Slashdot Mirror

Treaties are given equal status with the Constitution.

Equal status as being supreme to state constitutions and laws, but not equal status with the Constitution itself. The Constitution is still the overriding Supreme Law of the United States. The Supremacy Clause doesn't explicitly rank levels of supremacy, but just as we know the Constitution is superior to Congressional legislation, so too must it be superior to treaties made under the Constitution. According to Justia.com:

By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties "are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other." As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both. And indeed the Court has numerous times so stated. It does not appear that the Court has ever held a treaty unconstitutional, although there are examples in which decision was seemingly based on a reading compelled by constitutional considerations. âoeThe treaty is ... a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions, unless they violate the Constitution of the United States.â

Negative. She was out for more

Horseshit. After seeing your comment, I wondered for how much she and WB sued. I just read the original complaint.

The relief it seeks is (1) a permanent injunction, and (2) atty's fees plus damages that cannot be ascertained until trial.

Furthermore, the complaint states that damages will be donated to charity. So it's not really about greed as many have said.

Can the police put a beeper/tracker in a container which is sold to a suspect? Yes, according to United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) [ http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/276/index.html ] and United States v Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) [ http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/705/index.html ].

Basically, a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements.

Can the police put a beeper/tracker in a container which is sold to a suspect? Yes, according to United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983) [ http://supreme.justia.com/us/460/276/index.html ] and United States v Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) [ http://supreme.justia.com/us/468/705/index.html ].

Basically, a person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements.

the complaint can be found here: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/casdce/3:2008cv01410/276150/1/

Yes. That's what we call an "unauthorized power grab."

Is it technically a "power grab" authorized or not if this has been the situation for almost the entire existence of the country? And if it is, it certainly happened well before anyone we know was born.

Um, yeah... I recall when Thomas Jefferson called Ben Franklin on his phone and said...

Oh, wait. Phone taps have only been possible since there were... PHONES! And what do we have with regard to phones? TELECOMM law, which is based on what??? Right! On THE FOURTH AMENDMENT! And what does telecomm law say??? Why, it says you need a WARRANT! And the danger of "losing the country" didn't exist in the person of an individual crossing a border until (at the very earliest) 1945. Only not really then, because although they could make A-Bombs, no one was going to be smuggling a multi-ton object in their valise. There are practical issues. And organized germ warfare came considerably later as well; about ten years later.

So, as it turns out, you're wrong on every single fact. Way to go, dude, that's epic. Why don't you check some facts out. Facts like telecom law and the fourth amendment has never been around until 1968 when the courts reversed a long standing decision over whether or not there was an expectation of privacy on the telephone. And yes, there are plenty of supreme court cases covering the matter. Now, the expectation of privacy has been since "Thomas Jefferson" days the test to whether a search was covered or protected by the fourth amendment or not. And yes, congress did authorize border searched without warrants back then!

I also like the way you arbitrarily picked 1945 as a date that you can imagine a ruling over border searched but if you would have looked just a little, you will find that the First congress of the United States wrote and passed a law giving the government the ability to do border searches. The text says something like

"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."276 Authorized by the First Congress,277

And if you want to read the entire law, it can be found here Back to the telephone tap laws, the courts have ruled them not protected by the 4th amendment since their use and we found out how to tap them all throughout history (earliest case I know of was 1928) until 1967 when the courts reversed their position in The Berger and Katz Cases. .... and for foreign intelligence Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

BTW, have you bothers to look any of this shit up on your own? or are you just repeating what someone else told you because it made them look good?

That's what they tell us, all right. Do you really think some person's laptop qualifies as a threat to the constitution? To national security? Even to uncle Ralph down the street? Don't you think that if Achmed The Awful has some data he wants to get into the country that is of a critical nature to his nefarious plans to elect another idiot like Bush in order to continue the destruction of our constitution, that even dumbassed, camel-fucking Achmed would have the sense to buy a virgin laptop here, and then SSL the data from places sandier than the good old U S of A? Or are you really so gullible to think that a laptop, of all things in this universe, is so threatening that the constitution should be suspended

Yes. That's what we call an "unauthorized power grab."

Is it technically a "power grab" authorized or not if this has been the situation for almost the entire existence of the country? And if it is, it certainly happened well before anyone we know was born.

