Slashdot Mirror

YMCANAL (you most certainly are not a lawyer). Whoever told you that is wrong. Examples that come to mind that are pretty similar to this case are AT&T including a clause in a contract for Long Distance that stated that you could arbitrate against them. Also see the section here about legality.

Nope, sound of Harley is not patented. Harley-Davidson tried to register the sound as a trademark in 1994. In 2000, they withdrew the application after much opposition. There's an interesting analysis of the registrability here, which also mentions successful trademarks on color and scent.

* Personal service--When the person served is physically handed court papers notifying her that she has been sued, she is said to have been personally served. With almost all lawsuits, the complaint and summons must be personally served unless the defendant agrees to accept service. If the defendant does not agree to accept service and is not personally served, the court cannot take any action in the case, unless the plaintiff can show that personal service was impossible.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

A corporation is a legal construct designed to give a business the same rights as a person, right? If so, in the face of a subpoena duces tecum, why can't a corporation plead the fifth amendment? I assume there's a clear legal answer, but IANAL.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

A corporation is a legal construct designed to give a business the same rights as a person, right? If so, in the face of a subpoena duces tecum, why can't a corporation plead the fifth amendment? I assume there's a clear legal answer, but IANAL.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The McDonald's coffee case is actually kind of interesting. From what I have read, they deserved to get sued. I've since stopped using this as the classic example of a frivolous lawsuit.

[Apologies for the slightly off-topic nature of this post. But it appears highly relevant because of the thread.]

How long before Taco or one of the other Slashdot editors is accused of and sued for libel by one of the individuals or corporations that is commented on (and perhaps defamed) on the site?

By the Lectric Law Library's definition, libel is:

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. [The 'Lectric Law Library]

By the CyberLibel definition:

A publication without justification or lawful excuse which is calculated to injure the reputation of another by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule. [CyberLibel]

I tried out the Libel Checklist over at UTexas, and found that a good number of posts by slashdot editor's could at least be considered suspect of libel claims. However, I am anything but a lawyer, and would love to hear a lawyer comment on this.

For example, if an editor posts a comment in response to an article saying something to the effect of "so-and-so's marketing practices are highly suspect and should be avoided by all good slashdotters." If the statement is not provably true, is not a fair report of an official and public record, is not a matter of public concern, is not merely abusive, is not consentual, and is not clearly an opinion, then such statements could, I believe, be intrepreted as libel.

Furthermore, could the users of Slashdot also be sued for libel due to their comments?

Or worse, could I be sued for libel for raising this very question about Rob and Slashdot? Uh-oh. Nevermind...

McDonald's probably has the best litigation strategy of any company I've ever seen. Even though McDonald's was clearly wrong in the coffee cases in the early 90's, and had to settle out of court for a undisclosed sum, they successfully spun that the litigants were idiots that need "WARNING: HOT" labelled on the side of their cups, destracting everyone from the facts of the case.

If you want to know the real story of the McDonald's coffee case, here's a web site that has the details . I have to admit, it changed my mind about the case.

"AOL would be entitled to triple any actual damages found by the court"
IANAL
Treble Damages
Could Netscape/AOL just be seeking a cash settlement from MS?

He should be able to sue for something. Damned if I can think what, though.

Malicious prosecution.

More than likely though, as part of dropping him from the complaint, he agreed to not seek redress.

The government has sovereign immunity, which means that the government cannot be sued without its consent. The consent may be in the form of legislation that allows certain types of lawsuits.

It won't make much difference whatever the punishment. Anonymity is very easy with viruses and finding out who wrote and/or released is the exception rather than the rule. There are some notable cases - Christopher Pile and David Smith for example - but they don't act as a detererent and the amount of damage (real or perceived) is greater than can be recovered from the defendent if found guilty.

From: The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon

TORT - A negligent or intentional civil wrong not arising out of a contract or statute. These include "intentional torts" such as battery or defamation, and torts for negligence.

A tort is an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured person may sue the wrongdoer for damages. Legally, torts are called civil wrongs, as opposed to criminal ones. (Some acts like battery, however, may be both torts and crimes; the wrongdoer may face both civil and criminal penalties.)

Under traditional law, family members were prohibited from suing each other for torts. The justification was that allowing family members to sue each other would lead to a breakdown of the family. Today, however, many states recognize that if family members have committed torts against each other, there often already is a breakdown in family relationships. Thus, they no longer bar members from suing each other. In these states, spouses may sue each other either during the marriage or after they have separated.

Normally, tort lawsuits against a spouse are brought separate and apart from any divorce, annulment or other family law case. Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, New York and Tennessee, however, allow or encourage combining the tort case with the family law case; New Jersey requires it.

