Slashdot Mirror

Yes, IP, all the shit that was in the TPP and we got rid of after you bailed. The dairy wine and especially automobiles changes are minor, eg we already pay our workers over $15 an hour and yes, we'll have to go into debt like you to keep our dairy industry rather then a regulated market and I never did hear anything about wine, probably something to do with the tariffs we imposed in retaliation for the illegal softwood lumber tariffs.
From http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x...

Chapter 20 of the USMCA, entitled "Intellectual Property Rights," runs to 63 pages, and encompasses a wide range of IP issues. Much of the text concerns statements of policy, objectives, and best practices, largely reflecting current Canadian IP law. While, the USMCA may require a variety of changes in Canadian law, the following four changes are likely of greatest significance:

        Data protection term for biologics increased from eight years to ten years
        Copyright term increased from life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years
        Introduction of a patent term adjustment procedure to compensate for Patent Office delay in issuing a patent
        Pre-Established Damages for trademark counterfeiting

Lots of other info available at DDG. What is really sad is all the people that bitched about the TPP are so accepting of the new NAFTA, whose main purpose seems to be to do the TPP shit. I guess it just depends on which team is pushing it.
I guess we're lucky they didn't use it to harmonize with Mexico's 100 year copyright term. Can't have a public domain you know, might eat into Disney's profits from using the public domain.

Newspaper Tort Liability for Harmful Advertising
Sounds to me like advertisers are not typically liable for the content of ads, except in the court of public opinion. Here's another one:
The Scope Of Liability For False Advertising Claims

That one talks about stores that have been held liable for claim in an their catalogues, for products they sell. It says "the court found that once the retailer actively involved itself in the promotion of the product" which is probably why newspapers have advertising disclaimers. Ad of course, the newspaper is clearly not selling the product in the case of job ads. I'm not sure this applies.

Do you have any examples to show that the newspaper industry is liable here?

Except this and this suggest that mortgages in Europe are comparable to the U.S. Perhaps your information is out of date.

perhaps even "copies" loaded into RAM.

No, US copyright law has an explicit exception for that.

Unless the progeny of MAI v. Peak have all been overturned while I wasn't looking, that is incorrect.

Copyright law requires fixation, and purely transitory phenomena won't qualify, but RAM copies can certainly exist for more than a transitory period. A couple minutes is enough. The subsequent carve out Congress enacted in the wake of Peak was specifically to protect computer repair activities, which may be the part of the law you were thinking of.

In the case at hand, the most likely way that Blizzard would make a copy would be to take the CD (or whatever) of source code they got from Apoc, pop it into a machine at BlizHQ, open up the files and start reading them. That means they'd be in RAM the whole time Blizzard people were looking through them, which is a process that would presumably take more than a few minutes, which is enough time for the files in RAM to be non-transitory (infringing) copies.

Have you seen the breadth of things Amazon sells?

If they aren't selling it already, give them time and they will be.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/296274...

Any contract can impose fines on either party as long as both parties agree to it.

No. Generally any clause imposing a fine for breach (as distinct from the recovery of losses) would be void at common law on the basis of it being a penalty provision (see for example here). Your video rental store might be within their rights to recover from you any amount up to what they would have made had they rented out that late returned VHS (but no more).

That's why I realised after I posted at the top that this would probably be done via by-laws. Silly me, duh!

The article doesn't seem to point out the obvious explanation, ie that H1B applications contain personal data (of the type Slashdotters are usually passionate about protecting), and that it is good practice not to keep such information hanging around once it has served its primary purpose.

Given the recent reports of how H1B workers are treated as slaves in abuses reminicent of human trafficking, the timing of this seems more than a bit suspicious. And at least one source has the DOL saying "will no longer respond to inquiries to search for records in response to FOIA requests". Explicitly pre-empting the FOIA process without even the suggestion that the data might be anonymized to allay privacy concerns is, again, more than a little suspicious.

There are presumably solutions to the research concerns, such as aggregating the data before it is deleted or collecting the specific data necessary before the records are deleted.

Yes, there are solutions, but will they be implemented? And is the Dept. of Labor so tone-deaf, and so ignorant of the controversial nature of this decision, that they didn't think to put an anonymization program in place in advance of this announcement? Somehow I doubt it.

So no, the ECJ or ECHR are NOT an equivalent of the United States Supreme Court.

I never claimed that the ECJ was anything like the SCOTUS, only that it was a supreme court, as in "the highest judicial tribunal in a political unit" (Merriam-Webster), or specifically as in a court that makes final judicial decisions that bind lower courts and is not subject to any other court.

