Slashdot Mirror

Retailers and restaurants in the states have been living with performance rights issues since the nickelodeon days.

ASCAP was founded in 1914:

Early on, founding member Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: " The Era of the Player Piano (The Early 1900s)

"If the rights under the copyright are infringed only by a performance where money is taken at the door, they are very imperfectly protected. Performances not different in kind from those of the defendants could be given that might compete with and even destroy the success of the monopoly that the law intends the plaintiffs to have. It is enough to say that there is no need to construe the statute so narrowly. The defendants' performances are not eleemosynary. They are part of a total for which the public pays, and the fact that the price of the whole is attributed to a particular item which those present are expected to order is not important.

It is true that the music is not the sole object, but neither is the food, which probably could be got cheaper elsewhere. The object is a repast in surroundings that to people having limited powers of conversation, or disliking the rival noise, give a luxurious pleasure not to be had from eating a silent meal. If music did not pay, it would be given up. If it pays, it pays out of the public's pocket. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit, and that is enough." Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U.S. 591 (1917)

Holmes was not one to waste words, summing up the circuit court's decision and reversing it in three short, plain-spoken, paragraphs.

@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@

Syllabus

-The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in
+The defendant Corporations are not persons within the intent of the clause in
section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

Page 118 U. S. 395

http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/49ftoc/490030016.html
http://law.justia.com/westvirginia/codes/17b/wvc17b-2-9.html
http://law.justia.com/maine/codes/title29-ach0sec0/title29-asec1408.html
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc4602000/46.2-104.html

Shall I go on?

http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/49ftoc/490030016.html
http://law.justia.com/westvirginia/codes/17b/wvc17b-2-9.html
http://law.justia.com/maine/codes/title29-ach0sec0/title29-asec1408.html
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc4602000/46.2-104.html

Shall I go on?

http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/49ftoc/490030016.html
http://law.justia.com/westvirginia/codes/17b/wvc17b-2-9.html
http://law.justia.com/maine/codes/title29-ach0sec0/title29-asec1408.html
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc4602000/46.2-104.html

Shall I go on?

http://law.justia.com/idaho/codes/49ftoc/490030016.html
http://law.justia.com/westvirginia/codes/17b/wvc17b-2-9.html
http://law.justia.com/maine/codes/title29-ach0sec0/title29-asec1408.html
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc4602000/46.2-104.html

Shall I go on?

Seriously. Can anyone with a legal background explain what part of corporate daily business requires that corporations be legally considered equivalent to people?

Because if Corporations didn't have First Amendment rights, Richard Nixon could have shut down the New York Times for publishing the Pentagon Papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States). Similarly, organizations like the ACLU, NOW, NARAL, NRL, NRA, ... (remember, most political advocacy organizations are incorporated) would be subject to restrictions on what they could say or publish in furtherance of their causes. The whole debate over the "7 deadly words" and FCC regulation of TV/radio would be a moot point if the corporations that hold those licenses had no legal right to any expression.

In the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward) the legislature of NH decided that they have the right to unilaterally rewrite the charter of Dartmouth college and appoint their own trustees to manage it. Again, if the corporation had right to a binding contract, there would be no impediment to the fairly naked power grab attempted there. The power grab was even more blatant in Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (http://supreme.justia.com/us/29/480/), in which the Town basically tried to seize land from an unpopular missionary group on the grounds that corporations have no right to property. Again, if corporations have no right, their property could just be taken with no compensation.

IMO, the protection of the rights of corporations is little more than protection of the right of individuals when they want to accomplish something larger than they can do by themselves. If you and I wanted to start a nerdrage business on the internet (nevermind the lack of a serious way to make profits), we should be able to do so and retain the rights that we do as individuals. The fact that you and I are cooperating on the matter does not detract from the fact that we still have those rights.

I'm tempted to quote soylent green here -- Corporations are made of PEOPLE.

Jonathan Lee Riches

What possible difference does it make whether the subject is a public figure or not? All are supposed to be equal under the law. Heaven help us if we actually start having separate laws for celebrities.

Too late, we've had a separate legal standard for "celebrities" (public figures) for over forty years, starting with Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967): http://supreme.justia.com/us/388/130/case.html

These are not fines, they are damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Please refer to BFI, INC. V. KELCO DISPOSAL, INC., 492 U. S. 257 (1989) (link). One of the holdings of that case was:

The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to punitive damages awards in cases between private parties; it does not constrain such an award when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to recover a share of the damages awarded."

Title 17, Chapter 5, Â504 (c) (2) (link) states:

In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

Thus, in a case of willful infringement, the statutory damages are just that: damages awarded to the plaintiff, in a case between private parties.

IAAL (UK) and no, it's not that simple. It never is.

If you want to look at the US legal situation for example, a good start would be to read United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000) then compare and contrast it to In re Boucher, (D.Vt. Nov 29, 2007) (NO. 2:06-MJ-91) (2007 WL 4246473) ("Boucher I") and In re Boucher, (D.Vt. Feb. 19, 2009) (No. 2:06-mj-91) (2009 WL 424718) ("Boucher II") (still under appeal). Read the full cases if you can find them, not a summary from some random website.