Um, yeah... I recall when Thomas Jefferson called Ben Franklin on his phone and said...

Oh, wait. Phone taps have only been possible since there were... PHONES! And what do we have with regard to phones? TELECOMM law, which is based on what??? Right! On THE FOURTH AMENDMENT! And what does telecomm law say??? Why, it says you need a WARRANT! And the danger of "losing the country" didn't exist in the person of an individual crossing a border until (at the very earliest) 1945. Only not really then, because although they could make A-Bombs, no one was going to be smuggling a multi-ton object in their valise. There are practical issues. And organized germ warfare came considerably later as well; about ten years later.

So, as it turns out, you're wrong on every single fact. Way to go, dude, that's epic. Why don't you check some facts out. Facts like telecom law and the fourth amendment has never been around until 1968 when the courts reversed a long standing decision over whether or not there was an expectation of privacy on the telephone. And yes, there are plenty of supreme court cases covering the matter. Now, the expectation of privacy has been since "Thomas Jefferson" days the test to whether a search was covered or protected by the fourth amendment or not. And yes, congress did authorize border searched without warrants back then!

I also like the way you arbitrarily picked 1945 as a date that you can imagine a ruling over border searched but if you would have looked just a little, you will find that the First congress of the United States wrote and passed a law giving the government the ability to do border searches. The text says something like

"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."276 Authorized by the First Congress,277

And if you want to read the entire law, it can be found here Back to the telephone tap laws, the courts have ruled them not protected by the 4th amendment since their use and we found out how to tap them all throughout history (earliest case I know of was 1928) until 1967 when the courts reversed their position in The Berger and Katz Cases. .... and for foreign intelligence Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

BTW, have you bothers to look any of this shit up on your own? or are you just repeating what someone else told you because it made them look good?

That's what they tell us, all right. Do you really think some person's laptop qualifies as a threat to the constitution? To national security? Even to uncle Ralph down the street? Don't you think that if Achmed The Awful has some data he wants to get into the country that is of a critical nature to his nefarious plans to elect another idiot like Bush in order to continue the destruction of our constitution, that even dumbassed, camel-fucking Achmed would have the sense to buy a virgin laptop here, and then SSL the data from places sandier than the good old U S of A? Or are you really so gullible to think that a laptop, of all things in this universe, is so threatening that the constitution should be suspended

Yes. That's what we call an "unauthorized power grab."

Is it technically a "power grab" authorized or not if this has been the situation for almost the entire existence of the country? And if it is, it certainly happened well before anyone we know was born.

Um, yeah... I recall when Thomas Jefferson called Ben Franklin on his phone and said...

Oh, wait. Phone taps have only been possible since there were... PHONES! And what do we have with regard to phones? TELECOMM law, which is based on what??? Right! On THE FOURTH AMENDMENT! And what does telecomm law say??? Why, it says you need a WARRANT! And the danger of "losing the country" didn't exist in the person of an individual crossing a border until (at the very earliest) 1945. Only not really then, because although they could make A-Bombs, no one was going to be smuggling a multi-ton object in their valise. There are practical issues. And organized germ warfare came considerably later as well; about ten years later.

So, as it turns out, you're wrong on every single fact. Way to go, dude, that's epic. Why don't you check some facts out. Facts like telecom law and the fourth amendment has never been around until 1968 when the courts reversed a long standing decision over whether or not there was an expectation of privacy on the telephone. And yes, there are plenty of supreme court cases covering the matter. Now, the expectation of privacy has been since "Thomas Jefferson" days the test to whether a search was covered or protected by the fourth amendment or not. And yes, congress did authorize border searched without warrants back then!

I also like the way you arbitrarily picked 1945 as a date that you can imagine a ruling over border searched but if you would have looked just a little, you will find that the First congress of the United States wrote and passed a law giving the government the ability to do border searches. The text says something like

"That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border, should, by now, require no extended demonstration."276 Authorized by the First Congress,277

And if you want to read the entire law, it can be found here Back to the telephone tap laws, the courts have ruled them not protected by the 4th amendment since their use and we found out how to tap them all throughout history (earliest case I know of was 1928) until 1967 when the courts reversed their position in The Berger and Katz Cases. .... and for foreign intelligence Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

BTW, have you bothers to look any of this shit up on your own? or are you just repeating what someone else told you because it made them look good?

