DeCSS: Jon Johansen Acquitted In Retrial

EssJay writes "DVD-Jon is acquitted in the retrial. The verdict was expected in January, but was announced today in the papers." We had posted about the retrial beginning - it's a good holiday present to get this early.

Comments

All I can say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesssssssssssssss!!!

At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

Let us hope this finally means we have a right to decrypt data media which we own a licence to watch.

Common sense 1, recording industry, nil

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[KjetilK]

I've not read the verdict, but according the news reports, that is exactly what the court thinks. If it is yours, any obstacle towards using it is illegitimate and may be circumvented. It sounds quite good. But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented...

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you misunderstand what the case was all about. The ruling means that Jon did nothing wrong by creating software that cracked the DRM, not that anyone else has the right to use it. This is the same as trying to prosecute Merck or its chemists for creating Oxycontin. What people do with technology is not the responsibility of its creator.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[NickFitz]

Maybe it does, if you live in Norway...

From what I read here at /. those of you living in the USA shouldn't hold your breath as long as you have the motion picture and music industries controlling your legislature :-(

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[IdleTime]

The court also said that the limitations printed on each DVD was not legal and that they looked more like a private law addendum that severly limited your legal rights according to Norwegian Copyright laws. It also said there is a huge difference between copying a relatively brittle media like a CD compared to a more durable media like a book. The law gives you a clear and unstoppable right to make private backup copies and an encryption or copy protection schema is directly hindering you in executing your legal rights, hence Jon was aquitted.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[arth1]

Let us hope this finally means we have a right to decrypt data media which we own a licence to watch.

It appears to mean just that in Norway, at least.

While Norway isn't a member of the European Union (EU), they are -- like Switzerland -- a member of the European Economic Cooperative (EEC), and laws are quite often synchronized across EU+EEC. This might have influence on, if not directly affecting, how EU laws will be interpreted.

EEC seems to be one of the three remaining venues of appeal for the MPAA and its lackeys in this case -- it's hard to imagine how this ruling could be anti-competitive in nature or otherwise impart European trade rules, but it's a possibility.

The case might also be escalated to the Norwegian supreme court, for a principal ruling. However, I am not sure that the MPAA would want that to happen, as that would be a definitive ruling affecting all similar cases in the future, and with the firm rulings of the two lower courts, it's highly unlikely that the Norwegian supreme court would rule differently.

The third venue of continued legal action would be to charge Mr Johansen according to US laws in the US, because the GUI for DeCSS that he published was made available on the US market. Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to visit the US in the near future.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to visit the US in the near future.

Considering the policies towards the rest of the world lately and the europhobia frequently displayed by americans on this forum and others, why would -any- european want to visit the US these days?

Look at an official the wrong way or fail to salute a landmark and next stop is Cuba.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[julesh]

But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented...

The UK EUCD implementation grants specific requirements that mean you must be allowed access to an unencrypted copy of the data if you have a legitimate reason for needing it... unforuntately the procedure for enforcement of this is ridiculously complicated (you must complain to the home secretary, IIRC).

I'm not sure how it'll work in norway, but I'd hope there would be some similar provision.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

IIRC Norway is not a part of the EU.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the Netherlands they're not that forward : We've got the right to make duplicates for our own use, but the law did not think it important to make this an 'unstoppable' one. It effectivily gives us a right to do something, but anyone may try to hinder us at doing so. Talking about empty rights ... :-(

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[KjetilK]

Doesn't matter. We have to implement their laws anyway. Trade agreements, you know.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right! We better just invade Norway and stop this unamerican cyberterrorist crap right now.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

The People of Norway repeatedly refused to join the EU. However, the Government of Norway had little choice but to join the European Economic Space, which is EU+Norway, and basically means that Norway has to implement all "interstate commerce" directives but has zero decision and bartering power with respect to the wording of these directives.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[rsmith]

... own a licence to watch

You own the media, period.

I'd guess the MPAA would love to sell you a license to watch on an MPAA approved player instead, though.

Can you spot the difference?

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[jasondlee]

Good point, but tell that to the idiots suing gun manufacturers. Or the grandmothers suing McDonald's over hot coffeee. Or people suing violent video game manufacturers. If only our court system were as clear-headed as you... :\

jason

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[squiggleslash]

Let us hope this finally means we have a right to decrypt data media which we own a licence to watch.

In Norway, yes (assuming that by license you mean "has bought a copy", etc. License is a term applied far too widely.) Unfortunately, Norway's law doesn't trump US or UK law.

Common sense 1, recording industry, nil

Ok, this is just silly. I can understand people getting acronyms mixed up (RIAA vs MPAA), but complete industries? Why on Earth would anyone think the recording industry is the prime mover in a case about DVD encryption?

Gah!

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[BenTels0]

Common sense 1, recording industry, nil

Correction: 2 - 0. DVD Jon was already acquitted once in first instance, this was the appeal.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD Jon did not reverse engineer the CSS code, he hacked together a windows gui and distributed it together with a stolen Player Key (from Xing).

1 - DeCSS was Windoze software

2 - DeCSS was distributed with *stolen* Xing keys

3 - copying DVDs was possible prior to DeCSS

what DeCSS allowed you - was to decrypt the content and transcode to a more bandwidth friendly formats. it kicked off the first wave of DVD-ripping DIVX craze!

the windows gui that DVD Jon made, is not anywhere near linux, freedom and the communistic ideals he want to be associated with today (share and enjoy).

of course he couldn't be convicted of what he was trialed for - they should have prosecuted on the basis of theft and mass distribution of stolen keys.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[BenTels0]

However, the Government of Norway had little choice but to join the European Economic Space,

Area. In English, it's called the European Economic Area (I know it's confusing at times; it's called "space" (Ruimte) in Dutch as well). And Norway had every freedom not to join -- it's just that at the time Norway was expecting that it WOULD shortly be joining the EU. That is, after all, what the Area was all about: a stepping-stone to full EU (then EC) membership.

which is EU+Norway

I'm sure Iceland for one appreciates this one....

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[shrubya]

tell that to the idiots suing gun manufacturers

Umm...

• criminal trial != civil lawsuit
• USA != Norway

Verdict: using DeCSS on your own legally purchased DVDs is not a crime in Norway. This might have some influence on other european jurisdictions, and in an ideal world possibly even the DMCA, but it has nothing to do with tort reform

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[BenTels0]

But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented...

That doesn't seem particulalry likely. The central reason that Johansen was never found guilty was that he didn't write or distribute this software with the purpose of violating copyrights (as in making copies and redistributing) but for enabling premissible use (i.e. making the damn things readble under Linux after you spent good money on them). That use remains permissible and Artible 6, sub 4 of that same Directive states that both governments and industry must see to it that it remains possible to take such permissible actions and that circumventing copyright protections for such purposes can never be a violation.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[the_mad_poster]

What right is this that people keep talking about?

In the U.S., and a few other countries I know of, it's generally been the case that you are ALLOWED to make a backup copy of digital media, but you do not have the RIGHT to it. That means that if you can, you may, but if they implement some assinine "protection", things like the DMCA can kick you in the nuts for making your copy.

In fact, our sister company determined, about a year and a half ago, that, according to German law, German consumers DO NOT have a right to make backup copies (only that they may if they have the option) and, therefore, they were going to proceed with the sale of "protected" compact discs. They're not going to go engaging in a business practice that's going to put them in a courtroom on the obvious losing end of a lawsuit, I can tell you that. To date, nobody has managed to prove that what they're doing infringes on anyone's rights.

The long and short of it in most places seems to be that if you buy damaged (er... protected) media, that's just too fscking bad. You don't like it, then don't buy it anymore. Unfortunately, all the little children keep running out to buy Shitney Spears and the Buttfuck Boy Band Brothers' latest garbage, keeping up sales, and keeping the gooey, DRM goodness flowing.

In other words, as usual, the people who know what's going on are being trampled by the idiots who use dollar bills to wipe their asses and can't follow a thought process more complex then the instructions on a "shake 'n bake" box.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[19usc2462bH]

While Norway isn't a member of the European Union (EU), they are -- like Switzerland -- a member of the European Economic Cooperative (EEC),

No, Switzerland is a member of EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. Switzerland is also the only member of EFTA that is not a party to the EEA (European Economic Area), which it is usually called, not EEC. EEC stands for European Economic Community, which is now EC, the European Community. (The name was altered by the Maastricht treaty establishing the European Union.)

The EFTA members which are parties to the EEA are Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Sweden, Finland and Austria were previoulsy members of EFTA before joining the EU in 1995.

The Norwegian "green paper" on the implementation of the EUCD/Infosoc is available online, as a PDF file, but it is in Norwegian. This is just draft-draft legislation, asking for the opinion of various affected parties (a "hearing"). The final draft has yet to been issued. Norway has not yet implemeneted the EUCD in its copyright act.

The decision-making process leading up to the passing of the directive 2001/29/EC (EUCD) can be found at PreLex.

The status of the passing of the EUCD in various nations can be tracked.

An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible on legal grounds (i.e. wrongful interpretation of the penal code) and faulty legal proceedings, however, the acquital stands unless the case is remanded and a whole new trial takes place.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[BenTels0]

Methinks you're mixing up the two things he has published.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[John Hasler]

> Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the
> Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to
> visit the US in the near future.

Yes. Much better that he stay in Norway and be tried over and over on the same criminal charge. God forbid that he should come to the US and risk being subjected to the horrors of a limited civil court order, or the faint possibility of having chages filed against him and then dropped before trial like Skylarov.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Jeremy Erwin]

prosecute Merck or its chemists for creating Oxycontin

That would be a mistake. Oxycontin is a Perdue Pharma product.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[IdleTime]

By Norwegian Copyright Laws, you have the RIGHT to make backup copies of your legally purchased stuff. This is, as you said, substanially different from many countries copyright laws.

Personally, I think it is only fair to have a law to protect your rights in this area. I'm only protecting my investments. By storing originals off-site, i.e bank-vault, I can restore my huge CD collection after let's say a fire or water damage since I only use the copies at home.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

Or being held in a cage in Cuba for years without being charged with anything.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[amanpatelhotmail.com]

But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented

And how long before EUCD gets cracked?

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[sprprsnmn]

About as long as it takes to crack the DMCA

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Pofy]

Actually the EUCD may, or may not apply, depending a bit on how each country implement the directive.

Here we are dealing with accessing the DVD, there is nothing in it that prevents making a copy of the DVD (it will end up as an encrypted copy as well of course), but the "protection" does not prevent copying in any way, only access.

The EUCD deals with circumvention of protection that deals with copyright issues. For example copying which is a right the copyright holder has. Accessing a work is NOT something exlusive to the copyright holder and hence not an issue of copyrights.

If you look at the Swedish implementation (or suggestion for it at least), they make exactly this reasoning and the implementation only deal with protection that deals with copyright rights. Encrypting something for example, is not such a thing (nor is for example region coding, which is also specifically mentioned). Hence you can circumvent or do whatever you want in that regard.

Some EU countries might implement it differently and also include access protection but that is NOT a necessity under the EUCD.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Anonymous Coward]

... and also Liechtenstein I think

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[debest]

In the U.S., and a few other countries I know of, it's generally been the case that you are ALLOWED to make a backup copy of digital media, but you do not have the RIGHT to it.

I may be mistaken (and often am), but I believe that under the doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing" (or other similar doctrines, depending on the country's law) you are, in fact, granted the RIGHT to do whatever you wish to do with a copyrighted work that is in your legal possession, as long as it is for personal, non-commercial use. This means that you can make as many copies as you like of anything that is copyrighted, so long as you do not distribute any of them. The EULA of a piece of software can grant you the right make one backup copy, but it is BS: you can make as many as you wish, with or without the EULA's permission, as long as you are technically capable of making the copies.

As I understand the DMCA, it doesn't *directly* remove the right to fair use. You are allowed to do whatever you wish with your copyrighted work, include disable any copy protections on it. It does, however, make it illegal to tell anyone how you performed the operation of removing the copy protection, as trivial as it may be. What this does is it *effectively* removes the right to fair use (unless you are a software engineer).

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[gangien]

From what I read here at /. those of you living in the USA shouldn't hold your breath

Ah come on... like /. isn't biased in it's anti-corprate views? I disagree with what the RIAA is doing entirly, but they are going after people who are doing something illegal. And they hardly control anything, they have some influence, but if they controlled it, they'd ahve far more powers than they do now.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Pig Hogger]

Unfortunately, all the little children keep running out to buy Shitney Spears and the Buttfuck Boy Band Brothers' latest garbage, keeping up sales, and keeping the gooey, DRM goodness flowing.

You mean the Backdoor Boys???

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[BenTels0]

The EUCD deals with circumvention of protection that deals with copyright issues. For example copying which is a right the copyright holder has. Accessing a work is NOT something exlusive to the copyright holder and hence not an issue of copyrights.

Except that the process of accessing a DVD entails making a copy in memory of successive sections of it. Just like with computer programs, where a copy in active memory is made from what is stored on the harddisk, which is itself a copy of what was on the installation medium.

Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on

[Pofy]

Such copies of temporary nature (the definition is more complex) are excepted from the exclusiveness of the copyright holder. That is, you are allowed to do them (especially if needed to use the original copy). Hence, such copying is not in violation of copyright and not protected for circumvention either.

DVD Jon

[funky_chiken]

What more can we ask for christmas ?

Re:DVD Jon

[Soporific]

More blank DVD's I would think.

~S

excellent news

[Indy1]

at least there's one country where corporate fascists cant buy everything. I hope the prosecuters are fired afterwards, wasting tax payer's money to shill for a bunch of scum bags in suits is hardly in the public interests.

Re:excellent news

[StupidGoose]

IANALBIAAN.
(I am not a lawyer, but I am a Norwegian.)
Actually, I think the norwegian justice system is more corporation-friendly than the american one.
For example the MS anti-trust trial - it would never happen here. Inside trading, etc., is often ignored as well.

Re:excellent news

[Anonymous Coward]

As a norwegian, I can agree that in some ways, yes, it is more corporate-friendly. However,
the US and norway are two entirely different
countries and work in entirely different
scales. Being corporate-friendly in Norway
has a different meaning than being corporate-friendly in the US. Just
my 2 cents.

Re:excellent news

[Indy1]

well at least your appeals court doesnt whole sale agree with the corporatists. Here in the US, we have a company (directv) that will sue you simply for owning a smart card programmer. And unless you have a few hundred thousand dollars laying around handy, your only option is to get extorted for $2000 (i think thats the current amount they are extorting for). All because one greedy corporation decided that any one with a smart card programmer must be pirating their crap.

Thats the US (in)justice system for you. Of big business, by big business, and for big business.

Re:excellent news

[blankmange]

Sounds like you have an issue -- were you targeted by DirecTv? Just out of curiosity, were you guilty of pirating their crap?

Re:excellent news

[arth1]

Being Norwegian *and* a long time resident of the US, I believe you both are in error when you state that you believe that the Norwegian laws are more friendly to corporations that in the US.

Norway is almost completely free from lobbying and leading politicians being stock market investors. You won't find a _single_ senator in the US that doesn't have a million dollar income as well as substantial connections to one or more industries. In Norway, you won't find a _single_ stortingsmann or judge who has a million dollar income or vested interests in large corporations -- hell, even the prime minister is a clergyman with a sub-$50k income when not being a politician.

It's very difficult to buy yourself a law in Norway, while it's the only way to create or change laws in the US. Norway is governed through legislation, while the US is governed through litigation.

The two cultures are a world apart, and it's simply uncomprehensible to the average Norwegian just how different things are, and how protected the Norwegian citizen really is. Just as it's incomprehensible to the average American, who is unable to differentiate concepts like socialism and communism, or understand how values without a monetary value can pre-empt any economic claims.

True, Norway is still slowly drifting towards American attitudes, but the drift is very slow, and the cultural chasm between the two cultures is so vast that it's hard to compare the two in any meaningful way in any near future.

The word "greed" sums it up pretty well - in Norway, greed is still considered a sin, and not something to be proud of, even if present to a small extent in individuals and a larger extent in corporations. In the US, greed is considered a driving force, and not only normal but necessary, both for individuals and corporations.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:excellent news

[Anonymous Coward]

The two cultures are a world apart, and it's simply uncomprehensible to the average Norwegian just how different things are, and how protected the Norwegian citizen really is.

I've been thinking for a long time now that the United States is becoming less and less a place I want to live because of the constant infringement of personal freedoms, and the ignorant electorate voting for the same storm troopers again and again.

Most of the people I deal with think that is a horrible thought, and want me to wash my mind out with soap, or tie me to a post in front of a wall and shoot me. Hey, I love freedom, and I love my country, but it's falling more and more into the error of "profit and security before freedom." Like any relationship going sour, if you can't change it, you have to leave it...

So far, Norway is sounding more and more like a place I want to live.

Re:excellent news

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Re:excellent news

[$ASANY]

As impressed as I am with your description of how well the political system in Norway works, I just can't fathom a system where prosecutors are able to appeal a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal court. After you're aquitted, are prosecutors able to attack you again and again until they get a verdict they like?

Maybe it's the US that's becoming more like Norway. If you're aquitted in a criminal trial here, prosecutors will throw civil litigation at you for denying someone's "civil rights" for the same issue involved in the criminal trial they lost. In the end, if the state has it out for you, they'll eventually screw you, and they'll find some extra-constitutional way to make it happen.

Maybe it's a good thing DVD-Jon wasn't subjected to our current version of civil liberties after all.

Re:excellent news

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, an appeal to circumstance is a logical fallacy. Don't attack him, attack his argument.

Re:excellent news

[ramdac]

right but it seems they care about consumer protection.....or at least the freedoms to do things with what you own, and the freedom to share information.

Re:excellent news

[quigonn]

Unless a trial is done in front of the highest court of law, both of the parties can go into revision, where the trial is brought to a court on a higher level, until both of the parties accept the result or until the highest level of hierarchy is reached. This system is common practice in Europe.

Re:excellent news

[vidarh]

No, they can't keep attacking you. They can appeal twice, the second appeal is to the supreme court and is very limited in scope: Usually the supreme court will pick only a very limited number of cases for review, and the ones picked will usually be reviewed only on a basis of application of law or procedural issues, while evidence and findings of facts from the lower courts are likely to stand more or less unchallenged unless grave errors are uncovered.

Re:excellent news

[John Hasler]

Interesting, isn't it. In the US where the evil corporations hold infinite power the most they were able to achieve against DeCSS was a civil court order applying only to certain individuals and organizations, while in Norway where they are utterly powerless they were able to get a teenager charged with a crime and tried over and over.

Re:excellent news

[jafac]

" at least there's one country where corporate fascists cant buy everything."

Are you kidding?
This is a country that between the years 1850 and 1900, lost something like 50% of it's population to emmigration (mostly to the US) because of the entrenched landed gentry. There was such lack of opportunity for these people - a farmer might crank out 9 kids, and one of them would be able to find a job or a place to live, the others were out of luck - so they went to America. Eventually, they learned (as we have, in the US, mostly) that we really can't be having more than 2 or 3 kids anymore.

Re:excellent news

[w128jad]

IANALBIAAAWHON (I am not a lawyer, but I am an American who's heard of Norway)

We *already* have the DMCA in the States. So that puts Norway at least temporarily ahead for now.

Re:excellent news

[Anonymous Coward]

The grandfather of John Ashcroft was Norwegian :-(

Re:excellent news

[ScrewMaster]

Yes, and from the Norwegian standpoint they are foreign scumbags at that. I was surprised when this case first reared its' ugly head: why they didn't just tell the MPAA to bugger off is beyond me. Sounds like somebody in the prosecutor's office there was expecting to make some good career points out of this. The backfire was pretty good, I'd say.

Re:excellent news

[famebait]

In Norway you could just take them to court if you're reasonably sure they don't have a case: they will very likely be ordered to cover your legal expenses if the court is convinced the case is even slightly frivolous.

Re:Aftenposten article

[bluedream]

Umm.. wasn't that link posted in the article?

Warm Fuzzys

[0mni]

Does anyone else get a warm feeling when someone who didnt break a law DOESNT get convicted of it? Everyone breathe a sigh of relief now. Maybe we wont all get jailed if someone steals a knife from our home then kills someone else with it. Hurah for Freedom.

Re:Warm Fuzzys

[Salgak1]

. . .but only if you keep your knives in a government-approved Knife Safe, otherwise you were "negligent". Even the butter knives.

It's a good thing we don't get ALL the Government we pay for: can you imagine policies like this with COMPETENT Government employees and enforcement ????

Re:Warm Fuzzys

[WCMI92]

" . . .but only if you keep your knives in a government-approved Knife Safe, otherwise you were "negligent". Even the butter knives.

It's a good thing we don't get ALL the Government we pay for: can you imagine policies like this with COMPETENT Government employees and enforcement ????"

This is why I fear the application of technology, particularly in spying/monitoring, etc..

Now, instead of a lazy, incompetent bureaucrat who can't be bothered to do their job enforcing the thousands upon thousands of regulations and laws, we have machines do it and collect it neatly for the government.

Why do you think cops spend more time setting speed traps than they do helping motorists? Tickets and fines lead to promotions.

The same thing will happen here.

Re:Aftenposten article

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing you repeated the URL to the article in the post. If not I am sure I would have missed it.

not fair -- best of out 5!!

[jdesbonnet]

Hey, do you think they'll give up after only two retrials?

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Hey, do you think they'll give up after only two retrials?

They have to. The next higher court (the "highest court") is the last stop. No case can go further. If the high court decides to hear it (as they probably should) then it becomes a precedent.

P.S. And they aren't retrials per se. The Norwegian, and Swedish, legal systems allow for a maximum of three trials in succedingly higher courts. And only the highest court can set a precedent.

Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term), no bail, and the state pays for your lawyer of choice who can claim according to a set (fairly generous) standard (there are no criminal attorneys that operate outside of that system).

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[StormReaver]

"Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term), no bail, and the state pays for your lawyer of choice who can claim according to a set (fairly generous) standard (there are no criminal attorneys that operate outside of that system)."

So far I like this system much better than our (American) system. Can the State drown the defendant in prosecuting lawyers whereas the defendant is only entitled to one lawyer, or it is one prosecutor and one defender?

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[fuzzybunny]

Of course they have to give up, this is Norway.

Now, if the case were tried in California--it'd be another story--the wall of the courtroom would burst open in a cloud of flame and smoke and you'd hear a deep voice with an Austrian accent say "I ahm de highest court. Hasta la vista, baby"

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[Paradise Pete]

no bail

No bail? To lock you up all the state has to do is accuse you, or am I misunderstanding?

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[EinarH]

IANAL.
So far I have not heared about any cases against private persons where the state has used more han two prosecuting lawyers.

In some business cases (Norsk Hydro vs. Government?) I think they are allowed to use more lawyers in the case "build up" and investigation.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter really. In Norway you don't need lawyers as much as you need a case :-)
It's like what Einstein said, when during the Nazi era a hundred German physicists had signed a statement condemning relativity as "un-aryan physics." Einstein remarked dryly that a single physicist with a valid argument could have done the job instead...

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[arth1]

No bail? To lock you up all the state has to do is accuse you, or am I misunderstanding?

They can lock you up for up to 48 hours before they need a court order for an arrest. Unless there's specific reasons for keeping the alleged perp interned, like destruction of evidence or risk of fleeing the country, the suspect is almost always released without bail (which doesn't exist) while awaiting trial.
And fleeing is simply unthinkable for the average Norwegian -- not only is the culture different, but there's no state borders to hide behind to avoid prosecution, like in the US. You'll have to go to a different country, where you won't have papers, and thus it is almost certainly easier to just face the court system in Norway. I'd think that the average Norwegian would rather be a prisoner in Norway than a fugitive anywhere else in the world.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[swb]

I'd think that the average Norwegian would rather be a prisoner in Norway than a fugitive anywhere else in the world.


You know, that's probably true. Prison in Norway is probably better than freedom in many places...

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Can the State drown the defendant in prosecuting lawyers whereas the defendant is only entitled to one lawyer, or it is one prosecutor and one defender?

Well, I don't know the specifics about Norway, but in Sweden it is one prosecutor. However, he is also formally the head of the police investigation team, so he has some help there also. As such he has a sworn duty to try and find the truth, and hence if he uncovers anything that would tend to exhonorate the defendant he has to take that into account in trial as well (i.e. has to make it known to the court), so at least in theory he's (to some small extent) working for you in court as well, though in practice it may not be perfect.

Note though that the prosecutor is a civil servant, i.e. not elected, so you won't see "show trials" just for the publicity. Prosecutors are fairly anonymous people here.

Also, there's often another lawyer on the prosecutors "team", that's there to represent the interests of the victim, not the state, in cases where damages to the victim may be awarded (we don't typically do a separate civil suit for that, though there's nothing stoping it in theory). Thus the verdict can come down as "three years in prison, a fine and damages paid to the victims). I don't know if that's done in the US?

It's not a perfect system. But on balance it's not a bad system either.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

No bail? To lock you up all the state has to do is accuse you, or am I misunderstanding?

Well, not really. The police can question you for 6+6 hours (you have the right to the lawyer of your choice), and then they have to press some form of charges. After that a "custody hearing" has to take place "as soon as possible, though no later than 48 hours after being taken in custody". There a judge will decide if the case against you is strong enough to go to trial at all (at that time), or if the charges are severe enough and there is sufficient risk of flight or disturbing the investigation, that you should remain incarcerated pending trial.

So it's not unlike the US system only that there is no bail. In the cases were a US judge would deny bail a Swede would be held in custody, and in the cases where the US judge would say "bail set at", the Swede would go free, withouth having to pay any bail.

If the trial comes out "innocent", then you will be compensated (quite handsomely) for the time spent incarcerated, so it's a form of bail in reverse. You don't pay to stay out of jail, you get paid to spend time in jail. :-)

Also, if you haven't been convicted of a crime you won't see any other prisoners, there's no "drunk tank" or similar here. You get single accomodation, both when arrested and in jail. So there's no risk of "innocent" people being forced to spend time with real criminals.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[arcade]

>i>And fleeing is simply unthinkable for the average Norwegian -- not only is the culture different, but there's no state borders to hide behind to avoid prosecution, like in the US.

That is only half-true. IAAN (I am a Norwegian ;-) - and I now of at least one case where a guy from where I live fled to Spain to avoid prosecution. He's currently hiding in Spain - and has been there for three or four years or something like that.

He was charged with nacotics-related crime, having caused severe bodily harm, and some other stuff. The severe bodily harm part was kidnapping a guy that had ratted him out to the police, and torturing him for a weekend (basically whipping the hide of his back off, breaking some bones and other bad things).

But of course, that is the exception to the rule. ;-)

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[CableModemSniper]

Damn, I am moving to Norway and joining the mafia! (Its a joke)

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Damn, I am moving to Norway and joining the mafia!

Careful. They're not used to crime (their police don't even routinely carry guns), you'll stand out too much!

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[vidarh]

The closest I believe would be cases involving violence where the victim(s) may have a "bistandsadvokat" ("assistance lawyer", don't know if there really is an equivalent English term) involved to represent their interests. However those lawyers do not prosecute the case, even though they may participate in some ways to ensure the victims interests are covered as well as the governments general interest in convicting a criminal.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[Paradise Pete]

Thanks (and to arth1). I thought he meant the reverse; that you can't get out until trial. This Norway sounds like a pretty good place - is it on Earth?

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[Hrothgar The Great]

God damn it, I wish I lived somewhere with no drunk tank. Being a blacked out drunken asshole in public is no fun around here anymore.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

God damn it, I wish I lived somewhere with no drunk tank. Being a blacked out drunken asshole in public is no fun around here anymore.

Yes, perhaps I should have been more clear. There's still a drunk cell, plenty of them in fact. It just houses a single occupant.

I couldn't comment on the standard though, as I've managed to stay out of them so far. :-)

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Pining for the fjords are we? :-)

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[19usc2462bH]

the suspect is almost always released without bail (which doesn't exist) while awaiting trial.

Bail exists under the Norwegian Criminal Code section 188 ("kausjon"), but is rarely used. You do not have the right to use a get-out-of-jail-for-money card, it's up to the court.

Whether or not you are held in prison pending trial would depend on several factors, including the gravity of the accused crime. Murder suspects are more seldom released, at least during the early stages of the investigation.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[Anonymous Coward]

P.S. And they aren't retrials per se. The Norwegian, and Swedish, legal systems allow for a maximum of three trials in succedingly higher courts. And only the highest court can set a precedent.

Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term),[snip!]

Wrong. The Norwegian legal system normally has a jury of ten persons, in criminal cases, tried at the court level Jon Johansen was just aquitted in. I don't know why this wasn't the case here.

In civil cases there is no jury at this level, only two judges and three lay judges (all votes count equally, so the lay judges can in principle outvote the judges).

As far as I know the supreme court can't overturn the aquittal. They can call a mistrial and get a new trial (with new judges), and they can change the sentencing (which doesn't apply in this case, since there is none).

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Wrong. The Norwegian legal system normally has a jury of ten persons, in criminal cases, tried at the court level Jon Johansen was just aquitted in. I don't know why this wasn't the case here.

Hmm, that's not what my Norwegian workmates tell me. They tell me it's closer to the Swedish system, i.e. with 'jurors' that sit for a term, i.e. aren't called in at random for each trial. But I'm not Norwegian, so I really can't say.

As far as I know the supreme court can't overturn the aquittal.

That sounds odd. I was under the impression that the Norwegian system was like the Swedish in that the highest court was the only one that could set a precedent. That's not going to work if they cannot convict. That they may never do so is another kettle of fish.

Re:not fair -- best of out 5!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Their standard is not too dandy. A few drunkards have died in them. Mostly because they were lethally intoxicated or they had some head injury, though. But still...

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

This case has absolutely no legal bearing in the USA.

Re:So what?

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

And? Oh yes, I keep forgetting, the only things beyond the boundaries of the Great US are ghosts and vampires..

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do know that not everyone lives in the USA, don't you?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the MPAA will attempt to have Jon extradited and tried under the DMCA in the US. War with Norway may be coming...

Odd...

[IngramJames]

Let me get this straight:
a court of law has ruled against the big media companies and for the little hacker guy who wrote a cool C++ program to let us all watch DVDs that we legally own?

Was Rod Sterling seen anywhere near the court, at all?

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Norway the tradition is for the courts to tell the big companies to fuck off.

A case with a faulty component in a VCR even landed in the supreme court and the "little guy" won.

The judges are not elected but hired and our politicians are not easily bought in a society with so few peope.

What they lack in corruptability they make up for in naivety, though, so it evens out.

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

"the little hacker guy who wrote a cool C++ program to let us all watch DVDs that we legally own" DeCSS was a C program not C++.

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, boo hoo, Mister Snippy, why don't you go rewrite Quake in LOGO or something?

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't C a subset of C++?

Re:Odd...

[RPoet]

And in any case, what Jon wrote was a Visual Basic GUI frontend to DeCSS, not DeCSS itself, which was written by a still-unknown crew member elsewhere in Europe.

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

A journalist in VG found him in one day. From what I've heard, he just sent Nomad a mail.

Had the prosecution in this case been worth their salt, they would have identified him and asked German authorities to interrogate him.

Re:Odd...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Rod SERLING, who briefly re-incarnated himself. Apparently playback by another party is okay with him.

reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[cluge]

With this decision, perhaps people will be brave enough to go after the bad provisions of the DMCA. While intended to protect copyrighted material the DMCA has been used to stifle research, threaten researchers, prevent disclosure of security bugs and all but make reverse engineering illegal. I believe that the United States needs it's own "DVD-Jon" that will show people that the DMCA is an ill considered poorly written law. So far when the DMCA has been brought into force against teachers, the people pressing charges have backed down. Thus the law stands and there is no clear lightening rod get the publics attention.

The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?

AngryPeopleRule

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[Indy1]

I'd pity any American (Disclosure: i am an US citizen) who would take on the DVD-Jon role right now. Between the MPAA, RIAA, and Ashcroft and the republican regime, there probably would be no end to the dirty tricks and massive thought crime prosecution that would result. Hell its only a matter of time before people making mp3's are declared copyright terrorists and sentenced to lengthy jail terms in cuba :)

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[Znork]

"Hell its only a matter of time before people making mp3's are declared copyright terrorists and sentenced to lengthy jail terms in cuba :)"

Sentenced and jail terms? You must mean 'declared copyright terrorists, shipped off to Cuba and held indefinitely without a trial'.

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[jorlando]

"The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?"

are you kidding? without dmca and under a more open atmosphere kevin mitnick was accused of being capable of start a nuclear war using a pay phone and a whistler and stoling code from sun that worth 1 billion (the prosecution said it, the same code that you could buy at the time around US$300)

the russian guy... the one that cracked adobe pdf, spent days in the jail without proper defense

with that paranoia what do you think that would happen to a DVD John in the US? the miserable fella would be charged of theft, terrorism (trying to break american companies out of business)...

IF he was tried probably would be in guantanamo...

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[Anonymous Coward]

> The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?

His name was Dmitry Sklyarov.

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[EinarH]

The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?

I can't think of why any sane person would want to take on such a case in US.

1. The risk is way too high. In Norway DVD-Jon risked _maximum theoretically_ two years in a nice prison and a fine of a 250000 NOK ($37000). In USA I would think that the stakes are significantly higher; several 5-10(?) years in prison and millions in expenses.

2. The lawyer cost in US would be much higher. The Norwegian state pays all of Mr. Johansens bills. In USA you would have had to sell your kidneys.

3. Judges and a expert jury ruled in this case. In USA the whole case would have been decided by a non-technical jury influenced by media and excellent RIAA/MPAA lawyers. Good luck.

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[tommck]

Between the MPAA, RIAA, and Ashcroft and the republican regime

Yes... there are NO democrats in support of the DMCA...

Let's see... the DMCA was proposed by DEMOCRAT Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. A Democratically controlled Senate passed the law. (Granted, the house was Republican-controlled at that time.)
A DEMOCRAT President (Clinton) signed the DMCA into law...

Those damned Republicans!

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[fuzzybunny]

Cool! Actually it's pretty foggy and nasty here, and the girls wear too many clothes (and booze and cigars are way too expensive.) I wouldn't mind being shipped off to Cuba and staying there indefinitely without a trial.

Oh, I guess you mean that horrible resort hotel in Gargamo, wotsitcalled, not Club Med. :(

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[Locky]

You're absolutely correct, although under King Bush III, the DMCA is the least of your troubles.

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[alexo]

>> Between the MPAA, RIAA, and Ashcroft and the republican regime

It's the two-party regime you have to do something about.

> Yes... there are NO democrats in support of the DMCA...

"I voted for Kodos" is no longer an acceptable excuse.

Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again

[tommck]

It's the two-party regime you have to do something about.

I agree. I belonged to the Reform Party until Hitle...I mean Pat Buchanan took over the party. Now, I am Independent. The only thing that sucks about that is that I don't get to influence the candidates inside the parties (i.e. no voting in the Primaries).

It's not a retrial

[KjetilK]

It's not really a retrial. IANAL (but I am Norwegian), but I think retrials happen when the Supreme Court finds that a lower court has messed up badly. This was an ordinary appeal process. In Norwegian courts, both parties can appeal, and the police appealed the previous acquittal, so it was sent to a higher court, which rejected the appeal.

It's not quite over yet, the police can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear it. The ultimate humiliation for the police would be if it was appealed but the Supreme Court decided not to hear it. But given the amount of beating the police has had in this case, they would be pretty fanatical to even think about appealing.

But yeah, it didn't take them too long, the case was apparently quite easy for the judges.

Re:It's not a retrial

[bwz]

In US (I think this is from the UK legal tradition that they inherited) aquittal by Jury means no appeal for prosecution while in the "rest of the world" (where there are usually no juries) both prosecution and defense have more similar possibilities of appeal.

In at least Sweden (where I am from) aquittal by the jury means no appeal for the prosecutor, but jury trial is only used in "freedom of press" cases such as libel.

Further, It is not the police that prosecutes a case, but rather the "publics prosecutor" (I suppose like a district attourney in the US) or in this case a special "public prosecutor" tasked with a specific type of crimes.

These prosecutors work closely with the police though, and directs much of their work.

Erik

Re:It's not a retrial

[gordguide]

I don't know if I would agree that jury trials are rare in "the rest of the world"; certainly there are examples of both.

Japan, for example, has no provision for jury trials at all. The legal system there "enjoys" a conviction rate that exceeds 99.9% (roughly 50 aquittals per year versus about a million trials).

Although the US is a former British colony, it's also made up of colonies of two other major legal systems (France and Spain) which form part of it's legal tradition.

It's loosely based on English Common Law but comprises many features that are unique to the USA. There are some states with legal frameworks that derive from the French or Spanish legal systems rather than English Common Law.

The 51 members of the Commonwealth (former British colonies except the US) comprise 1.7 billion people or 30% of the world's population.

In those countries jury trials are common; the defendant has the right to choose either a trial by Judge Alone or Judge And Jury.

The only real limit on that right is based on the seriousness of the crime; although all Common Law is criminal (felony) law (ie there is no misdemeanor theft, for example) some lesser crimes don't have a jury option. For example in Canada if the maximum sentence is less than 2 years it will be a trial by judge alone.

All charges must go to trial; there is no means to "save the expense of a trial" with a plea bargain, nor does it matter if a Guilty plea is entered.

French Civil Code has 3 levels; Petty Offenses (traffic, etc); Misdemeanors (eg theft) and Crimes (eg murder); only felony charges ("Crimes") have a jury option.

Good things about Norway

[Nakanai_de]

...or, more specifically, its judicial system:

The new ruling was made by a panel of three professional judges backed up by four lay judges, two of whom had technical expertise relevant to the case.

Why can't trials in the US (especially regarding technology) be overseen by judges with relevant expertise? Doesn't that seem like an obvious component of having a fair, just ruling?

Re:Good things about Norway

[EinarH]

Actually, one of the judge-experts was a guy from Linpro, a Norwegian consulting firm and the leading Linux company in Norway.

In a case like this I would rather stand in front of a judge with a jury consisting of experts rater that "clueless" non-technical fellow citizens.

Re:Good things about Norway

[joonasl]

I'm from Finland and I believe that the Norwegian justice sustem similarly to the Finnish one follows the Germanic juridic tradiotion, where the anglo-saxon "jury" institution is not widely used. In fact most of the judgements are passed by professional judges and in the few cases where a jury is used is in cases where the judgement is done by a panal of judges. The panel has allways more lawyers than laymen.

Re:Good things about Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely correct.

Furthermore, the system is not a confrontational one even if the newspapers would like it to seem that way because the whole thing looks more like a US drama series.

The prosecution is required to present all the evidence, both for and against, to the court. The defense is only required to defend the accused so in any courtroom, you have one and a half legal teams working for you.

Even more importantly, the judges are not elected and thus feel no pressure on making populistic verdicts. They judge from the law and apply their own common sense as to what the legislature "probably intended". Pleny of room for abuse of power but it has worked out great the past few hundred years.

Re:Good things about Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... in good tradition. After all, most significant technical innovations are nordic ;-)

-Simula, no C++, Java, etc. without it (first OO language - norgwegian)

-Cheese slicer, essential(norwegian)

-Binders, essential (norwegian)

-Linux for fun (finnish)

-Refrigerator, for Coke and stuff (swedish)

etc, etc, etc.

Re:Good things about Norway

[StormReaver]

"Why can't trials in the US (especially regarding technology) be overseen by judges with relevant expertise? Doesn't that seem like an obvious component of having a fair, just ruling?"

Not only that, but a jury of your peers as applied to white collar charges should require experience and knowledge in the white collar field. Only people in the field will have an adequate perspective to apply to the case.

After all, Joe Blow McDonald's cashier does not have adequate perspective to weigh such issues as decryption, and is far too vulnerable to prosecutorial nonsense.

Re:Good things about Norway

[RevMike]

Why can't trials in the US (especially regarding technology) be overseen by judges with relevant expertise? Doesn't that seem like an obvious component of having a fair, just ruling?

Defendants in criminal cases have the ability to waive the jury and submit to a "bench trial", in which the judge is both the finder of law and the finder of fact. It is a tactic used very frequently when the case turns on something very subtle, and the defendant believes the jury might be confused. Judges have extensive experience dealing with subtle and confusing issues.

There are ways to get a bench trial in civil cases as well, but I'm not sure of all the rules.

Re:Good things about Norway

[vidarh]

I assume that with "binders" you are referring to the paper clip, which was indeed a Norwegian invention, not binders (for non-Norwegian speaking people, "binders" is the Norwegian word for paper clip).

Re:Good things about Norway

[noselasd]

Lets not forget the Danish Bjarne Stroustrup, father of C++.(Though he made it while working for AT&T in the US.).

Re:Good things about Norway

[dash]

Furthermore, I even read slashdot! How cool is that? :-)

--
Dag Asheim
Linpro AS

Re:Good things about Norway

[EinarH]

That's very cool.

But it's even cooler that you registered on Slashdot 5 years ago, did not forget the password, and managed to post your first post now! :-)

Anyway; It's Christmas and time to eat some sheep.

No surprise here...

[tuxette]

The prosecution didn't come up with anything new in this appeal, at least not anything that could contribute significantly to the case. It was a "no-brainer" for the judge and jury.

A few points that are in an article in Norwegian and not the English article (translated directly, I'm not responsible for journalists' errors):

• 40-bit crypto is too weak (export maximum); you need a minimum of 64-bit; CSS is 16-bit
• Johansen was not required to used "authorized" equipment to play the DVD.
• You have the right to take a copy of the DVD for private use.
• It is not illegal to break the copy-protection code.

Unfortunately, despite a second humiliation, I have a feeling they're going to appeal this to the Supreme Court. And waste more taxpayer's money.

I wonder if Inger Marie Sunde is going to take another "sabbatical" now, like last time hehe...

Re:No surprise here...

[Anonymous Coward]

Having read the ruling in full, I find that very likely.

She didn't just lose, the prosecution was annihilated.

Re:No surprise here...

[tuxette]

I just read the ruling in full as well.

According to this article, she's going to think over whether or not she wants to appeal. Again, I have the feeling she will. After following both trials and her actions in general and from the information I have been given by former colleagues, this whole thing seems like one big personal agenda for her actually. However, for the sake of her name and career, she ought to learn when to stop...

I guess some people enjoy being humiliated over again, and over again, and...

Re:No surprise here...

[terminal.dk]

Danish newspapers mentions one more important point.

There was no proof that DeCCS has been used to pirate movies, so he was also found not guilty in helping the pirates make movies.

Re:No surprise here...

[adrianbaugh]

Only 16-bit? I had no idea CSS was so weak - surely even if Xing's decryption key hadn't been available in plaintext it would have been feasible to brute force the scheme, 16 bits is only 65536 combinations. How did the MPAA ever think this would provide serious protection?

Next step

[PowerBert]

Now that's over the MPAA should be pushing for Jon to be arrested on grounds of wasting police time and tax payers money.

I'm sure the MPAA would be happy to testify against him. Lets see if we cant keep him on trial and out of crypto.

Perhaps the RIAA would like to step in with a European copyright directive suit for his anti Apple itunes behaviour?

The boy is a menace to society and the Amercians want their toys back. Someone put them back in the pram.

