Slashdot Mirror

"Guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt", only applies to criminal charges

Just for the future, "doubt" does not have a "shadow" to it. The "shadow of doubt" is more of a paperback novel term.

The correct terminology is "beyond reasonable doubt".

• Intelligence
• Knowledge
• Wisdom

I think the only thing that counts is whether you can be successful in something you enjoy. Regardless of your "smarts" if you aren't having fun in what occupies your day then find something else to occupy your day. And if you're no good in that then chances are it isn't entertaining you.

and as for /.ers that consider themselves unusually but non-traditionally 'bright' and how you have dealt with it. all I can say, and has already been said in other threads, is

Get over yourself

A license is a contract. If you have to click "I accept" it is overtly recognized as such by the licensor.

As a licence, it cannot require the licencee to give up anything in return.

Nonsense. You are often called upon to give up some consideration for the limited rights the license grants you. Commonly this is in the form of finacial consideration. Your money is yours by right. You must transfer that right to the licensor. Under the GPL consideration is given by an exchange of rights. I'll give you some of mine if you give me some of yours (and the idea that the GPL is somehow different than what propriatary software rights holders do is nonsense. The holders of propriatary rights make exactly such contractual agreements to exchange rights as a matter of course. The GPL simply offers this form of consideration on a broader basis than is usual).

If there is consideration, there is a contract. Even a simple retail exchange is contractual. You agree to give them money, they agree to give you property rights.

There are, however, certain legal limitations on what you can be required to give up, and of such limitations law suits are made.

Contract definition

KFG

My favourite part of this whole thing is that the prior art that invalidated this patent is over 2000 years old.

It was invented by Tiro, who was a slave of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-65 BC).

Checkout The History of Shorthand

The point being that using a private shipper is enough for federal jurisdiction if it crosses state lines becuase of the commerce clause.

Actually that is NOT the question. Just because the Feds have technical jurisdiction, does NOT mean the Mail Fraud statues apply. The US Constitution grants powers of regulation, but that does not mean the government will excercise specific statutes over specific commerce.

Here is a link defining mail fraud.

. . . is presumed innocent by the government and this whole thing ONLY applys to the government. I can presume that some one is guilty all I want.

Unless the individual is not a public figure, you tell everybody he is guilty, and he is found innocent. Then, you're guilty of slander and/or libel (if you wrote it down).

. . . is presumed innocent by the government and this whole thing ONLY applys to the government. I can presume that some one is guilty all I want.

Unless the individual is not a public figure, you tell everybody he is guilty, and he is found innocent. Then, you're guilty of slander and/or libel (if you wrote it down).

Under the pre-1995 patents were granted terms of 17 years from the issue date (i.e. the 1993 and 1995) dates. After 1995 it was changed to 20 years from the filing date. So, these patents would be in effect until at least 2010.

See here for more information on determining the expiration dates of patents.

The encryption keys issue sounds fair to me. If you have the keys to an encrypted file and you refuse to decode it and a judge issues a warrant for that data, you have to turn it over or pay the penality for obstructing an investigation.

Whatever happened to the 5th amendment? If said file incriminates me then I should'nt have to provide jack shiat.

Actually, that isn't quite true. If you check the Doctrine of Laches you'll see that if a defendant knows or should have reasonably known about patent infringment (possibly also copyright, not sure about that) they can't wait a long time and then file suit. See Wanlass vs GE for an example of this.

Wanlass patented a motor for an airconditioner in 1977, and tried to sell it to several large companies, including GE. GE told him to buzz off and they didn't care and would use that motor without his approval. Wanlass sued GE in 1995, and the courts ruled that since he knew they intended to use it (and indeed had tested some GE airconditioners in 1985) he wasn't intitled to anything from their infringement. At the same time, the courts held that he WAS entitled to compensation in Wanlass vs Fedders, because although Fedders had refused to license the patent, he didn't actually find out that Fedders was infringing until shortly before filing the suit.

Note - this is not legal advice.

No shit! FYI, it's libel not liable and defamation is an umbrella term covering both libel and slander.

Copy/pasting from the first Google result you find is not exactly reliable, if you'd Googled further you'd have found that litigation privilege does not extend to malicious prosecution (look it up).

