Slashdot Mirror

Hmm... I would have thought a tech-savvy crowd would understand the relationship of expenses to total cost. When you write a new software application, your expenses are things like compiler licenses, printer paper, etc.... The true cost of development is in paying your software developers. The same is true of attorneys. In this case, the $8m does not include any portion of any attorney's pay. It does include court costs, stenographers (for depositions), photocopying, etc..., which are a tiny portion of what would have been charged if the case had been billed on an hourly basis.

There's a story about the settlement at law.com that gives some more details:

Right, and he seems to be suggesting that Libertarians are leftists.

Umm... No, he doesn't. His post is a tiny bit vague in that he doesn't cite his profession, but he says that most of the people who he meets in a similar profession do not share his leftist views. Without more information, it's hard to be absolutely certain, but based on the forum where he asked his question I would assume that he is a "nerd" of some sort.

tend to think that libertarianism is the greatest thing that ever happened to the Republicans because it makes a lot of people who have liberal social values like not caring what drugs people take on the weekends or how others have sex feel that somehow their views are better expressed by the Republicans than the Democrats. I agree the twin parties both suck at this point and that the Democrats hardly seem like an alternative, but I know people who clearly have liberal social values and take drugs and have kinky sex lives who, due to their faith in libertarianism, actually vote Republican because they think it is closer to this libertarian ideal that they have in their minds.

Here, you're almost right on. On a traditional right-left political scale, Libertarians are more closely aligned with Republicans. Unfortunately, in the case of every Republican Presidential candidate after Goldwater, that has been far from true. They have without fail been very socially conservative. The only real commonality between Libertarians and Republicans has been that they both support low taxes, low regulation and, theoretically at least, fiscal responsibility. Despite that disconnect, Libertarians have historically voted with the Republicans.

The real irony comes in with how many so called Libertarians still support Bush. While his popularity has greatly diminished, there are a few (maybe 10%) who still like Bush despite the fact that he is almost diametrically opposed to Libertarian ideals in every category except deregulation. Socially, politically, and in most areas fiscally, Bush is among the least Libertarian presidents that we've ever had. Bush has done more to increase the power of the presidency then anyone before him. Based on his views, the presidency is an unchecked position, and Congress has no right to oversight over him. This is a fundamentally anti-conservative and anti-Libertarian position, but for whatever reason Republicans (and a smaller percentage of Libertarians) don't seem to get that. Things like Bush prioritizing his war on pornography over the war on terror, his illegal warrantless wiretapping programs, etc. all should drive Libertarians far, far away from him, but a few still seem to be drinking the Bush Kool-Aid. Even in the areas where his ideals seem to be in line with Libertarianism, he's not really-- he doesn't support true capitalism, but crony capitalism-- his form of deregulation is almost always designed to benefit those who support him, not the free market.

All that said, depending on who the final candidate is, I suspect that the vast majority of Libertarians will almost certainly vote for a Dem in the next election. The majority of Libertarians seem to have had more then enough of modern Republicanism, and none of the Republican candidates (other than Ron Paul) really have anything close to Libertarian ideals.

The reality is that socially, Democrats are FAR more closely aligned with the Libertarians on social issues then the Republicans. The problem that the Dems have is that they don't believe in corporate deregulation. To me, that has always been a no-brainer-- Corporations seem to have enough trouble following the rules that we already have, so why should we expect them to behave when we have even fewer rules? Considering how few cases of deregulation seem to have been successful in the long term (for the nation at large, not necessarily for the individual corporations), this seems obvious to me, but for some reason the Libertarians don't seem to get it.

To strike, here, means to cross out. I assume you know what that means when you edit a document--namely that that part of it is removed. Thus, that affirmative defense would be stricken (removed) if the RIAA's motion to strike was granted. There really isn't anything better to call a "motion to strike" though. That's what they're called and if there's another name for them, it's probably far more arcane.

I'm surprised you didn't ask about affirmative defenses, instead. If you're wondering, they're a defense where the defendant (person getting sued) would have to prove something. In the motion being discussed, the defendant have to prove something about the collusion among the RIAA's record labels.

While normal words do have arcane legal meanings, this particular case is quite tame for legalese. I understood it just fine, and I'm not a lawyer of any kind. If you really need help, try an online legal dictionary.

Judge -- "Making Available" Is Stealing Music

Why, yes, right here somebody was correcting me on another subject, pointing out, that in Australia one can get be fined for leaving their car unsecured.

Similarly, people get all excited about gun-dealers not performing sufficient checks on their customers — never mind, that the dealer merely makes the "gun available", they are being sued over the crimes committed by people, who bought it.

