Slashdot Mirror

You're an idiot who can't even research basic facts about the case. Let me fucking google that for you since you're too dam lazy ...

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were

There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

There is no patent system equivalent to "trademark dilution" whereby lack of enforcement can jeopardise validity. In fact the longer the patent troll--er...holder--waits to litigate the more dramatic the impact.

But there is the Doctrine of Laches.
"Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another."

Now I don't know whether it can be used as a defense if Microsoft were to finally sue.

Falcon

I have a website with tasteful art-nude images on it, among many other types of photography and artwork, and I have had the entire site blocked by filtering companies quite frequently. A friend who works at a government office found my website blocked, most recently. I don't hold high chances that it will be accessible in China any time soon.

Invariably there is no distinction drawn between artistic nudity and images that would generally be classed as obscene or pornographic. This is a big problem here in the US with private filtering companies. For legal purposes it's very clear, and obscene material must meet three criteria.

Filtering companies tend to err on the side of fanaticism with regard to any kind of nudity whatsoever.

Of course, one person's obscene is another person's fetish, and even the obscenity law here is nothing more than a value judgment being made by the tyranny of the majority ("contemporary community standards").

Also, paying people per site to find 'pornographic' sites will result in mass overkill and false reporting, much like when innocent people were rounded up when we offered a bounty to Afghani locals for bringing suspected Taliban.

No. I too have researched this, and I’d like to see the research you did.

From what I saw, it was evident that (a) the coffee was kept dangerously hot, and McDonalds knew this; (b) the reason for the extreme temperature was to make the coffee odour stronger, because coffee drinkers who smell coffee will tend to want some and (c) at the temperature that the coffee was served, it was capable of causing third-degree burns in three seconds.

If you don’t think that’s dangerously hot, try getting your pants off in under three seconds. Bonus points if you do it while buckled into your vehicle in the drive-through lane.

Yes, the lady was stupid to put the coffee between her legs and then dump it on herself, but that doesn’t exonerate McDonalds for knowingly serving dangerously hot coffee. Also, she was NOT driving the car, nor was it even in motion when the accident occurred.

Some relevant citations:

The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 F [93 C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 F [66–71 C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk.[1]

and,

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds’ knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds’ quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the “holding temperature” of its coffee.

Plaintiffs’ expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness [3rd degree] burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck’s spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.[2]

Dear Ron-

How is this FISA bill not a variation of ex post facto?

The 'words and the intent' of the Ex Post Facto Clause encompass '[e]very law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.' Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (1 Dall.) 386, 390 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.).

Emphasis mine. Hope this helps.

The problem with your attitude is that without someone ultimately paying for the development time and everything else that goes with it what you steal wouldn't exist in the first place.

Yes, but if he wasn't going to pay for it anyway, why doees it make any difference to anyone whether he copies it or not? It doesn't.

BTW: "steal" means "the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently" (source). As in this case nobody is deprived of the use or benefit of anything (whether temporarily or permanently), it isn't stealing.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
There is no shortage of information out there that shows McDonald's screwed this one up. I think you are being easily swayed by emotion and prejudice. The medical testimony talked about how a reduction of temperature reduced the risk of serious burns exponentially.

No amount of subjective bullshit about "coffee is best at 185+ degrees" compares with the objective assessment of evidence that says "at 185+ degrees it can cause third degree burns in 2-7 seconds". Further, for it to do the damage it did to her there is still a good chance that they served it above that "quality assurance range". As I pointed out, McDonald's, as pretty much every fast food chain, has a very interesting view of "quality assurance". The people that work at McDonald's aren't typically the high performers, and even when dealing with the younger spectrum of that is the job available at that age, you still are forced to faced with the average maturity level. If this was some fine dining establishment with gourmet coffe then I could maybe accept your arguments about the temperature of coffee. That isn't the case, this is a fast food joint with coffee that is going to taste like ass at any temperature, being served in flimsy cups with cheap lids, to people who are more than likely mobile.

So...why didn't they follow the advice that it should be served in a warmed mug too? I mean...heated liquid in styrofoam cups...mmm mmm good stuff there.

