Slashdot Mirror

THE QUESTION OF LIABILITY FOR INFRINGEMENT
The suit was conducted in two phases, which makes perfectly good sense in litigation of this type. (footnote 6) It would be a waste of time for Harrison to prepare and deliver the financial information necessary to determine the amount due to Bright unless the judge found that Harrison had plagiarized, at least in part, HSF. The trial on the issue of liability was conducted on February 23-25, 1976. At that trial, the judge was called upon to make an analysis of the music of both HSF and MSL. (footnote 7) Both sides called expert witnesses to support their contentions, and Harrison himself testified about the process that occurred in writing MSL. After hearing the testimony and considering the evidence, the judge found MSL did indeed infringe upon HSF's copyright.

The Court noted that HSF incorporated two basic musical phrases, which were called "motif A" and "motif B". Motif A consisted of four repetitions of the notes "G-E-D" or "sol-mi- re"; B was "G-A-C-A-C" or "sol-la-do-la-do", and in the second use of motif B, a grace note was inserted after the second A, making the phrase "sol-la-do-la-re-do". The experts for each party agreed that this was a highly unusual pattern.

Harrison's own expert testified that although the individual motifs were common enough to be in the public domain, the combination here was so unique that he had never come across another piece of music that used this particular sequence, and certainly not one that inserted a grace note as described above.

Harrison's composition used the same motif A four times, which was then followed by motif B, but only three times, not four. Instead of a fourth repetition of motif B, there was a transitional phrase of the same approximate length. The original composition as performed by Billy Preston also contained the grace note after the second repetition of the line in motif B, but Harrison's version did not have this grace note.

Harrison's experts could not contest the basic findings of the Court, but did attempt to point out differences in the two songs. However, the judge found that while there may have been modest alterations to accommodate different words with a different number of syllables, the essential musical piece was not changed significantly. The experts also pointed out that Harrison's version of MSL omitted the grace note, but the judge ruled that this minor change did not change the genesis of the song as that which previously occurred in HSF.

With all the evidence pointing out the similarities between the two songs, the judge said it was "perfectly obvious . . . the two songs are virtually identical". The judge was convinced that neither Harrison nor Preston consciously set out to appropriate the melody of HSF for their own use, but such was not a defense.

Harrison conceded that he had heard HSF prior to writing MSL, and therefore, his subconscious knew the combination of sounds he put to the words of MSL would work, because they had already done so. Terming what occurred as subconscious plagiarism, the judge found that the case should be re-set for a trial on the issue of damages.

This ruling as to the copyright infringement was upheld on appeal with little comment. The appellate court noted that an infringement can be established when the holder of the copyright demonstrates that the second work is substantially similar to the protected work and the second composer had "access" to the first work. Harrison conceded that he had indeed heard HSF when it was popular, thus establishing the second point.

Harrison's main argument on appeal was that it was unsound policy to allow a finding of plagiarism based on su

I also rarely get carded, and never mind when I do. Technically its not entrapment in that they're not doing anything to persuade a person otherwise unwilling to commit the crime to do so, which according to http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm is the deciding element in entrapment.

If a kid walks in and asks to buy a pack of smokes and isn't carded, there's no entrapment. I suppose if they were to beg and wheedle and plead and somehow convince the normally law abiding clerk to abandon being law abiding then it might be construed as entrapment.

Ooops. cocked up the link. Try this. It's not as stupid as McDonalds' spin machine makes out.

It's purpose is to enforce Microsoft's Intellectual Property Rights. And what right is that? There are really only two -- the right to be paid for Windows, and the right to not have to support Windows that has not been paid for.

Let's start with the first 'right': the right to be paid. Simply put, there is no such right. You won't find it anywhere in the laws of the United States. No one is required by law to buy Windows from Microsoft (certain public offices notwithstanding). While it is true that external factors (ease-of-use, company policy, etc) strongly compel purchasing decisions, those factors are not legal, and do not create a 'right' of payment.