RICO specifically prohibits four activities: (a) investing the proceeds of a pattern of racketeering activity in an
enterprise that engages in interstate or foreign commerce; (b) acquiring or maintaining an interest in such an enterprise by means of a pattern
of racketeering activity; (c) using a pattern of racketeering activity in conducting the affairs of such an enterprise; or (d) conspiracy to do
(a), (b), or (c).

I wouldn't try this on a regular basis: This could be seen as an attempt to defraud a party (the USPS, of their rightful payment) by means of the USPS.

That's a prima-facie case of Mail fraud which is very broad, easy to prove and attracts draconian penalties.

T&K.

Blah, blah, blah. I guess you're probably trolling, but in case someone falls for it: the McDonald's lawsuit in question is a piss-poor example of a "frivolous" lawsuit. Two quick links explaining why:

Clicky
Clicky

Nope. You do have to pursue your patent rights, not just trademarks. It's called the doctrine of laches.

The courts have been somewhat mixed on their interpretation of laches, and it's all made more difficult by the fact that overturning a patent on laches is expensive, so most companies would rather settle than fight. But "submarine patents" have not had a very good history in the courts, if they make it that far.

Libel is a legal term that describes a written form of defamation, which the dictionary defines as a "false or unjustified injury to someone's good reputation." Sometimes the word slander is used in the same breath as libel. ...

For the United States, the laws that control libel and slander first began to take shape even before the colonies gained their independence from Britain. One of the most famous American cases involved New York publisher John Peter Zenger, who was imprisoned in 1734 for printing political attacks against the colonial governor of New York. Zenger's lawyer established a legal precedent by arguing successfully that truth is an absolute defense in libel cases.

Since the Zenger case, however, someone can sue successfully for libel only if the defamatory information is proven to be false. ...

in 1964 when the Supreme Court issued a ruling that revolutionized libel law in the United States. The famous decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan once and for all created a national rule that squared more fully with the free press guarantees of the First Amendment. In its ruling, the Court decided that public officials no longer could sue successfully for libel unless reporters or editors were guilty of "actual malice" when publishing false statements about them.

... just what is malice when it comes to proving libel? Retired Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who wrote the Sullivan decision, defined it as "knowledge that the [published information] was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." In other words, public officials no longer could sue for libel simply by proving that something that had been broadcast or printed about them was false Now they would have to prove that a journalist had knowingly printed false information while making little, if any, attempt to distinguish truth from lies.

... The Supreme Court later extended its so-called Sullivan rule to cover "public figures," meaning individuals who are not in public office but who are still newsworthy because of their prominence in the public eye. Over the years, American courts have ruled that this category includes celebrities in the entertainment field, well-known writers, athletes, and others who often attract attention in the media.

...

Besides making distinctions between public and private figures, American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling.

...

... the owner of a restaurant in New Orleans sued a food critic for writing unflattering things about his eating establishment. Too bad, the Louisiana Supreme Court told the restaurant owner, before sending him back to his kitchen empty-handed.

... ...

In other cases, principles have all but disappeared under an avalanche of legal tactics that sometimes turn libel trials into expensive battles that leave no clear winners.

> is it "libel" if a computer produces results based on mere data?

Libel has a very specific legal meaning.

"Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander.

Criminal Law: A malicious defamation expressed either in printing or writing or by signs or pictures, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, with intent to provoke the living; or the reputation of one who is alive, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. ... It has been defined perhaps with more precision to be a censorious or ridiculous writing, picture or sign made with a malicious or mischievous intent ...

... There is perhaps no branch of the law which is so difficult to reduce to exact, principles, or to compress within a small compass, as the requisites of a libel. ... In order to constitute a libel, it is not necessary that anything criminal should be imputed to the party injured; it is enough if the writer has exhibited him in a ludicrous point of view; has pointed him out as an object of ridicule or disgust; has, in short, done that which has a natural tendency to excite him to revenge.

... The publication must be malicious; evidence of the malice may be either express or implied. Express proof is not necessary: for where a man publishes a writing which on the face of it is libelous, the law presumes he does so from that malicious intention which constitutes the offence, and it is unnecessary, on the part of the prosecution, to prove any circumstance from which malice may be inferred. But no allegation, however false and malicious, contained in answers to interrogatories, in affidavits duly made, or any other proceedings, in courts of justice, or petitions to the legislature, are indictable."

