized Canon to use MPEG patents in consumer cameras only, and you bought one of those cameras and used it for commercial use, you are infringing the patent.

are you speaking of the anti-trust lawsuit started in 2007?

Yes! They have! When the FCC licenses a frequency is up for renewal or if too many violations occur without fines the FCC can and likely has revoked a license... or in this case, radio "right of way." And Google makes this too simple:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/265/322/case.html

I googled "cases where right of way has been revoked"

The bottom line is that the right of way is applied for and either granted or refused. That which can be given can be taken away. Patents work this way. Trademarks and copyrights too. Rights and privileges granted by government can be revoked. I kind of thought everyone knew this.

I don't know if/how it applies to the rest of the country, but this came up in California when the DEA started doing flyovers with thermal cameras to find pot growers. IANAL, but the gist of the rulings was that you have no expectation of privacy for something visible to the public (so you could be fined for hate speech on the front of your house, for instance), and that since airways are public space (see United States v. Causby- most notably "The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world" and "The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority is a public highway and part of the public domain"), anything visible from them is fair game as far as evidence is concerned.

Actually, "destructive device" has a specific definition in Federal regulations, courtesy of our friends at the BATFE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device

Different states may have additional legal definitions. Nebraska's is here: http://law.justia.com/nebraska/codes/s28index/s2812013000.html. I find 7(b) particularly interesting; it seems to me that if the kid's bottle "bomb" was not intended to damage property or injure people, but just to make something go "BOOM", then it's not a destructive device. Hmmm. Perhaps Mom knowing about the kid's experiment would be a strong indication that he wasn't planning to blow something up (other than the soda bottle) or hurt anyone.

One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

California law is pretty straightforward about the fact that they don't play by "finders keepers, losers weepers" on the West Coast. Specifically, if you find someone's property, you're supposed to return it to them or turn it over to the police[1], you can't just do whatever you want with it. At the point at which the finder decided to sell it to the highest bidder, it becomes theft.

[1] - While not technically legit, nobody's gonna bust your chops if you just hand it over to the bartender or hostess and have the business hang onto it instead.

If you look at the relevant California law part of "reasonable effort" is giving it to the police, something that neither the person who found the device nor Gizmodo did:
California CIVIL CODE SECTION 2080-2080.10

2080.1. (a) If the owner is unknown or has not claimed the
property, the person saving or finding the property shall, if the
property is of the value of one hundred dollars ($100) or more,
within a reasonable time turn the property over to the police
department of the city or city and county, if found therein, or to
the sheriff's department of the county if found outside of city
limits, and shall make an affidavit, stating when and where he or she
found or saved the property, particularly describing it. If the
property was saved, the affidavit shall state:
      (1) From what and how it was saved.
      (2) Whether the owner of the property is known to the affiant.
      (3) That the affiant has not secreted, withheld, or disposed of
any part of the property.
      (b) The police department or the sheriff's department shall notify
the owner, if his or her identity is reasonably ascertainable, that
it possesses the property and where it may be claimed. The police
department or sheriff's department may require payment by the owner
of a reasonable charge to defray costs of storage and care of the
property.