Case law is evolving and it's far from settled.

what court found that grass did not reflect green light?

My apologies for being so careless as to use an analogy that has not yet taken place. Please allow my to revise my analogy. Just because a court finds that tomatoes are a vegetable and not a fruit does not make it so.

Interestingly, Palm is NOT on the list of companies being sued. Either they licensed the patent in question (who knows?), are not viewed as possible infringers (conceivable... perhaps the others all sell MP3 players of some sort and the smartphone/PDA isn't viewed as covered by the patent) or are too small to bother with in this litagation (unlikely).

Here's the complete list of alleged infringers from the suit:
Apple Inc.,
Auditek Corp.,
Bang & Olufsen Ameerica, Inc.,
Bang & Olufsen A/S,
Coby Electronics Corp.,
Cowon America, Inc.,
Cowon Systems, Inc.,
Dane Elec Corp. USA,
Data Station, Inc.,
IMA-Hong Kong, Ltd.,
Impecca USA, Inc.,
iRiver, Inc.,
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.,
Lasonic Electronics Corp.,
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
LG Electronics, Inc.,
LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc.,
Mach Speed Technologies, Inc.,
Meizu Technology Co., Ltd.,
Microsoft Corp.,
Philips Electronics North America Corp.,
Spectra Merchandising International Inc.
TrekStor GmbH & Co. KG

It can't possibly be the intent of the law that they should be able to say "Well, we can't prove any specific instance of infringement so we'll just pick the highest possible number we can".

Yes it can. And probably is.

I think they're very afraid of just how far the Supreme Court could set them back.

I'd be more afraid of how far the Supreme Court will set justice back. If they even hear the case. This issue has already been ruled on:

The Court has held the Clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, "when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded."32 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, "the word 'fine' was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense."33 The Eighth Amendment itself, as were antecedents of the Clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, "clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government."34 Therefore, while leaving open the issues of whether the Clause has any applicability to civil penalties or to qui tam actions, the Court determined that "the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government."35

Yet another case of the government using civil law as an end run around our rights.

-cyclists can ride as 'close as practicable from the side of the road', meaning they do NOT have to ride within the boundary of the shoulder, especially if there is debris on the far side.

There are also laws usually against impeding the normal flow of traffic. So yes, the cyclist DOES have to move out of the way.

-motorists MUST obey all road laws when dealing with cyclists, including passing laws. It is against the law to pass cyclists with a solid yellow 'no pass' line on their side, just as it is when passing a car. Furthermore, motorists must use the same discretion when passing cyclists, say on a hill or around a curve, as they would when passing another automobile.

It is legal to overtake a slow moving vehicle on the left, and the slow moving vehicle MUST stay right.

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/veh/21750-21759.html

cyclists have the right to ride 2x2 in the road, but must let traffic pass when appropriate

I call bull. Show me. Motorcycles can't ride side by side, why would bicycles be any different?

cyclists DO NOT have to come to a complete stop at stop signs, and they CAN travel through red lights. They have to make a concerted effort, however, to show responsibility and safety

Bullshit.

in general, a bicycle is just another vehicle on the roadway. The problem is not with MOST drivers or cyclists- both parties share ignorance when it comes to cyclists. The problem is with a few, but I would say that most drivers are not aware of, or refuse to acknowledge, the laws regarding cyclists.

This contradicts your assertion about stop signs and red lights.

Also, in my experience, its the cyclists that don't know the laws (see running of stop signs / red lights, but pretty much any rule you have they break).

Statistics say both are equally at fault.

So take the high road; when its 94% the fault of the driver for the accident with the bike, I'll bite. But as it stands now, its 47% driver fault, 47% cyclists fault.

In 1967, your confidence in the 4th amendment might have been justified. There are not enough Warrens, Brennans, Douglases, Fortases, or even Whites or Blacks on the Court today to be so certain.

(Interestingly, many justices at that time had never been judges beforehand. For instance, Warren had been a governor, Black had been a senator, and Douglas had been an SEC commissioner.)

Agreed. But we're not discussing the fairness of having to be polite to somebody who's being rude to you.

Exactly, because this goes way beyond mere "rudeness".

We're talking about the consequences of being rude to somebody with the authority to throw you in jail.

No, we aren't, as said somebody has to have a reason to throw you in jail, which is something the cops never had in this case.

The loss prevention guy had the authority to detain him until the cops arrived.

Not just no, but HELL no. Was he vandalizing the store? No. Was he trying to shoplift? No - and even if he was, loss prevention has to wait until AFTER you leave the store, not while you're inside.

Saw the video. Simplistic nonsense.

That include the highly respected Supreme Court justice and veteran police detective with decades of experience? Stop maintaining that firm grip on your ankles and watch the video again, paying particular attention at 8:30.

But there are certainly times when it's necessary. If you're ripped off, try filing an insurance claim without a police report. And if there were a guy on your front porch carrying a machete and wearing a hockey mask, you're telling me you wouldn't call 911?

Except the obvious context is when the police think you are a suspect.