Now, the second 'right': the right to receive support. Again, there is no such legal right. True, there are implied warranties of merchantability, but these can be expressly disclaimed by an EULA. Let's take a look at the XP Home Edition EULA:

15. LIMITED WARRANTY FOR SOFTWARE ACQUIRED IN THE US AND CANADA. Microsoft warrants that the Software will perform substantially in accordance with the accompanying materials for a period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt. If an implied warranty or condition is created by your state /jurisdiction and federal or state/provincial law prohibits disclaimer of it, you also have an implied warranty or condition, BUT ONLY AS TO DEFECTS DISCOVERED DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS LIMITED WARRANTY (NINETY DAYS). AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER THE NINETY-DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY KIND.

YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy for any breach of this Limited Warranty or for any other breach of this EULA or for any other liability relating to the Software shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the amount paid (if any) for the Software, or (b) repair or replacement of the Software, that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping the Software to Microsoft).

16. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. The Limited Warranty that appears above is the only express warranty made to you and is provided in lieu of any other express warranties or similar obligations (if any) created by any advertising, documentation, packaging, or other communications. Except for the Limited Warranty and to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft and its suppliers provide the Software and support services (if any) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, and hereby disclaim all other warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) implied warranties, duties or conditions of merchantability, of fitness for a particular purpose, of reliability or availability, of accuracy or completeness of responses, of results, of workmanlike effort, of lack of viruses, and of lack of negligence, all with regard to the Software, and the provision of or failure to provide support or other services, information, software, and related content through the Software or otherwise arising out of the use of the Software.

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.

What jurisdictions can you think of that allow you to shoot trespassers? I believe you may be mistaken. Shooting another person (intentionally) is assault (best case scenario) to murder (or attempted murder). Period. "Reasonable fear for your life" is an affirmative *defense*. If you can provide something to back up these mysterious jurisdictions in which you can shoot people for civil trespass in which you have no fear of bodily harm, I'd really love to see them. [Again: The general rule is that a reasonable fear of bodily harm constitutes an affirmative defense; not carte blanche.]

Re: AP, check out http://real-estate-law.freeadvice.com/adverse_poss ession.htm or http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lat06.htm

My sister-in-law's ex-boyfriend ran a similar scam on eBay. He too was selling products he didn't have with no intention of making good.

This is wire fraud. See http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/w017.htm.

We're hoping he goes to PMITA prison (after he gets out of jail for stalking).

What a loser.

Entrapment: You are walking down the street doing whatever and a UC comes up to you and asks for drugs, you say you don't have any, they offer you a bunch of money for them. You decide the money is enough you'll call a friend who's in to that and get the drugs. They then arrest you. That illegal and will get thrown out, since they encouraged you to commit the crime, you wouldn't have done it of your own volition.

In the US at least, this is not a certain case of entrapment. It's not entrapment if the government does nothing more than provide an opportunity to commit a crime. There has to be some element of coercion for entrapment to come into play.

MS tried to buy Intuit in 1994, but it was blocked since that would have left no competition in the market http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ant08.htm as a mac user of quicken, I thank the feds every time I start cursing Intuit for not doing more for the mac version.

Two words: contributary negligence.

Everything I see regarding 'contributory negligence' refers to its use in personal injury cases, not in property theft cases.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected =341
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligen ce
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c125.htm
http://insurance.cch.com/Rupps/contributory-neglig ence.htm
http://www.west.net/~smith/negligence.htm
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/co ntributory_neg.html

Even in situations of contributory negligence, the injured (suing) party must have been negligent to the point that they could have been injured apart from the injuring (sued) party.

Perhaps if I had left all my car doors standing open and the car parked in the middle of the street, I would be contributorially negligent. If it's parked in front my my house with the windows open and gets stolen, I'm not negligent. Apart from the actions of the person stealing my car, I would not be "injured."

As with Microsoft - apart from the actions of those who take malicious action against computers, those computers would not be compromised.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense, even in the way you're trying to use it.

If I copy your file, you have a copy, I have a copy. Nobody has lost anything. Therefore, it can't possibly be called stealing by most people's definitions.

If I copy your file and then delete the original, then I have it and you don't, that I think we can all agree, is stealing. Likewise, if it's on physical media which only one of us can possess at a time, and I take the physical media, then it's also stealing.

If I delete something without taking a copy, then it's not stealing, it's just vandalism or destruction of your stuff.