That's what they tell us, all right. Do you really think some person's laptop qualifies as a threat to the constitution? To national security? Even to uncle Ralph down the street? Don't you think that if Achmed The Awful has some data he wants to get into the country that is of a critical nature to his nefarious plans to elect another idiot like Bush in order to continue the destruction of our constitution, that even dumbassed, camel-fucking Achmed would have the sense to buy a virgin laptop here, and then SSL the data from places sandier than the good old U S of A? Or are you really so gullible to think that a laptop, of all things in this universe, is so threatening that the constitution should be suspended

"I maybe borrowing someone else's uninsured vehicle and my insurance is covering my public liability or public damage incurred during the operation."

If the vehicle is uninsured it is highly likely the operator is also not covered.
Some states anticipate such deliberate insurance coverage avoidance ruses:

Example:
http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc4602000/46.2-707.html

"Any person who is the operator of such an uninsured motor vehicle and not the titled owner, who knows that the required fee has not been paid to the Commissioner, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor."

No one has the right to not feel threatened.

Funny, because the Supreme Court has held that "threats of violence are outside the First Amendment" (citation). Now, I should clarify, that's not to say you have a right to not feel threatened. You don't. But you also don't have carte blanche to threaten others.

Offensive speech is still free, so long as it is a matter of opinion and not fact.

And so long as they don't say "I'm going to stab John and the fuck his tender asshole". If these students really did threaten to assault or rape those women, they can be charged for threatening violence, which AFAIK, is still illegal (citation).

More details of the patents in question can be fond at this Ars Technica article from couple of years ago.
Note that at least one of the patents in question was sent back to USPTO for reexamination, and likely to be overturned (once the various lawyers have exhausted their revenue stream on making comments either way).

The #1 indication that this is a patent troll is seen by it being filed in the Eastern Texas District -- Anascape appears to be nothing but a straw company for allowing Brad Armstrong and his lawyers to file in Eastern Texas, which has by far the highest rate of finding for the accuser in patent lawsuits. To the point that it's become a rubberstamping farce, and I can't see how higher courts let this go on as it does -- judges like Mr. Clark would, in any more civilized society be disbarred (I almost wrote defrocked, which wouldn't be far from the truth in Texas), and put in a pillory for good measure.

Ironically, you should read the "Computer Software" section of the first sale article. The last paragraph in that section refers to a case where it was not upheld. Then read page 13, lines 12-21 of MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al for a reference to three cases, that show examples of the issue of licensed vs. sold software and what rights you may not have under copyright law with licensed software.

OMG, his filings are fucking hilarious! http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/ohio/ohndce/1:2007cv02486/145363/1/0.pdf

4
---
defendants are in violation of common law unfair competition. I dunked over Mr. Jordan in highschool. Mr. James hired a croonie to bust my knee cap. James took out a car loan in my name in 2003 to buy a hummer. Defendants are involved with Global Warming, endangering wildlife, setting wire(?) fires out west. Dec 6th, 2003 I caught defendants with gas cans along I-70.

Thats one hell of an accusation, and there are many more to follow! I love how he seeks 83,000,000,000.00 Billion dollars and wants it all donated, partly to 2600.com. LOLCOPTER!

This guy is definitely not crazy, just spending his time very creatively 8)

Really worth reading the Justia link in groklaw:
http://news.justia.com/cases/jonathan-lee-riches/

This might be my favorite

Plaintiff sued the Jena 6 for "Loss of My White Rights" and sought $100 million in white gold and the White House. Plaintiff alleged that defendants hung a white noose in his cell at FCI Willaimsburg, told the FCI Williamsburg dentists not to fix his white fillings, fed him tainted White Castle hamburgers, turn his cell mate into Snow White, called him the white Suge Knight, burnt him with Great Whites pyrotechnics, made him suffer whiteouts, gave him white phosphorus, subjected him to low white blood cell counts, and that Vanna White won't write. Defendants also allegedly turned plaintiff into a white collar criminal and sent Whitehouse prosecutors after his white skin.

This guy is definitely hilarious and not crazy.