I've also heard the argument from some of the bleedier-heart Californians, that leaving one's car unlocked is racist, because it "seduces" a poor black person to steal it...

Can we, please, have some coherency here?

The main difference here is that in the US sentences are added up upon one another, whereas in most of the rest of the world they run concurrently.

No, that is by no means a hard and fast rule.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is well known in patent and IP litigation. It's frequently called the "second rocket docket" (the 4th District, in Virginia, being the original one) because of its rules for discovery, and very firm deadlines during trials. They also have a jury pool that's pretty conservative, arguably biased towards rightsholders, and judges that are receptive towards patent plaintiffs (certainly moreso than the average jury pool in the 9th District, which includes California).

However some people have speculated that since rolling out the red carpet for patent cases, that they're beginning to become overwhelmed:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=110354972899 8

Go to a startbucks. The little cardboard ring that you use to keep your fingers from burning is protected by two patents. A piece of cardboard and a bit of glue, and you are a patent infringer. Now that I told you, you would be liable for trebble damages.

And if you need a further wake-up, read how patent litigation really works here.

Yes, my wife goes there too with the money I make. And we get it about once a week at work too- we get catered lunches. So I'm eating a lot of Whole Foods but if it gets expensive we'll just get whole foods instead of Whole Foods.

From an anticompetitive standpoint this just makes no sense. It would be like preventing Hooters and Winghouse from merging. Although that's a bad example because Hooters did try to stick it to Winghouse by seeking trademark protection for its scantily clad hot chicks.

edit: I Googled "district court legal maneuvering" and found this article about antitrust litigation at Law.com so far. Any suggestions are still very welcome

Somehow I missed when this happened, but it should mean patent litigiation is going to totally rebalance issues of obviousness vs. prior art.

howard bashman collects news reactions and has audio of the hearing. here

No your not the only whose skeptical about religion here. But "faith" as it is used here is a legal term.

Fresh new patent lawyers with science and engineering degrees are getting $160,000 and up right out of law school.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=117507263920 5

Actually the response was to remove plea agreements from the online docketing system.

According to several sources, the removal occurred due to concerns among federal judges nationwide about an Internet site, WhosaRat.com that publishes the plea agreements and names of informants and undercover agents. The Web site claims that by combing through state and federal court files, it has identified more than 4,000 informants and agents. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=117733177200 3

The slashdot summary: "google wins! score! yippee!"
  TFA: Google wins part of nude-photo suit

Notice any difference?
TFA: But the three-judge panel handed Google a mixed victory. It sent the case back to the District Court to determine whether Google was indirectly liable for damages because it linked to websites that displayed Perfect 10's copyrighted images without permission.

A win like that would bankrupt most of us.
The coverage elsewhere has been more nuanced.
http://howappealing.law.com/051607.html#025351 points to EFF's collection of the documents in the case.
http://howappealing.law.com/051607.html#025364
Ok, WashPo is also reporting Google Wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_v._Google_ Inc
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10
+5 informative insightful boobies

The slashdot summary: "google wins! score! yippee!"
  TFA: Google wins part of nude-photo suit

Notice any difference?
TFA: But the three-judge panel handed Google a mixed victory. It sent the case back to the District Court to determine whether Google was indirectly liable for damages because it linked to websites that displayed Perfect 10's copyrighted images without permission.

A win like that would bankrupt most of us.
The coverage elsewhere has been more nuanced.
http://howappealing.law.com/051607.html#025351 points to EFF's collection of the documents in the case.
http://howappealing.law.com/051607.html#025364
Ok, WashPo is also reporting Google Wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10_v._Google_ Inc
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10
+5 informative insightful boobies

It's pretty clear you haven't even looked at the "Patent Reform Act of 2007." Among its highlights include a quick post-grant opposition procedure and serious limitations on the damages an infringer may be liable for. Both of these will make all patents "less enforcible."

Here are some more informed opinions on the legislation:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=117809668258 1
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml ?articleID=199400075

You don't understand. I don't have much time for this post, but I'll try to put down as much as I can. The shrewdness of this country's electorate has degenerated to the point that the majority are influenced primarily by irrelevant issues. These people dwell in a manufactured reality where gay marriage represents a threat to their families and where terrorism represents a greater danger than highway accidents. In this country, where racist advertisements win elections, the electorate has neither the patience nor the sophistication to vote in their own interest.

Few apprehend the deleterious impact of their thoughtless voting. The irrepreprable systematic sabotage of our most essential federal institutions, dignity and even our fundamental human rights are, quite simply, too complex, too overwhelming and too horrible to contemplate.