You are mis-stating the argument you're trying to make fun of (the "it's not physical so therefore not stealing") and so your parody falls flat. The fact that data isn't physical isn't the important part, it's the fact that nobody loses their copy in a typical "pirate" transaction. That's what differentiates it from "theft" in the minds of many people.

Personally, I think that unauthorized copying is not theft, but might meet the qualifications for wrongful conversion of property, if you take a wide enough definition of 'property.' (So as not to limit it to real property and chattels, but include the value of data as well.) See this page. Normally it applies only to physical goods. At any rate, there are existing sections of law which are more appropriately applied to the reduction-in-value that occurs when data is unlawfully copied than theft and larceny.

On the other hand, if the requirement of blood (to the exclusion of other types of samples) is a generalized statute that was enacted after his probation was handed down, then he may have a case. TFA is unclear on the timeline.

Actually, since the law changed after he committed the acts he was convicted of, even if the change came before the conviction, then applying the law to him is Ex Post Facto. (See the second paragraph of the definition) and thus, plainly unconstitutional.

I would certainly think that the imposability of probation for people who object to giving blood samples is a significant change in the severity of the penelty for such a person.

The fact that date of conviction is so frequently treated as the legal cut-off point simply reveals either an astonishing ignorance of or a profound disrespect for the Constitution on the part of U.S. judges and lawmakers.

>suing McDonald's for $30 million.

She sued for medical expenses after McDonald's wouldn't cover them in a settlement. The rest was punitive damages from a jury of conservative Republicans instructed by a conservative Republican judge.

A lot of people miss the distinction between hot coffee and coffee that causes immediate third-degree burns.

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

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f079.htm

"I"m not sure Hawaii should appear in this list, as it appears to not so much be a state, but an illegally annexed sovereign nation."

If you're sending Representatives, Senators, and electoral votes to DC, you're a state.

"You can do a google for the details if you wish."

I'm already aware of most of the details.

"But, basically the resident sugar barens/merchants wanted to be part of US, so they, with the help of a boatload of US marines,"

It appears the overthrow would have happened anyway without the presence of a US warship, and if anything the rebels considered the presence of a warship as a hinderance to their cause. If nothing else, the debate over the nature of the overthrow slowed down annexation by years and statehood by decades.

"He also dispatched a fellow for further investigation who travelled back to the islands for a follow up report. the issue."

He then reversed his position and signed off on the conclusions of the afore-referenced Morgan Report a year later.

"The next president in office was unfortunately not so honourable and promptly approved the whole dirty deal."

McKinley didn't come into office until three years after the Morgan Report.

"and only those who had opted to become US citizens were allowed to vote"

"Opted to become?" Apparently you aren't familiar with the ramifications of the Fourteenth Amendment: as an incorporated territory, anybody born on the islands was a citizen of the United States, regardless of ethnic ancestry.

"(including all the US services men and their families currently residing on the islands)"

As residents of the islands they too had a stake in the islands' future political status. Allowing everybody to vote follows the precedent set and followed by the United States since at least the beginning of the Nineteenth Century (even after such a policy caused the disaster of "Bleeding Kansas"), these are exactly the same standards practiced today around the world, from Quebec to East Timor.

(Not that any of this matters much; Congress and Congress alone decides what is and is not a state.)

"Not surprisingly, the vote from the occupied islands more then made up for the overwhelming NO from the mostly native islands."

With so many pro-sovereignty links sprinkled throughout your post, I'm surprised you don't reference a source for this statement. I've only seen mention of Ni'ihau and Lanai'i; I'd imagine the vote on O'ahu and Hawai'i were in favor of statehood, but that still leaves four more islands unaccounted for.

"that is pretty much the end of the story."

No, it isn't.

"Strange how these things are not covered in school"

And where did you go to school? In my own personal experience, my middle and high school teachers in far-off Maryland consistently taught about the matter from a pro-royalist stance.