Hmm, just remembered the last time I interacted with a cop. I was driving home at 3 AM, and the place where I parked had been well lit, so I forgot to turn on my headlights. Got pulled over, and asked, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" By then I'd figured out why I'd been stopped, so I said yes. As soon as he saw I wasn't a drunk (which is what he was trolling for), he gave me a lecture and let me go.

What would have happened if I'd refused to say anything to him? Certainly an expensive traffic ticket and probably a few hours jail time.

Uh, no, what came out of you mouth had nothing to do with him letting you go. The police officer made a determination that he didn't have probable suspicion that you were drinking and driving. Anything you said could only hurt you, not help you.

When I deal with cops, I rely on self-restraint and common sense. And somehow my interactions seem to come out better than with people who fancy themselves street lawyers.

No, they don't. See above.

Time bombs are a myth? OK then, but I'm pretty some serial killers are not.

Time bomb scenario. Reading comprehension, it does a body good.

You can call the cop a cocksucking piece of shit and there's jack she can do about it

There are a lot of stupid self-trained legal "experts" on Slashdot, but you have to be the stupidest.

What a surprise, you're wrong. Again. You have every Constitutional right to tell public officials - including police officers - off using profanity. And there are plenty of court cases backing that right up. What people are arrested for isn't swearing at the officer, but for the favorite cop catch all: disorderly conduct.

So the officer can arrest you for screaming "fuck you!" at her in a store, but it's for disorderly conduct, not swearing. But calmly telling her to fuck off while she's attempting to question you certainly is within your Constitutional rights.

Your question is about what's the problem with what the RIAA is doing, my question is rather, what's the harm to them in letting her look for another lawyer given the most likely reason for the current one withdrawing?

Their lawyers cost money too, you know? Maybe having this case going on for 3 years is a bit much, and they want to get this done and over?

Actually, if they detained him, they probably committed a kidnapping, at least in NC. IANAL, but in NC if you rob a store, and tell the cashier to move away from the register, you have added a kidnapping charge to your crime of armed robbery. Was going to post the law, but too long, here is the link. http://law.justia.com/northcarolina/codes/chapter_14/article_10.html

http://news.justia.com/cases/featured/california/candce/4:2008cv05373/209262/

I've been all over the net and news about this. Even slashdot had it in the firehose.

IANAL, etc. and I'm no fan of the MAFIAA at all... However... I just read the lower court judge's ruling in denying the motion to quash and I frankly don't see a problem with the judge's reasoning.

You don't see the problem because you are not a lawyer.

I'm going out on a limb, here, but I would bet you that the vast majority of non-lawyers would also have "found" a lot of "problems" with the Magistrate Judge's decision. (Which is one of the reasons I raised my "troll" alert on the GP post, but I must confess that my primary reason for raising the "troll" alert was the language: "I'm no fan of the MAFIAA, however....." Most of the trolls -- or shills -- start out with that disclaimer.)

Hadn't I started with the disclaimer, I'd have been labelled one anyway, guess next time I'll avoid that starting sentence ;-)

And that's right, I'm no lawyer, and I did see a problem with them bundling 16 cases together, my question was on the other 4 points.

I'm close to getting an answer on wether the judge should have thrown out the evidence presented by MediaSentry. However it seems that even if it's illegally obtained, it's admissible in a civil trial. The case cited (summary here?: http://supreme.justia.com/us/380/693/ ) to support that it shouldn't is way over my head to debate (after reading it about the quasi-criminal nature or whatnot), which is why I'll stop here and accept that until further notice, which leaves me with 3 points ;-)

No, that's not true. http://law.justia.com/vermont/codes/title13/section03705.html

If there's a sign that that reasonably prohibits trespass, then it's a crime. And "trespassers will be prosecuted" makes it clear that you're trespassing.

A google search on "stockart.com" gives their site and then a page of links about this issue. Not all publicity is good.

And then there's this list of previous federal cases.

Does anyone deserve to be menaced by a gun?

Yes, there are plenty of reasons that would cause me to "menace" you with a gun...

this is a civil contract issue right? Guy working at effects shop or whatever has contractual obligation not to steal shit from work (and probably signed an NDA with the wolverine job).

No, both the original leaker and any subsequent copy-makers are violation of Federal criminal law -- 18USC506(a)(1)(C), in case you want to look it up. Now, perhaps it's a stupid law to have (and I'm sure there is plenty of lively commentary on reforming copyright law, surely a good idea) but, given that it is a Federal criminal matter, FBI involvement seems unsurprising.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

he is at most responsible for one act of infringement when he uploaded it plus breaking a contractual obligation not to do so (and any punishment that shows up as too serious in a contract will just get invalidated)

Aside from doing 3 years in the slammer, the original copier is actually legally responsible for all the subsequent copies that can be proven to be contingent on his crime, that is, they would not have happened "but for" the original act. That's how tort law generally works -- we are responsible for all the consequences, direct or indirect, for our actions that would not have happened but for the tortious act.

See, e.g.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=966380
http://www.justia.com/injury/docs/us-tort-liability-primer/expansion-of-tort-liability.html

If the tax system was fair in the first place, no loopholes would be needed. Income tax is really unlawful. It punishes productivity and penalizes saving.