Plaintiff Jonathan Lee Riches sued Defendants Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Maddox Jolie Pitt, Zahara Jolie Pitt, Shiloh Jolie Pitt, and Pax Jolie Pitt. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie kidnapped Madeleine McCann in a major conspiracy plot to adopt her against her will, as part of a secret plot to take, kidnap and adopt a child from each of the 192 world wide countries. Plaintiff stated that he learned about the plot from his pen pal Billy Bob Thorton.

Loon or visionary

Although there is a rumor going around about a settlement, apparently, at least something is still on-going....

The last entry in June 4, indicates a hearing and exihibits were being submitted so there's a probably a settlement conference on this, but maybe it hit some sort of last minute snag...

http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/215/case.html#234 and http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/215/case.html#234

As an aside, what damages are they going to claim when yesterdays news is worthless? News is good for 24 hours at best when it comes to commercial value really drawing the line between 'sharing' and 'infringing'... but guess that isn'd really 'relevant'

http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/215/case.html#234 and http://supreme.justia.com/us/248/215/case.html#234

As an aside, what damages are they going to claim when yesterdays news is worthless? News is good for 24 hours at best when it comes to commercial value really drawing the line between 'sharing' and 'infringing'... but guess that isn'd really 'relevant'

You've just come full circle to what this case is about. In short, no, if you receive a CD (or any other object) in the mail that you did not request, it's a gift, per 39 USC 3009. Mail sent to a promoter based on the assumption that they will find it useful is still mail sent unsolicited. If they explicitly requested it, you can attach any terms you want; if you just assume they want it, it's a gift.

The Right to Travel

The doctrine of the "right to travel" actually encompasses three separate rights, of which two have been notable for the uncertainty of their textual support. The first is the right of a citizen to move freely between states, a right venerable for its longevity, but still lacking a clear doctrinal basis.1858 The second, expressly addressed by the first sentence of Article IV, provides a citizen of one State who is temporarily visiting another state the "Privileges and Immunities" of a citizen of the latter state.1859 The third is the right of a new arrival to a state, who establishes citizenship in that state, to enjoy the same rights and benefits as other state citizens. This right is most often invoked in challenges to durational residency requirements, which require that persons reside in a state for a specified period of time before taking advantage of the benefits of that state's citizenship.

easily done: Amendment 4 & 5. i suggest you start with these SC cases: Hiibel v. Nevada; Kolender v. Lawson; Florida v. Royer; and, U.S. v. Sokolow. and read every case cited therein. there now, i've done everyone reading this a small favor by telling you EXACTLY what to go read. use both wikipedia and http://supreme.justia.com/

Trademark, not copyright. Here. I don't really care about the merits of T-Mobile's claims, but there is Supreme Court precedent saying that a color can be trademarked in certain narrow circumstances (the alleged holder must show "secondary meaning"--basically, that customers associate the color with the brand). Recall that trademark traditionally (and arguably still mostly) is geared towards alleviating customer confusion. In that light, such a trademark might make sense (again, not saying it does in T-Mobile's case, as I don't know anything about it).

See Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1994) for illumination. I disagreed with the concept until I studied the case in IP Law. Now I'm neutral.

The loyalty oath issue is interesting. The loyalty oath in Florida used to contain the language "that I am not a member of the Communist Party; that I have not and will not lend my aid, support, advice, counsel or influence to the Communist Party". This was a big deal during the Red Scare era in the 1950s. It's not an oath of office; all state employees were required to sign it.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that language to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech and association in 1961. So the legislature took out the "Communist party" part. The shortened oath is still required of all state employees and candidates.

Florida law says that any state employee refusing to sign the oath shall be discharged. It's not clear there's any penalty for an employee who, through some omission of the state, was never asked to sign it.

Florida judges are mostly elected, and normally the loyalty oath is required as part of the paperwork for getting on the ballot. But it seems that Judge Tunis was appointed (by Gov. Jeb Bush) to fill a vacancy created when the Legislature increased the number of judgeships. For most state employees, it's the responsibility of the employee's superior to make sure that the loyalty oath is signed. But for elected positions, there's no "superior", so it's not clear who's supposed to get this done. Which is probably how she became a judge without signing the loyalty oath first. Anyway, Judge Tunis did sign the oath at a later date.