What I find most curious about the pro-sovereignty stance is that it assumes that, were it not for the overthrow of Lili'uokalani, Hawai'i would not be a state today. Aside from indications that the queen (among other things) would have relinquished all claims to sovereignty for $25,000, such an assumption would require that all future Hawaiian monarchs take an anti-American stance. But even the monarchy has had its share of amerigophiles, such as Kamehameha III, who negotiated a treaty of annexation and statehood with Franklin Pierce (the Senate sat on it until Kamehameha III died). The design of the flag itself shows the strong affinity of the royals to both the UK and the US, and it seems only a matter of time before one of them had the desire and the ability to successfully bring about US annexation. The islands have been subject to the predations of foreign powers pretty much since their discovery, and the "benefits of Union" (in the words of

Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to
serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well
regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up
the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be
an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing
army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The
Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match
for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time
oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can
never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a
large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline
and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat
to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also
believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well
regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that
would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no
threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure
domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

The McDonalds coffee suit has NOTHING to do with frivolous lawsuits such as TFA. Here are a few important facts about the McDonalds case:

1. McDonalds coffee was held at temperatures at 180 degrees, 40-50 degrees higher than normal coffee, which is hot enough to produce a 3rd degree burn in as little as two seconds.

2. The plaintiff, a 79-year old woman, spent eight days in the hospital recieving skin grafts for 3rd degree burns covering 6% of her body.

3. There were 700 similar incidents, including some as serious as the plaintiff's.

4. She only asked for a $20,000 settlement; McDonalds refused.

6. The actual compensatory award was $200,000, the other $2.7 million (2 days of McD coffee sales) was punishment for McDonalds' "reckless, callous and willful" conduct. This was later reduced to only $480,000.

There are some stupid lawsuits, but most of them don't win. And if you're going to argue the point with anecdotal evidence, at least research your anecdotes.

I knew someone would bring up the McDonald's Coffee case.

The knee-jerk reaction to any seemingly stupid/frivolous litigation (or patent) is to assume that the summary = the case, when in fact things tend to be more complex.

There are a lot of details to the McDonald's case that the unwashed masses tend to not know:

Some important points:
"McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle."
"[she] 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."
"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."
"it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. .. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_m cdonalds.htm
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/Mcdo naldsCoffeecase.aspx

Again, even under his explanation that still *doesn't* fall under entrapment

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

"However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity."

> anti-commercial agenda

They're not anti-commercial so much as they're against insanely restrictive software licenses. The "you can't work on any competing product" clause of BitKeeper has, in my non-lawyer mind, an unfavorable comparison to some of the terms of Sony's EULA. You know, the ones Sony stipulated to be unconscionable in the settlement...

They don't have a problem with people making money. They just have a problem with the way some people choose to go about that. And if you have to screw over a few greedy bastards to get them to play nice, so be it.

The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.

Since EULA's are supposed to be a contract between you and [Sony], then as far as the law is concerned, you've agreed to those contract terms.

You can still go to court and say "The terms of that contract are unconscionable," but if the Judge doesn't agree with you, you're probably going to pay the other guy's court costs.

In situations where the potential loss is significant, you can get private insurance to cover any losses/damages beyond those in the contract.

Example: You buy a big industrial machine and the contract says "we [company x] are not responsible for any damanges beyond $10,000." You can go buy insurance to cover any damages beyond $10,000 up to whatever rsik level your insurance company is willing to sustain.

Some businesses can only be sued in certain venues, because that's where they do business. If you buy a product from a company in Maine, that only sells that product in Maine, then you probably aren't going to be able to sue them anywhere but Maine.

Most companies put those types of clauses into contracts to make it harder for you to sue them. Would it really be worth suing Sony if you had to sue them in New York and could only get $5 for your trouble? Especially if you lived anywhere but NY.

... however, this "constantly engaged planetary gear" has exactly the same function as a conventional differential, which connects a drive shaft to two wheels, permitting the wheels to spin at different speeds (particularly useful for cornering). In fact, this is mentioned within the patent text. The only difference is that this planetary gear assembly is coaxial.

I'm a little puzzled by the timing of this suit, which has emerged a full five years after Prius models have been available, and I don't think it was particularly secret that they were developing hybrid vehicles before 2000. (I own a 2000 model myself.) Did Solomon forget they had this patent? Wouldn't the doctrine of laches apply here? http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm.

Even in 1990 (when the patent was issued) wouldn't a gear assembly like this have been obvious to any knowledgable practitioner of the art?

Specifically, he should be indicted and disbarred for "subornation of perjury".

Just figured you'd want to know.

Here is an explanation of "ex parte".