No, it prevents you from (among other things) being charged twice for the same act: "DOUBLE JEOPARDY - Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendmentto the U.S. Constitution. '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989)."

"Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings."

Actually, McDonalds (at least at that particular location) dropped their serving temperature 30 degrees cooler. For that matter, if FUCKING STARBUCKS recommends serving between 180 and 190 degrees (the temperature of the lawsuit coffee), perhaps they should be told that it's not fit for consumption at that temperature, since you'll have a guaranteed burn of the mouth and throat.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

No, it just shows how 'nanny state' mentality comes about, and that there are at least 700 people too incompetent to handle coffee in that area and time period.

No, this shows how asinine Libertarian fucktards are. Of course it was the lady's fault that she spilled coffee on herself. That was never in question. The obvious point which you obviously ignored is that spills will happen with beverages. All the time. Hence they shouldn't be served at a temperature hot enough to melt the skin off your legs, requiring skin grafts and years of treatments.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way.

And they are correct.

You're an idiot. Try working on that reading comprehension thing:

McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.

McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.

And she did not want to sue McDonalds for punitive damages, only to have them pay for the costs of her medical treatments. McD's refused to pay her medical bills (they offered $800), and so she was left with the choice of suing or being on the hook for the costs. Moreover, there were something like 700 previous cases of serious burns relating to McD's coffee, and McD's was aware of the safety issues. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Being a non-profit corporation and being 501(c) tax exempt are two totally different things.

While there are some serious complication in changing a large, public for-profit corporation into a non-profit, they are simply a matter of time, effort and money. Getting tax-exempt status means you have to deal with the IRS. Unless Congress amends the tax law, it looks like newspapers could only fit under 501(c)(3) as a literary charity. That law specifically states: Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities.

Unless the papers are willing to abide by that (and the EXTENSIVE restrictions listed after that in the law), Congress would need to make a special exemption.

Then you have "tax exempt" does not necessarily mean "tax deductible." A tax exempt organization is one that does not have to pay income taxes. Contributions made to certain tax exempt organizations may be deductible on the donor's federal income tax return. While the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines more than twenty different categories of tax exempt organizations, contributions to groups in only a few of these categories are tax deductible.[1]

So, to sum up, either Congress enacts a change to the tax code that makes special exception for newspapers -- aka a "buggy whip law" -- or the newspapers submit to self-castration.

Good luck with either happening anytime soon.

The patents for the core x86 could be expired. Patents used to be valid for 17 years from the Patent Date (all patents before June 7, 1978) or 20 years from the filing date, which ever was longer (assuming it was filed before June 7, 1995). Patents filed after June 7, 1995 are now valid for 20 years after the earliest filing date. I picked up this information from: The Impact of GATT on Patent Tactics

In any event, the patents on the SSE extensions, assuming they exist, are probably still enforcable. So maybe AMD loses the ability to used 3DNOW, SSE, etc. No one really knows what's in the cross-licensing agreement. There could be patents on the fab process, or maybe they share industry secrets (is that ever part of cross-licensing?).

"Apparently libel doesn't have to be false, just intentionally malicious and defamatory."

Right, but a statement that is true that one knows is true cannot be "intentionally malicious and defamatory" because being careful to speak only the truth is the opposite of being malicious.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m006.htm

I think what you're missing is that we all thought that "actual malice", in the context of libel or defamation, meant a reckless disregard for the truth of one's statements, not an intent to harm or embarrass the person you are speaking about.

href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m006.htm

Ok, let's look at the rules for entrapment.