First and third sentences are debateable. The second sentence is, as far as I understand, untrue as stated, according to Article 1, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America.

You might argue that the income tax is immoral, unconscionable, or unfair, but it appears to be pretty darn legal in the US.

> I don't think that it's possible to sue a stack of cash, no matter how big it is.

Actually it is. I picked the first example I could find from a little Googling, but here's the docket for the United States of America v. Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000.00) In United States Currency for your reading pleasure.

I also found this news article about how this works in another case, which is more than a little disturbing. You're simply not allowed to have too much cash these days. They think it proves you're doing something illegal. Even if they're right most of the time, I think it's terrible what they can do to the innocent.

The first thing that struck me about this article is that I seem to recall an inferred right in Constitutional law for a citizen to travel freely within the country. I managed to find something summarizing+confirming the fact, aptly named 'right to travel': http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel.html

It would seem to me that a toll in order to make use of public roads would be tantamount to the poll tax explicitly barred in the twenty fourth amendment. This is apart from the obvious point that charging tolls on tax payer funded roads seems redundant.

Here, you go buddy: Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Federal Res. Bank, 262 U.S. 649 (1923).

When the US abolished gold standard in 1971 and the dollar became "fiat money [about.com]", all State tax-refunds, welfare payments, salaries of the State-employees, etc. became unarguably unconstitutional.

So I'm wondering, is this your own interpretation, or are you basing this on something? Because there've been a number of Supreme Court cases on that exact issue, and they've determined that what the clause means is that states can't insist on paying with a bank draft if a debtor insists on gold or silver, but there's nothing that says that a debtor can't *choose* to accept a bank draft instead.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause#Legal_Tender and http://supreme.justia.com/us/262/649/case.html.

The very first congress seated in the United States under the Constitution allowed for warrant-less searches at the borders.

Wasn't the purpose of this to ensure that people crossing the border weren't bringing weapons or trying to bypass import tariffs?

Not to mention the fact, that the *person* is not crossing the border in this case.

This would be closer to inspecting international mail. Of which, only the *incoming* mail can be inspected WITH probable cause and this was only decided as of 1977 (see US v Ramsey).

Title 19 U.S.C. Â 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant.

Additionally, in that particular case, the mail officials had a wealth of evidence to support a search and could have probably easily obtained a warrant.
Details.
Basically, the Thai govt followed some guys around, searched some of their US-bound mail and found heroin. They then notified the US who did a warrantless search on mail already on US soil.
Probable cause abound, no precedent setting needed. Though I don't know why they couldn't have spent 10 minutes in front of a judge getting a warrant.

Of course, because the guy lost the case, we all have to suffer because of the USSC statements that say basically all border searches are OK.

The very first congress seated in the United States under the Constitution allowed for warrant-less searches at the borders.

Wasn't the purpose of this to ensure that people crossing the border weren't bringing weapons or trying to bypass import tariffs?

Not to mention the fact, that the *person* is not crossing the border in this case.

This would be closer to inspecting international mail. Of which, only the *incoming* mail can be inspected WITH probable cause and this was only decided as of 1977 (see US v Ramsey).

Title 19 U.S.C. Â 482 and implementing postal regulations authorize customs officials to inspect incoming international mail when they have a "reasonable cause to suspect" that the mail contains illegally imported merchandise, although the regulations prohibit the reading of correspondence absent a search warrant.

Additionally, in that particular case, the mail officials had a wealth of evidence to support a search and could have probably easily obtained a warrant.
Details.
Basically, the Thai govt followed some guys around, searched some of their US-bound mail and found heroin. They then notified the US who did a warrantless search on mail already on US soil.
Probable cause abound, no precedent setting needed. Though I don't know why they couldn't have spent 10 minutes in front of a judge getting a warrant.

Of course, because the guy lost the case, we all have to suffer because of the USSC statements that say basically all border searches are OK.

I don't even know where to begin. Perhaps with a suggestion: before you rail against someone for not understanding part of the Constitution, at least do them the courtesy of looking the relevant bits over to make sure they say what you need them to for your argument. Because in this case, you are sorely mistaken about the content of the text, and you were quite rude about it. You only get to call people "clueless" if you're right, and it's particularly offensive to be lectured about my ignorance when you couldn't even be bothered to Google the very thing you were accusing me of mis-understanding.

Yep, you got me, I don't know my ass from a whole in the ground. I took the descriptions of the amendments and confabulated them with the Civil rights act of 1964 without bothering to look at the actual wording itself because of what I thought it said already. As for the tone, I would have had that regardless of whether I was right or wrong. Part of it was just the way I directly say what I think, the other part was all the "what about the niggers" responses I kept getting that pissed me off.

However, if we examine the Loving v Virginia case that ended miscegenation amung the states, we find that the laws were only protecting the dilution of the white race in which other interracial marriages were allowed, just not with white people. The Court notes "There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy.". Now lets examine this, they found that because in only banned whites and blacks, it was on account of race coinciding with the doctrine of white supremacy.

