Slashdot Mirror

The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/

No it's not. Almost every major retailer insists on the lowest price. Walmart does, Amazon does.

The DoJ's case alleges that the agency pricing model had a clause where the publisher wouldn't sell their books in other stores for less than they were charging in the iBookstore. If true, this is Collusion, and falls under anti-trust laws. http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/collusion/

Sure, I can give you a link or two. Far from me to discourage a healthy dose of skepticism :p

http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/

"When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter."

So, yes, if you just decided to just give this year's profits to charity and it's not obvious what that does for your investors, you might just get sued.

Also, for an actual law, you can check out stuff like Fiduciary Obligations Act

Note that as per section 1, ""Fiduciary" includes a trustee under any trust, expressed, implied, resulting or constructive executor, administrator, guardian, conservator, curator, receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, assignee for the benefit of creditors, partner, agent, officer of a corporation, public or private, public officer, or any other person acting in a fiduciary capacity for any person, trust or estate." My emphasis.

So, yeah, if you thought being a CEO meant free hand to do whatever you wish with other people's money, think again.

That said, note that there is leeway in exactly what is the best for the principal, i.e., best for the person whose money you're entrusted with. Nobody is forbidding you, for example, from whitewashing the company image with ads, PR or, yes, by playing the charity card, if you can make a case that you expected more profits as a result of it. There's a lot of 'oh, we care so much' act that basically is ok if you can make a case that a corporate asshole image would hurt your clients' interests more.

That said, also note that most of the big charity is actually private. A guy like Bill Gates is perfectly within his rights to spend his own money however he sees fit. Basically if you decide to just give 20 million of the company's money to charity, you might get sued, but if you can pull a 20 million salary as a CEO (and God knows some people got paid even more even to drive a company into the ground) and then give that money to charity, well, nobody can tell you what to do with your own money.

Also note that the rules are a bit different from non-profit organizations. Those are by definition not supposed to make a profit for anyone. So if an organization is registered as a charity, well, it's safe to say it won't be sued for actually spending its money on charity.

Burglary requires the building to be a dwelling-house, i.e. and habitation. People need to live there.

That's the old common law definition, but it depends on the state.

from: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/burglary-definition.html :
Burglary is typically defined as the unlawful entry into almost any structure (not just a home or business) with the intent to commit any crime inside (not just theft/larceny). No physical breaking and entering is required; the offender...

In New York, for example, it's first or second degree burglary if the building entered is a dwelling, third-degree burglary if it's not. http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/burglary/

You should probably read the legal definitions, because 1898 isn't a magic cutoff and you're confusing the terms firearm, antique firearm, gun, and weapon.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/antique-firearm/
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/collectors.html

He is a gun owner, whether that gun qualifies as an antique firearm is a different question. They may also count as unserviceable. You would also need to consider the laws of his specific state as the references above are federal and ATF.

Don't enrage your boss, by making excuses, by essentially lying to his face and assuming he is stupid enough to believe your drivel.

In this case there was only one (1) email from Mauro to Rafael. Linus jumped into this thread all by himself. Mauro tried to defend his patch, and he was technically wrong because the patch had unwanted side effects. But you don't publicly call a person an idiot for a single technical error. If I were Mauro's manager, at very least I would have asked him, in private, "Why did you think this is a good patch? Did you have your reasons? Let's talk about them. Or maybe you were tired, or sick? Things happen, I know that. Let's discuss what went wrong."

I'll bet Linus was more pissed off at having his intelligence insulted with this lame excuse

It is both, actually. Linus's email attacks both the technical solution and the Mauro's reaction.

But if I were to start throwing chairs whenever my intelligence is insulted by something I read on the Internet, I'd run out of chairs pretty soon.

If he humbled himself to every fool, and every fool's excuses Linux code would be crap.

Does the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick" ring any bell? Aside from the political connotations, it points out that your influence is not determined by how much red in the face you can become. Your influence is determined by how much power you wield. Linus has the power; he had no reason, or even right, to publicly scream profanities at a coder who had a single case of poor judgement. Nobody has a right to verbally assault another person; it's an abuse:

Verbal abuse is the use of words to cause harm to the person being spoken to. It is difficult to define and may take many forms. Similarly, the harm caused is often difficult to measure. The most commonly understood form is name-calling. Verbal abuse may consist of shouting, insulting, intimidating, threatening, shaming, demeaning, or derogatory language, among other forms of communication.

Perpetrators of verbal abuse often misuse their authority and prey on those in a subordinate position. Victims of verbal abuse are often told they are to blame for the abuser's behavior and reluctant to take action to end the abuse. Verbal abuse may lead to stress, depression, physical ailments, and other damage.

There is also the legal aspect of workplace harassment. It may be a crime in California.

I suspect his point was that if your logic held

Its not my logic dude, it's the Law.

there wouldn't be many extradition treaties as they'd be pretty one sided if they relied upon a system of law not present in the vast majority of bound parties. So there has to be more to it than you suggest.

Now that is a failure of logic! The mere fact that the dual criminality (AKA 'double criminality) principle exists in common law countries, does not imply that the same principle is absent in other legal systems. You cannot infer one-sidedness. Even if you could, that would not allow you to deduce that there " has to be more." The US, in particular, is famous for engaging in one sided dealings with other countries. Eg. Try getting a defamation judgment from another (even CL) country enforced in the US.

The point is that the US in, in my judgement (bearing in mind that I'm an Australian lawyer, not a US one), unlikely in the extreme to extradite one of its citizens, not charged with a crime recognised under US law.

I suspect his point was that if your logic held

Its not my logic dude, it's the Law.

there wouldn't be many extradition treaties as they'd be pretty one sided if they relied upon a system of law not present in the vast majority of bound parties. So there has to be more to it than you suggest.

Now that is a failure of logic! The mere fact that the dual criminality (AKA 'double criminality) principle exists in common law countries, does not imply that the same principle is absent in other legal systems. You cannot infer one-sidedness. Even if you could, that would not allow you to deduce that there " has to be more." The US, in particular, is famous for engaging in one sided dealings with other countries. Eg. Try getting a defamation judgment from another (even CL) country enforced in the US.

The point is that the US in, in my judgement (bearing in mind that I'm an Australian lawyer, not a US one), unlikely in the extreme to extradite one of its citizens, not charged with a crime recognised under US law.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/

The term everyone is looking for is Criminal Solicitation:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-solicitation/

I am not saying that posting this link was Criminal Solicitation, but I am sure some lawyer could argue it was.

Which makes me wonder why they don't charge all those people who encourage suicide. Suicide is illegal in most states isn't it? So if someone posts "Go ahead bump yourself off", then I think someone could successfully argue that they encouraged an illegal act.

In this case the analogy I would use is that he stood in the middle of a riot and handed out maps to hardware stores with crowbars.

Espionage: from L legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

Espionage, commonly known as spying, is the practice of secretly gathering information about a foreign government or a competing industry, with the purpose of placing one's own government or corporation at some strategic or financial advantage.

From uslegal.com:

Espionage is the crime of spying on the federal government and/or transferring state secrets on behalf of a foreign country.

From the Fourth Geneva Convention:

A person can only be considered a spy when, acting clandestinely or on false pretences, he obtains or endeavours to obtain information in the zone of operations of a belligerent with the intention of communicating it to the hostile party.
Thus, soldiers not wearing a disguise who have penetrated into the zone of operations of the hostile army, for the purpose of obtaining information, are not considered spies. Similarly, the following are not considered spies: soldiers and civilians carrying out their mission openly, entrusted with the delivery of despatches intended either for their own army or for the enemy's army..."

Would you like to share some "internationally recognized" definition of espionage by which you might conceivably make a case against Assange?

*shrug*
(a) A person commits theft of services if

the person obtains services, known by that person to be available only for compensation, by deception, force, threat, or other means to avoid payment for the services;
        having control over the disposition of services of others to which the person is not entitled, the person knowingly diverts those services to the person's own benefit or to the benefit of another not entitled to them; or
        the person obtains the use of computer time, a computer system, a computer program, a computer network, or any part of a computer system or network, with reckless disregard that the use by that person is unauthorized.

news for you, legally and by definition it only takes two to have a conspiracy.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/conspiracy/

Copied from http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/breach-of-fiduciary-duty/ (emphasis mine)

Breach of Fiduciary Duty Law & Legal Definition

A fiduciary duty is an obligation to act in the best interest of another party. For instance, a corporation's board member has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders, a trustee has a fiduciary duty to the trust's beneficiaries, and an attorney has a fiduciary duty to a client.

A fiduciary obligation exists whenever the relationship with the client involves a special trust, confidence, and reliance on the fiduciary to exercise his discretion or expertise in acting for the client. The fiduciary must knowingly accept that trust and confidence to exercise his expertise and discretion to act on the client's behalf.

When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter. The client is entitled to the best efforts of the fiduciary on his behalf and the fiduciary must exercise all of the skill, care and diligence at his disposal when acting on behalf of the client. A person acting in a fiduciary capacity is held to a high standard of honesty and full disclosure in regard to the client and must not obtain a personal benefit at the expense of the client.

Assassination is a killing of a prominent person for political or ideological reasons. Assassination dates back to the earliest forms of government, with the killing of Philip II of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great. Some of the more recent well-known assassinations include those of Abraham Lincoln, President John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King.

There are various motivations for assassinations, including money, moral issues, political power, military purposes, and others. In the 20th century, the prevalence of assassins and their capabilities skyrocketed, and security measures such as armored cars or armored limousines and bulletproof vests came into popular use.

It is time to call a spade a spade. A terrorist organization, like al-Qa'ida, is a political military organization that acts to promote political and religious ideals. Yeah, their methods are totally fuckin' indefensible, but killing bin Laden in a midnight raid was an assassination, because you had better believe that Obama reaped political rewards for taking out that murderer. Obama went from arguing that terrorism is a law enforcement issue to dropping a bombs on buildings and crowds of civilians as a messy way to execute terrorist leaders. Attacks like these are defensible in a theater of war where we are engaged, like in Afghanistan and the tribal regions of Pakistan. But Obama's kill list has reached into Yemen, where we are not at war, and have assassinated terrorists, including two US citizens who were executed without trial, Anwar al-Awlaki and his son. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/05/the-presidents-kill-list.html)

What's even more frightening is the memo that came out of Obama's justice department. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=7)

“The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.”

By this doctrine, there is nowhere we could not strike to assassinate a terrorist leader if a local government was not willing to help us bring them to justice. Of course we would not strike inside countries with nukes, or in places like Saudi Arabia and China where we have vested economic interests. I doubt we would strike targets inside any Eastern European countries because they are too white and, as Carlin said, "we only bomb brown people". But Africa, most of the Middle East, South America, South-East Asia? All are fair game.

that isn't true as a blanket statement -incitement to riot is against the law, so there are instances where provoking other people to violence is against the law.

The contents of my speech do not make me liable for the actions of others in response to that speech.

It can.

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.

Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

Sure, the existence of it is admissible. The additional evidence related to its conception? Inadmissible, and Apple never opened the door to that.
If Samsung wanted those documents in, they had months to provide them.

Why not? It was raised only after the period for discovery was over.

Apple included the F700 in their own presentation and said it was another example of Samsung copying them. I believe this is called "opening the door", which means the F700 is now admissable even if it is raised after discovery.

You don't know what "brandishing" means. Let me help - "threatening manner" does not include... the possession of a dangerous weapon, whether visible or concealed, without additional behavior which is threatening... 76-10-506, Utah Criminal Code

And, yes, although "brandishing" isn't defined as such in the code, that's what it is, using a weapon to intimidate or threaten.

In exactly what way is carrying an unloaded weapon "irresponsible?"

In the sense he meant it, "Abandon" means; To leave exposed and uncared for alone. In such a situation, a newborn would almost certainly die, given enough time without being discovered by someone willing to care for the child. There is a reason child abandonment laws exist, and why they are held to the same punishment level (in some cases) as manslaughter or murder.

Personally, I find it abhorrent that we will blithely slaughter a human just because they haven't yet fully exited the birth canal.

That said, I do find this study fascinating. As a parent of three disabled children (two with ASD, one with Spina Bifida) I am personally VERY familiar with the concept of birth defects and congenital diseases. If something like this leads to genetic therapies for children before they are born, then I am all for it. I am concerned that it might lead to selective abortions, but that is not an issue with the science, that is a social and legal issue that needs to be corrected.

Under American Common Law, your likeness - as well as your signature - is your private property. People can no more snap you without your consent without being liable for violating your property rights than they can take an image of your signature and print it onto whatever they like.

Cite, please. It's my understanding that if you're in public, people absolutely can take your picture and do not need your consent. If you're correct, I'd like an explanation how paparazzi aren't all in jail.

Common practice within the Union about a century ago; I came across it years ago in research and no longer have the historical reference, unfortunately. I did find cites just now, though.

As to the paparazzi, part of it would most likely be that the country's forgotten that by now, or that as public figures celebrities are presumed to be accessible in that regard. I'm honestly not sure how much of which. It would be kind of interesting for celebs to copyright their likeness in this day and age though, and then sue tabloids for distributing without permission.

American Common Law remains in effect, but has been forgotten amid a heap of baseless legislation that lacks the authority to actually be law.

Perhaps we're getting to the core of the issue. You're arguing from a base where law isn't actually law. I can't follow you there.

Yes and no. It's the venue of law the Constitution was written in, and the American variant of Common Law remains the law of the land. However, it is prevalently ignored today by the majority of citizens, who have not heard of it. Yet.

And they now have lasers that can be pointed at windows and pick up conversations based on how the glass vibrates,

Yes, and infrared cameras that see through your walls. I suppose that's what muddies the waters. It comes down to the "reasonable person" test. IIRC, it's been decided (in court) that reasonable people do get protection from being spied on via IR cameras. I think it's reasonable to assume there's not a laser microphone pointed at your windows, too. I just don't feel that unencrypted wifi streaming out of your house deserves the same protection when it's trivial to encrypt it. I don't think we should have to IR shield our houses. I don't think we should have noise generators on our windows. I do think we should encrypt our wifi.

And there we disagree. Or rather, I don't think we should be considered to be obliged to encrypt our wifi in order to secure our right to privacy on it. But I do like how well you've summarized the matter.

I understand your point. And if the data on those papers requires certain software to read and decode, that is a form of encryption

No, it's a form of encoding. If you're going to claim that as encryption, I can as reasonably claim that this is a private conversation between me and you, and that anyone else reading it has violated my rights because I encrypted it in ASCII or Unicode, or whatever prior to uploading it. It's not MY fault everyone else's computer is capable of decrypting it.

Impressive! I honestly don't have a response to that one right now. I'll have to think about that one for a while. Thanks for the new (to me at least) point. Very refreshing to encounter.

Please at least *try* to comprehend the definition. NeutronCowboy posted a good link. "most people use it" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I read the definition. The definition is for the word Monopoly, but somehow it still defines Monopolization. I'm not accusing Google of Monopolization. I'm accusing them of Leveraging a monopoly - that's also defined in the same place:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/

Now, apparently just leveraging a monopoly is not illegal, but leveraging a monopoly with predatory pricing can be illegal. And this is what Google is doing. The monopoly is in search and the predatory price is in free maps. (And there is no monopolization.)

Read this: http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2006/09/articles/article/seventh-circuit-rejects-monopoly-leveraging-theory/

I went and read the definitions that you linked. What google is doing in leveraging a monopoly:
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly-leveraging/

In itself it is not illegal, but combined with the price fixing (= $0) in the maps market it is illegal:
http://www.antitrustlawblog.com/2006/09/articles/article/seventh-circuit-rejects-monopoly-leveraging-theory/

In the case mentioned in the article monopoly leveraging was legal, because there was no price fixing.

By what definition? From http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/monopoly/:

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.

I have no idea how Google Search has the ability to either fix prices or exclude competitors through anything but offering a better product. Feel free to provide your argument, but at this point I see no evidence that Google is in a position where it either has a monopoly (control of or advantage in the search market), or that it is using monopoly power to advance that position.

Sorry but you are mistaken. Money laundering is BY DEFINITION processing funds from a criminal activity and making them appear to come from a legal activity. Here is one of many sites giving a legal definition and ALL of them agree that the funds must be illegal or illicit. If you engage in the same process but with the intent of committing the crime on the other end, like for tax evasion then that is just tax avoidance not money laundering.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/money-laundering/

Speech is not violence, but threats of violence are speech that's rightfully not protected by the government. Calling people these names imply threats of violence.

Your example is bad, too. You very well might get arrested or convicted by a judge for using "fighting words" that get you beat up, even if the people who beat you get arrested, too.

There is a lot more to the limits to speech than what you think you've learned by fighting.

Distribution is generally defined as the dissemination or apportionment of something [...].

Apparently.

Voluntary in the sense that they still have business dealings with the union?

Even accepting that the union had an "established business relationship" (which is very debatable), they're still allowed to specify how the union may contact them. "No phone calls" means no phone calls. They're within their rights to demand that any communications be made in writing.

Not sure where you live, but that's not true in Texas.

A sign isn't necessarily required, if you have the property fenced. But trespassing requires intent, so if you can justifiably argue that you didn't know it was private property, or didn't know you weren't allowed to be on it, and you leave as soon as you're aware that it is and you're not, you can't be convicted of trespassing:

http://realestate.uslegal.com/trespass/

Traditionally, for either type of trespass, some level of intent is required. Thus, the trespasser must not simply unwittingly traverse another's land but must knowingly go onto the property without permission. Knowledge may be inferred when the owner tells the trespasser not to go on the land, when the land is fenced, or when a "no trespassing" sign in posted.

And the same logic holds for any business that is open to the public. It is private property, and the fact that it's open to the public does not prevent them from exercising their right to remove anyone who's disrupting their ability to do business. If you're ordered to leave the premises and you do not, you are explicitly unauthorized to be there and therefore you are trespassing.

As far as the email is concerned, I think that the free speech of individuals outweighs the inconvenience to the company.

Intent matters: they weren't exercising free speech; they were retaliating against the company. This was explicitly stated by the union, and is part of the basis on which the CoA reinstated the claim against the union:

[the Union] encouraged its members to “fight back” after Pulte terminated several employees ... some of the messages included threats and obscenity ... [the union] understood the likely effects of its actions–that sending transmissions at such an incredible volume would slow down Pulte’s computer operations. ... [The Union’s] rhetoric of “fighting back,” in particular, suggests that such a slow-down was at least one of its objectives.

No it doesn't conflict. A Use Tax is a tax on ownership and usage of an item, not the sale of the item. Most states set a Use Tax rate that matches Sales Tax, and if you purchased the item across state lines, you can subtract out any sales tax you paid to the originating state. Use Taxes have existed for quite a while, and as far as I am aware, the Supreme Court has not faced a decision regarding them.

Since California has the highest sales tax, it's unlikely you paid as much or more in the originating state (Nevada in the GP example).

The difficulty with implementing Use Tax is that while it is legal, it is almost impossible for the State to collect because it relies on individuals voluntary reporting and is extremely difficult to audit.

See here for more background on the legal theory.

While IANAL, I am pretty sure that what you fail to understand is that the US cybercrime laws do not say "It is illegal to hack a US computer", they say "It is illegal for you (you being a person on US soil, under US jusrisdiction) to access a computer without authorization".

check out http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/computer-hacking/

it's 100 different shades of legal speak, but it basically boils down to "if you're in a computer and you're not supposed to be there and you know you're not supposed to be there, you're in deep shit". it doesn't say "this rule only applies to US computers", although it does specifically mention at one point how much more pissed off they are if it IS a us govt computer, but that's along side things like how much more pissed off they are if you are stealing financial records, or stealing money directly, or uploading viruses, etc. Additionally, one of the things they mention is that they're extra pissed off if your hacking screws up diplomatic relations.

long and short of it is, "Hacking" as defined by the federal government of the US is most emphatically not "Breaking in to a computer on US soil", it is "Breaking in to a computer you don't have authorization to access". A computer you don't have authorization to access, period. Therefore, breaking into a computer in Zimbabwe is just as illegal as breaking into a computer across town acording to the Feds.

While I do not know for certain, I would be surprised if UK law isn't similar.

From USLegal:

The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

Mental state? We are talking about a corporation here, does it even have a mental state? Or would it's mental state be, "We are Sony, We are Legion"? oops, i mean, "We are Sony, We Can do No Wrong".

Or the mental state of, "Shit, it's only our customers, we don't have to tell them anything right away"

Or the current mental state of, "Oh snap! We aren't able to get money if our servers are down!"

Because no where do I think the mental state is: "We are really sorry about this, we fucked up big time, and got owned for it, and we feel like crap. Let us take care of everything, please forgive us" like it should be, from a polite asian society.

Or is the polite asian stuff just propaganda we've been eating for years?

From USLegal:

The civil standard of negligence is defined according to a failure to follow the standard of conduct of a reasonable person in the same situation as the defendant. To show criminal negligence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the mental state involved in criminal negligence. Proof of that mental state requires that the failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur must be a gross deviation from the standard of a reasonable person.

Bolding by me.

IANAL, but I think this is a clear case of criminal negligence. Any IT tech would know better than to leave a unpatched HTTP server without a firewall up to the internet. If you were told on open forums that this was happening, and then loose 2 million credit card numbers? Well if that isn't criminal negligence, I don't know what is!

Gently slowing down is also not a legal option. Every state in the US has laws against impeding the flow of traffic, and slowing down in this scenario violates them all.

http://www.trafficviolationlawfirms.com/resources/traffic-tickets/moving-violations/impeding-traffic-fines-traffic-points.htm
http://definitions.uslegal.com/i/impeding-traffic/

Nope. To make it illegal, it has to be deliberate and an attempt to evade discovery (nonlawyer speak)

Spoliation of Evidence Law & Legal Definition

Spoliation of evidence refers to intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, alteration or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. Accordingly, it is inferred that a person who destroys such evidence does it with consciousness of guilt. Thus the principle carries along the following consequences:

1. the act is criminal by statute, and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation; and

2. case law has established that proceedings which might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a spoliation inference.

- http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/spoliation-of-evidence/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute

http://www.irstaxattorney.com/bankruptcy/Golden_Parachute.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/times-mirror-exec-payoffs-revealed-tribune-bankruptcy-filing

http://chicagobreakingbusiness.com/2010/07/tribune-co-proposes-severance-packages-for-top-execs-if-they-are-dismissed.html

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/economics/8338-former-wamu-execs-sue-golden-parachutes.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1458937/how_to_cure_the_golden_parachutes.html

But perhaps the best explanation, and the most damning to your case, can be found here:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/golden-parachute-payment/

I'll reprint the relevant bit here, because it is such an absolute and direct refutation of your silly, uninformed opinions.

According to 12 CFR 359.1 [Title 12 -- Banks and Banking; Chapter III -- Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Subchapter B -- Regulations and Statements of General Policy; Part 359 -- Golden Parachute and Indemnification Payments], golden parachute payment means “any payment (or any agreement to make any payment) in the nature of compensation by any insured depository institution or an affiliated depository institution holding company for the benefit of any current or former IAP pursuant to an obligation of such institution or holding company that:

(i) Is contingent on, or by its terms is payable on or after, the termination of such party's primary employment or affiliation with the institution or holding company; and

(ii) Is received on or after, or is made in contemplation of, any of the following events:

(A) The insolvency (or similar event) of the insured depository institution which is making the payment or bankruptcy or insolvency (or similar event) of the depository institution holding company which is making the payment; or

WOW! So, "Golden Parachutes" are actually (among other things) meant to protect executives in the case of bankruptcy.

I just have to ask, why do you bother? I mean, every. single. time. you try to argue with me, you lose. Doesn't it get tiring?

"real-life" equivalent (snail-mail forwarding):

http://answers.uslegal.com/civil-rights/privacy/14722/

A person submitting a false change of address form may be imprisoned for up to five years, or more in certain instances, plus subjected to a fine up to $250,000. The charges may be obstruction or mail, theft or mail, and/or making a false statement.

Y'know, just asking. If this isn't a demand with menaces, it sure the hell ain't kippers.

I recommend you read this.

State laws vary, but the following is an example of a state blackmail statute:

"21-3428. Blackmail.

Blackmail is gaining or attempting to gain anything of value or compelling another to act against such person's will, by threatening to communicate accusations or statements about any person that would subject such person or any other person to public ridicule, contempt or degradation.

Blackmail is a severity level 7, nonperson felony"

Okay, let's look at the rest of the post.

The interesting part of this is the use of the patent system to prevent an inventor patenting their invention. (You know damn well that the company WILL file patents in ten years anyway and will make gob-loads of money, prior-art not withstanding.) The sole value of a patent system is to ALLOW the inventor to patent their invention. It serves no other function. (The other theoretical value of properly documenting an invention has long-since given up the ghost.)

They weren't preventing him from patenting the invention in any way. Just saying that he wouldn't benefit from that so much to make the cost worthwhile (and would probably need to pay some court fees to get his money). Two very different things.

Also, the ide of patent system is not to allow the inventor to patent inventions. It is not that recursive. The idea is to allow him to benefit from it. Again, he might have benefitted from it but it would probably have been too much trouble to be worth it from.

As for documenting... It is long-since given up ghost... BECAUSE of the patent system. If we go back to "Everything you want to protect must be a business secret" mentality, it will probably come back. Do you want "Company A invented something, patented it, didn't really find any use for it and 20 years later others get to use it" or "Company A invented something, didn't really come up with any uses but kept it secret 'just to be sure'... And that's it."

That we now have a verifiable, demonstrable example of patent inversion shows that the system as it stands must be replaced.

We have one new anecdote.

Accept : The reason the 18 year old was arrested is because the Police had reason to believe he stole the property.

Reality : The stolen goods were unknowingly sold. The police had a reason to believe the person stole the goods themselves and were attempting to sell them.

Douchebag : See REALITY.

You're an arrogant, uncivilized bully that has to resort to an equivalent of "Yahoo answers" as evidence to back yourself up. The only disservice to / . is your presence.

Keyword : It is illegal to Knowingly purchase stolen property.

Quod

Erat

Demonstrandum

y a literal definition, one the law would use, it does provide internet services. It does take other people's data and move it around. It does, roughly speaking, the same things a usual ISP would do, but instead of end-users it hosts servers.

Still not true, no matter how many times you say it. Rackspace isn't an ISP under the legal definition either.
An Internet Service Provider (ISP) is a company that provides third parties access to the Internet. Rackspace does not provide internet access to third-parties.

There's nothing special about dealing with end-users that gets you CC protections/obligations, it's merely about third-party goods or data.

Again, you either don't or won't understand. Common carrier means you are a pipe, a conduit, a means of transporting data from the host to the user and nothing more. Since Rackspace doesn't provide this service, they are not a common carrier under any definition of the term.

You're trying to hide behind definitions, as if it's what the courts are going to use to decide the issue.

That's exactly what the courts use to decide issues. That's why it's important to understand the definitions of various terms. That's why it's important not to misuse those terms.

Yes, you're right about common usage. Hallelujah indeed. But in touting that you miss the larger picture, yet again.

So, now that you've conceded that you were wrong on common usage, you're going to move the goalposts to legal terminology. Sadly, they're the same thing in this particular instance.

So, since you've lost on common usage, and you've lost on legal usage, what are you going to go with next? I'd recommend just admitting it's your own personal usage, which just happens to be at odds with everyone else's use of the term. It's the only chance I can think of for you to be right on any level at all.

Persons convicted of a crime may have records expunged in the following cases:

(1) An individual who is the subject of the information reaches 70 years of age and has been free of arrest or prosecution for ten years following final release from confinement or supervision; or

(2) An individual who is the subject of the information has been dead for three years.

Really. http://expungement.uslegal.com/expungement-of-criminal-records/pennsylvania-expungement-law/

True, it's an unauthorized modification - but the term vandalism doesn't really apply here, if one strictly adheres to the legal definition. No "serious physical harm" (loss of value in excess of $500) happened; all of the original functionality is actually still there.

Depraved Indifference: "to bring defendant's conduct within the murder statute, that the defendant's act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant's conduct."

I hope for Julian Assange's sake that no Afghani or Iraqi informants are killed because someone figured out from the unredacted information who the informants are. His releasing of this information directly led to these informant's death.

story nonetheless raises significant privacy concerns

Bullshit. Facebook posting is not private. There is no 'privacy' involved here. No mail was opened. No phone tapped. No email account rifled through. There may be other issues to address regarding whatever wholesale analysis the cops are performing, but there are no 'privacy' issues here. The kid put it out there for the world to pick up on, automated word-eater or otherwise. End of 'privacy' issues.

if he writes a note theatening (sic) bullies so that they don't ruin the last day of school for him

Since we're talking hypotheticals; If such a note is presented to police and they fail to follow up and/or arrest the author and he then carries out the act do we then condemn the police or defer to your finely tuned sense of justice and celebrate our civil liberties?

essentially boils down to a thought crime

Bullshit. Public threats are not thoughts. Here's a big fat clue in case you're confused about the legalities.

So that would indicate to me that Microsoft produces abetting technology. Shit, I can see in my own windows on a Bing bird's eye view w/Silverlight.

This, to me, is the same as guys who put up these. Nah, providing the tools is ok, just don't actually use them right?

Grand jury time!

In common law jurisdictions, maintenance is the intermeddling of an uninterested party to encourage a lawsuit.[1] It is "A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right."[2]

Champerty is the maintenance of a person in a lawsuit on condition that the subject matter of the action is to be shared with the maintainer.[3] Among laypersons, this is known as "buying into someone else's lawsuit."

In modern idiom maintenance is the support of litigation by a stranger without just cause. Champerty is an aggravated form of maintenance. The distinguishing feature of champerty is the support of litigation by a stranger in return for a share of the proceeds.

- Lord Justice Steyn , Giles v Thompson[4] At common law, maintenance and champerty were both crimes and torts, as was barratry, the bringing of vexatious litigation. This is generally no longer so as during the nineteenth century, the development of legal ethics tended to obviate the risks to the public, particularly after the scandal of the Swynfen will case (1856-1864).[5] However, the principles are relevant to modern contingent fee agreements between a lawyer and a client and to the assignment by a plaintiff of his rights in a lawsuit to someone with no connection to the case. Champertous contracts can still, depending on jurisdiction, be void for public policy or attract liability for costs.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/champerty

Champerty is the practice of agreeing to paticipate and share in the proceeds of a lawsuit, despite not being a proper party to the dispute. The outside party, usually an attorney, bargains to exchange their financing and promotion of the lawsuit in exchange for a share of the recovery.

Champerty is distinguished from barratry, which is the active encouragement of lawsuits. Champerty is prohibited in some jurisdictions; in others, judges are considered to have the responsibility for policing such behavior.

Think of it as someone participating in a lawsuit in which they don't have any legal standing. Their patent isn't being infringed on, it's another patent in the same "pool". This is just a way to sneak past any claims of champerty and maintenance (as in maintenance of a lawsuit that was initiated by someone else).

In the US

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

Champerty is the process whereby one person bargains with a party to a lawsuit to obtain a share in the proceeds of the suit. Maintenance is the support or promotion of another person's suit initiated by intermeddling for personal gain.

Both champerty and maintenance have been illegal for two basic public policy reasons since early common law: (1) It is considered desirable to curb excess litigation for the operation of an efficient judicial system. The reasons for this are numerous and include problems of overcrowding on court calendars, economic considerations, and the desirability of promoting a society that is not excessively litigious. Champerty and maintenance work contrary to this societal goal by stirring up litigation. (2) Champerty and maintenance bring money to an individual who was not personally harmed by the defendant. An attorney found guilty of either champerty or maintenance will be subject to the payment of any damages that may have been incurred by the parties to the lawsuit and to disciplinary proceedings, which can result in his or her disbarment.

Whether or not champerty and maintenance exist in a particular instance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. They apply specifically to cases wherein one person pr

Your own link discredits the notion that you know what you are talking about:

In the common law legal system, an expungement proceeding is a type of lawsuit in which a first time offender of a prior criminal conviction seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed, thereby making the records unavailable through the state or Federal repositories.

... or it discredits that the person writing that part of the wikticle knew what different states see as expungement. Scroll down to "Florida", for example, and read what they define as expungement, and whether it relates to arrest records or just convictions.

Here in lawyer land (CT), it's no better.
http://expungement.uslegal.com/expungement-of-criminal-records/connecticut-expungement-law/

While you generally are permitted to photograph or record video of people without permission in most public places, it is illegal in Illinois to "videotape, photograph, or film" people without their consent in "a restroom, tanning bed, or tanning salon, locker room, changing room or hotel bedroom." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26-4(a).

Your linked article makes sense for private places, but as far as I can tell, if you're in a public park, or on a public roadway, or on a public sidewalk, or in a government building, or other public place, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The police department elected not to prosecute Mr. Gannon. (Sorry for paywall) Yes, he was certainly hassled a lot, apparently within the letter of the law.

This kind of stuff couldn't happen in the world of material goods. The proprietary software industry lives in a different world with different laws. Do you think a manufacturer could sell a lawn mower which they blatantly announced wasn't even fit to cut lawns? When the blades were determined to have a defect, could they say "Here, buy these new ones?" No one would let them get away with it. Somehow, the software industry gets around it.

Captcha is "frauds." Hehe.