1. "First, the idea to commit the crime had to come from government agents and not the person accused of the crime." A woman, no matter how provocatively dressed, simply standing there does not give the idea to commit solicitation. The accused came up with that prejudice all on his own. Further, simply assuming she's a hooker isn't criminal (no matter what non-hookers think about their sultry outfits). The fact that he stops to talk to her is of his own volition. IF she initiates the conversation, say stopping a passer-by, then that changes everything. That's why vice cops never ever initiate the conversation. They will never be the first to bring up "business" to avoid this part of entrapment.
2. "Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime." If the accused says, "You know what, I changed my mind" and starts to walk or drive away, the cop can't say, "Wait up, I'll knock off 10%." Also, simply standing there so he can walk up and solicit is not entrapment, it's merely providing opportunity. If she wasn't there, and a real hooker was, he'd still commit the offense, thus it's not entrapment.
3. "And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him." This gets back to who started the conversation about sex. If the cop starts the conversation, then there's reasonable doubt that the accused was ready and willing to talk about sex for money, but if he initiates the topic, then, again, if the woman wasn't a cop but really was a hooker, then he would still have committed the crime, and thus not entrapment.

WRT RIAA, of course, it fails to meet the "officer of the law" part. That said, I could see someone attempting it anyway by putting forth a theory that the RIAA became a law unto themselves, and thus were obviously officers of their law. If I were on that jury, I probably could be convinced that the RIAA was acting that way.

And just like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit, it continues to sound silly even after becoming familiar with all the facts.

If you were actually familiar with the facts it would not sound silly.

The Actual Facts About The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

Wiki page on case

It should also be noted that Liebeck (the woman who received the coffee burns) initially sought $20,000 to cover her $11,000 in medical expenses and that McDonald's refused and offered her $800. And also that during discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks.

Corporations are not defenseless little orphans being picked on by frivolous lawsuits. They are soul-sucking goliaths of wealth and power that would willfully break the law and/or harm people if the reward outweighed the projected risk. Granted in the McDonalds coffee case it looks like it was callous indifference that prevented them from reducing the holding temperature of their coffee despite the number of burn incidents over the years until coming to a head in the Liebeck case.

You do know that it is impossible to get third degree burns from boiling coffee.

I'm not an expert on conditions that can cause burns, however it seems that in the Macdonalds' case a factor was how long the hot liquid was held against the skin. According to this article, the plaintiff in this case, and others, did suffer third degree burns from the McDonalds' coffee. From the article:

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

And,

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

I am not sure why you got modded up as interesting as your wrong.

I recommend you read up on the case as it wasn't cut and dried as it is made out to be. Basically they were serving coffee well beyond the heat that a normal human could safely consume it at. The coffee in question did in fact give 3rd degree burns. McDonalds at the time even had over 100's of similar reported cases.

From the case: "Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds."

There is a good breakdown of the case here.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

The actually money awarded in that case is unknown since she and McDonald's entered into a secret settlement http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

That opens a terrible door though. Do you really want the government with the power to declare an individual randomly "incapble of telling right from wrong" (maybe you voted for the wrong political party and now fit this criteria) and then institutionalized for it? Remember: it's for your own good.

Erm, they already have that ability, yes? That's practically the definition of legally insane.

• the United States does not have and will never have jurisdiction over foreign spammers
• the spammers can relay their email through yet another ISP tomorrow.

The definition of entrapment has three things:

1. The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime. Offering you narcotics passes this test. Running a site for clearing stolen credit card information, being passive, does not.
2. The government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime. Asking you merely once if you want to buy narcotics isn't persuading you. Running a site for clearing stolen credit card information isn't, either.
3. The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him. If you weren't willing to buy narcotics, someone asking you to buy some wouldn't get you to do it. If you didn't already have credit card info to sell, or want to buy stolen credit card, you wouldn't be looking for the sting site.

So, no, this is not entrapment.

SUPPRESSIO VERI - Concealment of truth.

In general a suppression of the truth, when a party is bound to disclose it, vitiates a contract. In the contract of insurance a knowledge of the facts is required to enable the underwriter to calculate the chances and form a due estimate of the risk; and, in this contract perhaps more than any other, the parties are required to represent every thing with fairness.

Suppressio veri as well as suggestio falsi is a ground to rescind an agreement, or at least not to carry it into execution.

--SUPPRESSIO VERI

SUGGESTIO FALSI. A statement of a falsehood. This amounts to a fraud whenever the party making it was bound to disclose the truth.