It goes on to say "We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause." and " Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State." so it is obvious that without any help from another amendment, the 14th prhibits the race tag. It's also obvious that each person currently has the same rights as each other person and they are not being discriminated against because of anything that the court or the constitution has held to be improper.

Any ideas on how to solve it?

Well, there seem to be two main issues, roughly speaking, that get in the way here. One would appear to be a conflict of interest, in that patent officers are apparently paid based on how many applications they complete. Since approval is a much quicker and less complicated process than rejecting, and then having to deal with refutations, patent officers have a clear incentive to approve as many patents as possible, regardless of their merit. This might be what spawned such bizarre and utility-less patents as the two I linked to previously.

• What would solve this issue? Changing the pay structure. And, since the current pay structure was likely put in place precisely to incentivize moving through the patent application backlog as quickly as possible, it would no doubt behoove us as a country to increase USPTO funding to increase the number of patent examiners. At the same time, measures like Bilski to limit and more clearly define the realms of the patentable, and thereby reduce the number of applications at the source, would likely also help.

The other issue that has been discussed here on Slashdot is the simple fact that no patent office staff, no matter how large, can possibly have the expertise required to honestly and effectively evaluate the flood of multi-varied patent applications. This is a structural incompetence, and by incompetence here I don't mean "bumbling idiots" (though some no doubt would say so), I mean instead simply "not capable of performing the duties of adequately examining all patent applications".

• How might this be overcome? One proposal that makes some sense has also been mentioned here on Slashdot before, and that is to open the patent examination process to comment from the public, allowing others, possibly with greater expertise in the relevant subject areas, to have some input regarding prior art and obviousness.

I'm not sure how effective these proposed changes might be, but it's clear that the current system is failing with regard to its constitutional mandate: to promote the progress of science and useful arts (Constitution, Article I). I find it fascinating that Justice Joseph Bradley, back in 1883, accurately described our current situation by extrapolating what would happen if any advancement at all, not just the notable, truly novel, and useful, were deemed patentable (emphasis mine):

The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor. It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention. It creates a class of speculative schemers who make it their business to watch the advancing wave of improvement and gather its foam in the form of patented monopolies which enable them to lay a heavy tax upon the industry of the country without contributing anything to the real advancement of the art. It embarrasses the honest pursuit of business with fears and apprehensions of concealed liens and unknown liabilities to law suits and vexatious accountings for profits made in good faith.
(source: Atlantic Works v. Brady, 107 U.S. 192 (1883))

US Supreme Court Justice William Douglas built on this argument in a written opinion in 1950 (emphasis mine):

Every patent is the grant of a privilege of exacting tolls from the public. The Framer

Why didn't he just follow the orders, leave, then file a complaint?

Because the order was manifestly illegal. Not a mere technicality, not merely being issued a ticket you can fight in court later, or being asked to leave the premises, but an act of censorship, of the destruction of information, an act as nauseating as a cop telling you to drop your pants so he can fuck you up the ass with his "baton".

The only proper response is "I'm sorry, but I stand on my rights and cannot comply with that request." And if they insist, you might consider the precedent set in the Bad Elk case, which upheld the right to use reasonable force to resist an illegal arrest attempt.

I spent the better part of the afternoon looking for the ref: Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos.

The actual case is "Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos". I searched Google and found it immediately, but then again, I knew exactly what to look for (being a member of said church).

That said, my brief examination of the case in point revealed that the facility in question was "a nonprofit facility . . . run by religious entities associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (http://supreme.justia.com/us/483/327, referring to 483 U.S. 327). As the OP pointed out, the Supreme Court sided with the LDS Church. The same article points out that an exemption to Title VII (listed as 702) can be applied to "religious organizations' secular activites" without violating the Establishment Clause of the first amendment.

Of course, as also stated by the OP, Diskeeper is not a religious organization, and it would be a stretch to claim that it's run by a religious entity associated with a religious organization. Hope this helps.

It doesn't matter whether people are likely to think that Psystar is Apple. You have to be authorized by a trademark owner to use its trademarks - the whole point of dilution is that Psystar is NOT Apple, but is perceived to be connected to Apple in some lawful way by the use of Apple's trademarks. The public perception is likely to be that Apple has authorized Psystar to install Apple's OS on non-Apple branded hardware. That is as classic as dilution gets and is far more compelling (and grounded in case law) than this nonsense "monopoly over the Apple OS" claim Psystar tried to argue.

Apple filed separate counts for trademark infringement and trademark dilution in their original complaint (See Apple's 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th claims of relief in the original complaint), so there are in an excellent position to claim damages for brand dilution. Apple is going to win on the trademark claims alone... and if the only thing Psystar can come up with is that Apple didn't file a $45 form with the Copyright Office, they are going to win the copyright claims too. IAAL and frankly, these arguments by Psystar's attorneys are just plain embarrassing.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/249/86/

Construed as a tax issue.

Well, considering the last that was heard from the trial was the order that "Plaintiff shall file and serve her class certification motion no later than November 3, 2008" - what about that suit?

