The Uniform Commercial Code has nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal government--it was created by a legal think-tank (either the American Law Institute or the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, or both) and enacted individually by the states. -1 factually incorrect.
It would be within SCO Group's rights to order every copy of AIX "destroyed," says Darl McBride, SCO Group's president and CEO. McBride acknowledges the situation isn't likely to come to that. In fact, he says, he'll leave different scenarios open to IBM. The most likely outcome, he says, is license payments.
License payments delivered by flying pigs, no doubt...
Y'know, this whole story reminds me of a quote in somebody's sig over on K5. IIRC, it was attributed to thurler, and goes something like this: "It seems to me that you're willfully entering into an arse-kicking contest against a monstrous entity with sixteen legs and no arse." Perhaps SCO should be told...
No more then I can say, "You stupid motherfucker" unless I happened to be speaking to Edipus.
This would be true only if "motherfucker" were commonly understood to mean that you did, in fact, have carnal relations with your mother--which, of course, it isn't. Similarly, if I were to say "zakezuke is an asshole", you wouldn't be able to sue me for libel on the basis that you are not, in fact, an anus (nor on any other basis, as that would also be a protected expression of opinion). Both terms (as well as countless others) are, as Spock observed in ST4, "colorful metaphors" which express something entirely different from their literal meanings.
As an aside, it's important to note that to be actionable, the defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party. So, even if "you motherfucker" were understood literally, the only way you'd be able to sue would be if somebody else heard me call you one.
SCO got sued for posting its corporate opinion of a technology matter, got sued by the people who they pissed off, and then got its web site shut down by the courts.
They chose to shut it down (if it's down at all--doesn't look like it to me), not the courts. The German court only prohibited them from continuing to make the same claims without any support for them.
SCO got "sued" for itself threatening to sue hundreds of companies using Linux, when no possible legal theory would support such an action (even supposing that everything they've claimed is true), and there's nothing to suggest that any of what they've claimed is true. The German action says, in effect, "put up or shut up", and they chose not to put up.
What SCO posted was not "its corporate opinion of a technology matter"; it was a warning of a legal nature. More specifically, it was an allegation that their competitor was operating illegally.
Judge Lewis ruled on May 6, before Mr. Max was notified of the suit and without holding a hearing.
Based mostly on this statement, I'd guess that Judge Lewis's order was a Temporary Restraining Order, or TRO. A TRO is a fairly common device used when immediate action is needed, can be issued on an ex parte basis (as seems to have been the case here), and is (as the name implies) temporary--I believe in some jurisdictions they can only last 10 days or so. IOW, this didn't decide the case, it just put the order in place as a stop-gap measure to prevent the "irreversible harm" that supposedly would have happened if the order had not been issued. During that 10-day (or whatever) period, both parties can present evidence to the court, who can then decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction while a full trial is pending. If the plaintiff wins at trial, a permanent injunction can be issued. This order is just the beginning.
Even as a TRO, Lewis's order sounds very (probably unconstitutionally) broad. The only possible justification for such an order that I can see is a theory of invasion of privacy, but I doubt that would apply to the bulk of the events described in Google's cache of the article--if true, most of them were witnessed by other people, and many of them by lots of other people. Not much privacy there. However, the invasion of privacy theory can be used to stop the publication of true statements (suppose you were to publish my complete credit history--it'd be true, so I couldn't sue for libel, but it'd certainly be an invasion of privacy, and I could get an injunction against it), which is why I think it's the only possible justification for this order.
The rationale, I expect, goes something like this: If the statements are true and non-private, and we stop publication for a couple of weeks while we (the court) verify that, Max isn't harmed too much. However, if they aren't, and we don't, Johnson's reputation could be permanently damaged.
In a nutshell, Lewis's order is troubling, but it's not yet time to panic. I'll be interested to see how the case progresses, though. And FWIW, IAAL, but this isn't legal advice, you aren't my clients, etc.
Funny how even the part of the quote you posted (in apparent support of your claim that Bush called for a boycott) doesn't call for a boycott. Observing that others have the right to boycott isn't even remotely close to advocating one. Care to try again?
Both actions involve making a copy of a copyrighted work, which is illegal.
I know this is late and probably won't be read, but this should be corrected. Copyright law (specifically, 17 USC sec. 107) explicitly allows you to make copies of computer software as necessary to use it.
Also note that the post office has competitors (Fed Ex, UPS), meaning they have to stay competitive.