I did not say taking payments was unnecessary to eBay's business. I said requiring customers to use one particular payment model that is owned by eBay is not necessary to eBay's auction business. Their auction business would survive essentially unchanged if PayPal were swapped out by any other payment processor. There is no inherent technical reason requiring a tie of the use of eBay's services to the use of PayPal's services, hence making it an unlawful service bundle (again, in US law).

I don't think it would be illegal in the US. Take this court case, for example. In that case, the court decied that the market wasn't "cellophane" it was the more general "flexible packaging material". In the eBay/PayPal case, the market isn't "payment processing for online auctions", it's the more general "payment processing". Also relevant, one could argue the market isn't "online auctions", it's the more general "auctions", or even "buying stuff online", or even just "buying stuff".

Also, just to name a few, Overstock Auctions, Webidz, and QxBid are auction sites which aren't eBay, and don't require PayPal payments, so it's a little hard to believe eBay and PayPal are a monopoly even in the "payment processing for online auctions" market.

In this case, the judge's order of May 10, 2006, explains the law on point. This case didn't really add anything new to the interpretation of the law.

To answer your question, though, it seems likely that sites like MiniNova and seeders could be held liable for direct, contributory, and/or vicarious infringement. As the Supreme Court said in Grokster, "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it." Grokster, 125 S. Ct. 2764, 2776 (2005) (citations omitted). The further elements of contributory and vicarious infringement are discussed in the court's order that I linked to above.

Thirty-thousand dollars seems excessive, but that's what the law allows. The statutory damages provision for copyright infringement, 17 U.S.C. sec. 504, provides that "the copyright owner may elect . . . to recover . . . an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work . . . in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." If you read on, you'll notice that if the court finds willful infringement, the court may increase damages to $150,000.

In this case, there was no wiggle room for the judge. The judge's order of May 10, 2006, plainly explains the law (albeit in the context of denying a motion to dismiss). This case came out the way the law says it should and is consistent with similar cases. If you don't like the law, blame Congress, but don't make baseless accusations of judicial impropriety because the judge enforces a law you don't like.

The issue isn't that someone's deriving a work from Rowling's ideas. The issue is that the derived work in question is comprised of over 91% of her writing, word-for-word.

See Butler v. Michigan http://supreme.justia.com/us/352/380/.

It's about vote packing (OOXML) but also that subverting a standards process is not nice (Rambus).

A president is an elected official. I suppose the US will be setting our next president in November. It may or may not be sad.

However, this doesn't set a precedent either. Our country has always held searches conducted at the border to a lesser standard of suspicion.

On 31 July 1789, the 1st Congress enacted the first customs statute. Section 24 of the statute granted customs officials full power and authority to enter and search any ship or vessel that they suspect contain concealed goods subject to taxes. This was in contrast to the "warrent upon cause to suspect" required to search a house, store, or building. It is significant that the congress that made this distinction between searches at the border and searches elsewhere is the same congress that later drafted the Fourth Amendment.

Relevant Supreme Court cases:
UNITED UNITED STATES V. MONTOYA DE HERNANDEZ, 473 U. S. 531 (1985): "Consistently, therefore, with Congress' power to protect the Nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, [Footnote 1] and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause, Ramsey, supra. Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 562-563 (1976), and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatever. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, supra."

UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 431 U. S. 606 (1977): "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border should, by now, require no extended demonstration."

See also: the Border Search Exception

A president is an elected official. I suppose the US will be setting our next president in November. It may or may not be sad.

However, this doesn't set a precedent either. Our country has always held searches conducted at the border to a lesser standard of suspicion.

On 31 July 1789, the 1st Congress enacted the first customs statute. Section 24 of the statute granted customs officials full power and authority to enter and search any ship or vessel that they suspect contain concealed goods subject to taxes. This was in contrast to the "warrent upon cause to suspect" required to search a house, store, or building. It is significant that the congress that made this distinction between searches at the border and searches elsewhere is the same congress that later drafted the Fourth Amendment.