There's only one listing in Canada411.ca for a Guerbuez anywhere in Canada. It lists an "Guerbuez, I.", located in LaSalle, which is a suburb of Montreal.

Coincidentally, in the court filings Facebook identifies Adam Guerbuez's address as: "7739 A Thibert Street, Lasalle, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H8N 2C5 and/or 7485 Bourdeau Terrasse, Lasalle, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H8N 2K9". The second address matches the address in the Canada 411 listing, which according to Facebook's court filing is his parents' address.

Also according to the filing, he "is the sole or primary beneficial owner of Atlantis Blue Capital and the website Ballervision.com". The website seems to exist. It's some kind of moderately sleazy chat/dating (?) site.

Something tells me the press haven't tried *that* hard to contact the guy. Either that, or Facebook was completely mistaken about the identification.

"but maybe they could have cut him off after the first dozen random suits, no ?"

Actually, there's provisions for that:

                    "Under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1), the court is directed to dismiss a suit brought in forma pauperis at any
time if the court determines that it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.
                  The Supreme Court emphasized in Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989), that the term frivolous
as used in 1915(d) "embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation."
Federal courts are thus empowered to summarily dismiss as frivolous "claims describing fantastic or delusional
scenarios." Id. at 328. Riches's complaint is obviously delusional.
                  This suit is accordingly dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Riches is
warned that if a prisoner has had a total of three federal cases or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing
to state a claim, he may not file suit in federal court without prepaying the filing fee unless he is in imminent danger
of serious physical injury. 28 U.S.C. 1915(g)."

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2007cv04192/211173/5/

Poor judge who has to deal with it and waste time on actually writing a full motion to dismiss the case, including references to supreme court cases explaining what is delusional and what's not. A fun read nonetheless :).

George W Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Condeleza Rice, Donald H Rumsfeld, John W Snow, Unknown Authors, Carlos M Gutierrez, Michael O Leavitt, Elaine Chao, Stephen L Johnson, Margaret Spellings, Samuel W Bodman, Norman Y Mineta, Hillary Rodham Clinton, James Hoffa, www.GOOGLE.com, Benedict, XVI, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jerry West, www.ACCUWEATHER.com, Usama Bin Laden, William Gates, Hugo Chavez, John Deere, Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party, Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A Fella Records, Shawn Carter, Queen of England, Jo Anne B Barnhart, Steven Spielberg, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc, Japan's Nikkei Stock Exchange, Gambino, Three Mile Island, Kofi Annaan, Tony Danza, Islamic Republic of Iran, Don King Productions Inc, Paris Hilton, Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witness, Jose Padilla, University of Miami, Geico Insurance, Vienna Convention, Matt Drudge, Marion Blakey, Consulate General of Nigeria, The Salvation Army, Jewish State of "Israel", John E Potter, Soledad O'Brien, Miles O'Brien, Magna Carta, Tsunami victims, Alan Greenspan, American Red Cross, Mark Emerson, Jessica Alba, Sirius Satellite Radio, Charles Moose, Dalai Lama, Houston Chronicle, Al Qaeda Islamic Army, Fruit of A-Loom, American Civil Liberties Union, Out-Back Steakhouse, Donald J Trump, Chris Berman, Vatican, The, Shawn John Combs, Michael Brown, Vincent K McMahon, Taliban, The, Richard M Daley, Meals on Wheels, John Grisham, Columbine High School, Ariel Sharon, United Parcel Service, Tara Reid, Black Entertainment Television Inc, Saddam Hussein, Jewish Workers, Brad Pitt, Jack Welch, Elizabeth Smart, George E Pataki, Charlie Sheen, Surgeon General, The, Vladimir Putin, Oliver North, George Orwell, www.ASKJEEVES.com, Sean O'Keefe, Various Buddhist Monks, www.SECUREDPARTY.com, I Lewis Libby, Warren Buffett, Sierra Club, John D Negroponte, Christina Applegate, Jewish Mossad, National Vanguard Books, Air and Space Museum, Christopher Reeves, Gale A Norton, Halliburton Company, Kellogg Brown & Root, John Walsh, Mein Kampf, City of Crawford Texas, John P Abizaid, Venus Williams, www.DEFCON.org, John Dudas, Medieval Times, International Trade Commission, Anna Nichole Smith, United States Marine Corps, William F Buckley, Denny's, Brotherhood of the Snake, Larry King, Charles E Schumer, Rastafarian Natives, Spencer Abraham, Rollingstone Magazine, Monogram Bank of Georgia, Grace Jones, National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Planet Hollywood, Joseph H Boardman, Marshall Bruce Mathers, III, Uliminati,Founder Adam Weishaupt, The Apollo Theater, David W Anderson, Assistant Secretary For Indian Affairs, Jason Society, Wu Tang Clan, Wu-Wear Inc, Philip Purcell, CEO Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Nordic Gods, Presidental Emergency Operation Center, Screen Actors Guild Inc, R James Nicholson, New York Stock Exchange Inc, The Da Vinci Code, Moorish Science Temple of America, Sears Tower, Mike Tyson, Native American Fish Society, Holocaust Survivors, Byzantine Republic Army, Dennis Hopper, Mt. Rushmore, Barbara Walters, First Presbyterian Church, Gordan R Sullivan, Yellow Cab Company, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, Michael Savage, Dennis Hastert, Green Bay's Lambeau Field, Slobodan Milosevic, Pizza Hut, King James Bible, Scott Peterson, Department of Housing and Urban Affiars, Smithsonian Institute, Robert C Bonner, Ming Dynasty, Ray Nagin, Barry Bonds, Thomas J Ridge, Jenna Bush, Gangs in Hong Kong, United Methodist Church, European Union, Porter Goss, Harrah's Las Vegas Inc, Grand Wizard of Ku Klux Klan, General Motors, Christopher Cox, Proctor & Gamble, Jewish Synagogue's, www.ebay.com, Knights of Malta, A