This is only partially true. The USPS has competition for parcel and express services, but there's no competition for letters. In fact, the USPS has a legally-guaranteed monopoly on letters, such that it's illegal to compete with them. See, for example, 39 CFR Part 310. There are exceptions that allow for services like FedEx, but you couldn't open your own private mail service legally.
Well, you'd also have to include "B A" or "B * A" etc., but that's a pretty neat hack. Could get unwieldy if you wanted to duplicate "cat w/50 dog" (w/50 means "within 50 words of"), but cool nonetheless.
...which just goes to show that you don't know much about LexisNexis (or you've got lots better AI than I've ever seen). Google indexes and searches a lot of information, almost certainly more than LexisNexis. However, if you're an attorney (which is one of LN's major markets), LN carries a lot of stuff that you're just not going to find on Google, or anywhere else on the web. Their search engine is also considerably more advanced--it'll allow you to search proximity (x within 5 words of y), caps/lowercase, minimum number of occurrences of a term, etc., which Google doesn't do.
Now, in this case, LN has gotten the contract to be the official publisher of the Cal. case reports; West had previously had the contract. This isn't really a big deal for the public as such; after all, somebody has to publish them, at least as far as the dead tree version is concerned. The actual text of the opinions will remain in the public domain, of course, and lawyers (and the public) will still be able to get them from LN, Westlaw, the local law library, web sites, or any of a number of other sources.
It's interesting to note that often, publishers lose money on the things they publish as the "official" publisher. Several states, for example, set insanely low prices for their codes, particularly when you consider that they are heavy-duty, hardbound volumes. Publishers do it, of course, because they expect to sell other things to attorneys in those states, and figure there's money to be made on those items. Whether this is the case with the Cal. reports, I don't know.
Disclaimer: I do work for LN, but the above are entirely my own opinions.
The software received is governed by the electronic license embedded in the product set up that appears prior to installation and no additional documentation is required.
Now, as any of us knows who's ever installed a piece of MS software, every such piece of software claims to be governed by the EULA that displays during installation. Now, if the statement quoted above is true of the software on those CDs, is it also true of the identically-marked CDs I've seen sold at computer shows?
Let's even carry it one step further: If clicking "I Agree" gives me a license to use the software, why wouldn't that apply to what would otherwise be illegal copies? It sounds pretty bizarre, but it also seems pretty consistent with what that letter said. And whatever happened to that whole "is it authentic" campaign?
In many laser printers (including all the HPs I've seen), the drum is part of the toner cartridge. Increases the price of the cartridge a bit, but it means you've only got one consumable (other than paper) to deal with.
You know, I thought of this yesterday when I read this story on k5 too, but didn't bother posting there:
With at least one of my ATM cards, I can call my bank and change the PIN over the phone. With the scheme described in these articles, that shouldn't be possible, as a different PIN would have a different offset from the "natural" PIN, which new offset would need to be written to the card. How does it work?
The U.S. Commerical Code explicitly states that if you do not have the opportunity to inspect merchandise before purchase, you have the right under law to return the merchandise for a full refund
There is no such thing as the U.S. Commercial Code. There is something called the Uniform Commercial Code (not at all the same thing, not federal law, and not adopted in its entirety by every state), but I'm not aware of any provision in there (it'd be in article 2) to this effect. There are provisions regarding a buyer's right to inspect goods (2-513), but nothing affirmatively establishing a right to return the goods for a full refund.
IAAL, but you're not my clients, this isn't legal advice, etc.
the 9th circuit never banned the pledge of alliegence. They just said no-one should be forced to say it
Not even close--that's been firmly established for many years. The grandparent post is pretty near accurate.
To be a bit more precise, the Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional. As the court wrote:
The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers "that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."
Newdow v. United States Cong., 292 F.3d 597, 608 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J, concurring).
In response to the grandparent's point, it's true that in terms of the number of cases the Supreme Court hears, the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is very high--as a previous poster pointed out, a few years ago the Court reversed 27 out of 28 cases. However, in terms of the number of cases decided by the Ninth Circuit, the reversal rate is very low--for example, a quick search on LexisNexis indicates that the Ninth Circuit issued over 3,000 decisions during 1997.