--SUGGESTIO FALSI

Latin saying suppressio veri, suggestio falsi: The suppression of the truth is the suggestion of a falsehood.

Unfortunately for Google (and Adobe, and Xerox) what they want people to do doesn't matter.

While it may not, does not, matter colloquially legally it does. Xerox for instance has gone on at it's own expense to protect it's trademark. Trademark protection is a serious concern in business. Coca-cola's trademark is valued at $72.5 billion dollars.

Falcon

Going by this I suppose you could theoretically charge them with fraud if you could successfully argue that intentional misrepresentation of the law is a 'matter of some importance or significance rather than a minor or trivial detail'

Though honestly, thinking that people would consider it a trivial detail somewhat frightens me.

Perhaps you could make the case that this would convince a young person or his family to avoid a fictional criminal prosecution by not fighting a civil action made against them on the basis of copyright; whereupon you point out that the distributor of the publication has the official sounding name of "The National Center for State Courts" and was supposedly reviewed by legal experts.

Of course, on the other hand, the NCSC is a non-profit organization, and if they did take money or favors from the RIAA and used their non-profit status for personal gain... perhaps someone who is a lawyer can tell us what the legal ramifications of that would be.

Personally, I protest weekly in my town..

Well, there's your problem, making yourself easily ignorable. Heck, the relevant people would have to go out of their way to find out about you.

Stop protesting in the streets, and instead spend the time doing two things:

• Cultivating a relationship with the local news outlets. They like government corruption (or anything related to it) stories. (Yeah, that's a simplification but it's basically true.)
• Figure out how to file lawsuits, and start filing.

The sum of those two things is greater than the sum of the parts.

You've indicated a willingness to spend time on the issue, but you need to re-think your tactics.

(I can't. I don't live in Ohio or, to the best of my knowledge, in anyplace that has such ballot machines, and therefore I have no standing.)

Protesting in the streets has its place, but it's a very overrated political action. If you're not several thousand people making a point that 80%+ of the population strongly agrees with, you're wasting your time. Do something with your time that works, instead.

Pet Peeve of mine: That's not the definition of "steal". It's only the SlashDot conventional wisdom. It's really not that hard to look up words on the internet. Here's a link to a dictionary [m-w.com].

One big point to make, in situations like this, no posts but those like yours are referring to the english language, so how would an english dictionary (site) have any relevance?

Legal language is very different from plain old English, both grammatically, and in the definitions of specific words. There is a reason people call it legalese, since it really is closer to its own language than it is to English, despite some words being based on similar yet different english words.

"Steal" does not mean the same thing in English than it does in Legalese.
In posts such as these, clearly we are talking about crimes (or lack of crime) thus legalese is all that matters, not the english language.

According to http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s074.htm

STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

Any appreciable change in the location of the property with the necessary willful intent constitutes a stealing whether or not there is any actual removal of it from the owner's premises.

This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.

In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter.

Which is the only definition of Steal that matters here.

You will note that this definition still supports the parent posters point (In the 2nd quoted paragraph), even if he/she came to that point by an incorrect means/dictionary.

Typically the english definition (apparently until recently, as now it does match more) specifically excludes any instance where property has not exchanged hands (and thus copyright infringement can't be stealing according to English) yet the legal definition does include that now.

Random trivia: I've been told by a professor of law and classicist that "null" and "void" mean the same thing (in a legal sense), but are simply different languages. Putting them together is repetitive and unnecessary, although strangely customary.

I thought that interesting enough to share.

I beg to differ. If something is voided, it means whatever it is exists, but is no longer in effect. If something is nullified, it means that whatever is was no longer exists. So declaring it null and void means, that it no longer exists and is no longer in effect.

Legal Definition of Null
and
Legal Definition of Void

The two linked pages go into a whole lot more detail, but the first lines of each:

* NULL - Properly, that which does not exist; that which is not in the nature of things. In a figurative sense it signifies that which has no more effect than if it did not exist.

* VOID - Having no legal effect or consequence. Contracts, bequests or legal proceedings may be void; these will be severally considered.

Both match exactly as the parent poster claims, and disagrees with the grand parent poster.

So to everyone else replying to the parent claiming 'english' and 'legal' are different languages, I'd have to say he/she already knows, so nuaa ;P

Random trivia: I've been told by a professor of law and classicist that "null" and "void" mean the same thing (in a legal sense), but are simply different languages. Putting them together is repetitive and unnecessary, although strangely customary.

I thought that interesting enough to share.

I beg to differ. If something is voided, it means whatever it is exists, but is no longer in effect. If something is nullified, it means that whatever is was no longer exists. So declaring it null and void means, that it no longer exists and is no longer in effect.

Legal Definition of Null
and
Legal Definition of Void

The two linked pages go into a whole lot more detail, but the first lines of each:

* NULL - Properly, that which does not exist; that which is not in the nature of things. In a figurative sense it signifies that which has no more effect than if it did not exist.

* VOID - Having no legal effect or consequence. Contracts, bequests or legal proceedings may be void; these will be severally considered.

Both match exactly as the parent poster claims, and disagrees with the grand parent poster.

So to everyone else replying to the parent claiming 'english' and 'legal' are different languages, I'd have to say he/she already knows, so nuaa ;P

It's not entrapment when someone else does it because the definition of entrapment includes "government officials" in it. As Fortuny isn't a government official, we fail the first test.

Further, committing adultery, while legal grounds for divorce (in many jurisdictions that still require any reasons whatsoever), is not a crime, thus we fail the second test.

Even if Fortuny were a government agent pursuing people for committing an actual crime of adultery (yeah, right, politicians banning adultery? They'd lose their favourite pasttime, right after spending our money!), would this be an illegal entrapment? From "The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon", I see a definition that requires three things:

So, no, this is not entrapment. There isn't a single similarity with entrapment here. This is merely allowing people to make fools of themselves and then following up by actually showing the fools for what they are. Going up to an undercover cop and buying a dime of heroin isn't entrapment. Nor is an undercover cop buying from a street dealer. This isn't even close.

• They conveniently omit that the coffee was stored and served at the temperature recommended by the National Coffee Association and is also the default temperature setting used by the largest manufacturer of commercial coffee making machines (scroll down to the bottom).
• Their suggestion that coffee should be served at 135-140 F contradicts recommendations by coffee connoisseurs and the industry (Bunn recomments 155-175 F at serving).
• Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks served coffee at the same temperature as McDonalds. The lawyers used slick wording to mislead people into thinking the lowest temperature in a survey was the standard coffee serving temperature.
• Contrary to your claims, the cups were safe. There were 700 complaints about hot coffee in a decade, but that was across billions of cups served. It works out to a complaint rate of 1 in 24 million. For comparison, the rate of being hit by lighting in the U.S. is 1 in 600,000. The mortality rate in the U.S. from motor vehicles (PDF warning) was 1 in 6580 in 2002. She was 6500x more likely to die from riding in a car than being burned by the coffee. Are cars an unsafe product?
• If you read the court documents, you'll see the lawyers concentrated on the severity of the woman's burns, not the circumstances that led to those burns. This was an appeal to emotion, not a dissemination of facts. Anyone who's boiled water has handled (presumably safely) a substance capable of much more severe burns.

Read the case as told by the lawyers who brought the suit. Then read an alternate viewpoint. Then decide for yourself which side is more in line with the facts.

Well, to be fair (and assuming I remember the details correctly), the coffee in that cse was a lot hotter than it was supposed to be. So it's not quite as moronic as it sounds at first.

Correct. It was hot enough (180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit) that it caused third degree burns to her body within a few seconds. See this summary. She just wanted McDonalds to cover her medical bills, but they refused. McDonalds knew that the temperature was a problem. From the linked article:

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

So it wasn't about it just being too hot. It was far too hot for a person to consume and was dangerous. And McDonalds knew it.

[...]McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees [...] a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.[emphasis mine]

IMO your interpretation of the definition is absurdly permissive. According to this, "The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

I argue that there is indeed a war being waged by private interests against the people of the United States. All it would take is a panel of judges to agree. There is no factual stretch, other than the fact that finding honest government officials who are not already guilty of treason would be pretty freaking rare. Probably you will call this "tin foil hattery". If so, that just makes you one of the many who find denial more comfortable than truth. I'm just not wired that way, myself.

1 second exposure to 160 degree water = third degree burns:

http://www.tap-water-burn.com/

McDonald's coffee was 185 degrees:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

So they're consenting by request rather than by law to remove material (however loathsome)specified by a third party? How can they possibly preserve their status as Common Carriers under this regime? Without that shield in place they'll be held liable for every possibly objectionable (copyright, libel, obscenity) piece of data they move. How can they possibly agree to this?

Put 2 lawyers in the same room and you will get at least 2 differing opinions :-)

These web pages seem to say something different. But it could matter whether one is describing the effect or how it is used, or just the basis of the words in their Latin roots. And certainly "without notice" pretty much describes Ex Parte everywhere I've seen it used (via various news and online sources since IANAL).

Suggest you seek more facts on the McDonalds case. Like for instance the fact that the coffee served by that establishment was significantly hotter than that served by all of the surrounding establishments by a significant amount and that McDonalds had received more than 700 complaints of injuries across their chain. The temperature was some 50 degrees hotter than a normal home coffee pot would serve it at. You might also learn that the woman simply wanted her medical costs attended to (that's $15K) and that the large settlement was awarded by the jury that was outraged at McDonald's behavior and attitude. While it's true she should have been more careful and focused the spill occurred while the car was stopped and she was *NOT* driving. I think that most any sane person would expect a spill to be merely painful and not require medical personnel to remove the clothing that had MELTED into her skin. Nor would a normal prudent person expect that a spill might require skin grafts to repair the damage. Would you have felt better about this settlement if it had been a child carrying a cup of coffee for their parent and gotten scalded? Oh wait, kids *had* been burned in the past and still McDonalds insisted on the temp being kept excessively high.

Here are some starter links for you, Google can provide more.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

If that bit of logic only held true...

In this country at least, thats called, Aiding and abetting or quite possibly Accessory Before Fact and or Accessory After Fact or just generally an Accessory. Regardless of arguments to the contrary, one must concede that TPB does in point of fact facilitate illegal activity, as defined by statute in virtually all the jurisdictions in question.

One can argue that once believes that statutes are unjust, unfair or just plain wrong, but the law as it stands is quite clear.

IANAL, but the legal principal of estopple might apply when a patent wasn't enforced early.

Equitable estoppel prevents one party from taking a different position at trial than she did at an earlier time if the other party would be harmed by the change. For example, if after obtaining the paternity judgment, Leroy sues Donna for custody, Donna is now equitably estopped from claiming in the custody suit that Leroy is not the father.

"But that's why patents do have expiration dates. "

And hers was nearly up. According to the article: "Rothschild was originally issued a U.S. patent in 1993 based on her method of producing wide band-gap semiconductors for LEDs and laser diodes in the blue and ultraviolet end of the light spectrum."

That's 15 years ago. And according to lectlaw.com
"If a U.S. Patent Application is filed by June 7, 1995, and if the patent issues after June 7, 1978, then the patent expires the later of 17 years from issuance"

So she only had 2 years left. So where the hell has she been for 15 years??

From a legal perspective if you are helping a company file claims in court saying XYZ action is illegal, you need to have a legal backing for that. If you are not licensed to do so then you can't. It's called expert witness and what the requirements are. This is why not everyone can be an expert witness on some topic just because (and why Daubert hearings remove expert witnesses).

Basically unlike a non expert who anything they say is not taken as fact (which is why complaining to a judge on a traffic ticket still gets you guilty if you don't use the proper legal terms such as object, lack of evidence, etc).

This in fact is a huge deal. Also operating illegally when it comes to spying can carry some hefty fines in the US especially when it can be proven (remember they're suing saying they have evidence, so that level of "proof" becomes very easy to show - its like self incrimination but not a kind you can plead 5th amendment on).

Warning labels exist not because a woman was stupid and burned her lap with hot coffee. She was stupid. Everyone knows that. They exist because she decided to sue and wasn't laughed out of court. She wasn't laughed out of court because everyone likes to attack the big companies. Because if yer on a jury with this poor burned woman on one side, and a megacorporation on the other, yer going to make the coorporation pay just because it's the liberal-ish thing to do. And so now companies have to protect themselves. I would too, if some person could sue me for a hundred billion gajillion USD. I'd put warning labels on every single thing I made.

I see people post this same misinformation over and over. Frivolous lawsuits and stupid warning labels have been around much longer than the McDonald's coffee case.

To save you future embarrassment, I'd suggest reading into a little into it. Here are some starting points:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

And more:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mcdonalds+coffee+case&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

This case is not the poster child of frivolous lawsuits that many people think it is.

You don't "refute" evidence by saying it is "circumstantial". "Circumstantial" is a class of evidence, as opposed to "direct". Most evidence is circumstantial and most people are convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is always circumstantial evidence, as is the someone possessing a gun matching the bullet embedded in the victim, someone possessing a knife covered with the victim's blood, and all manner of conviction-worthy things. For instance, Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence. (As having the hacked up victim's body in your freezer is ALSO "circumstantial evidence".)

Here's the issue. How can you say that a tracker that isn't data itself, facilitates anything? That's like having a file with a list of pirate URLs and IP addresses, even if there's descriptions that say like "good place to get illegal stuff". That type of evidence would first have to be accepted by court before it can even be argued before it can even be accepted as evidence before it can even be debated. It doesn't tie you to anything. You still don't explain how they are tied as well to having made money off piracy as opposed to what they did, which is made money off advertising. Whether there is piracy or not if people come to their site and they get paid for the ads, there's nothing illegal about that.

This is the difference of the law vs my opinion or yours. The law wants fact, and unbiased opinion. You can claim all the silly things you want but they won't even make it to trial (which is what I have been saying) if you have no real proof and evidence....and thats what summary judgement and why expert witnesses don't make it to trial (aka daubert hearing) if the lawyer is attentive.

Even moreso, is I don't see any links to the actual charges being filed (or translated to english), nor with a specific definition of what they are being sued for. The slashdot link says "accessory to the crime" and the article says 2 things: "conspiracy to break copyright law in Sweden." and "The operation of The Pirate Bay is financed through advertising revenues. In that way it commercially exploits copyright-protected work and performances," prosecutor Hakan Roswall said in a statement" which is basically a null phrase they said to the press which means "we can't tie things to anything they've don3e, but we're going to blow a lot of smoke to the press". Doesn't this make you wonder a little what the REAL claim

Conspiracy is a word that is well defined in law, and its about as easy to prove as claims in impeachment. Conspiracy is a government charge on occasion, not something that the IFPI or any non governmental organization can claim at all. If its not the government claiming that phrase expect it to be a vertical hill that they are trying to walk up aka won't happen.

Any high class lawyer that does well and knows Swedens laws will have this case through in 4-6 years after the MAFIAA is done trying to drag it on in hopes that piratebay will default due to not having enough money (Expect a million claims in the case in hopes that a few stick). In any legal case if you don't have money for appeals you can't even appeal, which is why cases are dragged on (you have to post the money). You and I can debate until our ears are blue but there is no factual proof of anything whatsoever until things are accepted in court.

Indictment means they were actually taken to court and prosecution declared their charge. It doesn't mean a damn thing. The Bay will survive, they make no money off copyright and don't distribute the music, therefore this case will fall apart. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have infringed on copyright, since they haven't even made the music available.

  Stop sucking up to media without using some actual court logic....even if this is slashdot. This is like taking someone to court and indicting them on 4 accounts of XYZ. It doesn't even mean found guilty or that the evidence is accepted, it's the next step after "we want to take you to court". Piratebay can even ask for summary judgement against the MPAA/RIAA that could shut down this case before it even goes to trial. Hopefully they have good lawyers who can poke holes in the evidence before the trial even occurs.