George W Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Condeleza Rice, Donald H Rumsfeld, John W Snow, Unknown Authors, Carlos M Gutierrez, Michael O Leavitt, Elaine Chao, Stephen L Johnson, Margaret Spellings, Samuel W Bodman, Norman Y Mineta, Hillary Rodham Clinton, James Hoffa, www.GOOGLE.com, Benedict, XVI, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Jerry West, www.ACCUWEATHER.com, Usama Bin Laden, William Gates, Hugo Chavez, John Deere, Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party, Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A Fella Records, Shawn Carter, Queen of England, Jo Anne B Barnhart, Steven Spielberg, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc, Japan's Nikkei Stock Exchange, Gambino, Three Mile Island, Kofi Annaan, Tony Danza, Islamic Republic of Iran, Don King Productions Inc, Paris Hilton, Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witness, Jose Padilla, University of Miami, Geico Insurance, Vienna Convention, Matt Drudge, Marion Blakey, Consulate General of Nigeria, The Salvation Army, Jewish State of "Israel", John E Potter, Soledad O'Brien, Miles O'Brien, Magna Carta, Tsunami victims, Alan Greenspan, American Red Cross, Mark Emerson, Jessica Alba, Sirius Satellite Radio, Charles Moose, Dalai Lama, Houston Chronicle, Al Qaeda Islamic Army, Fruit of A-Loom, American Civil Liberties Union, Out-Back Steakhouse, Donald J Trump, Chris Berman, Vatican, The, Shawn John Combs, Michael Brown, Vincent K McMahon, Taliban, The, Richard M Daley, Meals on Wheels, John Grisham, Columbine High School, Ariel Sharon, United Parcel Service, Tara Reid, Black Entertainment Television Inc, Saddam Hussein, Jewish Workers, Brad Pitt, Jack Welch, Elizabeth Smart, George E Pataki, Charlie Sheen, Surgeon General, The, Vladimir Putin, Oliver North, George Orwell, www.ASKJEEVES.com, Sean O'Keefe, Various Buddhist Monks, www.SECUREDPARTY.com, I Lewis Libby, Warren Buffett, Sierra Club, John D Negroponte, Christina Applegate, Jewish Mossad, National Vanguard Books, Air and Space Museum, Christopher Reeves, Gale A Norton, Halliburton Company, Kellogg Brown & Root, John Walsh, Mein Kampf, City of Crawford Texas, John P Abizaid, Venus Williams, www.DEFCON.org, John Dudas, Medieval Times, International Trade Commission, Anna Nichole Smith, United States Marine Corps, William F Buckley, Denny's, Brotherhood of the Snake, Larry King, Charles E Schumer, Rastafarian Natives, Spencer Abraham, Rollingstone Magazine, Monogram Bank of Georgia, Grace Jones, National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Planet Hollywood, Joseph H Boardman, Marshall Bruce Mathers, III, Uliminati,Founder Adam Weishaupt, The Apollo Theater, David W Anderson, Assistant Secretary For Indian Affairs, Jason Society, Wu Tang Clan, Wu-Wear Inc, Philip Purcell, CEO Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Nordic Gods, Presidental Emergency Operation Center, Screen Actors Guild Inc, R James Nicholson, New York Stock Exchange Inc, The Da Vinci Code, Moorish Science Temple of America, Sears Tower, Mike Tyson, Native American Fish Society, Holocaust Survivors, Byzantine Republic Army, Dennis Hopper, Mt. Rushmore, Barbara Walters, First Presbyterian Church, Gordan R Sullivan, Yellow Cab Company, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North America, Michael Savage, Dennis Hastert, Green Bay's Lambeau Field, Slobodan Milosevic, Pizza Hut, King James Bible, Scott Peterson, Department of Housing and Urban Affiars, Smithsonian Institute, Robert C Bonner, Ming Dynasty, Ray Nagin, Barry Bonds, Thomas J Ridge, Jenna Bush, Gangs in Hong Kong, United Methodist Church, European Union, Porter Goss, Harrah's Las Vegas Inc, Grand Wizard of Ku Klux Klan, General Motors, Christopher Cox, Proctor & Gamble, Jewish Synagogue's, www.ebay.com, Knights of Malta, A

See Artifex Software Inc. v. Diebold Inc. et al for details on the suit which has the number 3:2008cv04837.