Mexican products that attempt to compete with US or EU or Japanese products have (in my limited experience) proven to me to be cheap knock-offs or poorly produced versions of what we have here. You know...the Mexican Strat, the Mexican Vee-Dub,
Interestingly enough, I drive a Mexican-made VW, and have for nearly 3 years. And you know what? It's indistinguishable from the ones made in Der Vaterland. I've had no problems with it at all. My dad has had a couple of problems, but he has almost 100k miles on his, and they were pretty minor anyway.
This results in regions where you're actually taking home less, despite earning more.
Nonsense. Apparently you (and many others like you, judging from some of the other comments here) utterly fail to understand the concept of *MARGINAL* (is that sufficiently emphasized?) tax rates, which is the way progressive taxation is "done now" in the United States (at least federally).
In your example, the 10% rate would apply to all taxable income below $20k. Taxpayers with a taxable income over $20k would pay $2k (10% of $20k), plus 12% of the amount over $20k. Therefore, your individual earning $20,100 would pay $2,012 in taxes, taking home $18,088.
While you can't copyright factual information, you could argue that next week's prices are not facts yet, as they have not taken effect yet
You could argue that, but it wouldn't do you any good--even analogizing next week's prices to business plans doesn't make them copyrightable. The business plan itself--that is, that document--is copyrightable, but specific facts, plans, or strategies contained in it are not. They're probably trade secrets, though.
Also, the/. story did not forget to mention that FW is suing, because (as yet) they aren't. They are saying they're entitled to damages including attorney's fees, which is one of the less-negative provisions of the DMCA.
No, they are not. As Ms. Gray said, the expression of the idea (or fact) can be protected, but not the fact itself. So, the fact that John F. Kennedy died on 11/22/1963 can't be protected, but my biography of him which states that fact can be (if I'd written one). Similarly, the research report can be copyrighted, but the facts contained in it (like survey results) can't.
Giving credit and citing things has nothing to do with copyright; it's simply a matter of telling your readers where to verify your information, and/or adding credibility to your statement. If you quote material without attribution, that's plagarism, which may or may not also be copyright infringement.
It doesn't in the least matter whether the prices were taken from digital media, paper, phosphor, or stone tablets. The point is simply that the prices themselves are not copyrightable material. Period. Their advertising circular is most certainly copyrightable, again irrespective of the format it's in. However, the circular itself is not what was posted; it was the prices from the circular.
Prices (even planned, future prices) are not copyrightable. Neither can they be trademarked or patented. They certainly could constitute trade secrets, but the DMCA doesn't protect trade secrets, and the nature of trade secrets is that once they're out, you (the owner of the secret) are screwed. Wal-Mart could, perhaps, pursue action against the source of the info, but FW isn't obligated to give it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
The Uniform Commercial Code has nothing whatsoever to do with the Federal government--it was created by a legal think-tank (either the American Law Institute or the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, or both) and enacted individually by the states. -1 factually incorrect.
How likely? It's not likely; it's certain--they already have.
Maybe you're missing something--SCO has filed suit, back in March, against IBM.
Y'know, this whole story reminds me of a quote in somebody's sig over on K5. IIRC, it was attributed to thurler, and goes something like this: "It seems to me that you're willfully entering into an arse-kicking contest against a monstrous entity with sixteen legs and no arse." Perhaps SCO should be told...
As an aside, it's important to note that to be actionable, the defamatory statement must be communicated to a third party. So, even if "you motherfucker" were understood literally, the only way you'd be able to sue would be if somebody else heard me call you one.
Even as a TRO, Lewis's order sounds very (probably unconstitutionally) broad. The only possible justification for such an order that I can see is a theory of invasion of privacy, but I doubt that would apply to the bulk of the events described in Google's cache of the article--if true, most of them were witnessed by other people, and many of them by lots of other people. Not much privacy there. However, the invasion of privacy theory can be used to stop the publication of true statements (suppose you were to publish my complete credit history--it'd be true, so I couldn't sue for libel, but it'd certainly be an invasion of privacy, and I could get an injunction against it), which is why I think it's the only possible justification for this order.
The rationale, I expect, goes something like this: If the statements are true and non-private, and we stop publication for a couple of weeks while we (the court) verify that, Max isn't harmed too much. However, if they aren't, and we don't, Johnson's reputation could be permanently damaged.
In a nutshell, Lewis's order is troubling, but it's not yet time to panic. I'll be interested to see how the case progresses, though. And FWIW, IAAL, but this isn't legal advice, you aren't my clients, etc.