I believe the term is Implied Warranty of Merchantibility.

On that basis alone, they have a descriptive, not suggestive, trademark. It describes the core feature of game play.

Interesting thing is, because Hasbro has acquired so many other brands (Parker Bros., Milton-Bradley, etc) they may now not be in an effective position, as a defacto quasi-monopoly, to use the same tactics to squash competitors that smaller companies can use.

A quick search of the Trademarks database reveals this: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=k f6uc6.1.1&p_search=searchstr&BackReference=&p_L=10 0&p_plural=no&p_s_PARA1=risk&p_tagrepl~%3A=PARA1%2 4FM&expr=PARA1+or+PARA2&p_s_PARA2=&p_tagrepl~%3A=P ARA2%24ALL&a_default=search&a_search=Submit+Query

The first use for the game is http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=k f6uc6.2.4 in 1958, for a Word Mark in connection with a board game.

Of course, this conflicts with http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m016.htmthis.

And it conflicts with the Judge's statements in the Windows vs Lindows case.

Upshot (taking into account the judge's words) - they have an unenforceable, generic or descriptive word mark. Others can use it, and they can't stop them.

Bingo. I've personally only seen a handful of cases brought forward by ACLU where my reaction was, "well that's a waste of time, energy & resources". They have had Important Victories longer than most /.'ers parents have been alive.

This was not a frivolous case! McDonalds intentionally served scalding hot coffee to increase their profits (based on consultants' advice that coffee at 180 degree would give the optimal taste).

Jury ruled that their actions were negligent given the fact that McDonalds knew of at least 700 people during a ten year period were burned by the coffee and therefore McDonalds action was highly reckless (analogy would be a company continuing to sell a product that they knew to be dangerous)

Also, the damages were not that out-of-hand. The plaintiff got her medical expenses back and the punative damages were simply two days profits of selling coffee. In any case, the punative damages were reduced in appeal, so the system worked.

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

The earliest sign I know of is the well-known McDonald hot coffee case.

Ironically, the McDonald's case is an example of a reasonable lawsuit. Read the the full story and stop citing it as an example of a frivilous suit.

From Lectric Law Library:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact..

Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case.

You need a lot more than a single circumstantial fact to "prove" that someone committed a crime. Rather, you need a large number of such facts that close in on the case and provide a single, inescapable conclusion. Even if you have done that, be prepared for the defense to argue each point under a "hypothetical" context, thus convincing the jury that the "evidence" is nothing more than a set of coincidences presented in such a way as to make the defendent look guilty.

You have a company that I have never heared of that owns some kind of IP comes out of the wood works when some other lager company is making money at it. Not when they first start, but after they make money at.

If the alleged infringer can show that this is the case, then the damages may in fact be estopped by laches. Short, approximate: If you knowingly delay legal action in order to harm an alleged infringer, you can't collect damages for infringements that occurred prior to your filing suit.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

Basically, providing an opportunity to break the law and then busting you is not entrapment (ie cop posing as drug buyer).

Approaching John DeLorean and talking him into trafficing cocaine in order to bail out his failing business is the best example of entrapment I can think of offhand.

Actually, the McDonald's coffee case wasn't all that dumb:

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

" The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law."

LARCENY - Illegal taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the purpose of depriving the owner of its possession. The wrongful and fraudulent taking and carrying away by one person of the mere personal goods of another from any place, with a felonious intent to convert them to the taker's use and make them his property without the consent of the owner.-Lectlaw
 
Copying copyright music does not "deprive the owner of its possession", and therefore it is not theft. Do your homoework next time.

FEDERAL PAROLE ABOLISHED

Previously, the U.S. Parole Commission could, and often did, authorize the
early release of Federal prisoners. The Sentencing Reform Act limited this
authority by abolishing Federal parole. As a result, defendants serve
their court-imposed sentences, minus approximately 15 percent for good
behavior, if applicable. Such sentence reductions may not exceed 54 days
per year. Other types of early release are prohibited.

ARRRGH!

Have you ever been to court, or at least friends with a lawyer, and ever at least been on a Jury?

Criminal cases are extremely different than a civl case because in a civil case you don't know have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that they are guilty.