-- Bouviers Law Dictionary, a whole bunch of court references omitted.

Online versions of the dictionary can be found all over, such as here and here.

Also, it is a form of defamation, defined as:

"To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.

The First Amendment requires that the courts allow latitude for interpretation." -- same source, and references removed again

There are a bunch of points that all the companies have in their favor:

• Legal documents are immune. The documents that Google is referencing are legal documents.
• Statement must be false. The statements are excerpts of another document. Goople's statement isn't that the guy had those problems. Google is claiming that the documents it points to contains that text [which in fact, it does].
• Malice must exist. Google could easy deflect it based on the malice requirements, as their automated quoting system can be easily shown to have no malice.
• The enitre statement must be 'sufficiently factual' to be evaluated as fact. the excerpts would obviously fail this test, both because they are suc

In US courts, this is a) Entrapment and b) Vigalantism, and is not admissible in court.

Entrapment only applies to law enforcement officials, and only means that the police officer cannot pressure you to commit a crime, and then turn around and arrest you for it.

Here's the legal definition of entrapment.

And "vigilantism" is, so far as I know, not a crime, as long as you don't do anything illegal in your vigilante efforts. However, the "evidence" you produce would probably be mostly worthless from a prosecutor's point of view.

McDonalds were found 80% liable - they held the coffee at a temperature between 180 and 190 Fahrenheit. This compares to coffee being made at home at 135 to 140 Fahrenheit. At the temperature McDonalds were serving the coffee, it would cause immediate burning of the throat and mouth.
Source: McDonalds Coffee 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. 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.

If you use your car as collateral on a loan it cannot be summarily reposessed for failure to pay said loan. You must get a court order. Car ownership, and the rights therein, are determined by state granted title.

If you offer a lien on your car to guaruntee a loan, and such lien is registered with the state on the title itself, then yes, it may be repossessed because a lien is the wilfull granting of such a right.

Lien

KFG

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

I have been a supporter of "Sunset provisions" in laws for a long, long time. It seems to me that most laws should have a mandatory lifetime after which they would have to be renewed, or they would expire.

Obviously, basic issues (murder, theft, etc.) would be exempt from this sort of thing, but the majority of laws - especially those pertaining to technology - should live their useful life and go away.

Even better would be a restriction that only the core parts of a bill, not any ancillary additions (i.e., unrelated pork-barrel spending, etc.), which would have to be renewed separately.

It would mean a lot more work for congresses in the future, but that could be dealt with when the need arises.

Sunset provisions are a really good idea!!

Speaking of being full of shit...

"Here, in NYC --that's even if you are really a resident-- won't find bestiality displayed, that's Federal crime we are talking about."

You are full of shit, right up to the brim. There is no federal law against bestiality (but I do give you extra points for spelling it right).

Summary of Bestiality laws by state

Reference indicating that there are no federal laws that apply, in the majority of cases (ie those not involving children).

So, please, pull your head out of your ass. Thanks.

The whole Centrino bit is a textbook monopolist tactic called a tying agreement. Intel can skirt around it because its still offering the pentium-m, but with no marketing support. The general customer is really confused and assumes that if the laptop does not have the centrino sticker, its not the best one.

Just an infinitesimal correction to the grandparent post. It's "with prejudice".

I'm laughing because I just saw this site.

here is one.
your link is not (no longer?) valid so I can't compare.

There might also be a claim for tortious interference. Here's an example under Georgia law that's more to the point.

Here is one link of a thousand with the facts of the case. Just google for others.

It shows what happens when you do not check the facts. The coffee was 185 degrees, not 190.

Truth: It held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. Other sites say 185 give or take 5 degreee, some say 190. They all agree about the burns.

And it was quite safe: millions were able to consume it with no problem.

Truth: McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified... 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.

You are now bolstering your side by making up cases with imagination. Sorry, there are no cases if there is no evidence of them.

This one boggles my mind. It is a given that when it comes to potentially embarrasing cases people often do not report incidents. There are millions of much more serious crimes that go unreported every year because of embarassment on the part of the victim. This is not some figment of my imagination.

700 out of many millions (perhaps 12 million). Do the math.