Funny how even the part of the quote you posted (in apparent support of your claim that Bush called for a boycott) doesn't call for a boycott. Observing that others have the right to boycott isn't even remotely close to advocating one. Care to try again?
Or, more probably, Christian Scientists, which are about as closely related to Christians as Grape Nuts are to Grapes.
This is only partially true. The USPS has competition for parcel and express services, but there's no competition for letters. In fact, the USPS has a legally-guaranteed monopoly on letters, such that it's illegal to compete with them. See, for example, 39 CFR Part 310. There are exceptions that allow for services like FedEx, but you couldn't open your own private mail service legally.
Well, you'd also have to include "B A" or "B * A" etc., but that's a pretty neat hack. Could get unwieldy if you wanted to duplicate "cat w/50 dog" (w/50 means "within 50 words of"), but cool nonetheless.
Now, in this case, LN has gotten the contract to be the official publisher of the Cal. case reports; West had previously had the contract. This isn't really a big deal for the public as such; after all, somebody has to publish them, at least as far as the dead tree version is concerned. The actual text of the opinions will remain in the public domain, of course, and lawyers (and the public) will still be able to get them from LN, Westlaw, the local law library, web sites, or any of a number of other sources.
It's interesting to note that often, publishers lose money on the things they publish as the "official" publisher. Several states, for example, set insanely low prices for their codes, particularly when you consider that they are heavy-duty, hardbound volumes. Publishers do it, of course, because they expect to sell other things to attorneys in those states, and figure there's money to be made on those items. Whether this is the case with the Cal. reports, I don't know.
Disclaimer: I do work for LN, but the above are entirely my own opinions.
Let's even carry it one step further: If clicking "I Agree" gives me a license to use the software, why wouldn't that apply to what would otherwise be illegal copies? It sounds pretty bizarre, but it also seems pretty consistent with what that letter said. And whatever happened to that whole "is it authentic" campaign?
In many laser printers (including all the HPs I've seen), the drum is part of the toner cartridge. Increases the price of the cartridge a bit, but it means you've only got one consumable (other than paper) to deal with.
You know, I thought of this yesterday when I read this story on k5 too, but didn't bother posting there:
With at least one of my ATM cards, I can call my bank and change the PIN over the phone. With the scheme described in these articles, that shouldn't be possible, as a different PIN would have a different offset from the "natural" PIN, which new offset would need to be written to the card. How does it work?
The 3ware Escalade series should fit the bill.
IAAL, but you're not my clients, this isn't legal advice, etc.
To be a bit more precise, the Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional. As the court wrote:
Newdow v. United States Cong., 292 F.3d 597, 608 (9th Cir. 2002), quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 688 (1984) (O'Connor, J, concurring).In response to the grandparent's point, it's true that in terms of the number of cases the Supreme Court hears, the reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit is very high--as a previous poster pointed out, a few years ago the Court reversed 27 out of 28 cases. However, in terms of the number of cases decided by the Ninth Circuit, the reversal rate is very low--for example, a quick search on LexisNexis indicates that the Ninth Circuit issued over 3,000 decisions during 1997.
In your example, the 10% rate would apply to all taxable income below $20k. Taxpayers with a taxable income over $20k would pay $2k (10% of $20k), plus 12% of the amount over $20k. Therefore, your individual earning $20,100 would pay $2,012 in taxes, taking home $18,088.
Also, the /. story did not forget to mention that FW is suing, because (as yet) they aren't. They are saying they're entitled to damages including attorney's fees, which is one of the less-negative provisions of the DMCA.
Giving credit and citing things has nothing to do with copyright; it's simply a matter of telling your readers where to verify your information, and/or adding credibility to your statement. If you quote material without attribution, that's plagarism, which may or may not also be copyright infringement.
It doesn't in the least matter whether the prices were taken from digital media, paper, phosphor, or stone tablets. The point is simply that the prices themselves are not copyrightable material. Period. Their advertising circular is most certainly copyrightable, again irrespective of the format it's in. However, the circular itself is not what was posted; it was the prices from the circular.
Prices (even planned, future prices) are not copyrightable. Neither can they be trademarked or patented. They certainly could constitute trade secrets, but the DMCA doesn't protect trade secrets, and the nature of trade secrets is that once they're out, you (the owner of the secret) are screwed. Wal-Mart could, perhaps, pursue action against the source of the info, but FW isn't obligated to give it to them.