This post is to be taken with two large spoonfulls of sarcasm.

Next lawsuit already in planning..

[Anonymous Coward]

Immediately after the trial, Oekokrim prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde commented:

Norway is a den of copyright criminals. Make no mistake; we in Oekokrim and our new best friends from the MPAA won't give up our holy fight to take avay the evil fair use rights from the Norwegian movie fans just because our holy cause suffered a minor setback today.

Indeed, another criminal right up Johansen's alley is already under investigation and will be brought to justice soon. This criminal mastermind is known as VHS-Lars.

There is reason to believe he has has connections to Osama bin Laden, too.

yayy

[Anonymous Coward]

since he's sucessfully ripped the mpaa or whatever off now he can work on apple and the riaa s00t s00t

fapfapfap

Few words to sum it up.

[tobybuk]

Genie, bottle, flogging dead horse

Re:FP ON TEH SPKOE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would someone please explain to me the origin and meaning of these 'ON TEH SPOKE' posts?

Thank you.

Re:Aftenposten article

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, this is slashdot. You expect people to RTFA or even RTFP ?

You must be new here ....

Justice At Last

[ajs318]

DVD Jon has done nothing wrong. Now it's official that he has done nothing illegal either. Fair play to him and his supporters, and sorry it's taken so long.

I think British copyright law, EUCD notwithstanding, explicitly allows what Jon did, but the wording is a bit convoluted and non-obvious and would need testing in court.

Still, it reaffirms the common-sense position that it is not a crime to use goods you own for their intended purpose, even if in the course of so doing you are required by circumstances to invent a tool.

Reverse engineering and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this open the way to reverse-engineering *any* software? Could we, for instance, go to Norway and reverse-engineer Windows?

While it is not particularly well-written software, I'm sure we could learn many things from the source code that we could use in Open Source Software/Free Software/GNU/Linux. I'm thinking specifically the GUI and Windows' tip-top TCP/IP stack.

Re:Reverse engineering and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously suggesting that his is not allowed in the US?

Re:Reverse engineering and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

do you have any idea what you're talking about? insightful? this is either someone for whom the answer to the first question is a definite "no" or a troll

Re:Reverse engineering and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're joking, but if you look at the WINE project, you can see that people right here in the U.S. are already reverse engineering Windows in some way.

Re:Reverse engineering and Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

This should have been done long ago. For all the complaining about "M$" that slashdotters do, who among you has reverse-compiled, say, DOS 5x? That would be a reasonably easy project, an entryway into reverse-compiling Windows, and a small step towards forcing Microsoft into becoming de facto open source. Just my $0.02

Is this the final step?

[Kaemaril]

That means the lower court's decision will stand, at least until another eventual appeal takes the case to Norway's supreme court

Is it likely that this case will be appealled, or will the prosecution finally realize they're not backing a winner?

Re:Is this the final step?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the prosecution does appeal, the supreme court can decide whether not to hear it.

I think it would be a good idea, actually, because the supreme court is able to set precedence for this type of thing.

One could speculate that the prosecution wants the supreme court to once and for all say that this type of thing is legal so the RIAA doesn't bitch to the Norwegian authorities every so often.

Re:Aftenposten article

[n0nsensical]

I have to say Aftenposten is one of my favorite newspapers. How can you go wrong with stories such as:

• Dog robs gas station
• Cows rampage in Norway
• Children asked to sell new naked sports calendar

Ah, Norway...

Re:FP ON TEH SPKOE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It roughly translates to "I HAVE FAILED IT".

Thaaverrmuhh.

Re:So what, So what's your fcking point ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that DVD John isn't going to prison. Who's cares about what happens in the USA ?

+1 - funny

[BigBadBri]

Windows' tip-top TCP/IP stack.

The original bastardised BSD stack? Or have they got a new one that works properly?

Still, I'm sure it was a joke - only an Indian AC would use 'tip-top' seriously...

Has the fat lady sung?

[Amadodd]

Or is there scope in their legal system for another go at him?

Some nice things from the verdict

[KjetilK]

I haven't yet read the verdict, but some details seems to come out now. From the largish norwegian paper VG, I'm trying a translation:

DVD-films are stored on a medium which is prone become damaged. For that reason, it is very different to copy a movie from a book or a periodical, it says in the verdict.

The court also makes clear that a prohibition against copying as printed on the film cover will limit consumer's legitimate rights as granted by section 12 of the copyright code.

"This practice can be compared to private legislation, and can disturb the balance between interests that the law builds upon," said the judge.

This is good, especially the last paragraph. Apparently, the verdict makes it clear that the film industry is infringing on people's rights, not the other way around. It also makes it clear that any "you owe us your first-born" licenses or restrictions is null and void, and even ought to raise some eyebrows with legislators. It makes it clear that the entertainment industry is trying to take legislator's jobs away from them, by themselves setting all the rules. That ought to make legislators slightly upset, I would assume...

Re:Some nice things from the verdict

[KjetilK]

To follow up on myself, now that I have read the whole verdict, it seems clear that the above report is quite accurate.

Well Done DVD-Jon ....

[leoaugust]

Well Done DVD-Jon

Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.

There is a beautiful Gallery of CSS descramblers by Dr. David S. Touretzky (Carnegie Mellon University).

His site is a gallery devoted to representations of a piece of software that has been deemed illegal because it can be used to break through the copy-protection system on DVD movies.

"It never occurred to me that someone would actually try to prevent people from publishing code that they wrote," he said. "The idea just struck me as so deeply offensive that I felt I had to do something about it."

To make his point about free speech, he offered several exhibits from his gallery, including a description of the DeCSS code in plain English and a T-shirt on which the code was printed -- both of which could be considered illegal under the copyright act.

Re:Well Done DVD-Jon ....

[Zog The Undeniable]

And then there was the gzip of DeCSS which happened to be a prime number. How can you say a single number is infringing anything?

Re:Well Done DVD-Jon ....

[/dev/trash]

Cool so now Jon can go back to writing GUI front ends to programs written by others.

Good, but...

[akiaki007]

This is good. Very good news. BUT, this is in Norway, and it does not change much for those of us in the US. Yes it does help, because if he was prosecuted, then the MPAA would have won outright, but because he was not, the rock has been chipped. Now only if the US courts would see it as logically as the Norse courts do, then all would be grand. Then again, nothing here is ever done logically. I can't wait for this to really impact the MPAA.

Re:Good, but...

[robtm]

Norse court? Did someone travel back in time for a viking trial?
Norwegian is the term we use today.

Re:Good, but...

[Zoshnell]

Obviously you haven't been watching Norwegian Prime Time sitcoms lately! Norse Court is a hilarious take on Night Court, a popular mid 80's(I think, i was only 6 or 7 when I remember the show) about a wacky judge, a defense attorney, a prosecutor, and a large balding strong man bailiff and their wacky adventures with Nordic law! Norse, on at 8 PM every weekday night on sky 2 or whatever you guys have out there!

Oh for the love of...

[Locky]

And I just registered freedvdjon.com !
Who would have thought the courts would rule correctly? :(

Re:Oh for the love of...

[fuzzybunny]

Don't worry about it.

Just add 'with 2 proofs of purchase of a copy of DeCSS'

I have trouble seeing how anyone would ever match that--even if someone did sell it, you'd only need one copy. On the other hand, if someone ever sent you the two bar codes, you'd better make sure you have some rope, duct tape, and a mighty big Norwegia-sized shipping crate ready.

Should be able to copy our own DVD's

[AtariAmarok]

We should be able to copy our own DVD's, especially in countries like Canada, where if you buy a blank DVD*R, you pay a tax on it based on the assumption that you WILL copy. In places like this, if you are allowed to copy, you are getting your money's worth for the tax.

So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh!

DeCSS

[tacocat]

Does this mean that I can once again google openly for a copy of decss or maybe even find it as part of a package/rpm/deb/tgz?

Re:DeCSS

[JenovaSynthesis]

Unless you're a Linux only user, DeCSS was rendered obselete a while ago. I can rip DVDs to my heart's content.. all I gotta do is play 'em in PowerDVD or some other software for a few seconds. Unlocks the drive and disc and the ripper takes it from there...

Re:DeCSS

[Arcturax]

Pfft, you could find it right now and even during the trial. I even posted the code in my online journal. There are thousands of copies of it out there and not all the money in the world can get them pulled down.

Why visit the U.S.?

[AtariAmarok]

" why would -any- european want to visit the US these days?

Why else but to stock up on cheap Region 1 DVDs to take home and copy!

Re:Why visit the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what webshops are for. :)

Re:Why visit the U.S.?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about because the dollar to the Euro is now 1.24 and falling? :-(

Re:Why visit the U.S.?

[jeremyhu]

You'd get them cheaper in Canada...

Re:So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one country I can think of that would have the gall to call its national baseball championship The World Series......

If all else fails...

[the_ph0x`]

The Chewbacca Defense:

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?

Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

Re:If all else fails...

[jonbryce]

> If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

So *that's* where they messed up. Thanks for pointing it out.

Backups allowed

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole verdict can be found here (norwegian): "http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=206926"

"a DVD-record is a fragile media that may be damaged, thus the buyer must be entitled to make a copy, for-instance of a film that he wants to preserve".

Re:Copyrights

[julesh]

Title 17 - COPYRIGHTS
Chapter 2 - Copyright Ownership and Transfer
[...]
Everything contributed by Caldera etc. to Linux
under the UNSIGNED nonexclusive GPL prior to the
present SCO's purchase (transfer of ownership)
from Novell is eliminated by sec 205(e) from the
protection of the GPL under the Copyright Act.

1. The GPL is not a transfer of copyright ownership, which is what this law refers to. It is a licence. Licences do not have to be signed, otherwise you'd need Bill Gates' signature in order to run a copy of Windows.

2. WTF does this have to do with Jon Johanssen?

technical expertise

[SharpFang]

The new ruling was made by a panel of three professional judges backed up by four lay judges, two of whom had technical expertise relevant to the case.

Read: NERDS :)
He had to win :)

Re:technical expertise

[Ashtead]

Possibly so.. They Might be Nerds

However, according to the verdict, all those judges were in agreement.

Then again, it will take a while to forget that the prosecutor did not know what an algorithm was at the time the trial started....

Norway not a member of EU

[AtariAmarok]

According to the official European Union web site,
E.U. Online, Norway is neither on the typed-out list of nations, nor is it on the map. Perhaps this site is out of date.

Re:Norway not a member of EU

[arth1]

According to the official European Union web site,
E.U. Online, Norway is neither on the typed-out list of nations, nor is it on the map. Perhaps this site is out of date.

As earlier stated, Norway (and Switzerland) are not members of the EU, but of the EEC, which is basically the EU plus a couple of closely related countries (much like Puerto Rico is related to the US, while not being a member state). EEC is governed by EU economic laws, and while the EEC doesn't actively participate in EU legislation, it does have advisory roles.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Norway not a member of EU

[BenTels0]

Oh, so close and yet so far -- you were only a letter off. No, Norway is not a member of the EEC (precursor to the EC and as such to the EU) either. Norway IS a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which is a free-trade zone that consists of the European Union and all of the EFTA that hasn't been absorbed into the EU yet.

Those evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

This is similar to the "vast conspiracy" wacky theories about the Florida elections in 2000, which, in order to work, require the complete cooperation of many key Democrats, including the ones who designed and implemented the butterfly ballot and "Get felons off the list" system, and those in certain controversial counties who counted and certified ballots.

Re:Those evil Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

When "many key Democrats" = "Long-time Republican supporters", then you are indeed correct.

Troll.

Socialism and communism are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Marx, they are the same. He used both terms interchangably.

"or understand how values without a monetary value can pre-empt any economic claims.

Yet, the socialist system is obsessed with monetery value (hence the very greedy tax rates).

"The word "greed" sums it up pretty well - in Norway, greed is still considered a sin"

And, yet, the government in Norway is much more greedy than the one in the United States.

"In the US, greed is considered a driving force"

Less so than in a socialist system. Working and creating wealth is not greed.

Re:Socialism and communism are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

"In the US, greed is considered a driving force"

Less so than in a socialist system. Working and creating wealth is not greed.

In some cultures, working and creating wealth beyond the basic needs is the very definition of greed.

Re:Socialism and communism are the same

[Anonymous Coward]

"The word "greed" sums it up pretty well - in Norway, greed is still considered a sin"

And, yet, the government in Norway is much more greedy than the one in the United States.

The government's function is often to do the things that would be a "sin" for the individual, for example steal (assess taxes), kidnap (incarcerate), murder (apply capital punishment).

Governments exist to apply economic, social, and moral justice upon the aggregate of the individuals making up a society, and cannot be held to the same simple standards that must be applied to those individuals. They are fundamentally different things, and your conflation of them is disingenuous.

Re:Socialism and communism are the same

[arth1]

According to Marx, they are the same. He used both terms interchangably.

And nothing has happened since then?
Libertarianism and capitalism as distinct terms didn't exist when the US was founded, but they are now both recognized. Just as socialism, communism (and various derivates like socioliberalism) have developed since the times of Marx and Engels.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Socialism and communism are the same

[Gumshoe]

Socialism and communism are the same. According to Marx, they are the same. He used both terms interchangably.

a) Marx didn't invent communism he only co-wrote the Manifesto with Engels. So what Marx has to say on the subject isn't the last word.

and

b) The communism Marx was talking about is very different to the Communism you have in mind; the latter being better described as Stalinism.

Re:Socialism and communism are the same

[vidarh]

According to Marx, they are the same. He used both terms interchangably.

Bullshit. Go read the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels devoted a whole chapter to denouncing various forms of socialism, some he explicitly connected to reactionary or utopian movements, making it very clear that these forms of communism in Marx' and Engels' eyes were the wrong direction and would not lead to a communist society.

The terms socialism and communism are used in a few different ways in Marx' works depending on whether he is writing about economic, politics or philosophy, but the general difference is that Marxist socialism denote a political and economical system in which you have the dicatorship of the proletariat (where the working classes use the power given by their numbers to oppress the capitalist classes, with the goal of gradually taking away the means of production from the capitalists, forcing them to join the proletariat - or working classes - by virtue of no longer being able to survive by living of the works of others), whereas communism is a society where the nationstate has lost all political power, and "withered away" to become purely an administrative extension of the communes, and thus not exist in the capitalist sense of "state".

In terms of politics, the terms socialism and communism were frequently used by Marx' as expressions of the policies required to bring forth socialist and communist societies.

Socialism was by Marx' seen as a necessary precursor to communism.

I'd love to see how you think you can justify claiming that Marx' used the terms interchangably.

When will the press learn?

[threeturn]

Good news, but the quoted article annoys me.

Why does the press always uncritically report that DeCSS "cracks DVD copy protection codes"? It is clear that CSS is about preveting changes to region coding and the extraction of media. It doesn't prevent copying of the original DVD in any way, shape or form. As long as the DVD industry can sustain the spin that CSS is about copy protection they are winning the hearts and minds war.

How can we get the press to report these issues in a more intelligent way?

Re:When will the press learn?

[threeturn]

Oh and now the BBC falls for the same line

The court upheld an earlier verdict that Jon Johansen, 20, had not broken the law by creating a system that could get around copy protection on DVDs.

Re:When will the press learn?

[19usc2462bH]

Why does the press always uncritically report that DeCSS "cracks DVD copy protection codes"? It is clear that CSS is about preventing changes to region coding and the extraction of media. It doesn't prevent copying of the original DVD in any way, shape or form.

From what I understand if you try to copy a CSS-encoded DVD with a regular burner and regular file copy command, you will NOT gain access to the CSS keys, so you will NOT end up with a playable copy of the film. So while you may have a copy, there is not much to do with it.

Producers of programs that get around this seem to get sued.

The prosecution demonstrated this during the appeals trial. First they showed a short clip of The Matrix played through a licensed DVD software program on a portable computer. Then they attempted show the movie files copied from the Matrix disk, with some other player. The result was mostly a black screen.

The prosecution DID NOT demonstrate how DeCSS works...

Re:When will the press learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the press always uncritically report that DeCSS "cracks DVD copy protection codes"? It is clear that CSS is about preveting changes to region coding and the extraction of media.

Fortunately, the court had seen this point. They argued that the region coding caused considerable hassle to the consumers. Following that, they concluded that the region coding scheme had been rendered moot by all the newer players that did not honour the region coding, even though they had a DVD-CCA licence. (They violated DVD-CCA's licencing terms, so why shouldn't Jon?)

Re:When will the press learn?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've copied entire DVD-movies several times (not to mention Chineese pirates that have done it millions of times). They all work without a flaw...

Re:So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[John Courtland]

I do belive it had something to do with a corporation that sponsored it and not some "we are the only country in the world" ego boost. Besides, in 1904 or whenever the first World Series was played, the US was not a superpower.

Re:Norway vs EU

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not.

Some additional info from the court

[pkaral]

I was in court for the defence procedure, and here is some additional info:

DVD Jon was charged with breaking a rule in the Norwegian penal code that makes it illegal to "break a protection ... and thereby gain illegitimate access to data" (145,2). This is a different part of Norwegian law than that which deals with protection of Intellectual Property. The defence argued that this rule was a continuation of the old one that protected the secrecy of letters and other forms of communication, and that a movie therefore is not "data" according to this law. As far as I understand, the court did not concede this.

However, the crux of the case ended up being the term "illegitimate access". The court decided that there is nothing illegitimate about breaking a protection to gain access to something you have bought. An important part of this is that in Norway, the labels that distributors stick on DVDs, CDs and software are not binding for consumers (more explicit consent is required for binding agreements). If the labels were binding, the access would have been illegitimate. Luckily for Jon (and for freedom of information), this is not the case.

Re:Some additional info from the court

[Anonymous Coward]

the way i see it:

the entertainment industry can't have it both ways. they can't distribute billions of instances of what amounts to copies of an original artwork and then call it "protected" and also call the sticker license "binding".

their product is sometimes entertaining, sometimes landfill, and sometimes just plain shit.

the courts have ruled that there is no enforceable agreement between buyer and seller in this case.

which makes sense, the stuff they are selling isn't that important.

Re:Some additional info from the court

[evbergen]

Great, so no EULAs either then? Good riddance!

Re:Some additional info from the court

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, even in the USA, software is considered bought, not licensed (with the exception of UCITA states). Se Adobe vs. Softman.

Leave it to the people

[Anonymous Coward]

In some cultures, working and creating wealth beyond the basic needs is the very definition of greed

This should be left up to the people involved, not jealous and greedy outsiders who endeavor to steal other's property after they set arbitrary standards of "basic needs". Or socialist governments, which take from those who they claim have "too much" while saying they will give to those who have "too little", but it turns out that they keep most of it and let a little trickle down.

Re:Leave it to the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in Norway the people has votede for such a system, since 1933, and given their support for higher taxes in return for better soscial system, almost no poverty, and low crime rates.
This is not about stealing, its about democrazy. A world where the rich people rule the disiplines of economics and politics, cant be a democrazy

As the norwegian-american said "The two cultures is a world appart".

Re:Leave it to the people

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is not about stealing, its about democrazy."

A democratic (majority-approved) government that steals is still stealing. It is the ruling class getting rich at the expense of the ruled.

"A world where the rich people rule the disiplines of economics and politics, cant be a democrazy"

It is, if those rich people are chosen by a democratic process.

Re:Leave it to the people

[Anonymous Coward]

"A democratic (majority-approved) government that steals is still stealing. It is the ruling class getting rich at the expense of the ruled."

Not if all the goods really is the peoples property, not a few rich guys. In a democrazy this is up to the people to decide.

"It is (democrazy), if those rich people are chosen by a democratic process."

Guess we can speak of more or less democrazy

Escuse for govenrment atrocities

[Anonymous Coward]

[governments] cannot be held to the same simple standards that must be applied to those individuals. They are fundamentally different things, and your conflation of them is disingenuous.

I wonder if Slobodon Milosevic has used these words in his 4-year-trial as a way to justify what he did. The good old "We didn't do it: the government did".

Re:Escuse for govenrment atrocities

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a full on red (snicker) herring, which deserves this retort:

I wonder if G.W. Bush used that excuse for all the men whose deaths he presided over in Texas...

Ultimately, the individuals who run governments will be accountable for their actions. My point is that governments are tasked with necessary unpleasantries that would be considered criminal for individuals.

Re:Escuse for govenrment atrocities

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if G.W. Bush used that excuse for all the men whose deaths he presided over in Texas..."

He probably did. After all, G.W.B. did not sentence them to death. His only involvement, if any, is a "sin of ommission" of failing to intervene in the usual government process.

"My point is that governments are tasked with necessary unpleasantries that would be considered criminal for individuals."

Some critical thinking here: Is this really necessary?

Re:Escuse for govenrment atrocities

[Anonymous Coward]

Some critical thinking here: Is this really necessary?

My conclusion, based not on critical thinking in a vacuum but on pragmatic considerations of observed human behavior and the need to modulate its baser aspect in pursuit of a larger common good, is that yes, it is...

Re:FP ON TEH SPKOE!!

[Zoshnell]

Oh great knower of trolls, where does the yoda doll reference come from? My brain is tormented by this, and your knowledge will save me!

All together now,

[Anonymous Coward]

[simpsons]
HAHA!
[/simpsons]

Re:Copyrights

[gumout]

1. You obviously didn't comprehend. 2. It was supposed to be for the next post.

Difference in degree

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally, the difference in the usage is one of degree, now. "Socialism" in general refers to the State controlling matters (instead of the people controlling matters). There can be different degrees of this. "Communism" is the extreme of socialism, with the State controlling and owning everything (with nothing left to the people).

Wrong, by 60%

[Orne]

CNN did a study earlier this year, to check the personal finances of American Senators. The reason behind this is, due to new campaign finance laws, if you decide to privately fund your campaign, you are not held to the free speach restrictions telling you when you may broadcast your commercials... but I digress.

At the time (Jun 13), only 40 out of 100 were millionaires, with 22 of those Republican and 18 of those Democrat. Of the same group of 40, 6 were Women and 34 were Men. The top 3 wealthiest are all Democrat.

From a blurb at the bottom, there are at least a few "common" people in the Senate... "at least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000." Still a substantial salary in my opinion.

Not surprisingly, the founding fathers had a more "ogliarch" view of government. Benjamin Franklin believed that if the Senators were not given a salary, then only the wealthy could afford to spend their free time governing the nation. He was voted down, and congress instituted a salary of $6 per day.

Re:Wrong, by 60%

[be-fan]

At the time (Jun 13), only 40 out of 100 were millionaires, with 22 of those Republican
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Only" 40 out of 100???

Re:Wrong, by 60%

[jafac]

Net Worth != Salary.

I have a net worth of well over $100,000, if you count my home. I think that's true for MOST homeowners in the US.

Someone with a net worth of less than $100,000, I would not consider rich. I would consider them dirt poor. I consider myself "endangered, near-extinct, middle-class". "commoner" status, in the US. I'm the guy caught in the middle. The one who didn't get Bush's tax cut. But got his dad's tax increase.

Re:Wrong, by 60%

[Perky_Goth]

+5 for completly missing the point...
Americans... ;)

Leninism as Marxism

[Anonymous Coward]

b) The communism Marx was talking about is very different to the Communism you have in mind; the latter being better described as Stalinism.

According to the vast majority of Marxist scholars, the Stalinist variety (more accurately called Leninism: Lenin founded it and Stalin merely continued it) is a proper realization of Marx's communism.

Re:Leninism as Marxism

[Gumshoe]

According to the vast majority of Marxist scholars,

I have yet to encounter a single "Marxist scholar" with any merit who actually believes that. Please cite your sources.

Norway is not a socialist nor a communist country

[Graabein]

Norway is not a socialist nor a communist country.

Just thought I'd mention that FTR ;-). Norway is currently governed by a coalition of the conservative party, the christian democrats and the liberal (no, not "liberal" in the US sense) party.

Norway has been a democratic, capitalist country ever since it broke free from despotic royal rule in the early 1800s.

Re:So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[adrianbaugh]

Myth

sigh...

[mekkab]

get your facts straight. I hate it when people reference the McDonalds coffee case and don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Here are some details:
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.

POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.

Re:sigh...

[CharlieG]

And coffee server AT HOME, coming out of the coffee maker, is HOTTER than it was at McDs, as is tea, properly made (you use BOILING water)

So, if a guest comes to your house, and burns themselves making coffee or tea, should you be liable?

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was found that while the McD coffee was hot, it was at a lower temperature than a typical cafe's coffee.

The real lesson is don't put hot stuff (especially liquids) between your legs and drive around. But instead, every fast food place has to put up a notice warning that hot coffee and other hot drinks are served (surprise) *hot*.

It is idiots like this who are responsible for all the warning stickers, labels and signs for obvious things. Like "POISON: Do not eat!" For crying out loud... why isn't "POISON" enough... shouldn't imply that you shouldn't eat it?

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

get your facts straight. I hate it when people reference the McDonalds coffee case and don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

You should take your own advice. If you did some research about the serving temperature of coffee you would learn that McDonalds was serving their coffee at a lower temperature than what is recommended. The fact that a number of people had previously spilled coffee on themselves doesn't add any validity to her case. It just goes to show that she's not the only dumbass to have done it.

This is the problem with "jury of your peers". If some people who were knowledgable about coffee and the recommended serving temperatures were on the jury then its most likely the verdict would not have held McDonalds liable.

Now...if you can come up with proof that McDonalds coffee was served in excess of the recommonded serving temperature you might have a case. As it is the recommended serving temperature is sufficient enough to cause the injuries she suffered. I see no negligence on McDonalds part. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Re:sigh...

[originalTMAN]

Seriously, the grandparent only proved that there are at least 700 stupid people in the world.

Re:sigh...

[Graphyx]

I don't know. Invite me over for coffee and lets find out.

Re:sigh...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Actually it was found that while the McD coffee was hot, it was at a lower temperature than a typical cafe's coffee.

I'm having a hard time believing this statement. I worked for McDonald's around 1991-1992, and the coffee we served there was incredibly hot. As in, let it cool for 30 minutes with the lid off, and it might not blister your tongue. I'd be interested to know the actual conditions and research data for the comparison you describe, it sounds to me like doctored evidence.

Re:sigh...

[cK-Gunslinger]

I'm glad I'm not the only one...

More info about the case in my Journal.

Re:sigh...

[mekkab]

So, if a guest comes to your house, and burns themselves making coffee or tea, should you be liable?


Yes. (P.S.- IANAL.)

But thats irrelevant to the grandparent post. The McD's case is not a "travesty of our judicial system"- but corporation getting whacked for a dangerous trend ( yes, 700 reported cases makes a trend). Considering that initially the woman only asked for monetary damages equaling her medical bills, I'm sure the final Amount was that plus her legal. I don't see how this is anything but the legal system empowering individuals against giant corporations.

Re:sigh...

[mekkab]

rock on... the thing that I posted is actually saved as my PGP signature here on slashdot! ;)

Another fact I should put in is that a random sampling of coffee from other drive thru's puts McD's at the high, some 15-17 degrees above its competitors (20 degrees above most).

Re:sigh...

[ad0gg]

You're the reason America is fucked up the way it is. The reason why little league pays more for liabilty insurance than its does for equipment, uniforms and field maintence combined.(Hell my highschool couldn't afford a baseball team because of Insurance costs). The reason why hotels now have the max temperature of their hotwater set to 100 degrees, forget that hot shower. There is no reason why she should of got a cent. Did McDonalds break any laws? No. There are laws to protect consumer safetly including food prep and food safety. Did McDonalds violate any of these laws? No. So what did McDonalds do wrong? Served Coffee to hot, give me a break. I don't know how many times I recieved 2nd degree(blisted) burns to my mouth from eating hot pizza yet I'm not sueing Pizza hut or Papa John's for millions of dollars. If you want to complain about coffee being to hot, complain to you congress men. Because we need more laws to protect ourselves. We already have laws to protect us from our own stuff(DMCA) how about a law to set the max temperature of the coffee we brew?

Re:sigh...

[CharlieG]

I guess that no one should make coffee, tea, or boil anything at your place, as they are all hotter than 190

Remind me not to drink your coffee or tea, as it'll suck

Re:sigh...

[mekkab]

Uhm, first of all: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Cry me a river! Your poor wittle high school couldn't afford a baseball team! WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Second of all: Do the research. McD's coffee Temp: 180 degrees. Its competitors? 155 degrees.
Thats a major temperature differential.

AS for the millions? The woman sued for 20,000 (her medical bills). The jury awarded millions, the judge reduced to 200k, THEN She and McD's settled (they would have appealed, otherwise) most likely for medical bills and court costs. Where are the millions?! Moron.

YOU are whats wrong with america. You are stupid, you don't do any research, and all you do is bitch.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was found that while the McD coffee was hot, it was at a lower temperature than a typical cafe's coffee.

I've read the court documents for this case, and never saw any such claim in it. In fact, what I saw contradicted this directly. Can you please provide me with a citation for this, so I can go and read it? Thanks in advance.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason why hotels now have the max temperature of their hotwater set to 100 degrees, forget that hot shower.

Please give units. 100 degrees (celcius) is the boiling point of water - your post is rather ambiguous.

Re:sigh...

[ad0gg]

Yawn.

Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.

the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.

From National Coffee Association of USA So what exactly did McDonalds do wrong? It served coffee at recommended temperature for taste. They broke no laws. Why should they pay for her medical bill? Did they jump in her car and force her to spill coffee on herself?

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know how common it is to have coffee at 180+ degrees, but I do know that some coffee makers brew at over 200 degrees and hold the coffee at 180 degrees in the caraf.

I also seem to remember a 20/20 piece which tested coffee from local cafes and found that *some* were over the temperature of the coffee in the Mc. Donalds case. That hardly equates to a typical cafe's coffee temperature though.

I personally still find Mc. Donald's coffee too hot to drink (even though they have reduced the temperature since the suit) until it sits a while. But my dad always liked his coffee best right out of the pot (where it had just been boiling.)

So... I wouldn't dismiss the claim that the coffee wasn't *unusually* hot. At the same time, they foolishly refused to settle for $20,000 (likely little more than medical costs) and tried to offer $800 to the little old lady.

And to be honest, I'm glad the coffee is cooler now... I still damn-near scald my toungue if I don't wait a bit to drink it.

Do I think $480k was a lot to award? Yes. Would I want that much if I had to go to the hospital with 3rd degree burns? Sure!

Re:sigh...

[IdleTime]

Geeee.... What do you know? Coffee is HOT!
So, who are you going to sue if you spill hot coffee over your lap from the coffee you made on the drip-brewer? The makers of the brewer?

The whole McDonald and hot coffee trial should have been thrown out of court and the lady should have heard the following words from the Judge: "Ms. Hot coffee is hot! If you spill it, you will get burned. How is that McDonalds (or anyonbe else but you's) fault? Case dismissed!"

Re:sigh...

[Druss.the.legend]

Actually - Mcdonalds keeps its coffee under pressure which means that the temp is MUCH higher than at home as you claim.

Re:sigh...

[CharlieG]

The coffee in the case at trial was somewhere between 190 and 195 - measured, so, I'd guess the pressure doesn't much matter - the boiling point might me higher, but the temp is still the temp

Re:sigh...

[alienw]

OBVIOUSLY they don't have it set to boiling, you fuckwad. That would not only be unsafe, it would also make the boiler and pipes blow up. So, the only logical choice is fahrenheit.

Re:sigh...

[RogerWilco]

100 degrees celcius = boiling water => way to hot to be save
100 degrees fahrenheit = temperature of human blood (37)
=> temperature that is save for anyone (I think)
My own shower has a lock that will not allow me to mix water above 37 celcius, unless I push a button. The actual water temperature of the hot water is around 90 celcius, to prevent legionella.
(how do the above hotels handle teh legionella problem?)

I was also confused at first because I normally think in Celcius, but in this case it's obvious what he means.

Re:sigh...

[Canadian_Daemon]

Or Kelvin, but that would be extremely cold

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the most money she ever made with that .. as far as we know

Re:sigh...

[geekoid]

When a manufacturer knowingly continues a practice that is harmfull, it will become liable.

McDonalds was aware that at the temperature that they served coffee was dagerous, and that people had burned them selves so bad, it required medical attention, and time in the hospital.

It is reasonable to expect people to spill coffee, as such, you better be sure it's not going to put them in the hospital.

Very few people taste anything thats 185 degree farenhiet, because it will burn your tounge.

The suit is not that coffee was spilt, but that the coffee was dangerous. Do you think if you bought a cup of coffee, spilt it on yourself, it would be reasonalbe to have to go to a burn ward for a week?

Re:sigh...

[geekoid]

The case was not about spilling coffee, it was about knowingly selling coffee at a temperature that that can put people in the hospital.

IF you went ta a bar and ordered cold vadka, and the gave you vodka chilled to -50 degrees, and thus ended up in the hospital(or dead) do you think you would have a case?

Hey, it was cold. and you asked for cold.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, the woman did not burn herself making coffee. Maybe you've never seen the inside of a McDonalds before, but at McDonalds they make the coffee for you. The customer does not decide what temperature to serve their coffee at. The customer does not have anything to do with the coffee making process. Your analogy is misleading and stupid.

Did you make the coffee for you guests?

Did your coffee burn 700 previous guests?

Did you pay out over $500,000 in damages to those guests you hospitalized?

Did you continue to serve coffee that you know was sending some of your guests to the emergency room?

Was your coffee served 20 degrees hotter than in every other home in the state?

Then yes, you are liable.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

The suit is not that coffee was spilt, but that the coffee was dangerous.

Driving is dangerous. So, are auto manufacturers liable for someone crashing into a telephone pole while talking a cell phone? After all, they could just make cars that only go 15 MPH (24 KPH) and greatly reduce both the risk of accident and the amount of injury.

The answer is NO. Many people want (actually most demand) that their vehicle goes faster. Likewise many people want coffee around the *recommended* temperature of 180-185 degrees due to taste and cooling (still warm when you get to work for example) reasons. Why is a coffee accident any less of an accident than a car accident? (And I'll gaurantee that the ratio of car drivers to car accidents is a lot lower than the ratio of McDonald's coffee drinks to burn victims if you look at the same 10 years.)

Re:sigh...

[Col. Panic]

Failure to exercise due care despite the knowledge that this had happened many times before to both customers and employees. They knew they were serving their coffee 30 deg. hotter than other similar restaurants and that people had been burned, but they maintained the policy of keeping it that hot and did nothing to warn customers of the danger.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

IF you went ta a bar and ordered cold vadka, and the gave you vodka chilled to -50 degrees, and thus ended up in the hospital(or dead) do you think you would have a case?

Hey, here's an idea.. let's try an analogy that is accurate for a change!

You walk into a bar and order a shot of Dr. McGillicuddy's Peppermint Schnaups (for those who don't know, at least in Wisconsin, this is an alcholic drink often served around 5-10 degrees F below freezing.) You've had the stuff before and know it's served cold. Just as you are about to take a drink you sneeze and toss it into your left eye. You scream in pain and are partially blinded due to sudden formation of ice crystals in your cornia. You find out that over the past 10 years almost 70 people a year were similarly injured.

Do you think you would have a case?

How is this more like the McD suit? The product was used inappropriatly though by accident. The product's temperature was such that it could cause injury if not used as intended. The product's temperature was in the range expected by customers. The product's temperature was in the range recommended for it. The total number of related injuries (700 in 10 years) is rediculously low. (Before someone argues it isn't low consider that MANY more people are injured OR KILLED yearly by kite flying! In fact over 100 were injured and 20 killed in less than a year in one Pakistani town according to this.)

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

When a manufacturer knowingly continues a practice that is harmfull, it will become liable.

What was knowingly dangerous about it? According to the link provided McDonalds served the coffee at the recommended temperature.

Re:sigh...

[CharlieG]

A BIG part of the case hinged on the fact that McDs served the coffee "Hotter than normal" - Well, if the person makes their own coffee, they make coffee hotter than that!!!

As others have pointed out - 700 people, out of "Billions and Billions served" - not a bad ratio

The woam did something dumb - opened her coffee in a moving car.

Now if anything, the lawsuit should have been about driveup windows.......

Re:sigh...

[Pofy]

Ehh, I would like to see the coffee and cup that takes that long to cool down sufficiently.

In my opinion, and the way many do coffee, is that one uses boiling water (or as close to boiling as you get). Can't get much hotter than that. In no case have I ever had to wait that long to drink the coffee. In my opinion the problem is usually the opposite, it gets cold to fast!!

Re:sigh...

[Pofy]

When I order coffee, I want, and expect it to be HOT. If not, I will complain. There is no such thing as too hit since you are suposed to be close to boiling anyway when you make it. The hotter the better and the longer it stays hot enough for drinking and not getting to cold.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

but corporation getting whacked for a dangerous trend ( yes, 700 reported cases makes a trend)

NO! No it doesn't! It makes a staticially insignificant "blip."

McD sells 1 BILLION cups of coffee each year according to this PDF. The 700 previous injuries were over the course of 10 years. That means that over the ten years prior to this case, the coffee temperature resulted in injury for less than 0.000007% of cups served. Or, if you want to look at it another way, for every 14.2 million cups of coffee served, some moron is going to spill ONE on themselves.

Based on those ratios, I suspect that there are much more dangerous things out there which you use day to day without thinking about them. Like pencils for example.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

The woam did something dumb - opened her coffee in a moving car.

Allegedly they car was stopped (yeah, the driver pulled over for her to open the coffee.. sure.) But even if that was the case, the woman was dumb as a rock. Watch someone who drinks coffee regularly when they are sitting in a *completely motionless* chair and they open the lid to their coffee. In almost all cases you are going to see them move the coffee to a position that is not above any part of their body. (Usually resulting in some kind of odd contorted pose that makes a good photo for later.)

What you don't see them do is hold the cup right next to their groin.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehh, I would like to see the coffee and cup that takes that long to cool down sufficiently.

WTF are you talking about? The only time mentioned in the post is "10 years" which is how long it took for a full 700 people to be burnt. If you are talking about cooling to 180-185, that would be done (presumably) after the coffee was brewed and while sitting in the pot. Since brewing is recommended from 195-205 (according to the same page) it's pretty reasonable to think it would cool down to 180-185 pretty quickly.

Re:sigh...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

But you don't drink it still boiling, do you?

Re:sigh...

[alienw]

Not only would it be cold, it would also be frozen. Thus you could not possibly pipe it in, much less shower in it.

Re:sigh...

[Pofy]

>WTF are you talking about? The only time
>mentioned in the post is "10 years"

Ehh, the post I replied to has the following in it:

"As in, let it cool for 30 minutes with the lid off"

That is what I commented on.

Re:sigh...

[McAddress]

that is probably the reason that why McD's is the world's most successful restaurant. Coffee is like girls, the hotter, the better.

Re:sigh...

[Solandri]

When a manufacturer knowingly continues a practice that is harmfull, it will become liable.

News flash: Sunlight is harmful to your health.

Maybe if all you liability freaks would lock yourselves indoors, the rest of us could get on living our lives. People like hot coffee. Deal with it. A 700 in 17 billion accident rate is, literally, safer than crossing the street. Heck, the fatality rate for lightning (73 per 300 million) is 6x worse. Are you going to sue everyone that owns open outdoor space because it's 6x more dangerous than McDonalds coffee?

"Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world." - Mary Shafer, SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer

Re:sigh...

[HuguesT]

Well rest assured, the coffee that used to be served at McDonald was really really hot, so hot that if you tried to drink it you would simply burn your tongue. There is simply no way you can drink coffee at 90C/195F.

The water is supposed to be boiling when it hits the grains, but then it is supposed to cool off. In fact letting coffee for too long on the hot plate makes it bitter.

Normal drinking temperature is around 50-60C/90F, there is no reason to keep it hotter than that given the insulating foam cups that they use.

Re:sigh...

[Anonymous Coward]

But you don't drink it still boiling, do you?

No, but the time between it boiling and the drinking can be measured in seconds.

The point is that coffee served at 185 degrees is hot coffee. It is not unbelievably amazingly off the scales hot coffee as some people seem to be trying to pretend.

Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House?

[FreeUser]

The case might also be escalated to the Norwegian supreme court, for a principal ruling. However, I am not sure that the MPAA would want that to happen, as that would be a definitive ruling affecting all similar cases in the future, and with the firm rulings of the two lower courts, it's highly unlikely that the Norwegian supreme court would rule differently.

Could Jon Johansen appeal this to the supreme court in the interest of getting a principal ruling? Or althernatively, could his supporters? It seems that getting such would be a worthwhile public service to the people of Norway, and an important step in assuring their freedoms against encroachment by the American media interests.

Re:Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House?

[geoffspear]

What kind of idiot would appeal his own not guilty verdict? The point of an appeal is to ask a higher court to change the decision of a lower court. If he wanted to be convicted he would have plead guilty.

Re:Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House?

[rworne]

Unlike the US, if you are aquitted in Norway, the prosecutor can appeal the aquittal up to two more times. Jon did not appeal at all. IIRC, the prosecutor still has one chance at appealing to Norway's highest court. So he may not be out of the woods quite yet.

Re:Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House?

[geoffspear]

Yes, I realize that. The comment I was replying to suggested that Jon should appeal the case himself so a precedent could be set, which is patently absurd.

Re:Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House?

[FreeUser]

What kind of idiot would appeal his own not guilty verdict?

You obviously are not an attorney.

The question I posed (which obviously went over your head) was whether one can request a "ruling of pricipal" from the supreme court. This does not presume that an innocent verdict will be overturned (after all, he has been found innocent ... twice), even if the ruling of pricipal disagrees.

In the US potential victims of lawsuits can file a suit preemtively, asking for the court to determine whether or not they are liable. My question goes to whether or not such an approach is available on criminal cases, where cases can be brought in an effort to clarify the law, without a specific individual's life being put at risk.

Given how different Norwegian law is from US law (allowing prosecuters to appeal an acquital, for example), this is something I would like to know.

So, once again I ask, are there any Norwegian attorneys in the house, or merely more noisy denizens of the peanut gallery?

Re:Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House?

[19usc2462bH]

Could Jon Johansen appeal this to the supreme court in the interest of getting a principal ruling? Or althernatively, could his supporters? It seems that getting such would be a worthwhile public service to the people of Norway, and an important step in assuring their freedoms against encroachment by the American media interests.

Lov om rettergangsmaten i straffesaker (Straffeprosessloven) [The Criminal Procedure Code] section 307 provides that

Any person who has been acquitted may not appeal unless the court has found it proved that he committed the unlawful act referred to in the indictment.

Any person acquitted by a judgement of the Court of Appeal in a case that is tried with a jury may not appeal unless the issue of guilt has been decided against him.

I.e. you may not appeal because you are not happy with the reasonings of the court, ot because you'd like to have a higher court take a look at the case (such as to render a more authoritative ruling), as long as you were acquitted. This goes for civil cases as well.

This case was not tried before a jury, but with a combined court of three judges and four lay judges (in this case: two exptert lay judges and two regular lay judges), since the maximum sentence that could applied was less than 6 years, see the Norwegian Criminal Code section 352. The Norwegian Penal Code section 145 only provides for a maximum jail term of two years if damage is caused or the felony took place for an ulawful gain. Otherwise the maximum prison sentence would be six months.

One of the judges (Stavang) holds a Norwegian (research) doctorate in law, and a minor degree in economics, and was quite interested in the antitrust implications of the DVD region system. In an answer to a question by Glyn Ford, Mario Monti answered that "... the Commission has obtained significant amounts of information relating to the establishment and ongoing operation of the regional coding system from a broad range of film studios, DVD equipment manufacturers, and commercial retailers. The Commission is now completing its analysis of the file with a view to ascertaining the system's compatibility with the Community competition rules." See Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E of 12 June 2003 (page 34[pdf file]).

The whole criminal procedure act is available translated into Engilsh as a large PDF file. The General civil penal code is also available translated into English as a PDF file.

Or alternatively, could his supporters?

His supporters? Who are they? No, only parties to the case may appeal; you must have "legal standing".

Leninism is dominant form of Marxism.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to encounter a single "Marxist scholar" with any merit who actually believes that

Ever hear of the communist parties of Russia and China? Vast numbers of members, and huge numbers of Chinese academics who are steeped in the Maoist version of Leninism. Huge numbers. You probably know very few Marxist scholars. I've talked to many, including those who claimed to dislike Stalinism, but then they say they love what Castro has done in Cuba (which is an example of Leninism/Stalinism).

Re:Leninism is dominant form of Marxism.

[Gumshoe]

Ever hear of the communist parties of Russia and China?

Do you not suppose those parties had a political agenda? Can you say the word, "propoganda"? The only connection between the Stalinists and Marx was that the former used the latter's Manifesto as a tool to convince the proletariat that they were an actual communist party. It's a classic example of Stalinist doublespeak; and you've fallen for it!

You probably know very few Marxist scholars

I don't know any as it happens. I've encountered several though.

I've talked to many, including those who claimed to dislike Stalinism, but then they say they love what Castro has done in Cuba (which is an example of Leninism/Stalinism).

I fail to see how expressing admiration for Cuban communism is the same as stating that Marxism is the same as Stalinism. Are you going to cite references or not.

She just might try again...

[tuxette]

Check this article out...

From the article:

Prosecutors from Norway's white-collar crime unit Oekokrim said they would "carefully evaluate" whether they'd appeal DVD-Jon's latest acquittal to the country's supreme court.

"We now want to take some time to think about this and study the grounds on which the verdict was based," Oekokrim prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde told news bureau NTB.

She believes Johansen would have been convicted if the court had believed he intended to use his decryption program for pirate copying.

GAAAAWWWWWD! Did she learn anything in law school, or did she get in (and her job) on the dumb bimbo quota? If you want to get someone convicted on something, if you want the court to believe your claims, PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!

Re:She just might try again...

[Englebarnetk]

She believes Johansen would have been convicted if the court had believed he intended to use his decryption program for pirate copying.

I agree. There isn't any evidence on that DVD-Jon used the software for pirate copying, so her statement is totally absurd. It's like trying arrest people who are making crowbars, accusing them of supplying the tools thieves use to brake in.

I got the facts straight: suit was frivolous

[Anonymous Coward]

"get your facts straight. I hate it when people reference the McDonalds coffee case and don't know what the fuck they are talking about

I did. I know lots of minute courtroom details, which all show how utterly frivolous this case is.

"McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree,"

The facts: McDonald's had sold more than ten million cups of this coffee at the SAME temperature over the same time period. 700 incidents during this time amounts to "nil". Do the math: the coffee was quite safe. I guess everyone else chose not to pour the coffee into their crotch.

Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000"

So? She received way too much. $480,000 too much, in fact. The legal system is flawed to allow any ill-gotten gains like this. Looks like you do not know what you are talking about.

No kidding

[Wah]

In a day and age when we can watch movies on our cell phones, we damn well better have the right to do so.

Or things will probably get ugly.

Re:Norway is not a socialist nor a communist count

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Norway has been a democratic, capitalist country ever since it broke free from despotic royal rule in the early 1800s.

Well, then, thanks for not referring to the events in 1905 as "breaking free from despotic royal rule".

Don't mind you slagging the Danes though. :-)

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! "Everyone" was able to drink it after it cooled sufficiently. The coffee was too hot to drink when it was served. Think it about it. If it was so hot that it gave 3rd degree burns severe enough for skin grafts, what do you think it would do to your lips, mouth, and esophogus?

As a side note ...

[value_added]

I thought I'd point out that I always enjoy coming across a post where the writer identifies himself as being from such and such country (i.e., not from the U.S.). Not only do such posts provide everyone an opportunity to reflect on that country's culture and history, but also such posts often distinguish themselves by being well written. More specifically, they seem to lack the spelling and grammatical errors commonly found in posts made by those whose native language is obviously English.

Coffee was quite safe

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wrong! "Everyone" was able to drink it after it cooled sufficiently. The coffee was too hot to drink when it was served. Think it about it."

Follow your own advice. All coffee is served this way!

"If it was so hot that it gave 3rd degree burns severe enough for skin grafts, what do you think it would do to your lips, mouth, and esophogus?"

Yet, that is the way coffee is served. Everywhere. No one has a problem with it unless they do something stupid. (By the way: percent of burn incidents for those millions of cups sold by McDonald's and CONSUMED: 0.00007 %. Think about it, Mr Bond).

If there is any possible criminal negligence outside of the stupid old lady, it might belong to the caregiver involved who let a lady handle coffee who had apparently forgotten how to drink it.

Re:Coffee was quite safe

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it was so hot that it gave 3rd degree burns severe enough for skin grafts, what do you think it would do to your lips, mouth, and esophogus?"

Yet, that is the way coffee is served. Everywhere.

If that were the case, then why do the actual case documents, provided by McDonalds, show that the McDonalds in question was serving its coffee at temperatures 30 degrees F higher than the industry standard, and 20 degrees higher than industry consultants had previously advised McDonalds to use as its absolute maximum?

More Info On The Frivolity

[nightwing2000]

The stunned cow put the soft foam cup between her legs and drove off. Guess what happened when she hit a bump? I think this is more a case of a bunch of jurors being swayed by the gruesome pictures and the "they got ltsa money" attitude. The McD coffee is sold at 185F (IIRC?) where it tastes better and stays warm longer. (Good concept for take-out coffee). This is a good coffee practice, a few other vendors do too. It says on the cup "Caution - hot contents". And very few people are unaware it is made with boiled water... Other typical coffee vendors sell it at 140F or so, to avoid these problems, and let the coffee sit a few hours without that burnt taste...

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Anonymous Coward]

The stunned cow put the soft foam cup between her legs and drove off.

No she didn't. It's pretty hard to drive a car from the passenger seat.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Paisley Phrog]

The stunned cow put the soft foam cup between her legs and drove off. Guess what happened when she hit a bump?
Absolutely nothing, because she wasn't driving; the car was stopped when it spilled.

"After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.)"

The McD coffee is sold at 185F (IIRC?) where it tastes better and stays warm longer.
And is also undrinkable. Coffee made at home is 130-140 degrees. Coffee at 185 degrees will cause third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds.

I'm not promoting either end of the case, really, just an accurate representation of the facts. Check out this link..

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

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty hard to drive a car from the passenger seat.

Yeah, no wonder she spilled her coffee.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

I live just 2 blocks from the McDonald's in question, and before the incident, I had coffee there several times. I never got burned. The coffee was never too hot.

I love to hear people who say that they only want everyone to know the facts in the case. Well, here's a fact that no one seems to know. That McDonald's drive through is at the top of a very steep hill(greater than 45 degrees).

Everyone with any common sense would know that you don't open hot coffee between your knees when your car is headed down a steep hill. What happened to this woman was completely her own fault. I don't think McDonald's should have had to pay her anything.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[ad0gg]

Coffee made at home is lot hotter than 130-140. Thats not even temperature of Latte or Mocha.

Example Coffee Maker

Hell my instant hot water tap on my sink spits out 180 F degree water which I use to make hot chocolate and instant coffee when I'm lazy. Maybe i should spill it on myself and sue the manufactor. I mean 180 degrees is too dangerous. Please manufactors and companies, protect me from myself.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Paisley Phrog]

I never got burned. The coffee was never too hot.
I've scalded myself several times on their coffee, even after a generous cooling off time. I don;t buy it anymore because it's too damn hot *shrug* YMMV.

Well, here's a fact that no one seems to know. That McDonald's drive through is at the top of a very steep hill(greater than 45 degrees).
Now *that's* interesting. Hmmm...

Everyone with any common sense would know that you don't open hot coffee between your knees when your car is headed down a steep hill.
Although I have to wonder, if the hill is *that* steep, why didn't the coffee spill forward? That's steep.

What happened to this woman was completely her own fault.
Mostly true, which is why the courts reduced the damages. What it came down to was that McD, according to their policy, keeps their coffee at a temp which can cause serious burns very quickly. Yes, she put the coffee in between her knees. But in most cases, if you spill hot coffee in your lap, it's just gonna be uncomfortable and embarrassing, and not require time in the hospital for skin grafts. It's measures of what you can expect as far as consequences. Most people do not equivocate a cup of coffee with a cup of near-boiling water, because in 99% of cases (i.e. non-McDonalds), it isn't. Keep in mind, the judgement was also because of the other 700 reports of burns.

It's a weird case, at any rate. To repeat, *shrug*

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Deagol]

I hate myself for jumping into this...

The temp at which coffee is made surely must be hotter than which it is served. Maybe people are mixing "made" and "served" in this thread because they're in a hurry.

Sure, my wife makes my coffee with boiling water in the French press. If she ever served me boiling coffee, I'd have a few choice words for her. :)

Also, 180F really is way too dangerous to use for normal household use, nevermind the waste of heating power to maintain it. I set my water heater to 140F and I think I'm pushing it. 120F seems to be the accepted standard, and with good reason, I think. But you do have the right to use your water heater as you see fit, and GE should not be held responsible if you scald yourself using your 180F water from one of their water heaters.

But still... 180F?!?

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

Although I have to wonder, if the hill is *that* steep, why didn't the coffee spill forward? That's steep.
It's definitely that steep. When I was younger, riding my bike to school, I used to ride to the top of that hill and take off, because after I took off from there, I could coast for several blocks. What I assume is that she tilted the cup back to keep it from spilling forward, and then when she tried to pull the lid off, the cup probably jerked and fell completely back into her lap.

"What happened to this woman was completely her own fault."
Mostly true, which is why the courts reduced the damages. What it came down to was that McD, according to their policy, keeps their coffee at a temp which can cause serious burns very quickly. Yes, she put the coffee in between her knees. But in most cases, if you spill hot coffee in your lap, it's just gonna be uncomfortable and embarrassing, and not require time in the hospital for skin grafts. It's measures of what you can expect as far as consequences. Most people do not equivocate a cup of coffee with a cup of near-boiling water, because in 99% of cases (i.e. non-McDonalds), it isn't. Keep in mind, the judgement was also because of the other 700 reports of burns.
Someone in my family spilled homemade coffee(from a coffee maker) in her lap and got the same kind of burns as this woman. She also had to get skin grafts. She was given silver sulfadiazine, which is pretty strong stuff, for the pain. If that can happen because of coffee made in a coffee maker, then I don't really think McDonald's did anything wrong in this case.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Paisley Phrog]

Coffee made at home is lot hotter than 130-140. Thats not even temperature of Latte or Mocha.
Right, the operative term is brewing temperature. I have a Chemex coffeemaker (essentially a glorified Erlenmeyer flask), and the instructions tell you to bring water to a boil, and make the coffee right after (about 200 degrees). That's the temp at which the coffee is made. The coffeepot that you describe delivers the brew into the carafe at 180 degrees (right after it is made). The question is, does it *hold* it at 180 degrees? No coffeemaker I've ever had (and I've owned quite a few) has ever done that.

As far as the instant hot water tap, of course you couldn't sue the manufacturer, because you *know* it's providing near-boiling water. No one expects near-boiling water to be served to them in a coffee cup. Just like no one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Paisley Phrog]

If that can happen because of coffee made in a coffee maker, then I don't really think McDonald's did anything wrong in this case.
True...

It'd be interesting to see a statistical summary of how many people are burned by coffee as a whole (requiring medical attention), how many people are burned by McD's coffee, and see if there's a significant difference. Although how you'd make a significant statistical comparison is beyond my idle musing right now....

The focus has been on McD's coffee, but how dangerous is coffee as a whole, usually? It'd put a new light on the whole discussion.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[arth1]

Coffee made at home is 130-140 degrees. Coffee at 185 degrees will cause third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds.

Only in the land of the brave.
Other places, coffee is supposed to be brewed at 197-205F (92-96C), and served at no lower temperature than 176-187F (80-86C) for regular coffee and a few degrees lower for espresso.
McDonald's coffee, if it was 185F, was served according to the recommended temperatures. If they were at fault, it would be by serving the coffee in cups not appropriate for drinking hot coffee from.

Never ever should coffee be served at as low a temperature as 130-140F, and definitely not made that way -- you can't possibly get the flavour out of beans that way, and what you end up with will have little to do with coffee.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Anonymous Coward]

I would be very surprised if the road was actually 45 degrees. Most road grades don't go over 25 degrees. 45 degrees is getting into off-road "Hill Climb" territory. I would be surprised if any civil engineer worth his salt would design a standard road with a grade that high. Heck even the slope with Lombard Street in SF doesn't climb at 45 degrees.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Spock the Baptist]

To the point...

Drinking hot coffee, and having hot coffee spill into your lap are two different things. If one *sips* hot coffee the the silva in your mouth will protect your mouth from getting burned via the Leidenfrost effect. Whereas your lap being dry and having more than a sip spilt in it can receive a *very* nasty burn.

The issue of the coffee being to hot to drink really has no bearing on this case, as mouths differ from laps.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Craig Davison]

Quoting http://www.sallys-place.com/travel/san_francisco/p t_lombard.htm:

Just in case you're wondering: the steepest street in the city (no curves) is Filbert Street between Hyde and Leavenworth. Its 31.5 percent grade makes even native San Franciscans gasp.

31.5% is 28.35 degrees.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Mine too now that I fixed it. When I moved in to my new house (well, it was new then), they had the temp on the water heater set way too low. I turned it up and my shower still would not get hot enough. It appears on new shower fixtures (ones that combine hot and cold anyway), they have a anti scald feature set so damn low it would still be cold (they did this to pass inspection). Water would come out of the spigot in the sink scalding hot but you could not even raise a cloud of steam in the shower. Called the plumber out and said fix the damn thing and they did. My point is I should not have had to do this and the builders video did not show you this "feature" of the fixture.

Now what I wish they would do instead of inventing dubious plumbing safety features is invent a new interface for toilets to the floor. I am tired of fricken wax rings failing. It seems, to me, that there would be a better way now but no....this seems to be the same as it has been for 30 to 50 years(ok except the low flows now).

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Paisley Phrog]

Coffee made at home is 130-140 degrees. Coffee at 185 degrees will cause third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds.

Only in the land of the brave. Other places, coffee is supposed to be brewed at 197-205F (92-96C), and served at no lower temperature than 176-187F (80-86C) for regular coffee and a few degrees lower for espresso.

I'll keep that in mind for my travels, good stuff to know.

Never ever should coffee be served at as low a temperature as 130-140F, and definitely not made that way
We've hit upon the distinction that we agree on; coffee needs to be made at a temp just below boiling. What temperature coffee should be held and served at is another thing, and definitely open to interpretation. I've found that a burned tongue gets in the way of my coffee enjoyment.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[RedWizzard]

Well, here's a fact that no one seems to know. That McDonald's drive through is at the top of a very steep hill(greater than 45 degrees).

I call bullshit. The steepest road in the world has a gradient of 37.5% (cite)/. A road with a gradient over 100% would be impossible for most vehicles to navigate.

Everyone with any common sense would know that you don't open hot coffee between your knees when your car is headed down a steep hill.

RTFJ (judgement). The car was stationery.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[HuguesT]

The Leidenfrost effect only works on liquids that evaporate due to contact to a surface with a higher temperature, for example if you sip a little liquid nitrogen, the small portion that evaporate by contact with your very hot tongue (compared to the temperature of LN2) creates an insulating interval between the rest of the LN2 and your tongue.

It does not apply here, your tongue is the bit that is getting hotter and thankfully cannot evaporate. But by all means don't believe me: try it out yourself. Fill a cup with near boiling water at 95C (nearly 200F) and try to sip a little right away. Then report here.

Just in case you want to sue me afterwards for giving you stupid advice: this will definitely burn your lips and your tongue.

When you find that the liquid has reached such a temperature that you can drink it, measure it. It will be below 70C and more than likely below 60C.

Good luck.

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[Spock the Baptist]

Oh, so you're saying that Leidenfrost effect applies only if your tongue is at a temperature higher than the Leidenfrost Temperature, which is 200deg C for water.

Troll, troll, troll, your post... ;D

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[sean.peters]

I'm throwing the BS flag on this statement:

Coffee made at home is 130-140 degrees

Water comes out of the TAP at 130 degrees - it wouldn't even extract coffee from the grounds at that temperature. The quoted figure of 185 degrees is more realistic.

Sean

Re:More Info On The Frivolity

[sean.peters]

Your hatred for jumping into this is evidently justified. Think about it: you don't make coffee by pouring TAP water into the grounds, for God's sake! You HEAT IT FIRST!

There's no $#@% way the coffee cools from boiling (or near boiling) to 130 degrees by the time it's served!

Sean

Freedom Vs. Corporacracy

[nightwing2000]

In fact the American founding fathers were very hostile to the concept of corporations and limited companies and did not want them to be allowed in the USA. At the time limited companies were considered a way for people to hide behind a legal fiction to steal and cheat the general public. Fortunately, nowadays they're not considered a legal fiction.

Re:Freedom Vs. Corporacracy

[Hatta]

What are you talking about, they are a legal fiction for people to hide behind to cheat and steal from the general public. If business people were considered personally responsible for their actions this country would be a whole lot better. But personal responsibility is a thing of the past it seems.

Re:Freedom Vs. Corporacracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm is lost on some people.... COroporations are a legal fact. They still steal and cheat people while protecting the personal fortunes of those behind them. After all, how many of the Enron executive types are sitting in welfare housing today? (Versus how many of their front line employees, who did nothing to rip off the public?)

Re:Freedom Vs. Corporacracy

[Anonymous Coward]

At the time limited companies were considered a way for people to hide behind a legal fiction to steal and cheat the general public.

Ahh, so true. Ever have to deal with lousy service from a corporation? You get back answers that are basically (paraphrased) it's not my fault and there's nothing I can do about it. Not to mention advertising that often overstates the product, such as fast food commercials that show food of quality you'd never get for real, car commercials where vehicles are abused with acts that the vehicles weren't designed to performed (skilled driver, do not attempt at home-- yeah not only because you could kill yourself, but because you will destroy the vehicle). Companies cheating their customers (like airlines making their seating space smaller without telling their customers) just so they can pay out millions of dollars to their scum CEOs. But it's okay to lie because every company does it, so that makes it all right.

Corporations are works of fiction. American companies suck.

The beauty of the Norwegian system...

[Kjella]

The case might also be escalated to the Norwegian supreme court, for a principal ruling. However, I am not sure that the MPAA would want that to happen, as that would be a definitive ruling affecting all similar cases in the future, and with the firm rulings of the two lower courts, it's highly unlikely that the Norwegian supreme court would rule differently.

They do definately not want that to happen, but they have very little choice. Since the prosecution can appeal, it will set precedent if they choose not to appeal. Unlike the US, where I understand you must be found guilty all the way up to the supreme court to ever get there, since any aquittal is final. Yes, it does suck for DVD-Jon. But for the rest of us, it means that a precedent will be set at the first possible opportunity, not with some poster child case for the prosecution.

The Norwegian economic crime unit is getting major egg-on-face factor out of this. They've spent 4 years prosecuting a single teen individual with two straight losses in court. This is like an advanced task force that's supposed to deal with organized crime, fraud, embezzlement, stock scams, anti-cometitive behavior, corruption, money laundering and so on. Yes, "computer crimes" is also defined as one of their specialities, but I think everyone but themselves think that going after DVD-Jon is shooting sparrows with a cannon. Which makes it all the more embarassing when they fail.

I think they will try to appeal - simply because they have nothing to lose. If nothing else, just to delay this becoming a final precedent until after the EUCD has been implemented, making the ruling primarily of historical interest. Though I'm sure it will be interesting to see the same argunents about what legal rights you have compared to the legal limitations of the EUCD. Either way, congratulations to DVD-Jon. That this ruling was made already now (wasn't expected until mid-January) is a clear sign, that the prosecution's arguments were quite sternly rejected.

Kjella

Re:The beauty of the Norwegian system...

[Anonymous Coward]

-The fool who knows that he's a fool is for that reason a wise man; the fool who thinks that he's wise is a fool indeed.

And the truly wise man understands that in both cases, you are still the fool, so who gives a rat's ass?

Slight Pedant

[Anonymous Coward]

at least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000." Still a substantial salary in my opinion.

Net Worth != Salary

Salary is how much you make per period of time $50,000 per year, for example.

Net worth is the total amount of money and net assets you have. For example, if your only assets were $5000 in a savings account and $100 cash in your pocket, and you had $1100 in credit card debt, your net worth would be $4000 (5000 + 100 - 1100).

Re:Slight Pedant

[Orne]

Yea, I noticed that after I hit submit... silly mistake :)

European institutions

[Jadrano]

While Norway isn't a member of the European Union (EU), they are -- like Switzerland -- a member of the European Economic Cooperative (EEC), and laws are quite often synchronized across EU+EEC. This might have influence on, if not directly affecting, how EU laws will be interpreted.

No, EEC means European Economic Community. It was simply the predecessor of the European Union, and Norway has never been a member of it. The organization you may have in mind, which has laws partly synchronized with the EU, is the EEA (European Economic Area), and Norway is a member of it (together with Iceland, but not Switzerland, Switzerland's relations with the EU are mostly regulated via bilateral agreements, not by membership in an organization).
Still, there is a tendency that laws are similar, even in Switzerland, that is not a member of any of these organizations (only of EFTA, which has lost much of its significance since most of its members have joined the EU). Often laws are introduced to stay "compatible" with the EU.

Re:FP ON TEH SPKOE!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me when I say you don't have ANYTHING going.

Please go back to your busy new life - we're all very happy for you.

Re:Norway is not a socialist nor a communist count

[Graabein]

> Well, then, thanks for not referring to the events in 1905 as "breaking free from despotic royal rule".

N.P. ;-)

> Don't mind you slagging the Danes though. :-)

There was quite a difference, even though tempers were running quite high on both sides in 1905 too. Still, under Swedish rule from 1814 to 1905 we had some degree of autonomy, not so under Danish rule from the dark middle ages until 1814. Quite sad really, we went from proud and fierce Vikings, found christianity and turned into servile peasants under foreign rule for centuries.

BBC's treatment of this is disgusting!

[Quietti]

See for yourselves. Say what you want, but it appears that, after Tony Blair, the BBC has also become a laquay of American propaganda. How long before UK is annexed by the Land of the Non-Free?

Re:BBC's treatment of this is disgusting!

[Queuetue]

I read it - What's disgusting about it?

Re:BBC's treatment of this is disgusting!

[lxs]

I wouldn't go as far as calling it digusting, but it is definetly a one-sided article. Perhaps this has to do with the fact that the BBC itself is a major producer of DVDs. Balanced reporting is a dying art.

Re:BBC's treatment of this is disgusting!

[cherad]

To me that reads as a fair and balanced news article. They have repesented both sides of the case with no opinion given.

I think perhaps you read slashdot too much.

Been there, done that

[Anonymous Coward]

Been there, done that

Appeal of Jury Trial

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada copies the UK system. Until a decade or two ago, a jury decision COULD be appealed. It just happened rarely. Henry Morgentaler was performing abortions in defiance of the law in Montreal. He was acquitted by jury of the charge. (The prosecutor threatened to send a patient back to Africa and tell her people what she did, if she didn't testify). The appeal court (in Catholic Quebec) overturned the Jury verdict. Instead of ordering a retrial (normal course) it substituted a "guilty" verdict. None of this pesky Jury stuff for them... The "Justice" minister of Canada, also a Catholic, offered a bet with a reporter that this would never happen again in his lifetime. Well, it happened again in a few months, with another case against Dr. Morgentaler. Needless to say, the law was changed not long after that. Unlike the USA, a Canadian appeal court can overturn a jury verdict and order a new trial - if there were errors in the trail procedure. In the USA, a Jury acquittal is final. Similarly, Canada has tried to get rid of those pesky juries who seem to have their own mind. You have to be facing 7 or more years in jail to be entitled to a Jury trial

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[jd142]

This is a textbook example of a poster not knowing the full story.

McDonald's was repeatedly warned that it was serving its coffee hotter than it should -- close to boiling. They were told to serve their coffee at a more normal temperature. When the woman received third degree burns to her thighs because McDonald's repeatedly refused to. All she did was remove the lid to add her cream and sugar and received third degree burns. Think about that.

"She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

So, McDonald's knew they were serving their coffee too hot, they'd been sued before, and now a woman who removed the lid to add cream and sugar had to had skin grafts as a result.

Bunner case

[Markus Registrada]

This result bears on the Andrew Bunner trade-secret case in California. That court found that since the trade secret was (supposedly) illegally obtained, Andrew Bunner and several hundred "John Does" had acted improperly in posting it.

At the trial the question came up whether in fact the reverse engineering involved was legal under Norwegian law. They called for opinions from Norwegian lawyers. The plaintiff trotted out a tame lawyer who asserted (without any support) that it was not legal. The defendant's lawyer said nothing in Norwegian law or case law supported any opinion one way or the other. The judge took that to mean that in fact it wasn't legal.

Now that it's established that in fact it was legal, Bunner et al. should be able to have the decision vacated. (Shame on that judge.)

Re:Bunner case

[Idarubicin]

Now that it's established that in fact it was legal, Bunner et al. should be able to have the decision vacated. (Shame on that judge.)

Decisions reached in a Norwegian court by a Norwegian jurist don't set precedent or have standing in courts in other countries.

A US judge could choose to consider decisions made in other jurisdictions, but he or she is by no means bound to do so. My (and your) opinions aside, the fact that Jon did nothing illegal in Norway does not guarantee that Andrew Bunner did nothing illegal in California.

Re:Bunner case

[Euphonious Coward]

Where the law is concerned there are no guarantees of any kind.

Nonetheless, the Bunner case hinges entirely on whether, in fact, the trade secret was legitimately reverse-engineered -- under Norwegian law -- before Bunner posted it. This is a case where Norwegian court events do matter.

Re:So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[Hatta]

Yeah, and lets not even talk about the Miss Universe pagent.

Re:Translation

[Gumshoe]

Translation: these Marxists were not real Marxists since they do not share your definition of Marxism.

Actually, I'm using the definition of Marxism as laid down by Marx himself in the Manifesto. I haven't attempted to define Marxism at all. Barely anything that happened politically in Soviet Russia had anything to do with Marxism. I genuinely can't understand how anyone with even a passing knowledge of the subject can fail to see that.

You fail because you have little experience. Leninism/Stalinism is merely the dominant stripe of Marxism.

I fail because you refuse to cite sources or present any logic or chain of reasoning that justifies your assertion.

Knowing the full story, it is frivolous

[Anonymous Coward]

"This is a textbook example of a poster not knowing the full story"

No, I know all the facts and falsehoods even to the point that I have seen all your "twists" previously.

McDonald's was repeatedly warned that it was serving its coffee hotter than it should -- close to boiling

185 is many degrees away from boiling (Mis-stating the temperature is a common "spin" attempt). Also, the coffee was not hotter than it should have been: the customers preferred it this hot.

When the woman received third degree burns to her thighs because McDonald's repeatedly refused to.

No, she burned herself because of her OWN action. McDonald's sold millions of cups of this coffee. If it was really too hot, really too dangerous, there would be more than the 0.00007% rate of burn complaints. More like a 99% burn rate.

"sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused"

Why bother to bring this up again and again, when it is obvious that frivolous and greedy demands of any amount are too high? ...700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992...McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."

In other words, that there was no problem, when you look at the many millions of cups of the same temperature consumed with no problems at all.

So, McDonald's knew they were serving their coffee too hot, they'd been sued before, and now a woman who removed the lid to add cream and sugar had to had skin grafts as a result.

That is all false: they did not know the coffee was hoot hot because it WASN'T. There had been frivolous lawsuits before, and so what? Your last sentence left out the most important fact: the "stunned cow" poured hot coffee on herself. McDonald's did not pour it, and McDonald's did not sell her coffee that LEAPS when you "remove the lid to add cream".

Once you know the minute details of this meritless case, you know even more than it was totally frivolous.

Re:Knowing the full story, it is frivolous

[KlomDark]

Oh shut the fuck up. Unless you personally are richer than shit, and own large amounts of a company, it does you NO good to defend the megacorps. You are like a sheep defending the rights of the wolves to defend the henhouse. It makes no sense.

Defend things that will make the common person's life better. Corporations are a legal fiction, therefore any harm done them is completely fictitious.

One big steaming bowl of STFU for you sir.

Re:Knowing the full story, it is frivolous

[Anonymous Coward]

Did we forget our medication this morning?

Re:Knowing the full story, it is frivolous

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonald's did not pour it, and McDonald's did not sell her coffee that LEAPS when you "remove the lid to add cream".
The lids fit on tightly. If the lid popped off all of a sudden, I could see a resulting jerking action causing the liquid inside to spill, especially with someone older with a lower level of fine motor control. That might not be a problem in most circumstances or if the liquid was cooler. I have scalded myself in a similar position even while being very careful. If McD's is serving the stuff in a drive-through, there should be some expectation on their part that it might be consumed (by passengers) in a moving vehicle where such a hazard is increased. While those 700 cases might be cases of people being stupid, some might also be cases where people got scalded in spite of being careful.

Re:Knowing the full story, it is frivolous

[jd142]

185 is many degrees away from boiling

Hmm. 27 degrees to be precise. So if I stuck your hand in 185 degree water, you'd be ok with that?

27 degrees is not that much of a difference at that temperature -- appproximately 15% difference. Close.

The rest is just trolling.

You have no idea what a 3rd degree burn is.

[jotaeleemeese]

Otherwise you would do something more useful than try to defend the indefensible.

Re:You have no idea what a 3rd degree burn is.

[CharlieG]

Actually, I do know what a 3rd degree burn is. I've done First aid on one or 2, and I've had some small (1-2" diameter) ones myself, when I was splashed with molten metal

I also know that anytime you make coffee or tea at home, it's hotter than 190 degs

Think about it. I'll use tea as an example. You put the tea bag in your cup, and you pour BOILING water on it - ditto is you make instant coffee - that water is 22 degress hotter than in the McDs case (which was 190)

To properly make coffee, you pour boiling water through the grounds. Now HOLDING the coffee at 190 might be a bit high, but if the pot is fresh, it'll be hotter than that

Gowachin law is better.

[Chemisor]

> I hope the prosecuters are fired afterwards,
> wasting tax payer's money to shill for a bunch of
> scum bags in suits is hardly in the public interests.

In Gowachin law (F.Herbert, "Dosadi Experiment") the legum (lawyer) who lost his case was immediately killed by the winning legum. I suspect that this particular measure was meant to prevent a system like that of the United States where litigation happens on the slightest velleity.

Re:Gowachin law is better.

[Pig Hogger]

In Gowachin law (F.Herbert, "Dosadi Experiment") the legum (lawyer) who lost his case was immediately killed by the winning legum.

This is funny. Frank Herbert did not shy from taking words from languages left and right.

Do you know what Legume means? Iin french, it means vegetable - in the food sense as well as in the brain-dead sense...

Now, why the morons who write slashcode have to strip out the HTML entities?

Legally, perhaps not...

[Kjella]

This is good. Very good news. BUT, this is in Norway, and it does not change much for those of us in the US.

...but it does mean that I can put up DeCSS tools on any Norwegian homepage, and not have it pulled because it is a legal, reverse-engineered tool. If the US invents some new draconian CSS2+ ultra super with sugar and cream, you can buy one of those, take it back to Norway and hack the hell out of it. Look at that QTfairuse program for iTunes, ever noticed that there is no iTMS in Norway yet?

Yes it does help, because if he was prosecuted, then the MPAA would have won outright, but because he was not, the rock has been chipped.

Quite frankly, between this and the recent KaZaA ruling in the Netherlands, the RIAA/MPAA have pretty much completely failed to outlaw the tools which may enable piracy. Look out for an US invasion of Europe to stop the intellectual terrorism (previously known as piracy) soon... Along with the recent DMCA subpoena ruling, their failure is near complete. And on the technological side, the average connection speed and cost/gb is steadily improving.

In addition, a lot of work is being put into developing better P2P nets, both when it comes to performance (multi-source downloads, uploads of finished blocks), encryption (RSA, AES strong asymmetric and symmetric crypto), file integrity (MD5, SHA hashes), file validiity ("web of trust"), anonymity (Freenet and WinNY + that ant-type program here on slashdot) and so on. The RIAA is not winning, they're losing on pretty much all fronts. The thing that keeps them running is that people want to support the artist. Nothing more, nothing less.

Kjella

McDonald's Law?

[Black Pete]

Shall we now have a version of Godwin's Law, where every time the McDonald's coffee case is brought up, the thread is automatically over? It seems that on /., *every* time this case is brought up, it devolves into a "her fault!" vs "not her fault!" flamewar. Every time.

PS (even though it defeats what I said above): Nice selective quoting. The reason why the judge lowered the punitives is because she was found partly at fault in this case.

Re:McDonald's Law?

[mekkab]

Yes! McD's Coffee Law! ;)

Good point re: the selective quoting. Remember, this thing is saved as my Slashdot PGP signature (thats how often this shit comes up)- and MY point initially was that "This woman DID NOT get millions from this. Why? The judge lowered it, because the JUDGE has that power."

My intention wasn't to say who was at fault, or wether she should or shouldn't have sued. Its to show that there are some internal balancing mechanisms in the legal system. The additional implication hinted at by saying that "McD's and the woman settled for a sum far less" is that McD's had the right to appeal.

Re:McDonald's Law?

[NanoGator]

"Shall we now have a version of Godwin's Law, where every time the McDonald's coffee case is brought up, the thread is automatically over?"

We need one of those for "You must work for Microsoft!" as well.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit. If you spill hot coffee on yourself, it is your own fault.

Try reading the actual case sometime -- not just the stuff about it that Rush tells you. You might find (actually, you will find) that what you describe as being the facts of the situation aren't.

Yes, there are lots and lots of frivolous lawsuits, and that's a bad thing. And yes, it's possible to lie about the circumstances surrounding this one, and make it seem like one too. But it wasn't, and misrepresenting the facts to make it seem like one just makes Rush (and you) look bad.

In your defense...

[Orne]

English-readers can find Wage Statistics on Norwegian government officials here, where you would find the Average Ministry Salary in 2002 was 30,200 Kroner, or about $4,260. There is a footnote, however, indicating that costs of health services are not included.

Interestingly enough, I ran across this through Google: "I do not think any job is worth 10 times a prime minister's salary," said Minister of Finance Gudmund Restad (Centre) when asked about Tormod Hermansen's NOK 7 million salary.", where one could infer that the prime minister's salary is ~700,000 NOK, or $102,734 on 5/20/2003, the day of this report. By comparison, Pres Bush's salary is $400,000 (raised from $200,000 by Pres Clinton in 1999, the first raise since 1969).

Personally, the salary levels in USA's government are outrageous, given the rate of increase (or lack thereof) of the common person's salary. My personal political beliefs align with the Republican party, who used to represent reduction of government... and recent budget bloat really concerns me... And you are correct, our cultures are vastly different. I for one, do not understand how you can have a political party called the "Christian People's Party" who can expect to remain neutral on affairs of church & state. It's also discouraging to me that the average Norwegian citizen cannot differetiate between the concepts of capitalism and greed; there is quite a difference between valuing and rewarding the risks and contributions of individuals, versus rewarding administrators at obscene rates for playing numbers games and bending rules for personal gain.

Re:In your defense...

[19usc2462bH]

Uhm, in your post you have a fairly free mix of monthly and yearly salaries.

30,200 kroner is per month. While Bush's salary of $400,000 is probably his annual salary.

Re:In your defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that a lot of representatives get free apartements and get a lot of other benefits.

Re:In your defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also discouraging to me that the average Norwegian citizen cannot differetiate between the concepts of capitalism and greed; there is quite a difference between valuing and rewarding the risks and contributions of individuals, versus rewarding administrators at obscene rates for playing numbers games and bending rules for personal gain.

Most Americans can't differentiate between communism and the mix of captialism and socialism in Scandiniavia.

Re:In your defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, do not understand how you can have a political party called the "Christian People's Party" who can expect to remain neutral on affairs of church & state.

They aren't! They don't claim to be that either. In Norway, there is a State Church of Norway. Yes, the State runs a church, and every Norwegian citizen is a member by default. The costitution states that the State's official religion is the Lutheran Christianity, and the King has to be a Lutheran.

Norway has become much more secular than the constitution and the existanse of the State Church would suggest. Only about 20% state that they firmly believe in God. Less than half the population consider themselves religious in any sense.

Many of the non-believerss realise that the State Church is a castrated church, and are in favour of it. The church has nice midaeval concert halls (the churches) and some fancy ceremonies (babtising and weddings). And it's kept on a tight leash, to not upset anyone (well, mostly).

The Christian People's Party may eventually realise that the State Church is not a tool of power for them, but a nice way for the less religious parties to usurp the Lutheran church for secular means.

I am not religious, and I think the State Church works reasonably well. It's impotent and mostly toes the party line. And it has some really nice old buildings. I'm not being sarcastic; I really mean this. Honestly!

Does not change anything

[plj]

get your facts straight. I hate it when people reference the McDonalds coffee case and don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

What I know about the case is, that the coffee temp still was no more than 184F. When a coffee or a tea is properly made, the water should be boiling, aka 212F. You should then only drink it, when you carefully test it with spoon and think it has cooled enough to be drinkable. And as you know it's boiling, you should avoid spilling it at any costs - if you do anyway, that's your fault.

This is common sense, at least here in Europe (well, in most countries anyway). But it seems to me, that the crazy U.S. system expects everyone to be capable of reading EULA-like lawyer speech, but at the same time requires "childish behaviour with this thing could kill you" -style warnings included everywhere, expecting people can't think by themselves at all.

Sure, there are always people who really can't think by themselves, but here it's considered to be their problem, not manufacturer's. There are many reasons to blame McDonalds, but this isn't really one of them.

Re:Does not change anything

[plj]

Who the hell just modded me offtopic? Yet even 2 days after I had posted my comment and it had already been modded as insightful! It's definitely not offtopic, according to context. Did you read the parent, too? Did you?! You should only moderate according to context. If a comment is a reply to another one, the context is the parent, not the original post. Know that!

Let the metamoderators burn you alive!

Research? Done that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Try reading the actual case sometime -- not just the stuff about it that Rush tells you."

I've listened to "Rush" very little. In fact, I've never heard him mention this case. My main source of information has been law-related web sites.

You might find (actually, you will find) that what you describe as being the facts of the situation aren't.

I did this already. Everything supports the idea that this case is utterly without merit, McDonald's sold safe coffee, and the woman was at fault because of her own action.

"Yes, there are lots and lots of frivolous lawsuits, and that's a bad thing."

Yet, this frivolous lawsuit is a good thing. Make up your mind. Also, factor "Rush" out of it: he is not involved. In fact, it seems like you do not have the facts and are changing the subject. If you really want to get into an argument about Rush Limbaugh, it will be very short.

Re:Research? Done that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Try reading the actual case sometime -- not just the stuff about it that Rush tells you."

I've listened to "Rush" very little. In fact, I've never heard him mention this case.

But you do out yourself in this statement.

My main source of information has been law-related web sites.

I'm sorry, but I think you're lying.

"You might find (actually, you will find) that what you describe as being the facts of the situation aren't."

I did this already.

I don't believe you. Otherwise, I'd have to draw the conclusion that you don't even have basic reading comprehension skills, and I'm not willing to go that far. Yet.

Everything supports the idea that this case is utterly without merit, McDonald's sold safe coffee, and the woman was at fault because of her own action.

Everything other than McDonalds' own internal memoranda, documentation provided by external consultants hired by McDonalds before the incident, testimony from McDonalds' employees, and the history (or, rather, the lack thereof) of similar incidents for McDonalds' competitors. Yeah, everything.

"Yes, there are lots and lots of frivolous lawsuits, and that's a bad thing."

Yet, this frivolous lawsuit is a good thing. Make up your mind.

Let me guess: this kind of rhetorical device sounds good when Rush does it.

Re:Research? Done that.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you do out yourself in this statement

Is that "out do"? The "english good not" in your statement did not make sense.

"I'm sorry, but I think you're lying"

Go the the law-related websites yourself and learn the facts of the case.

Everything other than McDonalds' own internal memoranda, documentation provided by external consultants hired by McDonalds before the incident, testimony from McDonalds' employees, and the history (or, rather, the lack thereof) of similar incidents for McDonalds' competitors. Yeah, everything.

There's a lie from you. The documents referred to show that the coffee was quite safe. How about the lack of history of similar incidents for McDonald's?

Let me guess: this kind of rhetorical device sounds good when Rush does it.

Last time I knew, the only thing he was doing was Vicontin.

Re:Research? Done that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"But you do out yourself in this statement"

Is that "out do"? The "english good not" in your statement did not make sense.

Then I'll try to help you understand. To "out" someone is to reveal, typically (though not necessarily) against their will, something about that person that they didn't wish revealed. To "out oneself" means to say something that reveals things about the speaker other than the speaker's main point.

HTH.

"I'm sorry, but I think you're lying"

Go the the law-related websites yourself and learn the facts of the case.

After having read online various people's interpretations for and against the plaintiff in this case, I read the briefs and undisputed findings in the case itself and drew my own conclusions. I encourage you to do the same; if you're worried about avoiding spin, you're not going to avoid it by reading "law-related websites", no matter whose you read.

"Everything other than McDonalds' own internal memoranda, documentation provided by external consultants hired by McDonalds before the incident, testimony from McDonalds' employees, and the history (or, rather, the lack thereof) of similar incidents for McDonalds' competitors. Yeah, everything."

There's a lie from you. The documents referred to show that the coffee was quite safe.

Now I feel like I'm trying to convince someone that the Pope is Catholic. The undisputed facts of the case -- the list of facts that both parties agreed upon as the background for the case, and which can be found at the beginning of the Decision -- include the admission by McDonalds that coffee was being prepared at a temperature 30 degrees higher than the industry standard, and 20 degrees higher than an external consultant hired by McDonalds had advised them to use as a maximum. Even McDonalds did not dispute this; it's amazing that you're doing so.

How about the lack of history of similar incidents for McDonald's?

I know, I know: your strategy here is to say that 700 incidents/millions of cups of coffee = statistically zero. But that's not how it works. That's a perfectly sensible thing to do to estimate the likelihood of your getting burned by the next cup you buy; but that's a worthless procedure for evaluating liability in a particular case. Instead, the appropriate evaluation is to compare that rate with the rate of claims against competitors who do serve their coffee at the industry standard temperature.

Actually. its the BOMB

[mekkab]

This Coffee brews cold, and beats the pants off of your coffee.

Ohmigod, did I just get into a "My coffee is better than your coffee!" argument on /.?

Time to go home, kids.

McDonald's case: Greed won

[Anonymous Coward]

The McD's case is not a "travesty of our judicial system"

It certainly is.

but corporation getting whacked for a dangerous trend ( yes, 700 reported cases makes a trend).

700 out of more than 10 million. That is not a trend. That is a statistical non-event.

"Considering that initially the woman only asked for monetary damages equaling her medical bills"

Why does it make a difference if she asks a little money that she does not deserve, vs a lot? It does not.

"I don't see how this is anything but the legal system empowering individuals against giant corporations."

It is that, but you miss the point that it is primarily a case of an individual doing something stupid and making a corporation that was NOT at fault pay her money.

You missed it

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring the most important fact here: She spilled the coffee. McDonald's did not. McDonald's thus is not at fault in any way.

Coffee was drinkable

[Anonymous Coward]

The McD coffee is sold at 185F (IIRC?) where it tastes better and stays warm longer.
And is also undrinkable.

You fail it. They sold many millions of cups of coffee, most of which were consumed ( = drinkable)

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Rinikusu]

So.. 700 "cases".. out of how many cups served from 1982-1992? Billions, I'd gather. You are statistically more likely to get hit by lightening, run over by an Amtrak, or contract some sort of VD. So, you're saying that McDonald's should *change* something that obviously millions of other customers had no problem with on a daily basis just to satisfy the 700 fucking morons who don't understand "boiling water is hot"?

Let's also look at the situation:
Woman pours (accidentally) scalding water/coffee into her lap while traveling in a car pool (a moving car is not conducive for keeping liquids in a stable state). She removed the top to add her cream and sugar, rather than waiting for the car to stop, thus increasing the potential for spillage. She was wearing fleece tights, which absorbed the material and held the liquid close to her skin. When asked if she needed to stop and remove her tights or try to dry them out, she refused and allowed the car pool to continue, meanwhile the still hot liquid COOKS her skin. So, her failure to ACT after her accident also contributed to the problem and her subsequent injury.

700 people out of billions served got "burned". Think about that.

Why the EEA agreement sucks

[Kjella]

Area. In English, it's called the European Economic Area (I know it's confusing at times; it's called "space" (Ruimte) in Dutch as well). And Norway had every freedom not to join -- it's just that at the time Norway was expecting that it WOULD shortly be joining the EU. That is, after all, what the Area was all about: a stepping-stone to full EU (then EC) membership.

The original EEA, which was a deal between EU and EFTA, was a rather good agreement between two both fairly large European organizations, e.g. in the joint court there'd be 2:3 EFTA:EU judges. It wasn't directly designed as some kind of "trial EU membership", not in that sense, but of course it laid the groundwork for even tighter integration and most people looked at it as a stepping stone.

However, the whole balance of power shifted in 1994, when most of the other countries joined the EU. You can almost say they merged. Only Norway, Iceland and a couple others you need a magnifying glass to see on a map were left "outside", in EFTA. We turned it down with about 53% no, so was a close call. They got a lot bigger, we got a lot smaller. And with EU expanding, it is shifting even more.

Ever since that time, it's become more and more like a leash. Where is was once thought that in case of a disagreement, both sides would hold reasonable power to dispute it, we're now getting directives slapped at us with a "take it or leave it", with the joint force of EU behind it and only a slumbering veto power paragraph if we disagree.

Some of our politicians tout our independence (as independent as being a speck of dust instead of a rock in a storm) and have in general a very inflated view of Norway's role on the international scene. No, being so small, insignificant and without commercial interests that we make good neutral peacemakers is NOT a sign of power!

I think Norway should either get in EU, or get out of EEA. Preferably in EU. But what we have today, is pretty much the worst of both worlds, stuck in a limbo, that yes, we didn't expect to be in. At least within EU we'd be a voice in the choir, right now our situation reminds me of a Calvin&Hobbes strip. Calvin is out looking at the stars, gazing out in the great depths. Then he yells "I mean something". And then in the final scene "...roared the speck of dust". Translated it back from Norwegian to English, so not sure if I got it literally correct. You get the picture.

Kjella

They'll just retry him

[tundog]

Becuase in Norway, "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" ;)

Wow

[pclminion]

Wow, I really wish I could live in a country where it's impossible to sleep at night, due to fear of a prosecuter dragging me back into court over an offense I'd already been acquitted of.

What a bastion of individual freedom you've got over there.

Re:Wow

[serutan]

You do live in such a country if you live in the USA, where ANYONE can drag you back into court and successfully sue you for something you've been acquitted of (ask OJ).

Re:Wow

[Anita Coney]

Learn to read, he woute about the fear of a "prosecuter" to drag him back into court. Moron!

small correction...

[rundgren]

Switzerland is not a member of the EEC. Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are the remaining members of the EEC.The EEC is an agreement with the EU which gives these countries most of the rights of a full EU membership, except any direct voting rights in the EU system. Switzerland rejected the EEC agreement and have instead used almost ten years to make bilateral agreements with all the EU and EEC countries in order to get mostly the same rights to market access e.t.c as the EEC countries.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

"McDonald's was repeatedly warned ..."

So exactly how many times had Ms. Liebeck bought coffee at McDonalds? And all those times she never once realized that the coffee was HOT, and she should maybe be careful?

McDonald's Served Boiling Coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha. You bring to light the point that about 1/3 of those defending this frivolous lawsuit use as one if their points the "fact" that McDonald's served boiling coffee.

Rush Limbaugh spilled the coffee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for not mentioning Rush Limbaugh this time around. For a while, it seemed that you were going to turn it into an argument that he spilled the coffee (with your totally off-topic inclusion of his name). Maybe the greedy lady should have sued Rush instead. He's filthy rich, and he has nothing to do with her problems (just like McDonald's is not to blame).

"To "out oneself" means to say something that reveals things about the speaker other than the speaker's main point. "

In other words, you felt free to make up stuff from your imagination that had nothing to do with the facts or what was being said.

I know, I know: your strategy here is to say that 700 incidents/millions of cups of coffee = statistically zero. But that's not how it works

Yes it is. It shows that everyone, except for less than 0.0007% were able to consume the coffee with no problem.

That's a perfectly sensible thing to do to estimate the likelihood of your getting burned by the next cup you buy; but that's a worthless procedure for evaluating liability in a particular case

Maybe that's why we have so many frivolous lawsuits that are successful. Reason and facts don't matter.

Re:Rush Limbaugh spilled the coffee!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for not mentioning Rush Limbaugh this time around.

I didn't think I needed to; I'd made my point.

"To "out oneself" means to say something that reveals things about the speaker other than the speaker's main point. "

In other words, you felt free to make up stuff from your imagination that had nothing to do with the facts or what was being said.

Try again. "I know, I know: your strategy here is to say that 700 incidents/millions of cups of coffee = statistically zero. But that's not how it works"

Yes it is. It shows that everyone, except for less than 0.0007% were able to consume the coffee with no problem.

Which is completely irrelevant to establishing liability in an individual case. Or, to put it in terms of statistical inference, you're using the wrong null hypothesis.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's say that I routinely drive with the car radio volume absurdly high. And let's say that I get into an accident with a police car with siren on. The fact that I've driven that way for thirty years, with hundreds of thousands of miles behind me, and never had an accident before is completely irrelevant. What's relevant is whether my radio volume was a contributing factor to this accident -- whether, if my radio had been at a reasonable volume, the accident would have been significantly less likely to have occurred.

Re:Rush Limbaugh spilled the coffee!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I didn't think I needed to; I'd made my point."

Yes, you made the point that you were going way out on a limb looking for dittoheads (as if that has anything to do with it) and the limb snapped under the weight of false assumptions and your attempted non-sequitur.

Or, rather, found someone indistinguishable from one.

"To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's say that I routinely drive with the car radio volume absurdly high..."

I think you are better off talking about Rush Limbaugh. This false analogy does not compare to anything.

Let me guess: you didn't even look up what statistical inference or a null hypothesis are, did you? If you wish to illustrate why the analogy was false, feel free; I can use the entertainment. Your ad hominem did nothing in that regard, however.

Trying to make the same point again (I don't know why I bother at this point, but what the hell) . . .if McDonalds had been able to say "yes, we hold our coffee at a much higher temperature than the industry standard, and yes, we've had 700 hot coffee injury claims; but the rate of claims against us is comparable to the rest of the industry, which would suggest that the temperature doesn't matter", then they would have been in much better shape. They would have effectively argued that the temperature at which they were holding coffee was not something for which they could be considered negligent in this individual case, because on average it appeared to produce no higher an injury rate. But they couldn't do that, because it wasn't true; the rate of claims against them wasn't comparable to the rest of the industry.

Phrased yet a third way . . .it is possible to perform a task very many times, injure someone a very small number of times, and still be guilty of negligence, if and only if the reasonable expectation is that a still smaller number of people should have been injured. You divide the number of hot coffee injury claims against McDonalds by the number of coffees they serve, and say "that's damned small," so their high temperature shouldn't have been a factor. But you don't know that it's damned small if you don't know what the baseline is. Would you have expected even fewer? The question to ask is how that claim rate compares to the rest of the industry, which held their coffee at a cooler temperature. And that's where McDonalds crashed and burned.

How about this analogy, to illustrate what you are talking about: "Lets say I am golfing with a hockey stick. The rock taped to the stick flies off and smashes the siren on the police car. Based on these facts, is it my fault that the bicycle tire deflated on the bridge?"

Let me guess: this kind of silliness sounds good when Rush does it.

Woody

[Anonymous Coward]

I was so happy about this headline, I got Norwegian Wood.

No, not again!

[KlomDark]

Not the dreaded shit argument about McDonalds coffee again! Eat a big bowl of STFU already!

C? C++?

[Zone-MR]

Wasn't DeCSS actually written in Perl?

You won!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh shut the fuck up

Your mastery of argument techniques is astounding.

Unless you personally are richer than shit, and own large amounts of a company, it does you NO good to defend the megacorps

Corps shmorps. I don't like it when anyone abuses the court system to extract money from people who don't owe them any.

You are like a sheep defending the rights of the wolves to defend the henhouse

You are forgetting the jackals involved (lying attorneys).

Defend things that will make the common person's life better

I am, while you are not. Frivolous lawsuits very similar to this are also filed against individuals. You are also forgetting that frivolous lawsuits like this cause companies to raise prices to make up for stolen money and paylawyer fees, and also cause the company to degrade the product (McDonald's customers preferred the coffee nice and hot as it was pre-lawsuit).

Corporations are a legal fiction, therefore any harm done them is completely fictitious.

Great! Then McDonald's should have paid the greedy old bat $40,000,000 in fictional money, and everyone would be happy.

One big steaming bowl of STFU for you sir.

If you serve it hot, and I spill it, I too will sue you to get rich. That is what you are defending: frivolous greedy lawsuits.

Rush Limbaugh spilled the coffee!

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't think I needed to; I'd made my point.

Yes, you made the point that you were going way out on a limb looking for dittoheads (as if that has anything to do with it) and the limb snapped under the weight of false assumptions and your attempted non-sequitur.

"Try again."

OK, here I go: In other words, you felt free to make up stuff from your imagination that had nothing to do with the facts or what was being said.

Which is completely irrelevant to establishing liability in an individual case

A shame, which is why tort reform is badly needed to prevent these things from reaching court.

To illustrate what I'm talking about, let's say that I routinely drive with the car radio volume absurdly high...

I think you are better off talking about Rush Limbaugh. This false analogy does not compare to anything. Maybe it would if the police car had boiling coffee on it. If you are sick of Rush, try Neil Bortz.

How about this analogy, to illustrate what you are talking about: "Lets say I am golfing with a hockey stick. The rock taped to the stick flies off and smashes the siren on the police car. Based on these facts, is it my fault that the bicycle tire deflated on the bridge?"

shhhhh. be vewwy vewwy quiet. I'm hunting for dittoheads.

It was about spilling coffee

[Anonymous Coward]

The case was not about spilling coffee

Certainly, it was.

it was about knowingly selling coffee at a temperature that that can put people in the hospital

Only if you do something really dumb with it. Did you know that you can suffocate if you stuff McDonald's napkins into your nose and mouth? Those corporate bastards! Sue them!

IF you went ta a bar and ordered cold vadka, and the gave you vodka chilled to -50 degrees, and thus ended up in the hospital(or dead) do you think you would have a case?

Absolutely NOT if the analogy was close to the McDonald's case: the vodka's were usually served at this temperature and everyone had no problem consuming them.

The problem with your analogy is that McDonald's served the coffee the way the customers wanted it: nice and hot. Your vodka analogy has bartenders serving what is basically an imaginary form of vodka.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[geekoid]

"Woman pours (accidentally) scalding water/coffee into her lap while traveling in a car pool (a moving car is not conducive for keeping liquids in a stable state)."
False. the car was at a stand still.

"She removed the top to add her cream and sugar, "
true.

", rather than waiting for the car to stop, thus increasing the potential for spillage."

false.

"When asked if she needed to stop and remove her tights or try to dry them out, she refused and allowed the car pool to continue, meanwhile the still hot liquid COOKS her skin."

false

hen you ask for a hoit drink, its is epected to still be drinkable.

If you asked for a cold drink, would you expect it to be chilled to -75?

Little primer on the US system

[Sycraft-fu]

Since you asked. This is in no way exhustive. You legal system is more complex than you tax codes, but here is the basics:

In a criminal trial the prosecution is represented by government lawyers. Generally, there are two of them one primary and one backup. They are not police officers but are officers of the court, which means they are sworn to find the truth. Like in Norway, they must present exculpatory evidence if they have it. Doesn't meant they always do, but that's what the law says they have to. The defense is represented by whatever team of lawyers they like. If they can't afford one, the government will give them one, but not one of their choice. A defendant can also represent themselves, if they wish.

The right to trial by jury is gaurenteed and a defendant will always be allowed to have a jury trial if they wish. In a jury trial the judge is the judge of law and the jury is the judge of fact. That means the judge decides what is admissable as evindence, keeps things in order, and instructs the jury as to the relivant law. It is then the discression of the jury as to if the evidence in fact supports a conviction. In all jursidictions I am aware of, a defendant may request a bench trial, meaning no jury, the judge becomes both the judge of law and of fact.

We have a multi-level appeals system, however only the defense may appeal. If at any time any level finds the defendant innocent, it's over. They can never be charged for that crime again, period. Also, the standard for proof is fairly high in a criminal trial. The defense needs to prove nothing, only try and dismantle the prosecution's proof. The prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. Generally speaking, a criminal trial is only to decide punishment and fines under the law, not for a victim.

Now civil trials are quite different. The government doesn't have to be involved in bringing a civil suit. The victims can directly sue their victimizer. Both sides can hire whatever lawyers they wish. The burden of proof is much lighter as well, it is to what is called a perponderance of the evidence. More or less it means that your evidence was a little more convincing than the other guy's. The jury then decides if any money is owed and how much. Also different with civil trials is appeals, either side can appeal the verdict on a number of grounds. In fact, it is not uncommon to see BOTH sides appeal the same decision.

Civil trials can happen independant of criminal trials, or in additon to them. The outcome can also be different. OJ Simpson was prosecuted in a criminal trail for murder. The state failed to prove its case and he was aquitted. However the families of the victims then sued him for wrongful death, and won a large amount of his assets.

When you hear US ./ers bitching about the legal system, it is usually the civil system they are talking about. Due to it's lower burdens and ease of filing suits, it has been getting abused lately, particularly by big corperations. The criminal system is much more akin to yours in that only the government may bring a criminal charge and they have much tougher rules to follow.

Re:Little primer on the US system

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Since you asked. This is in no way exhustive. You legal system is more complex than you tax codes, but here is the basics:

Oh, it was only the one detail really. I already know quite a bit about the US legal system, if for nothing else courtesy of Hollywood. But there was a tidbit or two I didn't know about.

And interestingly the Hollywood factor is quite strong. Something like 60%-70% of all Swedes belive we have jury trials in Sweden. (We don't, except in cases where the freedom of the press is involved). Swedish police introduced badges only a few years back since people were always surprised they didn't have any (just an ordinary ID). etc.

Since you brought up the civil side. The differences there are that loser pays here, i.e. if you lose you pay the cost of the legal representation of the winning side (within reason). And if you are awarded less than half of what you originally claimed you're considered the loser. So that tends to keeps exhorbitant claims in check. (And no punitive damages, if your behaviour is criminal it belongs in criminal court).

Also there are a number of special courts, i.e. where the workplace, where the renting of an appartment, or the appeal of a government decision is concerned. Bringing a case before any of these courts is "risk free" for the defendant, i.e. you've already 'lost' something otherwise you wouldn't be there. And there are special public servants with prosecutory power (ombudsman) that can bring suit on your behalf if you cannot do that on your own (or belong to an association such as a union or the renters association that will do so for you). Also, product liability is handled by a branch of government, the 'consumers dept' ("Consumer report" in Sweden is a government publication).

There's basically a special court for every situation in which a 'normal' citizen would go to court, so the overwhelming majority of people will never see the inside of a criminal/civil court, or even know anybody that has.

We don't have juries on the theory that they will tend to lead to "show trials", where oratory performance will become too much of a deciding factor, a common complaint when freedom of the press cases are concerned.

Re:Little primer on the US system

[Pofy]

One difference in civil cases, as far as I have understood it, is that in US, each one pay his own costs, right? Which can be costly, just to defend versus "stupid" cases. In Sweden for example, the loser pay it all so to speak. That has some advatages but also some drawbacks.

Re:Little primer on the US system

[Razor Blades are Not]

One other factor in the US...
A prosecutors chances of advancement (apart from the elected positions such as DA) are based directly on performance. The definition of performance is not "cases tackled" but "cases won". The practice of plea-bargaining is directly related to this.

For the low-profile cases, most prosecutors will not drop a case if they think there's even a chance of winning it. Why ? because if they win, that's a feather in their cap, but if they drop a case (even if that would be the obviously just thing to do) then that's a strike against their careers - more than if they'd lost it. So it makes sense for them to put at least a minimal effort into each case. So long as they don't pursue completely frivolous cases into court (earning the ire of a judge who might censure them if this attitude persists), there isn't much incentive not to take it to trial.

Hoit Drink

[Anonymous Coward]

hen you ask for a hoit drink, its is epected to still be drinkable

By mouth, not by crotch. Just about everyone found this coffee to be drinkable and had no problem with it. The "car standing still" makes the "hen" you refer to seem even worse at deliberately doing this.

Re:Hoit Drink

[Rinikusu]

Well, let's be honest a bit. She was 81 years old. However, like everyone else in the civilized world, everyone else recognizes that an automobile is NOT a preferred food consumption platform, moving or not.

I agree, don't put fucking hot coffee in your crotch if you don't want to get burned.

You are getting it wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

McDonalds was aware that at the temperature that they served coffee was dagerous,

No, it was not dangerous. That is the first thing to correct.

DeCSS: Jon Johansen Acquitted In Retrial

[infiniphonic]

Merry Christmas Jon and all who use or have ever used DeCSS !

Re:So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[geekoid]

well if you read it on the internet, it must be true, or at least truer then what that other guy read on the internet.

McDonald's food is dangerous

[ad0gg]

McDonald's food is dangerous, its high in saturated fat. Lets sue them for making america fat oh wait that already happened.

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

Game. Set. Match.

Coffee is hot. Everyone, including this woman, knows that. If you spill it on yourself, it's your own goddamn fault. Not everything is the fault of big evil corporations. End of story.

Say I spill red fruit punch on my white pants. Can I sue the fruit punch company for my dry cleaning expenses? After all, the punch is very red; perhaps a detailed spectroscopic analysis will show that it's redder than it "needs" to be. Or maybe I should just be a bit more fucking careful about spilling things all over myself.

Hey dittohead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess: this kind of silliness sounds good when Rush does it."If you wish to illustrate why the analogy was false, feel free; I can use the entertainment. Your ad hominem did nothing in that regard, however."

It was false because it the elements did not correspond. Ad hominem? No, just referring to the facts.

Or, rather, found someone indistinguishable from one

Only by looking in the mirror. The only dittohead trait definitely seen here is appealing to Rush Limbaugh. You like to bring him up again and again, despite the fact that he has nothing to do with anything (unless you have an analogy where someone gave him boiling hot prescription drugs).

But they couldn't do that, because it wasn't true; the rate of claims against them wasn't comparable to the rest of the industry.

Not really relevant, as it is downright dumb to pour hot coffee into your crotch. That is the fact that those who favor frivolous lawsuits tend to overlook.

She needs to pay back her ill-gotten gains, and she and her lawyers should be jailed for this.

Re:Hey dittohead!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ad hominem? No, just referring to the facts.

You make an argument which gets demolished by the publicly-available (from the Clerk of the Court) documented facts of the case. You then make a second argument which would have failed even a basic course on statistical inference. The effort to illustrate why results in a sentence of nonsense and non sequiturs from you, which you subsequently describe as "referring to the facts." Further attempts to illustrate why are simply ignored, or described as irrelevant without any argument as to why they're irrelevant.

Congratulations: you've got me wondering why the holy hell I bothered.

Re:So what? Not everyone lives in the USA!

[Darth23]

Is it the same country that uses a name when referring to itself that is actually the name of TWO continents?

No, you are not liable

[Anonymous Coward]

Did your coffee burn 700 previous guests?

700 out of many millions. Coffee's pretty safe, unless you do something stupid with it.

Did you pay out over $500,000 in damages to those guests you hospitalized? ....some of your guests to the emergency room?

No one has brought up even one instance of McDonald's sending anyone to the hospital or emergency room. In the old lady example, she sent herself there by her own actions.

Then yes, you are liable./I.

No, you are not, as you did nothing.

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Rinikusu]

You are correct, my mistake in the moving car. However, she was wearing sweatpants (tights) that held the liquid against her skin and refused to remove them or attempt to negate the heating action against her skin.

McD's hot coffee rationale was that you're commuting to work, you shouldn't be trying to drink/eat and drive, and by the time you get to work, the coffee is still nice and hot. That's what you get when you try to do other stuff when trying to drive.

I've bought/drank McD's coffee pre-lawsuit and didn't have much of an issue (but then again, further research shows that it may have been a regional issue in New Mexico restaurants).

Happydance

[Col. Panic]

fanfreakingtastic

Rush the non-sequitur

[Anonymous Coward]

You make an argument which gets demolished by the publicly-available (from the Clerk of the Court) documented facts of the case.

My argument is based on these facts which prove that the coffee is safe and that the spilling is the lady's own fault.

You then make a second argument which would have failed even a basic course on statistical inference

I've gone beyond your Statistics 101. You seem to have forgotten the lesson about how statistics can be distorted. I want you to go back and look at the number of burn cases, and the number of cups sold.

The effort to illustrate why results in a sentence of nonsense and non sequiturs from you, which you subsequently describe as "referring to the facts."

If there were non-sequiturs (anything referring to Rush Limbaugh, for example), check back and see who made him a big part of this.

"Further attempts to illustrate why are simply ignored, or described as irrelevant without any argument as to why they're irrelevant. "

It does not take a dittohead to see that police sirens are not relevant to this matter. (I apologize for mentioning Rush again. However, he became relevant as you have basically given up on arguing the facts of the case and are instead arguing about my reasonable attempts to factor Rush back out of the argument).

MC Hammer comes to mind

[MoFoQ]

Jon: "Too legit to quit"
Prosecutor: "Too legit to acquit"

If there is a third trial, I hope the third times the charm....as in three victories for ol' Jonny boy and the prosecutors finally learn their lesson after 3 reverse-ass whoopings.

Sigh.... get real

[Anonymous Coward]

Failure to exercise due care despite the knowledge that this had happened many times before to both customers and employees

There are a couple of lies there that need correcting. For one, they said the coffee was hot. Advertised it as such. For one, they had sold many millions of cups with no problem. It did not happen "many" times before.

They knew they were serving their coffee 30 deg. hotter than other similar restaurants

There is nothing wrong with this: most custumers preferred the coffee this way and none* had a problem with it.

" but they maintained the policy of keeping it that hot and did nothing to warn customers of the danger."

Another lie to correct. They sold it as hot coffee, and as such warned the customers to take the usual precautions around hot liquids.

Re:Sigh.... get real

[Col. Panic]

lies?

During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. ...

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

Re:Sigh.... get real

[hkmwbz]

During discovery, the gun manufacturer produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people shot by its guns between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved head wounds substantially similar to Kennedy's. This history documented the gun manufacturer's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. ...

The gun manufacturer also argued that consumers know bullets kill and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could kill or wound themselves with careless handling of the gun and that a statement on the gun was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

The solution: outlaw coffee !

[Anonymous Coward]

The solution to this is to outlaw hot coffee forever. If it is hotter than 120 degrees, you can conceivably endeavor to burn yourself with it. As long as there is a possibility that someone can do something remotely stupid (like pour it onto their vagina), the stuff should not be allowed, period.

Also, coffee should be only be sold in thimblefull amounts. This will minimize the risk that someone might drown on their coffee by intentionally drinking it the wrong way.

Said coffee can only be served in pourous Baggies. You never know when some lady might break a finger handling a hard styrofoam cup. Having holes in the baggies prevents babies from suffocating on the bag.

Sounds better than that Dittohead

[Anonymous Coward]

That IS a more accurate analogy. Unlike the Police Siren one put forth by the Rush Limbaugh fan.

However, thinking it through, I don't think it will happen as described. When you sneeze, you squeeze your eyes shut. Always happens. At this time, the cold liquor hits closed eyes, drains off, and there is little left when you open your eyes (and what is left has already started to warm up)

Re:Sounds better than that Dittohead

[Anonymous Coward]

Darn you are right. Didn't consider the reflex action. I guess we have to change that to "someone accidentally bumps into you" or something like that.

Regardless, if these guys bothered to Goggle on 'coffee "optimal temperature"' or 'pefect cup of coffee' they would see that brewing is recommended from 195 to as high sa 205 degrees and most recommend serving immediately because the oils start to break down very quickly. None of the sites I found seem to recommend dumping the coffee in your lap.

Most avid coffee drinkers I know like to get their coffee as fresh and hot as possible. Most don't try to drink it (but may sip carefully) while it is still very hot.

I took the time to watch a few open their coffee shortly after this thread started... guess what: none of them held it in their lap while opening. In fact, out of 5 people, every one held the cup so it wasn't even over any part of their body whatsoever. It occured to me that if the woman filing suit had been that careful there wouldn't have been a problem. (None of the five coffee drinkers, to my knowledge, have had special coffee cup training. Yet all appeared to be aware that opening the cup's lid might cause a spill and that hot coffee spilt on the body might burn.)

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[BryanL]

I'm not taking sides in the argument, but if McDs had settled with other comlpainants for more money (as another poster claimed) why did they not settle for $20,000 in this case? Just curious if anyone knows.

Definitely not a balanced view

[Quietti]

The original Norwegian article is happy enough to state that a 2nd trial has occured. They stick to the facts.

Meanwhile, the BBC blackpaints Jon and anyone trying to access DVDs they rightfully own, with RIAA statements along the lines that yet another criminal got away.

The BBC also presents a statement that CSS is used be to prevent copying of DVDs (byte-copying the media does NOT require prior decoding, sorry). They should have said that CSS is an access-control technology, not a copy-protection technology; a technology that failed and that flies in the face of fair use jurisprudence, at that.

It is very dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

What was knowingly dangerous about it? According to the link provided McDonalds served the coffee at the recommended temperature

It is very dangerous in the same way that the typical ladder is dangerous: you can pick up a ladder and brain someone with it, or jump off it and injure yourself.

The ladder companies are grossly negligent for selling such dangerous ladders. To avoid lawsuits, they need to make all ladders of easy-crumble styrofoam (so they break harmlessly if you try to brain someone, and if you try to climb it it will crumble under your feet, reducing all height-and-fall dangers).

Norway's Judiciary Seems to Make Sense

[serutan]

"a panel of three professional judges backed up by four lay judges, two of whom had technical expertise relevant to the case."

In the USA, cases like this end up before our Supreme Court -- 7 judges, none of whom has any technical expertise whatsoever, and who are appointed for life by whichever political regime is in power when one of them dies.

No wonder our tech laws favor owners at the expense of innovators.

Yes, lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the link to the "ATLA". The ATLA is an organization made up of attorneys who get very rich from lying about things in court. It is very much in their interest to lie about frivolous lawsuits. If the truth got out, there would be tort reform. According to ambulance chasers, nothing is frivolous.

This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard. ...

Which happened to be 0 (or the next best thing). Look at the total number of cups of coffee of the same temperature sold and consumed.

McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way

Which is obvious. Their statement was proven after this as complaints about coffee quality soared as they were no longer able to sell nice hot coffee due to the frivolous lawsuit.

Re:Yes, lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the total number of cups of coffee of the same temperature sold and consumed.

Holy fucking shit, can you beat the grease stain that was once a horse any more, you repetetive nigger? (and yes, all these replies are yours and yours alone - I can smell the cock on your breath from here)

The number of injuries vs the number of actual coffee cups sold is not the issue. It doesn't matter if it was a gazillion cups sold every second - there was a pattern of knowing that the coffee temperature was leading to the occasional customer getting scalded plus arrogant behavior ("she's 81, fuck it, she's dead soon anyway") on the part of McD's. This is not how you win a civil case.

Good job, Professor Faggot Q. Boredom and your compendium of lame-u-cational cocksuckery! You win at Beating A Fucking Strawman! Have a trophy, sir.

This is ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

McD sells 1 BILLION cups of coffee each year according to this PDF. The 700 previous injuries were over the course of 10 years

This is astounding. What is the math on this? The coffee is considered by this frivolous-lawsuit-lovers be DANGEROUS because something like 1 cup out of 100 million sold causes a burn problem?

Trial Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Material on the American Trail Lawyers Association web page says you are wrong. As they have nothing financially to gain from such suits being successful, I believe them totally.

Scandinavia and Communism

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans can't differentiate between communism and the mix of captialism and socialism in Scandiniavia

Part of Scandinavia was completely Communist for about 70 years.

Re:Scandinavia and Communism

[arth1]

Part of Scandinavia was completely Communist for about 70 years.

Oh? Which country, and when?

Scandinavia = Norway, Sweden and Denmark (less Greenland and the Faroe Islands)
Nordic = Scandinavia + Finland and Iceland, plus extended territories.

If you mean Finland, they were never under communist rule, and indeed, communism was illegal in Finland from they declared independece when the communists took over Russia in 1918, and up until 1948. During the after-WWII Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line, Finland remained independent but with a policy of strict neutrality and not engaging in foreign politics detrimental to the Soviet Union.
Finland itself was not a communist country, though, and was very much a Nordic country, with close ties especially to Sweden.

If you mean Estonia, it's considered part of neither Scandinavia nor the Nordic countries, despite tight historical ties to Finland. But yes, it was under Soviet rule for a long time.

Finally, Soviet Union communism was far from "completely Communist" either. It had a monetary system, and unequal pay for unequal work, which is contrary to true communism, where people contribute according to means and receives according to need. It was a totalitarian communist-inspired oligarchy, with as little to do with true communism as a neo-republic has to do with true democracy.
Real communism in other than name has yet to be tried as a form of government -- the closest to it is arguably Cuba, which is still an oppressive oligarchy which is very very far from what Marx and Engels envisioned.
Would real communism work in practice? We'll probably never know, due to the proletariat being more motivated by personal gains than altruism, and the modern burgouise being enough people with enough power to prevent it from ever happening.

Regards,
--
*Art

Gotta love random mods

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to know how that post qualifies as Flamebait. Lets see.. quotes an authoritative source. Uses an accurate analogy. Makes logical arguments.

Ok.. now I see.. yeah, that IS flamebait on /.

No, the verdict was expected TODAY

[19usc2462bH]

The verdict was expected in January, but was announced today in the papers.

No, the verdict was expected TODAY at 1 p.m. This was stated by chief judge Wenche Skjaeggestad (for some reason Slashdot seems to insist on replacing the correct letter with "ae") on the very last day of the trial. She also stated that she was somewhat surprised to have read in the papers that the verdict was expected in mid-January. Why the Norwegian press has stuck to this erroneous report I have no idea.

Foreign press seems to have gotten it right.

Some examples:

DVD Jon appeal ends: verdict before Xmas [11 Dec 2003]
Verdict in 'DVD Jon' appeal expected Dec. 22 [12 Dec 2003]

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Sven The Space Monke]

For one of the same reasons the initial judgement was so high: McD's were acting like asses. In court, they never really argued that they weren't liable, they were arguing that they shouldn't owe that much. One of their principal arguments was legally sound, but made them sound like real, class-A assholes. They argued that, while she did suffer serious burns to her crotch, she was 81 at the time. She wasn't going to be using her crotch a whole lot anymore, burns or otherwise. They were techincally right, but jurors said afterwards that the award went up substantially as a result of the McD's lawyers saying that because she's old, her crotch was worth less than it otherwise would. I can see their reasoning - when I'm 81 (if I live that long), I don't want to have my balls crushed (bad under any circumstances), only to have someone say "well, they were only your testicles. You're 81, what did you need them for, anyway?"

Yet there was no hazard*

[Anonymous Coward]

If McD's is serving the stuff in a drive-through, there should be some expectation on their part that it might be consumed (by passengers) in a moving vehicle where such a hazard is increased

Increased from nothing to nil? Do the math: 700 incidents out of more than 10 billion sold during that period.

While those 700 cases might be cases of people being stupid, some might also be cases where people got scalded in spite of being careful.

If they do it themself, as the lady did, they are the only one to blame. If any of these cases involved someone else doing it, that person is to blame. The only cases where McDonald's could possibly be at fault is when McDonald's pours the coffee on you or gives you a defective cup.

If the lid popped off all of a sudden, I could see a resulting jerking action causing the liquid inside to spill, especially with someone older with a lower level of fine motor control

She's probably too old for coffee.

Neither One's Fault

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

The actual perpetrator of this crime is a shady figure from the hills of Columbia and can be seen HERE

Too much government

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an example of too much government. You can't blame this on corporations, as it hassles many moneyed corporations as well as the public:

low-flow showers that don't clean (see that Seinfeld bad hair episode)

Toilets that don't flush (creating a black market in old working toilets)

Hot water faucets that don't put out hot water.

Re:Too much government

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Yup! I agree with ya there! STOP TRYING TO PROTECT ME FROM MYSELF! Stupid lameness filter....

Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

She wasn't going to be using her crotch a whole lot anymore, burns or otherwise.

Awesome. I wonder if you could use this defense after kicking the Pope in the groin.

YLFI

Keys were 40 bits, but only 16 bits effectively.

[Anonymous Coward]

The keys were 40 bits long, but due to a botched implementation and a large number of keys used to encrypt the same secret, the effective keyspace was only 16 bits. This was not discovered until 1999. Shortly thereafter, a brute-force key cracker was written; it took only a fraction of a second to find a working key!

Re:FP ON TEH SPKOE!!

[marko123]

I suppose when you are bored on Slashdot, instead of trolling, one could read about them?

It's a pretty thorough summary.

Re:FP ON TEH SPKOE!!

[marko123]

oops, link here

Your lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy fucking shit, can you beat the grease stain that was once a horse any more, you repetetive nigger?

As long as you idiots insist that the coffee was unsafe because Drinker # 3,000,000 spilled it in their crotch.

The number of injuries vs the number of actual coffee cups sold is not the issue

Yes it is, because it proves it was a very safe product.

It doesn't matter if it was a gazillion cups sold every second - there was a pattern of knowing that the coffee temperature was leading to the occasional customer getting scalded plus arrogant behavior

Only if they did something dumb.

("she's 81, fuck it, she's dead soon anyway")

I call your bluff. Show me where McDonald's said that.

But what about the fjords?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid of fjords. Invading is out of the question.

That, and all the hills? Climb, climb, climb. That would be a lot of work.

Nope, never going to happen.

not

[Tharald]

Not true! We all know that the paper clip was invented by an american software-comany and first included in Office 97.

A tiny win for the people !

[joey shabadu]

A small blow to the MPAA, RIAA, DMCA, Senator Disney, Ceasar Bush from turning the place into 'The Running Man'.

Yea for DeCSS but not for iTunes DRM?

[xchino]

I'm sure I'll be going to Karma Hell for posting this, but I have seen alot of UserID's I respected around here turn complete hippocrits in regards to what this guy is doing. In articles about his iTunes DRM cracking efforts, I see people saying things such as "We finally get something we like and this guy tries to ruin it!" What difference does it make if he's writing software to watch DVD's or writing software to listen to music? Just because you hate the MPAA and love Apple? In articles about DeCSS you hear a great deal of argument based of Freedom of Speech and consumers right to Fair Use, but somehow these rights do not apply to aything we support, such as iTunes.

I like iTunes a great deal. I'd hate to see them make it any more difficult for me to get the same level of service I'm getting now. However, if they changed their policy to circumvent his efforts, I would blame Apple, not this guy for making use of his rights.

I've even heard peple claim, "Apple DRM is easy enough to get around, just burn a CD and a re-rip in whatever format!" I doubt these same people would accept the same excuse from the MPAA "CSS is already easy enough to get around, just burn it to DVD and rip it!" Why in the hell should I have to burn it to CD? That's wasting my money, time, and resources on a completely unecessary step, not to mention that I may not have a CD burner to begin with. I guess I should just be screwed over in that instance, as long as the majority of users are happy.

Re:Yea for DeCSS but not for iTunes DRM?

[Englebarnetk]

It won't be any big deal for Apple to make a patch for quicktime to screw up DVD-Jons last effort. It was never Itunes that was cracked, it's the ability to play acc in quicktime that was exploited.

The Communism vs socialism case

[Englebarnetk]

.....Just as it's incomprehensible to the average American, who is unable to differentiate concepts like socialism and communism,..

While today about 25% of the norwegians would vote for the socialist party, and below 1% for the two Communist parties.

I'll also add that we norweigans are neither capitalists or socialists, but we, as the Swedes, like to call ourselves sociodemocrats.

Re:McDonald's case: auto comparison

[gui_tarzan2000]

OTOH, If 700 cars out of 10 million sold were to have injured the passengers due to a heater core that leaked and sprayed water/anti-freeze at 200+ degrees that would more than justify lawsuits and a recall. So if you look at it that way, the number *is* relevant...

even more annoying...

[Tharald]

Even more annoying is the statement issued by the MPAA quoted in another afteposten article, saying the decision "encourages circumvention of copyright". I cannot believe an association that is supposed to protect the rights of so many copyright-holders are that clueless.

There is NO way to circumvent copyright. Copyright is a right granted to the creator of any work. Copying the material without being granted this right by the copyright holder is an infringement upon the copyright and is illegal. The copyright is still in place and cannot be "circumvented".

Re:McDonald's case: auto comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, If 700 cars out of 10 million sold were to have injured the passengers due to a heater core that leaked and sprayed water/anti-freeze at 200+ degrees that would more than justify lawsuits and a recall.

Perhaps. Then again, you are living in the land of bad analogies so that would help explain things.

Analogy failure #1: The more accurate number is close to 13 or 14 million cars sold with ONE causing injury. (The 700 injuries were over 10 years and during the same time McD sold approx 10 billion cups of coffee nationwide. You do the math.) BTW, percentage-wise that would be about ONE vehicle out of ALL Ford's sold in the past FIVE YEARS. Somehow I doubt you'll ever see a recall for a failure rate that low.

Analogy failure #2: Your example requires no action or failure of action on the part of the car puchaser. You have it burning the passenger while being used in a manner consistent with it's intended use. Spilling coffee in your lap is not the intended use of coffee.

Analogy failure #3: Your example would indicate a flaw or failure in the heater core or it's hose(s). The coffee did not have a flaw, but instead was at a temperature many customers requested. (Do you really think that if every customer said "Damn this is too hot." McD would both keep the temp the same and also sell so many cups of coffee?)

If, instead your analogy had one in 14 million car owners mucking about in the engine compartment and burning their hand on the radiator... well, then you'd be a bit closer. Intelligent people don't usually mess around with the engine while the car is running (unless they really know what they are doing.) Likewise, intelegent people hold the coffee somewhere that is NOT over a body part when opening it and they certainly don't put it near their crotch.

Or maybe we could say the engine core was ruptured during a car accident which totaled the front end. Even an insurance company isn't going to press the car manufacturer to do something about it if it is happing to that small of a percentage of vehicles... even if there were some slight design fault.

But in this case, it is not

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, If 700 cars out of 10 million sold were to have injured the passengers due to a heater core that leaked and sprayed water/anti-freeze at 200+ degrees that would more than justify lawsuits and a recall. So if you look at it that way, the number *is* relevant...

Only if the example was comparable. To compare to the McDonald's example, you'd have people intentionally OPENING the heater core and dumping the contents into their crotch.

It's been a good month for Jon...

[Timbotronic]

First he gets fuel to fly from Antarctica back to New Zealand and now this :)

Re:As a side note ... WUT?

[Tokerat]

More specifically, they seem to lack the spelling and grammatical errors commonly found in posts made by those whose native language is obviously English.

I is from the U..S and we take those are offensive. not only are We smarter then that but funnyer and smarter then that, too. why can't you people from Foreign just get ALONG

(Note: Sarcasm included.)

Part of Scandinavia was Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? Which country, and when?Scandinavia = Norway, Sweden and Denmark (less Greenland and the Faroe Islands)
Nordic = Scandinavia + Finland and Iceland, plus extended territories.

The answer is as close as any map. The far eastern section of the Scandinavia peninsula is part of Russia, and was part of the USSR. This sizable section is comparable in size to Finland, and is much larger than Denmark. This is overlooked because almost all of Russia is not in Scandinavia (just like it is overlooked that Turkey is a European country: part of it is in Europe even though the rest is Asian).

Finally, Soviet Union communism was far from "completely Communist" either

Accepting that the Sovie Union was somewhat communist (if not completely), then part of Scandinavia was Communist.

the bitterness is strong in this one

[Anonymous Coward]

own much mcdonald's stock? or is that you in the paper hat?

No learn

[fm6]

Why does the press always uncritically report that DeCSS "cracks DVD copy protection codes"?

Because journalists like to communicate in compact, memorable little catch phrases. The resulting prose is often misleading or one-sided, of course.

But then again, aren't you doing something similar? The phrase "cracks DVD copy protection codes" doesn't actually appear anywhere in the article. What it actually says is: "...[Johansen] helped crack DVD copy protection codes in 1999 and then publicized how he did it." Which is completely true, even if the phrasing is unfortunate. ("Reverse-engineered" is more accurate and less nasty than "cracked", but not a term you use in general-audience journalism.) If you stopped reading there you might think the reporter wasn't interested in a balanced report, but if you read down, you get "He became an instant hero to those who finally could watch DVD films on their computers instead of being forced to buy expensive DVD players..." Grossly oversimplified, by hardly an uncritical acceptance of the RIAA party line.

Re:No learn

[Anonymous Coward]

CSS has nothing to do about copying. It's about access control. Where you can watch it and on who's equipment you can watch it.

Chineese pirates and people who could afford 3000-4000 dollar DVD-copiers could make DVD-copies long before DeCSS ever came along. And in anycase, DeCSS doesn't make copies. It breakes access control, besides it's obsolite.