And no, I was not thinking about the ECHR. Even if this case might tangentially touch upon European human right law, I am well aware that the ECHR is not an EU court.

Did you even read the page you're quoting? The ECJ is not a Supreme Court, as national cases cannot be appealed to the ECJ.

You (as a citizen) cannot appeal a case to the ECJ, but you can challenge the law or intepretation of that law (under which the original case was decided) in a national court; the court may then direct the case to the ECJ. In other words, if you can make a reasonable case that GCHQ violates EU law, but is found in a UK court not to violate UK law, the case can certainly end up before the ECJ.

This has happened numerous times.

The [U.S.] Supreme Court has a much broader horizon when it comes to legal issues, most notably they can declare a national law to be unconstitutional.

The EU might not have a constitution, but the ECJ can certainly overturn EU law found to violate basic rights of citizens.

The FAA elected NOT to appeal this.

Factually incorrect:
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedst...

And:
"The appeal stays the ruling. This leaves the enforceability of the commercial-drone ban -- at least for the moment -- up in the air."

Bwahahahahahahaha see readers we have a nation full of this kind of attitude. Two words. Fair Work. Where we see things like this...

http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/272244/Employee+Benefits+Compensation/High+Court+says+injury+during+sex+on+a+work+trip+not+in+the+course+of+employment

So... what... our tax payer dollars facilitate this nonsense? How many of these do we see everyday? And at present the unions are presently sueing the last car manufacturer (Toyota) out of the country?

Sorry you're not only wholesomly wrong but your either seriously misinformed or delusional.

Harper already put an end to it. The copyright protection law passed as was absolutely clear would happen once the conservatives have a majority.

The MPAA is already gearing up to bring downloader lawsuits up North.

Betcha the torrent sites will be targeted as well.

Elections have consequences.

> I don't know how large a fine the court is allowed to impose for contempt, but I imagine it's pretty large

It's unlimited.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/151402/Crime/Contempt+Of+Court+Why+Ignoring+A+Court+Order+Could+Land+You+In+Serious+Trouble

> I don't know how large a fine the court is allowed to impose for contempt, but I imagine it's pretty large. It's unlimited. http://www.mondaq.com/x/151402/Crime/Contempt+Of+Court+Why+Ignoring+A+Court+Order+Could+Land+You+In+Serious+Trouble

Looks like the only thing that will come close to fixing it will be from having gone over the buggering edge of ridiculousness.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/156824/Patent/First+To+Invent+First+To+File+Or+First+To+Disclose+Patent+Reforms+Real+Incentive

First to file will bring on the Patent Armageddon, most likely. That change is such a BLATANT swing to the rich I still have a hard time fathoming how the decision was even made. "Hmmmmmm, how can we make sure that no one has a business outside of serving my elite buddy Chad some low wage service commodity? Oh, I know! Let's tip the scales completely towards the armies of lawyers who sit around all day spamming the patent office."

Hate to mention the movie Brazil again, but Gilliam had prophecy there...

Well, apart from the fact that there is no "EU-based Opera", as somebody already pointed out, you should be aware that the EU is also very happy to slap European companies with fines when they are found not to play according to the rules.

Eg, recently the EU imposed a fine of 622 million Euros against a 17 bath fittings manufacturers for price fixing. Most of the were European. For example, the company which has to pay most (more than half, 326 million Euros) is German. The company which started the investigation was an American company, which got of the hook for free for blowing the whistle.

http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=103994

You might get the impression that often US companies are affected by antitrust rulings etc. because that's when you read it in the news (especially when it is technology related).

I think you mean Bilski... http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=69582

What happened to the link? Oh well...
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=77182

Interestingly, that's the same set of recommendations that most major US Corporations follow when sending their employees outside the US ... to make sure the authorities in the both the US and the foreign country don't find anything when they walk through your laptop.

Remember, the rules that we tend to rely on in our home countries don't typically apply in other countries, or even at the borders. If you think that Canadian Customs has any fewer powers than US Customs with regards to laptops, dream on:

CBSA has yet to publish a report detailing its policy on border searches of electronic devices. That said, the CBSA has stated that its examination authority under the Customs Act extends to electronic storage devices. Other sources of information also suggest that they, like their American counterparts, do not accord electronic devices special status at the border. For example, the Canadian Customs Act broadly defines "goods" to include "any document in any form." suggesting no special treatment for electronic documents. Canadian case law also supports this interpretation. In a 2008 Ontario Court of Justice decision, the Court stated that it saw no intrinsic difference between a computer search and a detailed examination of the contents of one's suitcase.