In U.S. Federal evidence/testimony rules, 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination extends to a person being compelled to testify against a legal spouse*. See Trammel v. U.S..

*With a few exceptions.

Article 27A - Sex Offender and Public Protection Registration Programs.
* 14-208.5. Purpose.
* 14-208.6. Definitions.
* 14-208.6A. Lifetime registration requirements for criminal offenders.

... so, if you are forced to register just because you bought alcohol for a minor, it wouldn't mean you're registerring a sex offender, just that your class of offender must also register like a sex offender.

Now, it may be that there's only one registry (I didn't read all the law, after all) and that people just call it the `sex offender registry' and treat it accordingly, but it looks like that legally the law doesn't seem to require non sex offenders to register as sex offenders. Though in practice the difference may not matter.

If the purpose of such a register (sex offender or otherwise) is to protect the public, then it should be restricted to people who are actually a risk, people guilty of violent crimes -- rape, murder, serious assault and battery, etc. People who did things that aren't a risk -- consensual sex with a teenage minor, buying alcohol for a minor, etc. don't belong on such a registry.

And if the purpose of the registry is to punish, then it should be thrown out as being cruel and unusual punishment.

Just to be clear, I'm strongly opposed to `sex offender' registries. What makes a rape (or merely exposing yourself to somebody) so much worse than say, murder? If such registries are to exist, they shouldn't be `sex offender' registries -- they should be `violent offender' or `dangerous offender' registries, and only those convicted of appropriate crimes should qualify.

Alas, politicians want to seem `tough on crime', and `think of the children!' always makes people's hearts melt and obscure their reason, and many (most?) people don't seem to care how poorly criminals of any sort are treated, so I seriously doubt things are going to improve -- only get worse.

Since the passage of the act of 1839, it has been strenuously contended...[snip link]...that the public use of an invention for more than two years before such application, even without his consent and allowance, renders the letters patent therefor void.

Also, I'm actually thankful to my government for one thing. They may have messed up on all the important things, but when it comes to software patents, my representatives had the balls to say no. Thank god for them.

You may want to check out the case pending in the Western District of Wisconsin where Fujitsu, LG and Philips have sued Netgear under the following 3 patents: 4975952 (claims 1, 4 and 6), 6018642 (claims 2, 6, and 8), and 6469993 (claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 21, 25, and 26).

Plaintiffs are using the stupid theory that the 802.11 standard infringes the patents therefore Netgear's products also infringe. The plaintiffs have accused more than 100 Netgear products.

Netgear is the sole defendant in the case. Some details from Netgear's SEC filing:

In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against the Company by Fujitsu Limited, LG Electronics, Inc. and U.S. Philips Corporation in the U.S. District Court, Central District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs allege that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,018,642, 6,469,993 and 4,975,952. The plaintiffs accuse the Companyâ(TM)s wireless networking products compliant with the IEEE 802.11 standards of infringement. The Company filed its answer in the first quarter of 2008. This action is in the discovery phase. The District Court has scheduled an August 15, 2008 claim construction hearing and an April 27, 2009 jury trial.

If you want to fight patent garbage, buy Netgear products.

Right, but just because they've adopted a binding system of stare decisis in a manner incompatible with Constitutional rule doesn't make it Constitutional. A persuasive system would allow the judges to uphold their oaths.

A persuasive system would make it no more or less constitutional than a binding system. After all, "constitutional" would still be a matter of court interpretation. All you do is shift around the authority to do so.

A persuasive system has the worse side effect of substituting rule of man for rule of law. While you take serious issue with the binding precedent of "wrong" decisions, you overlook the importance of binding precedent for right decisions. Take the case of Watts v. Indiana , 338 U.S. 49 (1949). This is a horrible case involving two young black men who were arrested for a murder they didn't commit, tortured into confession, and then had their confessions admitted as evidence at the trial court over their objections. The Indiana State Supreme Court ruled that admitting such confessions did not violate the prisoners' due process rights and affirmed their conviction. The United State Supreme Court rightly overturned this decision.

Now, in a binding precedent world, no court of this nation finds itself free to allow confessions under torture to be admitted in court. In a persuasive precedent world, the state of Indiana (and all other states with racist judiciaries) would find themselves free to merely consider that opinion "persuasive" and continue to allow black people to be tortured into confessing to crimes they didn't commit. The rule of law against torture and coerced confessions would be subverted to the rule of man in favor of racist policies and injustice. Precedent means only as much as a judge's personal prejudices allow it in such a system, and the justice system would become one of personal fiefdoms and local corruption instead of a uniform system of the law.

The only matter of recourse would be to have each decision appealed up to a higher level, and as that article notes, the Supreme Court (and Circuit Courts) can only hear so many cases per year. A single corrupt judge who cares little for what is constitutional might have all of their decisions overturned, but if the problem becomes endemic, then a lack of binding precedent would prevent courts from tackling the system efficiently and would frankly render the appeals process pointless when every judge is an equal peer for determining constitutional muster.

You may complain about how there are "unconstitutional" decisions by the body invested with the power of deciding what is and isn't constitutional, but you are too quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater.