Slashdot Mirror

Hurd was responsible for the creation of HP's strategic business plans, including its FY2010 and FY2011 business plans.

You say:

Oracle's relational database isn't a competitor to any relational database that HP creates, because they don't create relational database server software.

Oracle competes with HP in the server market.

Squeezing better margins out of HP doesn't involve trade secrets. Just because you understand how a company works and makes decisions doesn't make your knowledge of that a trade secret. If he knew of specialized technologies and was able to shepherd the workers to build that product (or to better it) then he would have trade secrets, but I highly doubt he's written a single line of code. Hurd's knowledge isn't specific enough to be considered trade secrets (in those areas). Now, if he knew the formula to their "ink" (say, as maybe Pepsi knew the formula to coke) and he was able to give that out to his new employer, then it would be specific knowledge of trade secrets.

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Trade secrets include knowledge of internal procedures. Hurd is familiar with them. Trade secrets include knowledge of specific business plans - Hurd was responsible for writing HP's FY2010 and FY2011 business plans.

Also, "say, as maybe Pepsi knew the formula to coke" - Pepsi knows the formula. When Coca-cola introduced New Coke, Pepsi successfully cracked the formula for the original Coke, and was prepared to market it (the project was named Savannah Cola"). Since the formula was only protected by trade secret, and not patent, Pepsi had every right to market a duplicate. http://boards.fool.com/buffett-speaks-at-columbia-17197137.aspx

In reality, Coke can make Pepsi and Pepsi can make Coke. You can break down the formula. At one point, Pepsi was moving towards introducing a product called Savannah Cola, which was equal in formula to the Old Coke. The only problem they faced was that one of the ingredients from the formula was hard to obtain because almost the entire production was purchased by the Coca Cola company. Little by little, they were able to obtain this ingredient and were within 2 weeks of bringing it out when Coke relented and made Classic Coke.

You wrote:

Anyone working at HP in marketing or say as the manager of the department, etc could have that specific knowledge.

And they're all enjoined from using it elsewhere by trade secret law. What don't you understand about that? It's right there in the california civil code. Have you ever even signed an NDA?

Example - Hurd goes to New York to talk to Wall Street analysts. He has breached the covenant he made while in New York, the parties he breached it with have their head offices in New York, everyone met in New York for a specific purpose that had, as one if it's key components, Hurd breaching the contract, and both Oracle and HP do business in New York. Not all the parties will have a presence in California.

Under those circumstances, it could be argued that New York would be the proper venue. Besides, he's liable under California civil code anyway - contrary to what stupid posters wrote about non-competes being void in California. Sharing trade secrets is competing, and illegal.

He got over $12 million as a separation payment in which he specifically reaffirmed that he would not work for a competitor for a year. Oracle names HP as a major competitor in the 10k SEC filing. Both he and Oracle are properly being sued already under section 3426 of the California Civil Code - this would just be additional lawsuits.

Any non-compete clauses in a contract are invalidated by California law.

So Hurd can never leave California to visit an Oracle office elsewhere without being slapped with a lawsuit in another jurisdiction. Sounds like HP will enjoy that :-)

They're alleging

1. misapropriation of trade secrets (article 2 of the complaint)
2. breech of contract (article 3 of the complaint)

They cite California Civil Code 3426.2(a), so no, contracts are not automatically invalidated - it depends on the terms of employment.

California Civil Code Section 3426.2

(a) Actual or threatened misappropriation may be enjoined. Upon application to the court, an injunction shall be terminated when the trade secret has ceased to exist, but the injunction may be continued for an additional period of time in order to eliminate commercial advantage that otherwise would be derived from the misappropriation.
(b) If the court determines that it would be unreasonable to prohibit future use, an injunction may condition future use upon payment of a reasonable royalty for no longer than the period of time the use could have been prohibited.
(c) In appropriate circumstances, affirmative acts to protect a trade secret may be compelled by court order.

It's quite simple - his new job at Oracle puts him in a position where he will be violating HP trade secrets. He simply cannot work as the CEO of any large US IT company without attracting such a lawsuit.

I didn't know eating dog or horse was illegal, I just though people weren't doing it because they wouldn't like to.

Yeah, isn't that weird? The French eat horse, so there are French recipes for it... but you can't buy it in the US. It's taboo. Dog meat isn't as illegal in the US, but many states ban it... Here is the California statute, for example.

Bans on polygamy and gay marriage are some pretty hard things to defend without invoking "yuck" as well.

First of all, I.A.N.A.L.

Second, I just read section 481.080, and it seems to be primarily concerned with the use of "laboratory apparatus" to make controlled substances. It looks like you could buy and own the labware, as long as you aren't synthesizing one of hundreds of prohibited chemicals.

Still, it seems pretty paranoid.

Not to mention that you can't use a digital camera to "make a copy of the phone". It's a digital camera, not a replicator.

A copy of a trade secret, not of a phone. See California Penal Code Section 499c(b)(3):

(b) Every person is guilty of theft who, with intent to deprive or withhold the control of a trade secret from its owner, or with an intent to appropriate a trade secret to his or her own use or to the use of another, does any of the following:

(3) Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret.

(With the explanation before) (a) As used in this section:

(7) "Copy" means any facsimile, replica, photograph or other reproduction of an article, and any note, drawing or sketch made of or from an article.

(2) "Article" means any object, material, device, or substance or copy thereof, including any writing, record, recording, drawing, sample, specimen, prototype, model, photograph, micro-organism, blueprint, map, or tangible representation of a computer program or information, including both human and computer readable information and information while in transit.

You can't deny the issues by denying the issues. No crime was committed, before or after the phone was returned. When a jury says one was then after all the appeals there still probably won't have been a crime committed.

It is rather curious that you are the one denying that Gizmodo committed any crimes. I take it that you haven't been following this case or read the affidavit. If you read the affidavit, the police detail which crimes that there are investigating. Such detail is required for search warrants:

• 496(a) Receiving Stolen Property
  "Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year."
• 499c(B)(3) Trade Secret Violations
  "Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret."
• 594(b)(1) Damage to property
  "If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or if the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment."

There is no question that Gizmodo knew that the seller wasn't the owner. At that point, it become receiving stolen property. Upon contacting Apple they delayed returning the phone until they got public acknowledgment. Gizmodo can claim that they were trying to return the phone but their actions are leading many to conclude that they tried to use the phone for other purposes rather than merely returning it. Such purposes are illegal.

From federal and state laws, disclosing trade secrets is illegal. In this case, if Gizmodo's only intent was to return the phone, they were already in contact with Apple. They didn't need to dismantle the phone. They also didn't need to post pictures of the dismantling revealing trade secrets.

During the dismantle, it appears that Gizmodo broke parts. That's damage to property. This is no different than if your neighbor "borrows" your vehicle without telling you and dings the bumper. Under the law, your neighbor is liable for damages. Your neighbor cannot use the defense that he returned the car so he's not liable for anything.

And fyi shield laws protect the journalist. Come on you would clearly be seen as yanking the child's chain.

From wikipedia: "A 'shield law' is legislation designed to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process."

Shield laws protect journalists from disclosing sources. Shield laws do not protect journalists from all crimes. If that were the case, then any journalist could commit any crime and hide behind shield laws. For example, a TV news reporter reported on the ease of buying illegal drugs in a public school by filming a drug sale with a drug dealer whose identity was hidden. Shield laws may protect the reporter from having to disclose the identity of the dealer. If the drugs were bought by an anonymous third party, shield laws may protect the identity of

You can't deny the issues by denying the issues. No crime was committed, before or after the phone was returned. When a jury says one was then after all the appeals there still probably won't have been a crime committed.

It is rather curious that you are the one denying that Gizmodo committed any crimes. I take it that you haven't been following this case or read the affidavit. If you read the affidavit, the police detail which crimes that there are investigating. Such detail is required for search warrants:

• 496(a) Receiving Stolen Property
  "Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year."
• 499c(B)(3) Trade Secret Violations
  "Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret."
• 594(b)(1) Damage to property
  "If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or if the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment."

There is no question that Gizmodo knew that the seller wasn't the owner. At that point, it become receiving stolen property. Upon contacting Apple they delayed returning the phone until they got public acknowledgment. Gizmodo can claim that they were trying to return the phone but their actions are leading many to conclude that they tried to use the phone for other purposes rather than merely returning it. Such purposes are illegal.

From federal and state laws, disclosing trade secrets is illegal. In this case, if Gizmodo's only intent was to return the phone, they were already in contact with Apple. They didn't need to dismantle the phone. They also didn't need to post pictures of the dismantling revealing trade secrets.

During the dismantle, it appears that Gizmodo broke parts. That's damage to property. This is no different than if your neighbor "borrows" your vehicle without telling you and dings the bumper. Under the law, your neighbor is liable for damages. Your neighbor cannot use the defense that he returned the car so he's not liable for anything.

And fyi shield laws protect the journalist. Come on you would clearly be seen as yanking the child's chain.

From wikipedia: "A 'shield law' is legislation designed to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process."

Shield laws protect journalists from disclosing sources. Shield laws do not protect journalists from all crimes. If that were the case, then any journalist could commit any crime and hide behind shield laws. For example, a TV news reporter reported on the ease of buying illegal drugs in a public school by filming a drug sale with a drug dealer whose identity was hidden. Shield laws may protect the reporter from having to disclose the identity of the dealer. If the drugs were bought by an anonymous third party, shield laws may protect the identity of

You can't deny the issues by denying the issues. No crime was committed, before or after the phone was returned. When a jury says one was then after all the appeals there still probably won't have been a crime committed.

It is rather curious that you are the one denying that Gizmodo committed any crimes. I take it that you haven't been following this case or read the affidavit. If you read the affidavit, the police detail which crimes that there are investigating. Such detail is required for search warrants:

• 496(a) Receiving Stolen Property
  "Every person who buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, or who conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained, shall be punished by imprisonment in a state prison, or in a county jail for not more than one year."
• 499c(B)(3) Trade Secret Violations
  "Having unlawfully obtained access to the article, without authority makes or causes to be made a copy of any article representing a trade secret."
• 594(b)(1) Damage to property
  "If the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is four hundred dollars ($400) or more, vandalism is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison or in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or if the amount of defacement, damage, or destruction is ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or more, by a fine of not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment."

There is no question that Gizmodo knew that the seller wasn't the owner. At that point, it become receiving stolen property. Upon contacting Apple they delayed returning the phone until they got public acknowledgment. Gizmodo can claim that they were trying to return the phone but their actions are leading many to conclude that they tried to use the phone for other purposes rather than merely returning it. Such purposes are illegal.

From federal and state laws, disclosing trade secrets is illegal. In this case, if Gizmodo's only intent was to return the phone, they were already in contact with Apple. They didn't need to dismantle the phone. They also didn't need to post pictures of the dismantling revealing trade secrets.

During the dismantle, it appears that Gizmodo broke parts. That's damage to property. This is no different than if your neighbor "borrows" your vehicle without telling you and dings the bumper. Under the law, your neighbor is liable for damages. Your neighbor cannot use the defense that he returned the car so he's not liable for anything.

And fyi shield laws protect the journalist. Come on you would clearly be seen as yanking the child's chain.

From wikipedia: "A 'shield law' is legislation designed to provide a news reporter with the right to refuse to testify as to information and/or sources of information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination process."

Shield laws protect journalists from disclosing sources. Shield laws do not protect journalists from all crimes. If that were the case, then any journalist could commit any crime and hide behind shield laws. For example, a TV news reporter reported on the ease of buying illegal drugs in a public school by filming a drug sale with a drug dealer whose identity was hidden. Shield laws may protect the reporter from having to disclose the identity of the dealer. If the drugs were bought by an anonymous third party, shield laws may protect the identity of

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
...
(a) "Obstruct" includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command.

This is incredibly draconian and equates wounding a cop with (say) getting out of your car in a traffic stop. You also need to memorize large swaths of Michigan law (at the least, including lawful searches and questioning) to know what a lawful command is (since cops can and will issue illegal instructions, obeying which will be substantially to your detriment). It's basically a felony to look crosswise at a cop in Michigan, and all they need is the cop's word. Compare New York's law:

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a public servant from performing an official function, by means of intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county, city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration. Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

It's a misdemeanor, and you have to use physical violence, threats, a dangerous animal, or an independently unlawful act. This has seriously dampened my ardor for experiencing Michigan tourism. You can't drag me back to Mackinac Island!

In Ohio, looking crosswise at a cop is a misdemeanor.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.

Shit, it looks like if you want to live on Lake Erie, New York is a veritable land of liberty. Who knew? Maybe you should move to Ontario (apparently they call it something else; I couldn't find the statute).

I felt like looking up one more state. In Massachusetts it looks like you can obstruct and lie to your heart's content (as long as you don't create a substantial risk of bodily injury) but it is illegal to belong to the Communist party (obviously a wildly unconstitutional statute). It looks like adultery will still net you three years as well...that's what you get for living in one of the thirteen colonies. Abortion will get you seven years (twenty-five if she dies). Have they read these laws lat

New York Penal Law Section 240.50
Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

New York Penal Law Section 240.55
Falsely reporting an incident in the second degree.

New York Penal Law Section 240.60
Falsely reporting an incident in the first degree.

To summarize those:

The 3rd degree involves false reports of “crime, catastrophe or emergency under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result”.

The 2nd degree involves “fire, explosion, or the release of a hazardous substance under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result”.

The 1st degree is invoked for the 2nd degree false report if the person has previously been convicted of the same thing (for repeat offenders), or cases where the 3rd or 2nd degree false report resulted in serious physical injury or death to someone (e.g. to an emergency worker responding to the call).

New York Penal Law Section 240.50
Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

New York Penal Law Section 240.55
Falsely reporting an incident in the second degree.

New York Penal Law Section 240.60
Falsely reporting an incident in the first degree.

To summarize those:

The 3rd degree involves false reports of “crime, catastrophe or emergency under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result”.

The 2nd degree involves “fire, explosion, or the release of a hazardous substance under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result”.

The 1st degree is invoked for the 2nd degree false report if the person has previously been convicted of the same thing (for repeat offenders), or cases where the 3rd or 2nd degree false report resulted in serious physical injury or death to someone (e.g. to an emergency worker responding to the call).

New York Penal Law Section 240.50
Falsely reporting an incident in the third degree.

New York Penal Law Section 240.55
Falsely reporting an incident in the second degree.

New York Penal Law Section 240.60
Falsely reporting an incident in the first degree.

To summarize those:

The 3rd degree involves false reports of “crime, catastrophe or emergency under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result”.

The 2nd degree involves “fire, explosion, or the release of a hazardous substance under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result”.

The 1st degree is invoked for the 2nd degree false report if the person has previously been convicted of the same thing (for repeat offenders), or cases where the 3rd or 2nd degree false report resulted in serious physical injury or death to someone (e.g. to an emergency worker responding to the call).

A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident in the third degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, he: 1. Initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged occurrence or impending occurrence of a crime, catastrophe or emergency under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience will result

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0240.50_240.50.html

If you read TFA, you might note that the it was actually a different guy, not arrested by the police, who sliced the ball. And whether all of the people (security researchers) involved were assholes or not, that doesn't change the law, and the requirement for the police to follow it.

I think that the video demonstrates that the cop may have very well believed that his request was legal, but I hardly think refusing to comply with his actually illegal request means that the subject was to blame in any way. They were quite civil until he refused to produce ID. Then the cop escalates first, bolstered by his ignorant beliefs about his authority.

The case alluded to in the article is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, in which the supreme court ruled that Nevada's stop and identify law, which requires only that someone suspected of a crime give his or her name, was constitutional. It was 7-2, with Stevens and Breyer dissenting. In that case, there was a Nevada law explicitly allowing a request for identification (and requiring a response), a situation which does not obtain in Washington.

Let us consider another example. At first glance, New York's law on this seems particularly heinous, allowing that an officer "may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his conduct." It doesn't actually say whether the subject is required to respond, however. In fact, New York's law merely limits the scope of questioning to which an officer may subject a suspect before arrest. If other probable cause to arrest is not found, refusal to answer those questions is not grounds.

So, in New York and most states, you really can refuse to answer police questions. That doesn't make you a "douchebag." On the contrary, because Rachner had been following his state court decisions, he was able to upgrade himself from "drunken nerfball golfer" to "American Hero."

I made a point to mention PC games because most emulated ROMs are not cleared for Internet distribution. So I'll pretend you said "Midway Arcade Treasures and Namco Museum" instead, in which case I sort of agree.

I get when people say that we should get illegal copies of games because we should help the developer or because it's leading to more DRM, but objecting to downloading MAME roms? Really?

You know, "the law" isn't a very good moral compass, unless you find it immoral to play card games on a Sunday, in Alabama.

CA law incorporates the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in California Civil Code sections 3426.1 et seq., the text of which you can find here..

BTW, this was referenced in the attorney's notice, which was linked to the story.

If anyone's interested, here's the text of the law she's charged under:

...

(c) The owner or lessee of a facility where a motion picture is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of that owner or lessee, or the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited or his or her agent or employee, who alerts law enforcement authorities of an alleged violation of this Section is not liable in any civil action arising out of measures taken by that owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee in the course of subsequently detaining a person that the owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee, in good faith believed to have violated this Section while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement authorities, unless the plaintiff in such an action shows by clear and convincing evidence that such measures were manifestly unreasonable or the period of detention was unreasonably long.

Not only does the law appear applicable to this case, but the theater management is immune from any resulting civil action. That's a really bad law.

I read section (c) as protecting, from civil suit, that particular employee who called the cops. I did not read that as protecting the owner of the cinema, who has instructed the employees to take those measures.

I am not a lawyer, and not a US citizen... I'm English, and in English law we have a thing known as "vicarious liability" which, unless I'm mistaken (and I may well be) means that an employee following a company policy is not held personally liable for the errors in that policy.
Rather, the law would hold responsible the employer who requires the employee to enforce unreasonable policies including, but not limited to, calling the cops if anybody sings "Happy Birthday" or so much as takes a photograph which may include a small portion of a copyrighted work.

K.

If anyone's interested, here's the text of the law she's charged under:

Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

(a) Any person, where a motion picture is being exhibited, who knowingly operates an audiovisual recording function of a device without the consent of the owner or lessee of that exhibition facility and of the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited is guilty of criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility.

(b) Sentence. Criminal use of a motion picture exhibition facility is a Class 4 felony.

(c) The owner or lessee of a facility where a motion picture is being exhibited, the authorized agent or employee of that owner or lessee, or the licensor of the motion picture being exhibited or his or her agent or employee, who alerts law enforcement authorities of an alleged violation of this Section is not liable in any civil action arising out of measures taken by that owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee in the course of subsequently detaining a person that the owner, lessee, licensor, agent, or employee, in good faith believed to have violated this Section while awaiting the arrival of law enforcement authorities, unless the plaintiff in such an action shows by clear and convincing evidence that such measures were manifestly unreasonable or the period of detention was unreasonably long.

(d) This Section does not prevent any lawfully authorized investigative, law enforcement, protective, or intelligence gathering employee or agent of the State or federal government from operating any audiovisual recording device in any facility where a motion picture is being exhibited as part of lawfully authorized investigative, protective, law enforcement, or intelligence gathering activities.

(e) This Section does not apply to a person who operates an audiovisual recording function of a device in a retail establishment solely to demonstrate the use of that device for sales and display purposes.

(f) Nothing in this Section prevents the prosecution for conduct that constitutes a violation of this Section under any other provision of law providing for a greater penalty.

(g) In this Section, "audiovisual recording function" means the capability of a device to record or transmit a motion picture or any part of a motion picture by means of any technology now known or later developed and "facility" does not include a personal residence.

Not only does the law appear applicable to this case, but the theater management is immune from any resulting civil action. That's a really bad law.

Your point would make sense if it were at all true that the common description of the law had any legal weight outside of the actual text of the law and the applicable case law. That you can call something the "Was Being Bad" law doesn't mean that's what legal standard is applied by judge or jury. Presumably this description is applicable in New York:

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/penal/PEN0195.05_195.05.html

A reasonable person may disagree with the law or it's exact wording (we are "free" to do so), but don't imply that the title of the law somehow proves a vague catch-all conspiracy.

Neither crime requires "profit". The crimes entail forcing an outside party to take an action. There is no requirements on what those actions are in most Common Law jurisdictions other than that the victim has been coerced into them.

Here is an example of such a case within the US armed forces:

http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/digest/IIIA55.htm

A English example would be Jean Violette's extortion conviction. In this case the victim was using the Hell's Angles name. Mr. Violette wanted him to stop using the name. You can read a bit more about this case below (or do web search):

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Crown+seeks+year+prison+sentence+Hells+Angel+convicted+extortion+weapons+offences/2188869/story.html

For the US Government (Fed.) you can find the actual statue under 18 USC Chapter 41:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/41

The meat of the issue is in the passage, "...demands or receives any money or other valuable thing..." "Other valuable thing(s)" has been interpreted multiple times to include non-monetary services. For example, a politician can be blackmailed or extorted to vote a certain way. An attorney can be coerced into not prosecuting a case with due diligence (look into the history of the Mob for many such examples).

Here would be I belive the relevent law in Texas:

http://law.onecle.com/texas/government/432.162.00.html
 
 

432.162. EXTORTION. A person subject to this chapter
who communicates threats to another person with the intent to
obtain anything of value or any acquittance, advantage, or immunity
is guilty of extortion and shall be punished as a court-martial
directs.

Acts 1987, 70th Leg., ch. 147, 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1987.

Did you really expect to "circumvent" the locks that cable companies put in place and nothing was going to happen?

Did you expect your cable TV and Internet service to be free before the DMCA?

  165.15 Theft of services.
A person is guilty of theft of services when:

  4. With intent to avoid payment by himself or another person of the lawful charge for any telecommunications service, including, without
    limitation, cable television service, ...., telegraph or telephone service which is provided for a charge or compensation, he obtains or attempts to obtain such service for himself or another person or avoids or attempts to avoid payment therefor by himself or another person by means of (a) tampering or making connection with the equipment of the supplier, whether by mechanical, electrical, acoustical or other means, or (b) offering for sale or otherwise making available, to anyone other than the provider of a telecommunications service for such service provider's own use in the provision of its service, any telecommunications decoder or descrambler, a principal function of which defeats a mechanism of electronic signal encryption, jamming or individually addressed switching imposed by the provider of any such telecommunications service to restrict the delivery
    of such service,----

New York Penal Law Section 165.15 - Theft Of Services.

Last revised July 30, 2006.

Selling descramblers will take you into Class E felony territory. Three or four years hard time.

Theft of Services in New York state has a much broader reach than I can suggest here.

As for coasting to a stop at a red light, that's not "hypermiling," it's just common sense. I can't count the number of times I've had to stop because somebody gunned past me on the way to a red light, only to have to stop, when we both could have coasted through had he just had an iota of patience. So wasteful!

As for coasting to a stop at a red light, that's not "hypermiling," it's just common sense. I can't count the number of times I've had to stop because somebody gunned past me on the way to a red light, only to have to stop, when we both could have coasted through had he just had an iota of patience. So wasteful!

I don't think that the OP's definition of "hypermiling" was referring to coasting on approach to red lights. I think he's referring to people that are ridiculously slow at reaching the speed limit after the light turns green. Their delay slows down everyone behind them and the poor sap at the end of the line gets stuck at the same light when normally he could have made it through. Say you are going through 10 lights. If you stop at the 1st light, then take longer to get up to speed, you may also get stopped at the 4th light instead of the 5th. This has a cascading effect backward as everyone behind you has advanced one less light than they could have (not exactly accurate, but you get my point). Now you're stopping at every 4 lights, instead of every 5, and the amount of cars that can pass through this section of road during this time is decreased, which means there are more people stuck at the beginning of the stretch. Add to this the time wasted coming to a stop and then accelerating because you have no room to coast. While sitting at a restaurant I once saw one person sit through an entire cycle while figuring out which way to turn. It backed up the traffic behind them and because there was always a line of stopped cars at the light, it took 30 minutes for the intersection to truly clear from that direction. It was quite an interesting observation.

rubberneckers, even when someone is just changing a tire or getting a ticket

Slowing down is not rubbernecking when somebody is getting a ticket. In Texas, you're required by law to either move over one lane or drop to 20 mph below the posted speed limit when passing an emergency vehicle with lights on.

True, but in Atlanta we have Interstates and roads that are 4 or 5 lines wide each direction, and EVERY lane decides they need to inspect the scene at 30 mph in a 65 mph zone. Someone needs to post a video on youtube of what it looks like to see someone get a ticket, cause I swear some people act like they've never seen such a thing in their life and this is their only chance.
Whoever posted above about the protected lanes and people not following the "Keep Moving" signs, I'm right there with ya dude. A lot of these things are probably supposed to be learned to get a license, but there are some that are "unwritten" which you learn as you go. Most people probably have knowledge of the rules of the road, fewer people apply them with common sense.

lights are timed for the speed limit

Where do you live that the lights are timed for the speed limit? Around the Houston area they certainly aren't. Your probability for catching a green wave does not increase with proximity to the speed limit. Hell, in some neighborhoods all the lights have car sensors rather than timers.

As for coasting to a stop at a red light, that's not "hypermiling," it's just common sense. I can't count the number of times I've had to stop because somebody gunned past me on the way to a red light, only to have to stop, when we both could have coasted through had he just had an iota of patience. So wasteful!

people have largely stopped honking, so they'll just sit behind such an oblivious person and just wait

Man I want to live where you do. Around here, if you aren't immediately moving you get honked at. The great irony there is that if you don't wait at least half a second before hitting the gas, you're likely to get hit by a red-light-runner.

rubberneckers, even when someone is just changing a tire or getting a ticket

Slowing down is not rubbernecking when somebody is getting a ticket. In Texas, you're required by law to either move over one lane or drop to 20 mph below the posted speed limit when passing an emergency vehicle with lights on.

so many people seem unwilling to even get up to the speed limit, let alone exceed it by a few miles per hour, as if you're going to get a ticket for 48 in a 45

People don't go over the speed limit, because it's the law (in most states, though some have a reasonable speed clause). If you don't like it, petition your local transportation department to change it. Don't ride their ass, honk your horn, and/or flip them off. Not saying you do, but several want-to-go-fast-because-I-can drivers certainly do. I used to be one of them when I was a whippersnapper. And there are certainly locales where the local police force will give you a ticket for going even one mph over the posted limit, even when you're in the process of decelerating from one speed zone to another.

As for people who stop on acceleration lanes, I'm right with you. It's terribly common in San Antonio. I'm surprised it doesn't cause more accidents than it does. It's second on my list of pet peeves only to those who don't yield to those on an exit ramp.

In an older copy of the Texas driver handbook, you used to have to come to a complete stop at a red with green arrow. In some states it may still be that way, I don't know. Additionally, if you're turning, it's always advisable to slow down enough so that you can stop if there are pedestrians present.

You've really never heard of strict liability in relation to the underage consumption of alcohol? Have you heard of google?
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22strict+liability%22+sale+alcohol

Here's one example, from California, in the first page of Google hits:
        http://law.onecle.com/california/business/25658.html
Which was enacted in 1998 and upheld in court by 2002.

And that's far from the only example. Many jurisdictions have even enacted strict liability laws against private-residence underage consumption -- where simply "failing to prevent" underage consumption is a crime, even if you didn't provide the alcohol, or did not have reason to believe that it would be consumed by underage individuals.

Knowingly and without permission
provides or assists in providing
a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network
in violation of this section.

The section lists the rules, but he has to knowingly provide access, In other words, he has to do it intentionally.

More importantly, the rules are No Hacking data, phreaking, DOS, release virus, general black hattery... Or providing the tools to do it. No one would say a modem is a hacking tool would they? More so than a gigabit network?

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/502.html

The FCC can make law within the bounds of its enabling act. Rulemaking and orders have the force of law. The FCC can't pass a rule that forces ignorant people to actually learn about the law before they speak, but they can create an order to punish Comcast, and they can make rules regarding network neutrality. You can go read the enabling act at: http://law.onecle.com/uscode/47/151.html

If it is arrogant to point out how wrong you are, then anyone with any education must seem arrogant to you. I guess that's the "liberal elite" hate we see from Republicans. Your statements are just as annoying as someone who comes to Slashdot apparently not knowing shit about computers, but still wants to talk like they do. Do yourself a favor and stop seeing knowledge as arrogance. It's not my job to coddle your ignorance.

And in regards to whether the "real legislature does not believe that network neutrality is existing law", there again you are clueless. Go read up on Antitrust law (tying), or the policy statement in section 230 of the CDA. Congress has been quite clear, throughout its history, that preserving competition is more important than preserving competitors, and that the Internet in particular deserves preservation as a free market.

Actually, it is that simple. Or at least more simple then your making it out to be. In the context I put it in, it was to exclude the use of the term not attempt to apply it. But...

There doesn't need to be a definition of enemy, the president declares who our enemies are with the exception of congress declaring war on some country/organization. It could be argued that congress has to consent to the president's declarations do to the fact that congress consents to the treaties and all but that is trivial. Of course the president can't declare some organization inside the US as an enemy because he has the powers concerning foreign relations. The only way that can happen is if they levy war against the United States. This is a pretty simple yet thorough depiction.

Second, you need one for "aid and comfort".

Would you agree that Osama bin Laden is an "enemy of the United States" ? If he is ever captured, are jailworkers that give him stuff like food, water and blankets guilty of "treason" ? They obviously -are- giving him aid and comfort....

if the enemy is serving punishment then it would be no different then a prisoner and so on. It would be absurd to consider someone instituting a punishment or even legal detainment as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. In fact, I believe that the "aid and comfort" pertains only to acts against the United States. It doesn't mean giving shelter or medical support. It has to be something constructive within the acts levied against the US itself. Here are a few notes on cases surrounding the issue. A good example of this might be the situation with Benedict Arnold where he gave British troop copies of maneuvering orders and strategic military objectives and plans. Those aided in the British troops attack on American forces but no Aid and comfort charges were ever levied against "loyalists" who simply fed or housed enemy troops.

The US decided a long time ago that the protection of its borders outweighed the protections of the constitution. See this for a nice summary:

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-04/18-border-searches.html

When customs searches your bags for contraband, it is basically the same as when they search your laptop. The problem is that we tend to store much more personal, professional, or confidential information on our computers than we would ever carry around in our luggage (mostly because you know ahead of time someone will see it). I mean when was the last time you took your vibrator with you to a foreign country? It seems so much more invasive simply because of the context. Now, unless you are demanding an end to all searches at the border (which will never happen for obvious reasons) I suggest you move on to how to get around it.

As far as solutions go, I like the idea of dual booting if its your only option, but I have 3 laptops. I can always take one with nothing on it for use on the trip and check my flashdrive with the luggage. Once they start demanding the contents of the flashdrives, it will have to be remote access only.

Good luck :)

Clause 5. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. ...
This prohibition applies only to the imposition of duties on goods by reason of exportation. The word âoeexportâ signifies goods exported to a foreign country, not to an unincorporated territory of the United States. A general tax laid on all property alike, including that intended for export, is not within the prohibition, if it is not levied on goods in course of exportation nor because of their intended exportation.

With the grant of absolute power over foreign commerce given to the federal government, the states whose economies relied chiefly on exports realized that any tax laid by the new central government upon a single item of export would apply very unevenly amongst all the states and favor states which did not export that good.

noticed this from your link: ...the mere concept in the state of California is a violation of state civil code.

this (very short and simple) bit seems to be what applies:

http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/1954.html


(a) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit only in the following cases:

(1) In case of emergency.

(2) To make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, mortgagees, tenants, workers, or contractors or to make an inspection pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 1950.5.

(3) When the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises.

(4) Pursuant to court order.

(b) Except in cases of emergency or when the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the premises, entry may not be made during other than normal business hours unless the tenant consents to an entry during other than normal business hours at the time of entry.

(c) The landlord may not abuse the right of access or use it to harass the tenant.

(d) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (e), or as provided in paragraph (2) or (3), the landlord shall give the tenant reasonable notice in writing of his or her intent to enter and enter only during normal business hours. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. The notice may be personally delivered to the tenant, left with someone of a suitable age and discretion at the premises, or, left on, near, or under the usual entry door of the premises in a manner in which a reasonable person would discover the notice. Twenty-four hours shall be presumed to be reasonable notice in absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice may be mailed to the tenant. Mailing of the notice at least six days prior to an intended entry is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

(2) If the purpose of the entry is to exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual purchasers, the notice may be given orally, in person or by telephone, if the landlord or his or her agent has notified the tenant in writing within 120 days of the oral notice that the property is for sale and that the landlord or agent may contact the tenant orally for the purpose described above. Twenty-four hours is presumed reasonable notice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The notice shall include the date, approximate time, and purpose of the entry. At the time of entry, the landlord or agent shall leave written evidence of the entry inside the unit.

(3) The tenant and the landlord may agree orally to an entry to make agreed repairs or supply agreed services. The agreement shall include the date and approximate time of the entry, which shall be within one week of the agreement. In this case, the landlord is not required to provide the tenant a written notice.