In a criminal case you do. (Even though you still may face jail time and/or harsh fine)

Secondly, because it is illegal it does not make it immoral and also because it is legal it does not always make it moral.

I could give you thousand of examples of legal tax code that makes this apparant.

I'm not justifying those of this particular issue and yes it is illegal and maybe immoral, but it's not stealing.

Here is the US legal definition of stealing:

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."

Have they deprived apple of the use of OS X or directly removed money from apples online back account?

NO!

-
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I have been to jury duty and have this explained for me for a long time and had to listen to my friend who is going to law school about her homework for a very long time. She is planning on being a corporate lawyer and I talk to her about issues with my record label.

Yes, apparently the OP was just expressing his hope that we extend to Iraqis a particular part of esoteric British common law. Who knew there were such passionate people around?

Curtsey (and Courtesy):
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c157.htm

PS: Yes, I know he meant "courtesy," but I've no problem in poking fun at such an obvious mistake, especially since it got through whatever passes for copy editing.

There's no law saying you didn't have an equal right to slander Microsoft

Ummm.. What?

That actually exists, it is called a suit for "malicious prosecution".

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m062.htm

Since it was a newspaper that did the sting and notified the police there is no entrapment involved. Also even if the authorities had attemted to buy the information I do not think entrapment would apply as "one must have no previous intent to commit" the crime. Check out more information on entrapment here.

Hmmm, I remember in the past MS wanted to buy Quicken/Intuit and dump their inferior Money product. That got stomped out rather quickly by the DOJ, but I don't see that happening again anytime soon.

Toys with non replaceable batteries? Have you been to a toys r us recently? All sorts of kids toys come with no replaceable batteries.

Furthermore, nothing in Apple's documentation (and I have it here) implies anything about >3 years of use out of your iPod. It explicitly says the battery is good for about 500 charges.

As far as warranty of mechantabillity, I don't think it means what you think it means. Here's the legal definition:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i014.htm

Now to me that says that someone sells you a product, and it will do what they told you it will do. No one is complaining their iPod doesn't do what it was designed to do. What people are complaining about is that their product, after the time period for which the manufacturer provides a waranty began to lose it's ability to hold a charge. They were then disapointed to find that that only Apple approved way to remedy this was to buy a new version of the product. Of course, what people seem to be forgetting is that there were and are third party batteries to be bought and use installed if they choose, and it doesn't matter if apple doesn't approve as you're no longer under waranty to begin with.

Besides, from the documentation, the battereis are rated for about 500 charges. From the complaints, it seems the people pissed off were annoyed because it happened about 18 months after they bought it.

18 months > 500 charges assuming 1 charge per day.

Therefore, it seems they got their use out of it.

The answer to this question is so obvious. From a legal definition: A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent.

Whoops. More here.

Taking legal action well after you presumably should have known and been able to is called laches, and may weigh against Tiger Direct in this case.

ObDisclaimer: IANAL

It's called laches and it's an affirmative defense. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm

There are ways for them to do that that are within the rules under which our government is expected to operate. Within the powers granted to them by the constitution.

This massive hidden detention and torture operation at Guantanamo bay is another WWII internment camp, another Indian war, another red scare, another part of American history that your children will look back on with shame. I wonder if they'll blame you personally?

What a disgusting way to think. It amazes me that you and I are grouped in the same political category by the mass media (conservative), yet I'm willing to think for myself, and you just accept what you're told.

Yes, It has been a while since i have read it. I probably should have reviewed it better before posting instead of looking for somethign that seemed to support my argument.

Somethign that is directly related to this though, in the same article, (#1) section 9 it states that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include times of war, insurection and maybe when the public safter warents it. I'm not sure if that last part has to be in conjunction with war or insurection or not though. It would seem that we have meet at least one if not 2 of the standards though.

You might find some fault with this and i welcome the discusion on it. I'm interested in hearing you opinions on it. BTW i found link describing writ of habeas corpus It apears that it details exactly what we are talking about with the gitmo prisoners.

The Act should be challenged from a Constitutional standpoint with regard to the suspension of hebeas corpus.

Lincoln explicitly suspended hebeas corpus during the Civil War; to the best of my recollection, Bush has done no such thing and the PATRIOT ACT does not explicitly do so either. Whether or not it implicitly does so, however, is another question.