Even more goodness:

From their press releases concerning the confiscation of child pornography, it is evident that CBSA Officers regularly perform spot-checks of laptops at the border. Moreover, in another recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice case, the Court justified a customs search of a computer disc by reasoning that searches at the border are routinely held to be reasonable simply because they are searches at the border[.]

Think you're safe in Europe, specifically the UK? Think again:

A spokesman for Customs and Excise said officials would routinely scan laptops for illegal material such as pornography. Encrypted files will be treated in the same way as a ordinary luggage. "So far as we are concerned, there is no difference between an encrypted file and a locked suitcase," said the spokesman. "All travellers entering the country should be prepared to have their equipment scanned."

Perhaps you think it's just the crazy Brits? Not so fast. The German government says:

Customs authorities perform customs controls along the external frontier of the EC and within Germany. As a rule, customs officers check travellers on a random basis without a specific initial suspicion. [...] Occasionally it happens that articles are found during a customs inspection and it cannot be clarified immediately whether they are subject to prohibitions and restrictions or not. [...] In such cases, the articles in question can be seized and submitted to a test by experts.

And remember that most customs rules are harmonized in the EU ... things are pretty much the same everywhere. If you peruse the lists of "prohibitions and restrictions" for the EU, you will find many, many things that are perfectly legal to transport into or out of the United States.

Borders everywhere have different legal status than the interior of those same countries ... many many fewer protections apply, even in the most "Western" of democracies. Forget that at your own peril.

Here's what I've found so far:

• Software Patent Supporter Tries to Pretend Google Harmed without Software Patents
• United States: Federal Circuit To Re-Assess Standards For Patent-Eligible Subject Matter - 2008-04-07

And, the original article: The Death of Google's Patents?

Check out this article about how the Supreme Court earlier in the year revived the obviosness standard. This was one of several decisions that went against patent trolls, and leads me to believe that the justices actually read the newspaper. Now if Congress took less money from the trolls, perhaps there would be stronger legislative reform.

It is also a tragically pathetic ploy at trying to justify something they KNOW DAMN WELL is wrong, in the service of a growing police state. They are more interested in sucking up to this administration (and their own business interests, since they are in various federal legal battles, federal merger fights, etc.)

If this is the best legal justification they can come of for doing it, they would be much better served by simply turning the tables, refusing to do it, and forcing the federal government to make THEIR case for it.

"We at a total loss to understand how this policy has developed, who is behind it and why there is such haste in enacting it into law -- with little if any public debate."

"Recent Government reviews have resulted in the proposed introduction of the Copyright Amendment (Exceptions, Enforcement and Other Measures) Bill in the Autumn sitting of 2006. The proposed new legislation will be designed to bring Australian copyright laws up to speed and implement outcomes for the 2005 reviews."

I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would find it difficult to uncover background on this topic...

Some links that shed additional light on the topic as applicable:

Notice info on numbers of electronic resumes coming in and imagine the burden this placed on companies required to comply with the old guidelines
http://www.management-advantage.com/newsletr/apr20 04.htm#APPLICANT

Clearly written, broad discussion of new guidelines
http://www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_articleid_E_ 37232

A Historical View (may be biased)
http://www.adversity.net/UniformGuidelines/default .htm

Cheers.

Just as a bit of a side note, the US Supreme Court just unanimously overturned the Arthur Anderson conviction.

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:45 -0800 (PST)
From: spatch3
Subject: Opposition to bill HR4077
To: feinstein, boxer

Dear Senators,

I realize it is an ongoing, uphill, losing battle to
continually oppose more egregious and draconian
copyright bills that keep cropping up in both the
house and senate. I believe, as do the courts, that
the DMCA of 1998 has many un-constitutional provisions
in it and bill HR4077, presently going to the Senate,
is no different than the DMCA in this respect.
I strongly encourage you to vote against the bill referred to here:

To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes.

Please see the following sites for dissenting voices
about this legislation:

Senate May Ram Copyright Bill

Your Rights Online: Senate May Rush Copyright Legislation

Bad: HR4077 Passed the House


Thank you for your consideration.

Chris


PS: Links to court cases that have struck down or
clarified significant portions of the 1998 DMCA:

Court strikes a good balance in file swapping case

Lexmark loses printer toner cartridges lawsuit; DMCA dives, consumers win big

Lexmark Loss Good for Consumers

United States: Circumvention Provision Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Not A New Property Right