Now here the firestone argument works. Only a few hundred people had to die before they were recalled. Now death is obviously more serious that 3rd degree burns but the point is that you don't want until 50% of the people are injured to recall something. What percentage do you think is appropriate?

No, they didn't.

Um. Yes they did.

Stick to the facts next time.

Likewise.

Since my cable modem lines are the property of AOL-TimeWarner, do they have the right to do with as they please?

Sigh. Let's try this again.

"Since computers, networks, etc at work at taken to be the property of the company--it's theirs to do with as they please."

If you work at your ISP, then yes, what you do at work and with their equipment is theirs. They can read your email, they can ruffle through your desk drawers, and they can monitor your IMs.

Yes, there are wiretap laws. They also don't apply to the situation I described. I searched Google for the phrase, "do wiretap laws apply to employers?". One of the results says, quote, "With the federal and state wiretapping statutes permitting employers' monitoring e-mail communications, and with courts holding that common law intrusion into seclusion privacy claims don't apply since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when e-mail is sent over an employer's system, employees should understand that employers may monitor electronic communications even without reserving the right to do so in their e-mail policies." The emphasis is mine.

For another matter, courts have ruled that employers may monitor phone calls in an effort to determine if the content is business or personal. There is usually a time limit they can listen. Another quote, related to both matters, from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, reads: "Workers of the world are exposed to many types of privacy-invasive monitoring while earning a living. These include [. . .] Internet monitoring and filtering, E-mail monitoring, instant message monitoring, phone monitoring [. . .] and keystroke logging." You'll note that while the article lists all sorts of reasons employers might not want to monitor such communications, it makes no mention that they can't. It does go on to mention restrictions on how and when they can, according to legislation, but has a massive piece dedicated to all the loopholes and instances where employers can still do it.

In short, one last quote, from this page, which just about sums it up: "The second exemption is that the ECPA [the legislation that provides what few restrictions there are] exempts from liability the person or entity providing the communication service. Where this service is provided by the employer, the ECPA has been interpreted as permitting the employers broad discretion to read and disclose the contents of e-mail communications, without the employee's consent."

It sucks. I will be the first to admit it. But it's a legal reality.

Happy now, or can I expect a snooty response?

From the 'Lectric Law Library:

The Hobbs Act defines "extortion" as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right." 18 U.S.C. S 1951(b)(2).

Its not clear whether this refers to "intellectual property" or not, but I would presume it does. I believe my original comments hold up as the threat to sue employees of the company would constitute wrongful use of... threatened force, or fear.

I wouldn't be surprised if the employees yielded anyway, just to avoid the expense of a possible lawsuit.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF - This is the name of that part of the bill, which, as the phrase imports, prays for relief. This prayer is either general or special but the general course is for the plaintiff to make a special prayer for particular relief to which he thinks himself entitled, and then to conclude with a prayer of general relief at the discretion of the court.

The use-it-or-lose-it rule is strictest for trademarks, but the privilege to enforce a patent can still be lost to laches. The first few results of this query should describe how the doctrine of laches applies to patents.

In reference to Stella Liebeck, the victim in the McDonalds lawsuite you make reference to. I do not believe you know all the facts to the story.

the word prosecution applies to criminal cases, not civil disputes.

For a good summary of the case, check out this page. Read the whole thing for a good summary of all the mitigating facts that make this a totally non-frivolous lawsuit.

• She only sued after Mcdonalds failed to settle for just the costs of treatment and time lost for work.
• McDonalds had already seen at least 700 complaints about the coffee tempature previously
• The jury awarded WAY more than she initially sued for. ($100,000 plus whatever the jury felt was fair punitive damages)
• The judge dropped the settlement to $640,000, which was still more than the initial suit was for because it was "appropriate to punish and deter" McDonalds

However, this lawsuit [against McDonald's, over a hot coffee spill] was, IMHO, stupid, because of the sum that was paid out (can't remember the exact figure, but it was huge).

All folks ever remember is the initial judgement ($2.7M here), and they almost never hear the facts of the case. (McDonald's knew for a long time their coffee was incredibly dangerously hot and refused to do anything about it. They also refused to compensate Plaintiff for her medical costs, which is why she chose to sue.) Lectlaw describes the facts of the McDonald's coffee case.