The jurisdictions that still prohibit one family member from suing another include Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Wyoming and Washington, D.C. These places may make an exception when the tort is intentional. See, for example, Bounds v. Candle, 611 S.W.2d 685 (Texas 1980); Townsend v. Townsend, 708 S.W.2d 646 (Missouri 1986) and Green v. Green, 446 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio 1982).

An injury; a wrong; hence the expression "an executor de son tort", of his own wrong.

Torts may be committed with force, as trespasses, which may be an injury to the person, such as assault, battery, imprisonment; to the property in possession; or they may be committed without force. Torts of this nature are to the absolute or relative rights of persons, or to personal property in possession or reversion, or to real property, corporeal or encorporeal, in possession or reversion: these injuries may be either by nonfeasance, malfeasance, or misfeasance.

Legal definition of precedent.

Here is a small excerpt:
According to Lord Talbot, it is "much better to stick to the known general rules than to follow any one particular precedent which may be founded on reason unknown to us." Blackstone says, that a former decision is in general to be followed unless "manifestly absurd or unjust," and, in the latter case, it is declared when overruled not that the former sentence was bad law, but that it was not law.

Actually, certainly in Europe, but as far as I'm aware also in the US, if Apple was found to have caused this damage through "gross negligence", then they would be responsible for damages, because damages due to gross negligence on the part of the vendor is exactly what can _not_ be excluded.

The legal definition of gross negligence according to lectlaw is:
GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows Recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others.

Or more applicable to this case (from here):
Gross negligence
Any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another. Sometimes referred to as "very great negligence" and it is more then just neglect of ordinary care towards others or just inadvertence. Also known as the Latin term culpa lata.

Of course, IANAL, but my gut feeling would be that gross negligence would not be applicable in this case... gross negligence is basicaly one step short of intentional damage.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/bul03.htm
Scroll down to the heading "Legality". You can't enforce a contract where there's something illegal involved. So this could either not allow them to patent this or not allow anyone to license it. Of course, it'd be great to license it from them and not pay :)

By the way, that is not what happened. The coffee did not fall; the woman placed the cup between her legs and then removed the lid--the main thing reinforcing the cup against the inward pressure of her legs!--so she could add cream and sugar. (The intent to add condiments is from memory, but the rest is documented at this page of the 'Lectric Law Library.) The car was driven by her grandson--which makes me wonder a bit about natural selection.

Hell, I'll give your two for the price of one. CLUE 2

Next time you post to /. try getting your facts straight.

DEFAMATION - An act of communication that causes someone to be shamed, ridiculed, held in contempt, lowered in the estimation of the community, or to lose employment status or earnings or otherwise suffer a damaged reputation. Such defamation is couched in 'defamatory language'. Libel and slander are defamation.

From this, it really doesn't matter whether it's true or not, it's defamation. Slander, is false defamation, while libel is defamation that must meet other qualifications (that the statement is about a person who is identifiable to one or more persons, and that the statement is distributed to one or more persons other then the injured party, i.e. published).

In other words, slander _must_ be a lie. If it's the truth, it's not slander. However, if it's true, it can still be defamation. It must meet the other above criteria to be libel. (If you say unflattering but true things to someone's face, it's not libel, but if you publish them it may be.)

IANAL, but I got these definitions here.

Kierthos

(from "the 'Lectric Law Library")
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales. The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000. The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public.

Sounds like about half a mil to me.
btw: Of course you were around when she sued. It was in 1994, for crying out loud.

-Kookbox

In brief: the coffee was served at 185 degrees, a temperature known to cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds. (Also obviously a temperature too hot to drink the coffee). McDonald's had got over 700 claims by people burned by its coffee in the preceding 10 years. The woman initially claimed only $20000 to cover medical expenses. McD's refused and the case went to court. The jury found the lady 1/5th at fault, and awarded her $160,000 in damages and 2.7 mill in punitive damages, subsequently reduced to $480,000. The parties later settled in secret.

It should also be pointed out that this lawsuit was the only thing that convinced McD's to lower the temperature of its coffee to a safe level, as evidenced by their ignoring 700 claims over the previous decade.

There is also a popular myth floating around that the woman tried to open her coffee cup while driving: not true. She was in the passenger seat of the car with her grandson, and the car was stationary when the spill occured.

Of course, again, we don't know what's in a declaration of goodwill. If we're going to guess, let's use the most accurate definitions: according to the Lectric Law Library definition of "declaration":

A declaration is a written statement submitted to a court in which the writer swears 'under penalty of perjury' that the contents are true. That is, the writer acknowledges that if he is lying, he may be prosecuted for perjury. Declarations are normally used in place of live testimony when the court is asked to rule on a motion.