Relevant Supreme Court cases:
UNITED UNITED STATES V. MONTOYA DE HERNANDEZ, 473 U. S. 531 (1985): "Consistently, therefore, with Congress' power to protect the Nation by stopping and examining persons entering this country, the Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, [Footnote 1] and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause, Ramsey, supra. Automotive travelers may be stopped at fixed checkpoints near the border without individualized suspicion, even if the stop is based largely on ethnicity, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, 562-563 (1976), and boats on inland waters with ready access to the sea may be hailed and boarded with no suspicion whatever. United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, supra."

UNITED STATES V. RAMSEY, 431 U. S. 606 (1977): "That searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border should, by now, require no extended demonstration."

See also: the Border Search Exception

You mean the import/export clause: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports...

The terms "import" and "export" in the Constitution refer to imports and exports from other countries. See the treatise here: "Only articles imported from or exported to a foreign country, or âoea place over which the Constitution has not extended its commands with respect to imports and their taxation,â are comprehended by the terms âoeimportsâ and âoeexports."

Case: Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 673 (1945), holding that "These provisions were intended to confer on the national government the exclusive power to tax importations of goods into the United States."

Last I checked, Amazon shipped from within the US, so it doesn't apply at all.

As it should. I, as an internet merchant, ship my products "FOB here", which means that from the moment the article is delivered to the carrier, it belongs to the buyer. The transaction legally happened here, not in New York. If New York can get away with an import tax, fine... not my problem.

Patent 7,020,704 is unbelievably stupid. I can't believe anyone got that one.

Patent 7,313,414 is just a continuation of same.

Check out the whole filing here.

I thought the same thing as you at first. If you read this it looks like he was served the complaint and added as a defendant. Subpoenas are usually served to someone to produce documents or to show up in court. This looks to me though like they added him as a defendant.

Driessen Law History

James and Marguerite together decided that James should open a Utah solo practice law firm right after James passed the Utah Bar and became a Utah Attorney. Later that year, Driessen Law began operating as a dba home licensed business in Lindon, Utah.

To keep your costs down and because Driessen Law is a small one attorney practice, we do not employ full time secretaries, legal assistants, or clerks. You will deal with us directly.

There's no felony murder (the crime of an accidental death occurring as a result of the commission of a felony)

Impersonation with intent to deceive.

US law - Section 28-608 Criminal impersonation; penalty; restitution.

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation if he or she:

(a) Assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to gain a pecuniary benefit for himself, herself, or another or to deceive or harm another;

The reports made it clear that the woman who engaged and encouraged the deception was guilty. She could be charged with impersonation, along with her accomplice.

1. Eric, who graduated law school around 2005, was one of the lawyers who was scammed in a work-from-home scheme on craigslist.

2. He is currently suing the scammer, but apparently without success so far; his motion for discovery was denied.

3. His client successes page consists of, essentially:
  (a) we won an anti-spam appeal... after we lost the initial case... in which we were the plaintiffs when we were in law school.
  (b) A startup needed some startup forms. We drafted some startup forms.
  (c) A journal needed some licensing forms. We drafted some licensing forms.

4. His "Attorneys" page talks about "the people in the organization", and then lists: Eric Menhart. His two "Appellate Advocacy" cases include (a) his own case, from 3(a), and (b) one other case, which appears to be a TCPA junk fax lawsuit.

5. His "Alliances" page starts by pointing out that he's only a few blocks from the White House, and "near" the Supreme Court and other courthouses - including being within 100 miles of other circuit courts. It then addresses the actual issue of alliances: They have "numerous strategic alliances with other lawyers and law firms around the nation." That's it.

6. Among his seven "Practice Areas" pages, the only page actually claiming any experience is the "Litigation" page, which states: "CyberLaw® offers substantial litigation experience. When you retain the firm, your matter will be handled by an attorney with state and federal trial and appellate experience. The firm is also experienced with alternative dispute resolution proceedings, such as before the American Arbitration Association."

We know from #3 that Eric gained "state and federal trial and appellate experience" by... filing a lawsuit on his own behalf as a law student, losing it, appealing it, and winning on appeal. And one other case. We don't know if he has other experience in a courtroom. We don't know what he means by "substantial".

7. His "binary logo" - probably mandatory for any firm calling itself CyberLaw - is "11010101011010100101000". That's 23 bits.