Note that the judgement was reduced by 5x on appeal: this is the norm. But especially note that to avoid another round of appeals and pay her medical bills (reference here), the plaintiff accepted a sealed out-of-court settlement. We will never know the amount, but I would guess offhand that it mostly covered her substantial medical and legal costs.

The American justice system does occasionally run amok. But if the story is that some ordinary individual or small business has beaten up a multinational corporation in court, you can usually bet that justice was seriously on the side of the little guy.

Perhaps some references about the hot coffee case are in order.

It's taken from http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm, which attributes it from:

excerpted from ATLA fact sheet. (C)1995, 1996 by Consumer Attorneys of California

It is if it bankrupts you, in spite of the minor fact that you won. What is needed is a clear signal that the loser will pay the winner's costs. I wonder if the litigants are going to forego an award of costs due to the charge of 'fraud' (see 2.b) in their action?

-AD

To be precise, she didn't really spill the coffee on herself either - the spill occurred during the transfer of the cup from the employee's hand to hers.

Do you have a reference for this? Every summary of the case I've seen has claimed that she spilled the coffee after she "placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup."

The spilling of the coffee wasn't what got her the large settlement.

Mcdonalds was selling coffee that was too hot for human consumption.

Also she wasn't actually suing for that much. She just wanted her medical bills paid. She was willing to settle for $20,000, but McDonalds refused. She was awarded 2.7 million punitive in addition to the $200,000 compensory. Later the 2.7 mil. was reduced to $480,000, and the $200,000 was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her partially at fault.

The full story is here

On the main topic of your post (Sorry for addressing a side point, but I'm tired of that "She won millions for spilling coffee on herself" meme spreading unchecked.) the only thing that will get them to not make PC disabled CDs is if nobody buys them.

The coffee cup story has been thrown around so much that few people have heard the facts as they really happened. The McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding, and capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Worse yet, the paper cup it was in was capable of easily collapsing and spilling the contents. Because of its insanely high temperature, the coffee was a real danger.

Yep. Confirmation:

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

She was a passenger, and the car was at a standstill. Also interesting:

http://www.vanfirm.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.ht m

People who harp on this as some sort of miscarriage of justice need to stop listening to the media's sensational headlines, and actually look at the facts. McDonalds acted recklessly. They knew they were serving coffee that was much hotter than other establishments, and much more dangerous than most consumers would ever believe. Yet, they did nothing, after 700+ cases of burns. They didn't even consult a burn specialist to ask if perhaps they needed to cut the temperature down.

They were at fault.

The Court apparently thought that the Texas statute was within its guidelines for the obscenity exception to the First Amendment.

"that which appeals to the prurient interest" is the metric, last I heard. Look up prurient interest if you don't have a grasp on the concept, it's a rare one.

There are a few other exceptions, "fighting words" being one, ie, that which would make a reasonable person want to perform violence on you. Say, "your wife gives great head to me every Saturday night", for instance.

Yes, it defined the circumstances of perjuring, but it said absolutely nothing about the effects of that action.

My logic is thus: The individual perjures himself by falsely claiming to represent the copyright holder, as in the example above. Perjury is the offering of false testimony under oath (paraphrased) Definition. What court is the individual/organization guilty of perjuring in? If it is, in fact, perjury, how does one get a court to act upon it. It is a criminal act, not a civil one; therefore, it is not, so far as I know, the appropriate case to sue, although that is within the accused's rights for the false claims of copyright.

Their business plan was $2,000 per registrar per day * 8 registrars * 365 = $5.8 million. They're asking for $29 million general damages and $5 million punative damages and I think they'll get it to. ICAAN obviously screwed the pooch on this one. Bypassing your own rules/regs is a surefire way to get slapped down by the courts.

Their business plan was $2,000 per registrar per day * 8 registrars * 365 = $5.8 million. They're asking for $29 million general damages and $5 million punative damages and I think they'll get it to. ICAAN obviously screwed the pooch on this one. Bypassing your own rules/regs is a surefire way to get slapped down by the courts.

For more information on the McDonalds coffee burn, which shows that it was not your average frivolous-lawsuit-demonstrating-the-need for-tort-reform, go here.

Free-X made a threat, and requested valuable consideration to forestall the threat.

bing-bing-bing-bing-bing-bing!

extortion

Hope you like green baloney, chillun.