(e) No notice of entry is required under this section:

(1) To respond to an emergency.

(2) If the tenant is present and consents to the entry at the time of entry.

(3) After the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the unit.


that wasn't a lot - even for a layman like my self to read. I have no legal background (I'm a software guy) but it seems to me that unless there's something urgent (like a broken pipe or something of that magnitude) they do NOT have the right to tell you that they are 'inspecting' your place. the public areas, yeah, I think they can inspect the hell out of the walkways and elevators and washer/dryer rooms (oh, PLEASE inspect them. we've been asking you to for years!). but I draw the line when it comes to my own space. my apartment, even though its rented, is STILL mine to use and live in and there's this phrase called quiet enjoyment that is fancy lawyer talk for your right to live in your place and not be hassled for some bullshit phishing expedition.

Chains are illegal in Chicago as well.

Sorry, but an individual doing this would NOT be subject to anti-stalking laws. IANAL, but as far as I can tell, most anti-stalking laws are very specific in their scope to only take effect if the stalking is malicious in intent and put's a person in fear for their safety.

California was the first state to enact anti-staliking laws. Take a look at what it says:
"Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety". I've added emphasis for clarity.

I never said that I think this behaviour fine as long as it's a corporation. I say it's fine for anyone to track my shopping behaviour and come up with a profile of me based upon it. And event to sell this information to whomever is willing to pay, without my consent.

These are acts that I am performing in public. I do not, and should not have any reasonable expectation of privacy when doing them.

I'm not sure what that means.

A poster on InvestorVillage.com (atul66) makes a good point:

The BK filing alerts us to the existence of another entity, "SCO Operations, Inc.", a legally distinct subsidiary of the SCO Group proper. If I'm reading the creditor list properly, SCO Operations is one of SCO Group's creditors, so they basically owe money to themselves, at least on paper. I'm no corporate law guru, but this smells bad. Mysterious shell companies, money and possibly assets flowing around. Piecing together what's been going on under the hood could get really... interesting.

As PJ noted over on GL, S2/Anderer contracted with SCO Operations, not SCO Group, way back when. Here's their contract: http://contracts.onecle.com/sco/s2.svc.2003.07.01.shtml

You sir, are an idiot. Pointing a laser at someones eye is a crime.

http://janus.state.me.us/LEGIS/STATUTES/17-A/title 17-Asec1002-A.html
http://law.onecle.com/illinois/720ilcs5/2-10.2.htm l

Pointing it at an aircraft is a bigger crime:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/laser/usbanach1 0405cmp.html

Thus, pointing it at a satalite is an attack.

Other than confirming the time line, what's your point? Apple launched developer-only releases of Rhapsody in 1996, making it clear that the release was about to happen.

So?

Blizzard wasn't banning people from the game because they were gay. So that law has nothing to do with this.

I do not think that you are correct. Consider the code:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Whether or not the service is provided or not is not the issue -- I think that you are making an incorrect assumption here. It is whether or not "full and equal" service is provided.

It's hardly a far stretch to consider that banning a guild that states that it is LGBT-friendly is not exactly providing "full and equal" service.

On the other hand, transsexuals specifically are *not* covered by this. A straight transsexual *can*, as my understanding goes, be discriminated against.

Sample IP Contract
Large List of IP Contracts Between Companies
Another sample IP contract

How about 70,000 Electornic Arts Shares ?

I'm with the cynics regarding the value of this memo.

In the meantime, take a look at the kinds of contracts that the upper echelons at Electronic Arts enjoy - including $4 million forgiveable loans, and bonuses to compensate spouses that have to relocate and change jobs. It doesn't look like they are being asked to work extra for nothing, does it?

I'm with the cynics regarding the value of this memo.

In the meantime, take a look at the kinds of contracts that the upper echelons at Electronic Arts enjoy - including $4 million forgiveable loans, and bonuses to compensate spouses that have to relocate and change jobs. It doesn't look like they are being asked to work extra for nothing, does it?

...indemnify the Indemnified Party against any liability incurred in any proceeding to which the Indemnified Party is made a party because he or she is or was a director or officer of the Company or is or was serving at the request of the Company as a director.

For once, this really is "real news". It removes the case from "David protecting his precious IP from Goliath" to MS trying, in their normal trustworthy way, to subvert Linux.

SCO has confirmed the memo is for real. If you look at the contract between S2 and SCO you can see that S2 was hired to:

advise SCO as to any potential financings, either debt or equity, and assist SCO in arranging a customary revolving credit agreement or other financing in connection with any Transaction;

And that is just a small part of the contract which is very wide ranging.

To suggest that this guy didn't know what was going on with the financing deals is just ludicrous...Give me a break.

So, this is important, it confirms what people suspected and frankly, it changes the entire nature of the case and SCOs accusations.