In a generation, who will even be capable of understanding them? Who will explain that China may justly demand payment for the bonds that financed the Iraq war? Who will explain that China also financed non-negotiable prescription drug costs? Who will rise against the inevitably racist, jingoistic populists who will seek to blame minorities and foreign countries for the effects our own electoral malfeasance?

Declining healthcare, deteriorating federal institutions, failing eduction, the second Iraq war, Katrina - these will have been but the beginning of the storm unless we can achieve the most improbable sort of governmental change. Can you think of any action made by the administration in the last six years to uphold the tradition of good, pragmatic, secular governance? The framers understood that the sort of thing we're seeing cheapens these values and that they are neigh impossible to restore. You heard it over and over in school - once we lose our institutions and freedoms, we will not easily reclaim them.

Like justice, truth, honor and trust, these things are as water. They are passing through our fingers and we have little hope of gathering them from the mud that will be our children's graves.

And last week, a lawyer for Fred Anderson, Apple's former CFO, released a prepared statement that his client "did not play any day-to-day role in the granting, reporting, and accounting of stock options and he was not involved in any knowing manipulation of the process."

Because of the judges (especially T John Ward and Leonard Davis) sets quick trial dates and short discovery deadlines. This saves lawyer spendings and results in quicker cases. Also the local jurors in the area seem to rule in favour of plaintiff more often than not in patent cases.

See Texas IP rocket docket.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=20 18&bold=stipulation||

A stipulation is an agreement between both sets of lawyers. The case is over except the part where the judge makes the RIAA pay all the legal fees.

So the losses could be rights, such as protection from self incrimination, or the security of ones papers and effects, that were being deprived by fraud.

n. fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining information about his/her rights to enforce a contract or getting evidence to defend against a lawsuit. This could include destroying evidence or misleading an ignorant person about the right to sue. Extrinsic fraud is distinguished from "intrinsic fraud," which is the fraud that is the subject of a lawsuit.

We can get into a "who's biased site has more stats proving our side" war if you want. Here is something talking about their 2002 record. And Of course, we wouldn't be without slant then a site about law that shows the averages of the ninth circuits appeals being reverses better then 70% of the time they goto the supreme court. Although, the interesting thing it that even when a lower number goto the higher court, they still have better then half overturned.

I don't think we need to go that far. It is something that just happens with them for whatever reasons.

It isn't just that they have been reverses that makes them far left, It is that they tend to have a good portion of their decisions unanimously overturned by the supreme court too. When you factor that into the equation, It makes you wonder why the cases even got as far as the supreme court. And that makes the liberal activist thing sound real believable.

Yeah? It's still breaking and entering. And if you took anything, it's robbery.

Yeah? It's still breaking and entering. And if you took anything, it's robbery.

Didn't know what the Handschu Agreement was, so I looked.

These records are clearly covered by attorney-client confidentiality and this order is going to get slapped down on appeal faster than you can say denied (IAAL).

Yet again, this is proof that when someone says clearly, they're trying to snow you. Here's my narrow refutation - care to provide something of equal or greater value?

If the police see a drug deal, both the buyer and the seller will be arrested.

Read the definition at http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=33 7 – "[A contract is] an agreement with specific terms between two or more persons or entities in which there is a promise to do something in return for a valuable benefit known as consideration" – for a contract to exist, you must have consideration, something that's exchanged. If I were, hypothetically, to promise you $5.00 for no reason, you could not say that I broke our contract when I failed to do so, because no contract exists, because you have not offered any consideration in exchange for that $5.00

Would the readily-apparent evidence suffice to justify confiscating and reading someone's diary?

The airport case in question, you are screwed. The courts reasoned that searches at airports are routine, so just about anything goes. They should be ashamed of themselves. Until they come to their senses, I suggest you keep your diary, paper or electronic at home. The electronic one is easier to access, but you better move it around by ground transport.

Sorry for the late reply. I heard this at a legal conference on data protection/IP issues.

You can find out more at:

http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=11 52176726157
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=anonymous+whi stleblower+EU&btnG=Google+Search

there already is.

-Eric

I don't know why we don't hear more about things like this: http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1159 567622720

FTA:

The fact that Novell had guidelines for option grants -- and that directors strayed from them -- is particularly disturbing, said lawyers and academics.

"It should be an issue of shareholder concern whenever a board changes its own compensation," said Kirk Hanson, the director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University and a former Stanford University business professor.

While directors are generally permitted to award themselves whatever they want as long as it is publicly disclosed, Hanson said basic principles of corporate governance hold that they should avoid giving themselves pieces of the company just because they can.

And then there's the spectre of delisting: http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS3941903118.html

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=116463689942 5 is the law.com/Legal Times article on KSR International v. Teleflex, which will be argued before the Supreme Court today. As the article points out, depending upon how wide ranging a decision the Court issues, this case has implications for millions of patents, many of which have been considered unassailable, having stood up to years of attacks.

I thought so as well so I looked it up: "In answering, the defendant is limited to admitting, denying or denying on the basis he/she/it has no information to affirm or deny"

Source:http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?sele cted=488&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C

So they're alleging that they believe something ? Shouldn't their allegation be "Defendant illegally downloaded our stuff" and not "We believe the defendant illegally downloaded our stuff".

If I were the judge I'd be included to say "Believe whatever you want, case closed!"

I don't see how a short snippet like this, which is revealing about the media, could not be considered fair use. I also don't think the DMCA absolutely overrides fair use.

WASHINGTON -- A group of former Clinton administration lawyers are urging the American Bar Association to reject its panel's call for presidents to stop issuing ``signing statements" that reserve the right to bypass laws, saying the problem is with President Bush's use of such statements, not the mechanism itself.

On Thursday, for example, the Boston Globe published an opinion article defending signing statements by law professors Eric Posner of the University of Chicago and Curtis Bradley of Duke University.

Posner worked in the Office of Legal Counsel under former President George H. W. Bush from 1992 to 1993, and Bradley worked for the current Bush administration as a State Department attorney in 2004.

Posner and Bradley agreed with the Clinton-era lawyers that presidents have a right to issue signing statements, calling them ``a useful device through which the president can announce his views . . . rather than conceal them." They also argued that Bush's signing statements are no different than Clinton's -- a claim that the Clinton-era lawyers, who say Bush has abused the mechanism, dispute.

That's why there are legal dictionaries.

Words in law have very specific meanings, and frequently those meanings are spelled out within the laws themselves. This is not a bad thing, and it's basically inevitable anyway. Jargon happens.

For the record, both the court in Arnold (Central District of California) and the 9th Circuit are both federal courts. The 9th Circuit is a court of appeals that will hear Arnold (should the government choose to appeal), and may choose to affirm or reverse it. And until the 9th Circuit hears it, it only applies in the Central District of California (big area of CA containing L.A.).

And more importantly (cause I hear it all the time), the 9th Circuit no longer has anywhere near the highest reversal rate. Nowadays, they're roughly average. Chart through 2004 and article. If you dive into the details, there are some differences in the manner in which they're reversed, but the numbers don't lie.

-puk

Here's an interesting update from yesterday.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=116133511831 8

Government officials must have reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to search someone's laptop at U.S. borders, according to a recent ruling in Los Angeles.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the Central District of California is the first within the area of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to address whether searching a person's laptop is more than routine and therefore subject to the search and seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. v. Arnold, No. 2:05-cr-00772 (C.D. Calif.).

The Oct. 2 ruling expands upon a previous decision by the 9th Circuit that permitted the search of temporary cache files in a man's laptop. U.S. v. Romm, 455 F. 3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006). The decision could lead to a potential circuit split, given a conflicting 4th Circuit ruling last year in a similar case.

Funny that this article should come up right around the time the first federal judge addresses the question, and find that they do need to have reasonable suspicion.

law.com article
opinion

Of course, this is not the end of the matter, but highly relevant.

-puk

Unlike trademarks, copyrights have explicit constitutional protection in the United States.

The exercise of "due diligence" may -- someday -- limit damages for the infringement in good faith of so-called orphaned works. Infringement Is Everywhere: Congress Addresses 'Orphaned Works"

But the owner's rights remain intact. The infringement ends or you will be back in court and in a much more hostile environment.

Assuming MS is unethical now and forever, because once upon a time several years ago they abused a monopoly, doesn't give the impression that you're thinking critically about this.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Fruit of the poisoned tree"?

Suppose, for example, that at one time I gained a large sum of money through addimittedly immoral means, but now I live a life of perfect morality, existing solely on the interest earned from the ill-gotten funds. Would one consider me to be a moral person?

If so, then one would subscribe to the philosophy that immorality does not exists unless you get caught. The alternative view would require one who profits through immoral action to be tainted until fully repented. This is exactly the view represented in a statement like "MS is unethical now and forever, because once upon a time several years ago they abused a monopoly"

Unless one would be arguing that MS has fully repented for the abusive actions which occured. (Not just the ones for which they were convicted.)