A typical declaration sets forth the factual assertions of the person signing it (called the declarant) and ends with a statement worded like this one: 'I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and would be my testimony if I were in a court of law.' The date and place of signing are usually included.

Next, let's look at the Merriam-Webster definition of "goodwill":

Main Entry: goodwill
Pronunciation: "gud-'wil
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 a : a kindly feeling of approval and support : benevolent interest or concern b (1) : the favor or prestige that a business has acquired beyond the mere value of what it sells (2) : the value of projected earnings increases of a business especially as part of its purchase price (3) : the value of other intangible assets (as tax credits) of a business especially as part of its purchase price
2 a : cheerful consent b : willing effort
- goodwilled /-'wild/ adjective

We combine the two, and get, essentially, a document saying, under penalty of perjury, you're inclined to feel kindly toward this movie. (NOTE: IANAL, and that may not even be a correct guess.)

Of course, how can they tell if you're lying? Even if you're inclined to feel kindly toward a movie doesn't mean you necessarily have to like it. I felt kindly toward Soldier going into it, since I like Kurt Russel and I like action movies. But it was utterly awful!
--

While in four black men are going to prison, drug laws jail crack users longer than powdered cocaine users. (The only real difference between rocks and poweder: powder is the popular choice of white addicts, while the rocks are mostly used by blacks.)

I don't very much like this example of how black people are suppressed in this country, mostly because it's not a very good one. While I'll readily agree with you that the differences in penalties are quite unfair, it must be considered how this came to pass. The fact is that the stricter penalties for crack as opposed to powder cocaine came from the same people who are now crying about the unfairness of this policy. When crack was introduced it quickly became apparent that it is a much more damaging drug to inner-city communities (or all races though it has a particular impact on blacks) due to its relatively low price. This is the reason that black community leaders lobbied for stricter penalties and enforcement against crack rather than for powder cocaine. This link provides some interesting discussion on the topic.

The real problem is that this effort, as with most of the efforts in the "War On Drugs" has had unintended consequences. Having really strict penalties against those who use and/or sell drugs does not stop this activity from taking place, it merely makes it more violent and dangerous to society. Please no note that I'm not saying that drug abuse is harmless to society (I believe exactly the opposite), what I am saying is that our current criminal policies aren't solving the problem and may actually be making it worse.
_____________

Some time ago, this text circulated arount the net. It was funny then - how times change...

I know a lot of people here are very anti-regulation, but I think it would be great if case law established that web robots must obey the Robots Exclusion Standard. Since it's a widely-known standard, I think it can be fairly argued that robots that choose to disregard /robots.txt are in danger of tresspassing to chattels. Using the standard also would allow bots to fulfill their helpful role, while providing a clear distinction between what is and what is not acceptable.

Sure, one might argue that people might be unaware of the standard, but that is seldom an excuse. I may be unaware of fire/electrical codes, but I'll still get in trouble if I don't adhere to them, because I'm putting others at risk and thereby imposing a cost upon society (fire trucks and insurance don't come free). Web crawlers that index data in violation of the Robots Exclusion Standard impose a cost on companies and society just as well, in the end requiring people to by bigger pipes, faster servers, and so on (thereby using more power, dumping more old computer components into landfills and more chipmaking chemicals into the environment).

My point is that web crawler operators live in a society, just like everyone else, and they too must be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, particularly when they willfully disregard the requests of web site operators as expressed in /robots.txt

She wasn't driving...
Why can't people read before posting....

Since you didn't bother to follow the provided link regarding the lawsuit, here it is again.

As it states, the woman who suffered the burns was not driving the car, her grandson was. In fact, the car was not even moving; the grandson had stopped the car so that she could remove the lid from the cup.

Facts are wonderful things. You should check them out.

TheFrood

As you can see at this page, entitled the actual facts of the mcdonalds coffee case, the coffee was quite overly hot. This is beyond the hot you expect coffee - it was served at between 180 and 190 F (most places serve it at about 140). This was enough to burn through her sweatpants and cause 3rd degree burns to 6% of her body, including some very tender spots. She required $20k in reconstructive plastic surgery. If the coffee was even at 155 F, she would have avoided serious injury. Initially, she asked McD's for just the money to cover the surgery, but when she refused and discovered over 700 claims from between 1980 and 1992, including cases of 3rd degree burns, she did the full-out lawsuit. Also, the jury found her 20% at fault, which is why she only got $160k of the $200k awarded to her. Since that time, the temperature of the coffee at that peticular McD's has been dropped to 158 F.