IANAL, but I asked this guy Google about it and he directed me to this site's page on the legal definition of perjury, and here are a whole lotta case files related to the issue. Some investigation might be merited.

How long before Jack Thompson is sharing a cell with Jonathan Lee Riches?

Maybe Riches can sue him for trademark infringement.

The SCOTUS ruled 7-2 in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission:

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

You really need to stop playing amateur antitrust lawyer. Market power alone does not constitute an antitrust violation and prevent a manufacturer from making unilateral decisions concerning their business conduct.

"Second, a single firm that lawfully has acquired Stiglerian market power is permitted, without violating section 2 of the Sherman Act, to exercise that power by raising price and restraining its own output in that market. This follows from the argument, carefully set out by Donald Turner, that federal courts cannot take on the burden of detecting and remedying such price-setting behavior without becoming, in effect, public utility regulatory commissions." Thomas G. Krattenmaker (and others) mini biography

Similarly, your comments concerning the rule of reason approach adopted in Leegin Creative Leather Products are misleading at best. It is very difficult to make an antitrust case under the rule of reason analysis. In addition, it is well known that the rule distinguishes between restraints with anticompetitive effect that are harmful to the consumer and those with procompetitive effect that are in the consumer's best interest, but you're arguing that a maximum retail price policy is "anticompetitive." This simply isn't credible.

You should consider reading this case before continuing to opine as to what Nintendo can and cannot do.

AdWords is currently the ONLY profitable revenue source Google has and it is increasingly under assault. First there was the whole click fraud debacle and now it appears as though Google is being sued for patent infringement: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-vaedce/case_no-2:2007cv00582/case_id-224878/ Yes, there have been many patent infringement cases filed against Google, but unlike most of the other cases, this patent specifically covers the automated bid adjustment mechanism used by AdWords and numerous other PPC search engines. Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and you had to start manually adjusting your AdWords bids. Every time a competitor raised or lowered his bid price, you would have to respond manually, rather than letting AdWords adjust your bid according to the rules you defined. For the vast majority of advertisers, AdWords would become unusable. This scenario is surely the kind of nightmare that keeps Sergey and Larry awake at night and scrambling during the day to implement a Plan-B in case AdWords goes poof.

Unfortunately, Ohio has made those chains illegal, claiming they tear up the roads. I still drive a sedan, but I just keep a shovel in the back.

Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. See generally J. Mill, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government 1, 3-4 (R. McCallum ed. 1947). It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630-631 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Ohio has not shown that its interest in preventing the misuse of anonymous election-related speech justifies a prohibition of all uses of that speech. The State may, and does, punish fraud directly. But it cannot seek to punish fraud indirectly by indiscriminately outlawing a category of speech, based on its content, with no necessary relationship to the danger sought to be prevented. One would be hard pressed to think of a better example of the pitfalls of Ohio's blunderbuss approach than the facts of the case before us.

The judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court is reversed.

It is so ordered.

The Supreme Court held in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v. Campbell et al. 538 U.S. 408 (2003) that a punitive damage award that is more than 10 times higher than the actual damages is presumably a violation of due process. Thus, it logically follows that statutory damages ($750) that are more than 1,100 times higher than actual damages are an even greater violation of due process for two reasons: First, the ratio is significantly higher, and second, the goal of statutory damages is compensatory rather than punative, so there is less of a reason to make the damages a high number; it should bear a relation to the actual damages. The sole purpose of statutory damages in copyright law is due to the fact that actual damages are often hard if not impossible to prove. But if actual harm can be quantified in any reasonable manner, then a statutory damage award must still bear a reasonable ratio to that amount or else it would violate due process. More than 10 to 1 is improper for punative damages, I'd say more than 2-3 to 1 is improper for statutory damages (since the purpose is not to punish, but merely to compensate the copyright holder). The copyright holder can seek punative damages at trial and if they can prove their case and entitlement thereto, they can get punative damages up to 10 times higher than actual damages. But for congress to mandate a statutory damage amount over 1,100 times higher than the actual harm/loss (per infringement!) simply must be an unconstitutional violation of due process to be consistent with existing Supreme Court precedent. This is particularly true if one argues that a portion of statutory damages include punative damages.

http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-scdce/case_no-6:2006cv00109/case_id-138245/