Just letting 'ya know the facts. =^)
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

You idiot, you're on the internet. Do a Google search yourself. Here is a start: Consumer Attorneys of California article on the subject, see for yourself that it was $480,000 for 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, in the PASSENGER seat of a MOTIONLESS CAR. And she was considered 20% AT FAULT by the original jury.

Psychology holds that people tend not to seek full information when their pet arguments can only be damaged by it. There is certainly a moral to this incident, but it has little to do with the litigation-crazed nature of the justice system.

But I'm sure your friends and family consider your discourse on the topic quite impressive, so please do not let me (or truth) hinder you in this.

The case you're looking for, I think, is New York Times v. U.S., which IIRC really laid the smack down against any form of prior restraint. The "clear and present danger" principle was articulated in Schenk v. U.S., and applies to the government's power to punish for political speech. Again, here we're dealing with allegations of theft (or accessory to theft), so I don't think it directly applies.

Also, I really really think Napster should avoid any such claims, because that would imply that they're publishing these songs, which directly contradicts the core of their argument: that they're not publishing/offering anything directly, but rather simply providing a conduit, and it's the users who may be negaging in illegal activity. Once they argue that they're the publishers, they're screwed.

Did I mention that IANAL?

-brennan

I order an $80 CPU, no customs charge.

I order a Laserdisc player, $20 charge.

New hard drive, can't remember but the charge was small.

I ordered $40 of tapes, $20 charge.

A friend ordered some DragonBall Z episodes, and they were confiscated because they were "pornography." (WTF?! It's a Saturday morning cartoon!)

He ordered some more, and they were stopped because the company he ordered from "didn't have distribution rights to DBZ in Canada."

Basically, customs has power to do whatever it likes. If this sounds unbelievable, here are some related links:

CBC#2 History and case study
A history of censorship in Canada
Racial profiling by customs

According to the article, the ruling is based upon a legal precedent called Trespass To Chattels. However, this doesn't seem at all consistent with the definition of chattel. How can info on a web site be considered "personal, movable property?"

Hardly seems to apply to a situation like this.

"THEFT - This word is sometimes used as synonymous with larceny, but it is not so technical."

"LARCENY -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....

• There must be a taking from the possession, actual or implied, of the owner; hence if a man should find goods and appropriate them to his own use, he is not a thief on this account."

Once again. The McDonald's coffee woman received 3rd degree burns that required skin grafts. Food about 140 degress fahrenheit presents a burn hazard. The coffee was served at 180 degrees, which would have burned her throat and mouth had she drank it. At 180 degrees liquids can cause 3rd degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds. All this is discussed in this link

She was wearing sweatpants (which I believe is still legal in some states). Read the facts before mouthing off.
--

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.

Ontario Securities Commission: Enforcement: Statements of Allegations

My reading is that the crimes alleged here are very similar to U.S. law (trading on material non-public information).

Cowpland could argue that his company didn't actually trade -- that would be an idiotic defense. The OSC would just display the trading records from the exchange.

Cowpland could argue that the information he knew was not material -- that other investors would not care. Just about as idiotic. The OSC would argue that the market did react by slamming the price of Corel stock the day the news did come out. Just about any jury in the world would see the connection by the time a prosecutor got done laying it out.

Cowpland could argue that the information was already public. He would have to introduce evidence, such as a press release or a newspaper article or a government-mandated public filing, and he would have to establish that this evidence had been disseminated to the public before his holding company sold 2.4 million shares.

It's quite unlikely that any such evidence exists.

Finally, Cowpland could argue that even though he was in possession of material non-public information, and even though he traded Corel stock, he did not do so because of the information. For example, he could produce records that show that he regularly sold 2.4 million shares of Corel during the second week of *every* month for the past two years.

Or he could argue that he had large debt payments due to a contract he entered into long before he came to know this specific material fact, and he was motivated by a desire to pay those debts. In other words, as you say, he could argue that he really needed the money.

Case in point in United States law:

Stock Trading by Insider in Possession of Inside Information Not Per Se Illegal

And finally, here is a simple introduction:

Insider Trading

Let's face it, anybody stupid enough to put a hot coffee between their legs while they're driving pretty much deserves what they get.

When you find a 79-year-old woman who actually put a cup of coffee between her legs while she was driving, let us know. There hasn't been one mentioned here. A quick look at the facts reveals that the woman was not driving the car.

By the way, the coffee was heated to at least 180 degrees at all times, hot enough to melt skin. This woman suffered third-degree burns that kept her in the hospital for eight days. We are not talking about "oh gee, I have a bad burn". We are talking about "oh gee, this is a life-threatening injury".

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that no matter where you spill a cup of coffee, it won't melt your goddamn skin off. But then, maybe I'm just "stupid".